HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20060213
.. "_,.. ...'_.^'._'~'_.~~""'"_""~"_"_""""~_"U_"~">>
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 13, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Councilmembers' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Minutes - January 10, 23, 2006
b) Rail Jam Special Event - Parking Garage
c) Resolution #6, 2006 - Contract Bobcat - Housing Department
d) Resolution #7, 2006 - 1/2 Cent Transit Fund Supplemental Budget Approval
e) Resolution #8,2006 - Aspen Historical Society Lease - Willoughby Park
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #5,2006 - Castle Creek Road Lot SplitlPUD P.H. 2/27
b) Ordinance #6,2006 - Boomerang Vacant Lot
c) Ordinance #7,2006 - Water and Electric Rate Increases P.H. 2/27
d) Ordinance #8, 2006 - Supplemental Appropriation for Wheeler P.H. 2/27
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #88, 2005 - Residences at Aspen Club Conceptual PUD To be
Withdrawn
b) Ordinance #2,2006 - Blue Vic, 202 North Monarch Subdivision
c) Ordinance #3, 2006 - 522 West Francis Street De-Listing Historic Inventory
Continue to 3/13
d) Resolution #9, 2006 - Holiday House Conceptual PUD
IX. Action Items
X. Executive Session
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting February 27, 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES a IS-MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
MEMORANDUM
V\b
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch
DATE: February 7, 2006
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2006
RE: Appeal of Special Event Committee Decision Rail Jam Rio Grande
Park
The Aspen Skiing Company has proposed a new event, the first-ever triple threat
showdown of rail-sliding, skateboarding and bowl-riding performed simultaneously to
live music at the Rio Grande park. The event is scheduled for Friday, March 17th from 6
to 9 p.m. While this is an innovative proposal, there are challenges and the Special Event
Committee did not approve the event at their meeting with the applicant January 12. The
part of this special event for Council's consideration is the state of the rails and their
concrete base that would be used for the "rail-sliding" portion of the event. These are the
railings going down between the former Youth Center and the parking garage.
Randy Mosby, city engineering department and structural engineer, conducted a
site visit February 2nd. Mosby's opinion regarding the state of the stairs is attached. Tim
Ware, Blake Fitch, Willie McFarlin, Randy Ready and I met with representatives from
the Aspen Skiing Company on site February 7th to review the various issues with the
proposed venue. Again staff agreed all issues except the state of the stairs can be
resolved. Tim Ware's memorandum and photo examples attached.
The Municipal Code, Section 14.20 et. seq. addresses special events. Section
14.20.130 outlines the appeal process for anyone dissatisfied with the decision of the
Special Events Committee.
14.20.130 Appeals.
Any person not satisfied with the action taken by a person designated by the city
manager to perform the duties of the city manager set forth at sections 14.20.040 and
14.20.050, by the special events coordinator, or any other city staff person with regard to
an application pursuant to this chapter shall have the right to take successive appeals, first
to the city manager, and then to the city council. An appeal to the city manager shall be
taken by filing with the city clerk a signed statement that the applicant desires to appeal
to the city manager, along with a copy of the application and the written denial or the
permit objected to. An appeal of a decision by the city manager to the city council shall
be taken by filing with the city clerk copies ofthe application, denial or permit, and the
written decision issued by the city manager, along with a signed statement that the
applicant desires to appeal to the city council. Each appeal shall be filed within two (2)
days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, of the decision appealed from.
A hearing shall precede a decision by either the city manager or city council and advance
notice ofthe hearing shall be provided to the applicant and the city official whose
decision is being appealed as soon as is practicable. The right to appeal an adverse
decision by the city manager to city council shall be contingent upon city council's
regular meeting schedule. If city council does not meet prior to the time of the scheduled
special event, the city manager's decision shall be final.
The above section is all the guideline there is for Council. There have only been
two appeals of the Special Event Committee, both having to do with Winter Polo. One
year Council overturned the decision of the Special Event Committee and one year
Council upheld the Special Event Committee.
The appeal is de novo. Council is not bound by the record. The applicants will
present their case before Council and Council can decide the appeal on the merits of the
applicant's arguments.
Attachments
Memorandum from Randy Mosby
Memorandum from Tim Ware plus photos
Applicant's Addendum
Venue Maps
~
City Manage~'s Recommendation: ,/)/JJ,...~ f 'fI:: J .A~~__.
~~~~2br:J:F'~F
N~ tv' 'fi;. .J<.o.J ~ ~"h-I
MEMO
February 3,2006
To: Ms. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
From: Randy L. Mosby P.E., Engineering Department
Subject: City Parking Garage-East Stairwell Handrails
As requested I have preformed an on-site structural inspection of the steel handrails and
their connections of the City's Parking Garage eastern stairway. The purpose of this
inspection was to determine whether or not the structural integrity of the handrails and
their supports are adequate to withstand the impact loading of snowboarders. Extensive
deterioration has occurred to the handrail anchoring system. The steel pipe columns are
severely corroded at the base and the concrete stair threads and raisers are spalling due to
the corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The handrail system would probably resist the
minimum Code required live loading but the concern is the continual high impact loading
which would be induced by the snowboarders. Due to these facts and the interest of
public safety I do not recommend the use ofthese handrails for snowboarding until the
handrail system is restored to its original or better condition.
Cc: Mr. Ed Sadler
To:
Mayor and City Council
Through:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
From:
Tim Ware, Director of Parking
Date:
February 7, 2006
RE:
Rail Jam Event at the Rio Grande Parking Garage
The Rio Grande Parking Garage has concerns regarding the Rail Jam event that is being
requested by the Ski Company. These concerns have been discussed with the Ski
Company as well as with the Special Events Committee.
The request is to use the handrails on the East stairs for a snowboard event. The proposal
includes modifications to the current handrails, piling snow on the stairs, shutting down
the stairs to the public. The event would coincide with a venue at the Skateboard Park.
The East stairs were scheduled to be replaced four years ago. Due to budget and design
issues, this project has been delayed. During the delay, the stairs have had numerous
concrete repairs that have included lose handrails, spalling and large chunks of missing
concrete (see attached photos). If the handrail were to be damaged during this event, the
stairs would be required to be shut down until they are repaired.
The City Engineering Department has inspected the rails and believes that the current
condition of the concrete would not support this event and has attached a letter indicating
its concerns.
Staff would also like to add that this would necessarily be a one-time event. The new
stairs that are already designed and set for construction this spring will have a roof over
the top. This was done to avoid the necessity of a snowmelt system. The new handrails
will be attached to the building and roof supports. The roof will only be eight feet in
height.
The Transportation and Parking Department is always willing to do whatever it takes to
accommodate existing and new events. However this event will not only impact our
customers and pedestrians, but as stated above, a damaged handrail would have a major
impact on our operation.
Our department recommends that the requested use of the stairs be denied and that the
Ski Company look into erecting a handrail setup near the skate park.
If Council approves this event, staff is requesting that any damage to the rails be
corrected by the following Monday. This would include any broken handrails and or
concrete repair.
BUD LIGHT SPRING JAM
SKATEPARK PERMIT APPLICATION
ADDENDUM A
Event Date: Friday, March 17
Event Time: 6 - 9 pm
Nancy Scheinkman will be presenting on behalf of Aspen Skiing Company
Aspen Skiing Company proposes to transform the Rio Grande skatepark, during
the heart of winter, into a first-ever triple threat showdown of rail-sliding,
skateboarding and bowl-riding, all performed simultaneously to live music.
Aspen Skiing Company is requesting permission to host the rail-slide portion of
the event on City of Aspen property using the rail which runs between The Grill
Next Door building and the parking garage.
The Skatepark Event is an incredible opportunity for Aspen to maintain its identity
as a leader in the industry. While we've had success with other new school
events located on Aspen Skiing Company mountains such as A.W.O.L. Aspen
and the Aspen Rail Revolution, the industry requires us to continue being
innovative and creative in order to stay on top. Whereas events like World Cup
are successful because of their historical context, nontraditional athletes expect
consistently new challenges from new school events. In just a few short years,
the Bud Light Spring Jam has emerged as a major offering within the
Aspen/Snowmass winter events calendar. Last year, Freeskier Magazine ranked
it the 3rd best spring event in North America. It is competitions like the proposed
skatepark rail-slide that will make certain we maintain this well-earned reputation.
We are proposing to hold the event on City of Aspen property for the following
reasons:
. The skatepark/rail combination is a very unique venue not available, to the
best of our knowledge, to any other winter resorts. Thus, there is a great
opportunity for extensive press coverage of this event.
. Using the existing rail is a necessary component to the success of this event
because fabricated urban style rails are frowned upon within the industry.
. Venue constraints and costs exclude the possibility of constructing a rail
garden in the street.
. We need to guarantee that two of the three scheduled disciplines will happen
regardless of weather. We will do everything possible to open the skatepark
for the skateboarding portion, but if it is snowing the day of the event it will be
difficult to manage. Thus, we need to ensure an authentic rail-slide and bowl-
ride to offset the liability of putting so many resources into the venue.
Parking garage management has expressed concerns about hosting the
event at this location due to the degraded condition of the concrete stairs. We
plan to provide an assessment of the hazards and a strategy to reduce the
risk of damage, to win approval for this special request from City Council.
.
VIe.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets and Fleet
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE:
January 17, 2006
RE:
Department
Contract approval2006-IFM Bobcat Tool Cat model 5600 for Housing
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the contract 2006-1 FM for the purchase of one (1)
Bobcat Tool Cat Model 5600 for the Housing Department. Staff further recommends Council's
approval to carry forward the $30,000 set aside for this purchase in the 2004 Asset Management
Plan.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This equipment purchase was approved in the 2004 Asset
Management Plan. Council approved the asset management plan during the 2004 budget review
process.
BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of sole source procurement through Bobcat of the
Rockies. The purchase price is further discounted through the City's membership in the Multiple
Assembly of Procurement officials (M.A.P.O.).
DISCUSSION: After evaluating the special needs and the most common types of work that this
piece of equipment would need to be capable of performing for the Housing Department, staff
recommends the Bobcat Tool Cat model 5600 as the best choice. This machine has the
capabilities of doing snow removal and all types of other small projects. It has a rear dump bed
that can be used for a wide variety of hauling to and from all the facilities that the Housing
Department maintains.
The Parks Department has two of these Bobcat machines that they use on a daily basis. Having
the same type of equipment in the City fleet will allow the Housing Department to use
attachments and implements such as loader buckets, snow blowers, and other attachments that
interchange with this machine. Existing staff will be able to help train the Housing Department
employees in the operation ofthe tool cat and the proper use of the attachable implements.
Bobcat has supplied the City of Aspen with skid loaders and tool cats for several years, and has
given great support with technical service and a reliable parts supply.
.
The delay in this procurement is due to the need to thoroughly evaluate snow removal and other
maintenance needs at the expanded Truscott Housing Development and the turnover in Housing
management staff.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $30,000 of the funding for this purchase was approved in the
2004 Asset Management Plan. The Housing Department will use $750 out of its departmental
savings to procure this equipment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the contract for the purchase of the
Bobcat Tool Cat Model 5600 outlined above. Staff further requests council approval to carry
forward the 2004 budgeted amount to complete this purchase.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Contract approval2006-IFM for the purchase of
One (I) Bobcat Tool Cat Model 5600 for the Housing Department.
ClTYMANAGERCOMMENT~~.;t,,~ ~i
~ /1 A [) cuJ, C>-lf. r
RESOLUTION NO. ~
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Bobcat of the Rockies, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a
CONTRACT
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Bobcat of the Rockies a copy of which contract is
annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Bobcat of the Rockies a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute
said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
,2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
.-+ _..~-_.._~._.._.._~._-,-_._-_.._-_._.-
I, Kathryn S. Koch, 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 , 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
So
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT
CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2006 -1 FM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 10th dav of Januarv
of 2006, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and
Bobcat of the Rockies . hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor."
WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase~
One (1\ Bobcat model 5600 Tool cat Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the
terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and
Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth,
agree as follows:
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described
in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of
Thirty Thousand. Seven Hundred eiahtv Five and no cents dollars ($30.785.00\.
2. Deliverv. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.)
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same
are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this
Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall
accompany this contract document.
5. Successors and Assians. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents,
representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor
the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder
without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer
upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign
this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or
to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any
breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein
contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions
herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
7-PURCH.DOC
8. Aareement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to
be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.
10. Waiver of PresumDtion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the
parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
11. Certification Reaardina Debarment. SusDension. Ineliaibilitv. and Voluntary Exclusion.
Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently
debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from
participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies
that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier
transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any
lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the
Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Aaainst Continaent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or
secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial
or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business.
Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any
offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of
any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any
other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or
controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or
proposal therefor.
Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time
City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
7-PURCH.DOC
.
In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or
sub-contractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv.
The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to
acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine
that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience.
14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year
are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made
avaih:ible. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money
in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council
of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor
agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non-
discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the
Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws
respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. InteQration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any
prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City
official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting,
has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the
City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed
by the parties hereto.
18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full
and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein.
7-PURCH.DOC
.
.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents
and purposes, shall be considered as the original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
Bye:
Citv Manaaer
ATTEST:
City Clerk
VENDOR: E~baPl i ~ /<t9?/L/t..,<,
By: ~.od/ .z,vJ~~
Title. -;;;1,1"11;7 '1'/7fh"o'l ~v
7-PURCH.DOC
01/04/2005 11:37
9704349373
BOBCAT OF THE ROCKYS
PAGE 02
(/j) Bobcal.
MEMO
Bobcat Company
Chad RQehrich
556 Candelaria Drive
Loveland. Co 80537
Direct Phone' 9701461/4068
FAX; 970145114059
E.Meli, chad_roehrich@bobcel.cOm
Voice Mail'1170112B017888 ext.7246
Date: February 1, 2005
To: Dirk Banks
C.C. Colorado Bobcat Dealer Network
From: Chad Roehrich
District Sales Manager
SUbject: Multiple Assembly of Procurement Officials (MAPO)
Bobcat Company is pleased to offer a discount agreement to the Colorado Front Range
Multiple Assembly of Procurement Officials (MAPO). Bobcat Company manufactures a
wide range of products such as Skid Steer Loaders, Compact Mini Excavators, Compact
Tracked Loaders, All Wheel Steer Loaders, Walk Behind/Ride on Mini Tracked Loaders,
Versa Handlers (Vertical Reach Vehicle), Compact Loa.der Backhoes, Bobcat Utility
Vehicles, Tooleat Utility Work Vehicle & a wide variety of attachments for the loaders
and excavators.
This document is to confirm that the Bobcat Company and Bobcat Dealer Network will
be a part of MAPO for your current period ending February 28th of 2005.
The discount available to MAPO and those qualifying under Public Works &
Municipalities vary from product to product. They are as follows: Skid Steer Loaders
are 36%, Compact Mini Excavators (except 442) are 30%, All Wheel Steer Loaders are
24%, Compact Tracked Loaders are 30%, Versa Handlers are 30%, Bobcat Loader
Backhoes are 30%, MT52 (see local dealer), Tooleat Utility Work Vehicle (see local
dealer) & Workmate Utility Vehicles are 20%. All attachments purchased with the
Bobcat Company Vehicle will get the same discount as the Vehicle purchased. Serial
numbered Attachments ordered separately will have a discount of 24%.
As Bobcat Company rolls out new products, contact your local dealer. Dirk Banks will
be notified of the discount available to that new product launch.
All purchase transactions should start with your nearest Bobcat Company Dealer who
will assist in helping you find the adequate unit for your application. All pricing shall
be quoted from your Bobcat Dealer with the above discounts. The order must be placed
with your nearest Bobcat dealer to provide optimum service to you.
If a dealer nearest you is in question, please call me at the above number and I will get
back to you.
Prices are subject to change without notice.
01/04/2006 11:37
9704349373
BOBCAT OF THE ROCKYS
The following is a list of Bobcat Dealers in Colorado:
Bobcat of the Rockies:
Commerce City
Golden
Parker
Greeley
Grand Junction
COlorado Machinery:
Ft. Collins
Colorado Springs
Pueblo
Tn-State Equipment:
Craig:
LB} Equipment:
Durango
1/303/356/7332
1/303/356/7415
1/877/796/3997
1/970/356/8800
1/800/864/4645
1/800/525/2920
1/800/364/3029
1/800/333/0850
1/800/254/4020
1/970/~9/7945
Michael Ford
Mark Terry
Mark Terry
Michael Ford
Dave Norton
Tim Connell or Justin Wyatt
Daniel Hankins & Dean Aggson
Mark Lewis
John Forward
Bill Lutgen
Should you have any questions in regards to product, please check out the Bobcat
Company web site at www.bobcatcomor call your nearest Bobcat Dealer.
Sincerely
Chad Roerhich
PAGE 03
12/15/2005 13:05
9704349373
.:
JJ Babcal~
QU01e No_ MARKB-00658
Date Quoted: 1211512005
... ..1
I Deliver To
Aspen City Streets Department
Attn: Willie
Aspen Colorado 81611
Phone: (970)920-5131
Fax: (970)920-5015
118m Des<:ription
5600 Worll Machine
46 HP Liquid Cooled V22D3-DI diesel engine
o Engine complies with EPA Tier II Emission Standards
Adjustable suspension seat (d.......)
Adjustable cushion seal (pIlssenger)
All-Wheel Steer
Automatically Activated Glow Plugs
Aux Hydl'llulics:Verlable Flow with dual direc:tioo detent
Bevel'1lge Holders
Bob-Tach
Cruise Contini
Deluxe Operator Cab includes:
o Interior csb foam, front and rear windows, sccessory wire
>hamesas, dome light and electrical power port
o Roll Over Protection StruClUre (ROPS)meels
requirements of SAE-J10<<l and ISO 3471
o Falling Object Protective Struclure (FOPS)mee\$
requirements ofSAE..Jl043 snd ISO 3449. level
1
Differential lock
Engine Shutdown System
Front Wall<. lights
Cab Enclosure wlHeater & AC
62" Dirt Bucket
BOBCAT OF THE ROCKYS
PAGE 01
Product Quotation
Quol8d By: Mark Buchanan
Phone: (970)4~7
Fax: (970)434.9373
Mobile: (970) 98!H5260
~..IT)I!!i1: markb@boboatoftherockies.cor:n
I. Delivering Dealer 1
Bobcat of the Rockies
3184 Hall Avenue
Grand Junction CO 81504-6036
Part No ~_ Amount Each Total Amount
7105500
$30,202.00
$30,202.00
1
Full-time four-wheel drive
Hydl'llulle dump box
Hydraulically controlled joystick with ~ifl AlTTl integrated float
InstrumentatiOn:
o Hourmeler
o Job Hours
o SpeedOmeter
o Tachometer
o Gauges and warning lights
Uft Arm Support
Parking Brake
Power Steertng, with adjustable steering wheel
Radiator Screen
Reer Receiver Hitch
Seal Belts, three-point
Spark Anestor Mufller
Suspension, Front and Rear
Tires: 27xl0.5-15 (8 ply), ~ug Tread
o Machine Width 60.5 inches
TooIcat Inte~ocl< CDntrol System (TICS)
WSlTlInty: 1 year, unlimited hours
7113226
6734233
$0.00
$583_00
Subtotal
$0_00
$583.00
$30,785.00
1
1
12/15/2005 13:05
9704349373
BOBCAT OF THE ROCKYS
PAGE 02
.
Item D_riptlon
72" Snow Blade
._ -.!~~ atY.. Amount Each Total Amount
8905156
1
$1,978.00
SubtDtal
$1,978.00
$1,978.00
Total of Ilema Quoted $32,763.00
Sales Total Before Taxes $32,763.00
Taxes $0.00
Quote Total US$32,763.DO
Free Enclosed Cab with Heater and Air Conditioning program exclusively for The City of Aspen, Colorado.
This is a Demo Unit with approx. 100 hours but COI'llell with Full 1 Year New Equipment Warranty.
]
All prices subject to change without prior nOtiCe or obligation. This price quote supercedes all
preceding price quotes. Customer must exercise this purchase option within 30 days from quote
Customer Acceptance:
Purchase Order:
Authorized Signlriure:
Print:
Sign:_.
Date:
Page 2
MEMORANDUM
\1'"
TO:
Mayor and City Council
DATE OF MEMO:
John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manage~
.J
February 6, 2006
FROM:
THROUGH:
MEETING DATE:
February 13, 2006
RE:
EOTC - Supplemental Budget Requests for 2006
1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax
SUMMARY: Attached for your review and approval is a resolution and supplemental budget requests
which, if approved, would authorize the supplemental budget requests from the 2006 EOTC 1/2 cent
transit sales and use tax budget for 2006. The EOTC protocol requires that all budget requests must be
evidenced and adopted by resolution by the individual EOTC member jurisdiction at one of its regular
meetings. This resolution and the corresponding supplemental budget requests reflect the decisions made
by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (BOTe) at its February 2, 2006 meeting.
2006 EOTC Supplemental Budget Request Summary
Total Supplemental Budget Requests
$200,000
$318,000
$100,000
$618,000
I. Reevaluation of the Entrance to Aspen FEIS
2. Main Street Transit Lane and Access Closures
3. New Century Transportation Foundation
These supplemental budget requests will revise the total revenues, expenditures and annual surplus
(deficit) for the 2006 budget as follows:
Revised 2006 Budget Summary:
Cumulative Surplus/(Deficit)
$4,692,384
$3,975,336
$717,048
$11,816,601
Total Revenues
Total Expenditures
Annual Surplus/ (Deficit)
(See attached 2006 budget & multi-year plan)
1
C:\Documents and Settings\randyr.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKBA\Clean 2006 EOTC memo sup bdgt reso.doc
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve supplemental budget requests by
resolution. All other members of the EOTC are also required to approve supplemental budget requests by
resolution or ordinance before the supplemental budget requests can be considered adopted.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fmancial implications to the City as these are EOTC funds and not City funds.
EOTC funds will be used for these projects. Staff will be approaching council in the near future
regarding prospective use of City funds for an enhanced public process related to the EIS reevaluation.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution to approve the 2006 EOTC Supplemental
Budget Requests.
AL TERNA TIVES:
Council can decide not to approve the 2006 EOTC Supplemental Budget Requests and send them back to
the EOTC for further discussion. Council also could choose to approve the supplemental budget requests
on an individual basis, in which case further EOTC discussion on the unapproved projects may ensue.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution # '7-- to approve the 2006 EOTC Supplemental Budget Requests."
CITY~. ~R COMMENTS:
TL~~~
Attachments:
A- 2006 Budget
B- Multi-Year Plan
C- NCTF Funding Request
D- Resolution #~
~ ~ dtJ~iJ~ 4Y ~
V
;;2/:1
,
2
C:\Documents and Settings\randyr.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKBA\Clean 2006 EOTe memo sup bdgt reso.doc
RESOLUTION NO. ~
SERIES OF 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROViNG THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE 2006 EOTC BUDGET
FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and the
Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general elements of their
Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for funding from the Pitkin
County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14,1993, the Parties agreed:
a. to conduct regular public meetings to continue to refine and agree upon proposed
projects and transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and
b. that all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County-wide one-half cent
transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by a resolution
adopted by the governing body of each party; and
WHEREAS, at a public meeting held on February 2,2006, the Parties considered and approved
the supplemental budget requests for 2006 for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approval given at the February 2nd EOTC
meeting by adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that
the supplemental budget requests for the one-half cent transit sales and use tax budget for the year 2006 is
hereby approved as summarized below:
Reevaluation of the Entrance to Aspen FEIS
Main Street Transit Lane and Access Closures
New Century Transportation Foundation
Total Supplemental Requests
$200,000
$318,000
$100,000
$618,000
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February, 2006, by the City
Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, 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 February 13, 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
H:\EOTC 2006\2006 EOTC memo & sup bdgt reso.doc
.....
Q)
OJ
"0
:J
co
co
o
o
N
~
'"
-
III
'"
::l
C"
'"
CI::
roDU;3'
00....
00<Xl
00 M
oioM
0l~<Xl
'" It)ln
oj
.
III
'"
-
o
z
-
'"
Ol
~
::l
CD
o a 0 0
0000
0000
m 0-0> 05
O>O~(O
NLOMCD
oj
Cl
c:
"0
c:
::::l
LL
-
CJ
Q)
......
o
...
Il.
"
19 x c..l
cn!9v>
'" a> 'E
(ij (f) C
en :J 00 0
cf!.~Q).....
N N E .;
__0..0
...-- ...- u 'C
>.>.cc
C c'- 0
::J :J C (,J
00 /J) en
UUE",
c c (;j ~
;gg~~
CLo::cc
:t:::
11l
c:
III
...
I-
U
l-
e
w
....
<Xl
~
N
Ol
eo
...
0000
ooco......
000><0
ci ci as ......-
NCNCO
M....~
"'co
~9
r-:-
M "
II -B
",,,,a>
99E
__0
" " III
o
o
o
""
<Xl
....
....-
Ncooe
(00)00
C"')-q-oo
~Ml6ci
M N...- N
00
00
00
c.6..o
....
N
N
0'"
ON
oeo
cir-:
0....
"'.
~
~
~
o "
o '"
N-
'" Ol '"
1i) c ~
8 "c rn
en '!::::R
" Olo
~ ~~
= Q) x Q.)
oC:SCL 19.c
o en:::
:J Q) ro (/J Q) 0
Q) (/):Jcro~
._ ~ C Q) (/J ~
~ c...~Ecf!.~
Q) g> ~ N "'""
'0 'C ceo ~ co
.~ 'C ~ .~.~ C. '0 .8
'0 ~ C C C cEo C
ro (,) "0, ,2> ro ctl :;; ~ 0
"'o1l-",.__>'",c ~ ~~';j)~:S
~a>- a>c~..c._
1;)~c:(f) ;~o>~~.b
8 E 0...0 O>r- r- ...........-c
0> E ~ '0 .= .= .= Q) C 0
c E.-......~-c-c-c 0>0 (,)
o '-L..l..l[1Jmro~+=-<(
f:: c~Cf)..::.::: 0..0..0.. ::J
~ 0l_Q) C Q) :->-.01-
..9:!._ .... ~ a>"::':::"::':::...x: .- L1..
- (f) 'U L... Q) Q) Q) en .b l'V'
8~~~u~~~rJa~
"uBE"UUUE"'"
E! Q) (/) ro S-c","'","'",;:< ~
Q)"- (/) c.9 - 0 I-- '-
(/)e:J.ctl222cL1..<J
:JD-mx::;;mmm(f)O::E
'"
'"
'"
c:)
'"
....
88(0
Qc)~
"'- - .
Q~LO
(\IC"')b)
oj
eo
LOL09
990
't5't5B
00000
..q-......ooo
co<.oaooR
...[ co" ci ci LO
<X)COON<O
LO~O~N..'I""""
~ ~ ~
~
'u
'"
u..
a>
1'1 CIl_ III
'" e
c::ii ~ '"
occ:~
:;, "'-
ca 'n; Q,O
"t1::;; III III
c: '" "l: III
'" ::l 0 '"
afcn_g
r::cQ)<t
o Q) ...
~g-:;G6
cu<(J::1>>
t:<(c:c:
Cl)ol-lJJctl
Q) ~u.. CD =
~ r::: a:: :5 "in
..cl!o....c:
(..::It...;: - 0 e
." ~ a. c: I-'
~ :;, ~.S! Q)
cpc:gq;~
:g~~~U)
~~~~.5m
..c G.I Q) G.I ca (I)
....:z:(f)ll:::!!:J
ro
~NM~~~~romo~N~~~~o
~~~""~""""1-
,.1lTAfll ,pUt A
'"
Ol
Ol.
eo
....
o
05
<Xl
....
o
r-:
~
....
~
o
eo
""
~
"<
~
~
LO
Ol
Ol.
o
Ol
N
e
E
U
u:
w
g
-
(f)
:J
...J
D-
o::
:J
(f)
...J
<(
:J
Z
Z
<(
U
I-
o
W
'"
~
U
I-
o
W
eo
01
ro
c
a>
E
a>
a.
a.
::l
'"
M
'"
'"
ai
Ol
q
~
~
'"
o
o
N
.0:
C
a>
a.
'"
a>
.0
~
-"
o
~
I-
(3
u:
w
o
en
:J
...J
D-
o::
:J
(f)
W
>
~
...J
:J
::;;
:J
U
U
I-
o
W
a>
'"
'" ::l
o '"
o "
N a>
.0
Beo
"EO
",1')
2:B
Eu
u ~
a> '"
'E ~
~.e
",-g
ctl "C
~ ~
.... '"
o "
o a>
N.o
~~
~ -
- a>
m.g
Ol::l
-g.o
.0",
"E8
a>N
g- .!Q
::l",
,,~
::lm
co=
,s '"
'" "
" '"
'" a>
a> E
;,; E eo
20 ~ ~
- "
~ 't5 B
eo
o
o
N
;;;
N
000 0 0") 0 ~ 0") 00 <D ... N t4 fTA~/I/fI "t~ B
000 0 0") 0") I-- 0") ~'" N I-- ...
000 0 "'1--'" . 0") 1--1-- 0 "'- I--
LO-McO <r5 ~- cD cD "" MO "" ~ <Ii
l: ~ I--<DN <D "'N~ N "'~ I-- '" <D
'" ~ N"'<D ... 0'" "'. <q. 0") '"
0: <> "" <Ii N'''-: 0") N ~
N U
f-
a
w
<D
000 0 I--NO") I-- <DO '" '" '" 01
000 0 "'...'" '" "'0 ... '" <D ]i
000 0 ......~ ... 1--1-- 0 '" I-- c:
l: en o"-:oi 0 "":uitO N tOtO <Ii "" M Q)
'" <> "''''N <D O")N~ N ~ ~ 0") N I-- E
0: <> "''''''' 0 Ol_ M_ 0") 1--. ....
N M <Ii M Q)
0 Ci
~ C.
:J
'"
000 0 N~'" N NO <D ... 0")
000 0 I-- N '" 0") ...'" I-- N ~
000 0 "''''I-- "" q~- <q. '"
l: 0) uioN r-: ui~ui ~ ~N ~ <Ii 05
'" <> "'O")N 0 O")N~ N "'I-- N '" ...
0: <> "''''... '" r;-q,. N~ N ~ 1--.
N M "" ~ ~ M '"
000 0 ~COLOO 0000 N N '"
000 0 CO~""'O OOOlLO ~ ~ '"
000 0 ""'NMO COOvN '" "'- <D.
l: uioui 0 M...fuio oooioi N N 0")
'" N N <D ~ MN~LO NOCON <D '" <D
0: ""'_LO v I-- NI--N "'- <D ~
0") "" c6~~ '" ~ r-:
00'" ... ~LOOO 0000 g C)C) <D '" ~
00'" '" CONOO OOCO,.... C)C) 0") ... 0
000") 0") OCOOO OOOlCO C) C)C) 0") O. <D
oioM N N-riuio cl 0 cO"": C)" <SQi <Ii I-- <r5
"'~'" '" MN~LO NONCO C) C).... I-- ~ ~
"''''''' <D. M ,...._~_ .... "'''' '" I-- "'.
M ... M ~
~
c
(1J
CL 0000 0 NCOOOOLOOO 00000 '" iO 0")
.... 0000 0 COOlOOONOO V""'OOO '" '" '"
(1J 0000 0 MvOOOCOOO COCOOOO "'- '" '"
Q) oiooicO <r5 ~Muioor--:cDui ...fcOooui <D 0 ai
>- OlO~CO '" MN~NOv"'" COCOONCO I-- '" '"
NLOMCO I-- ~ N LO~qN_~ 0 "! o.
0 M ...- N 05
E ~ ~ ~ e ~
~
:J
~
Cl
s::
"0
s::
:l
LL
-
(.)
Q)
.....
o
...
c..
-
C; x
~.l!l
2 C) (/) g
(J) c: ~ '0
o .- co ...
(.) c: (/) LL
C) 'S::::.R
c: C) 0 CD
~ ~~ g!:2~
=0; sQJ ~~5
oes g. ~ c: CD II)
(/)_ .2'Ec:o
QJro(/)QJO -'-Q)-
.~ ~213rn~ ~~~~
~ ifffiE~~ g~C(~
c:~.~ C:C:~~ro ~~;~
'E ~ m .~.~ c.. 0 .9 0 2i. g ~
-c c:c:c:c:E~c: ;:(/)Ja
co ~ 'C:l.g:tco co'-O 0 Ja<( r..;. Q)
(/)~-:2~~~~~~5 5<(LIJi:~
00 ....; (/) (/) .... CD Q) ffi cO ..c (/) Q. t- ....
OE~..c~C)C)C)~~EQJII)~Q)~
(.)01 :J-cC:C:C: c:~c:a::';:1I)
c: E(/).-~:sz:.;;;;:::Q.)C:8..c",Io..-C:
OE.-.....~l.::Io..l.::C)o r..;.o '"
~&:-.CiiI.U co ro m~;.;::;<( (.)~-'O loo;,
~c:QJc:~c..c..c..=:Jt-E~c..c:~
al~.~~~m~~~>€~~~~~-Q)
v'o(/)(/).....Io..QJQ.)Q.)(/).....rv ~o-
W!"Q) "'UQJQJCD(/)c:~~~O"'~
w....-cc..QJ 10.. 10.. 10.. (OOQJ1 ~ ~-
I;X.....OECUUUE(.)(/)BQ)~_CI)-
(tl(.) 0 10..0 10.. ctI
......QJoo(tlO~~~~<(co..c Q)~c:(/)
CD.~(/)tnlo..(/)(/)(/)ot-~~~~Q)_QJ
(/)e:Jyco222C:~(.)~Q)Q)Q)",(/)
:J~<DX~<D<D<Dma::~...~m~~:J
~ rn
m~NM~~S~ro~o~N~~~~o
_ ~~~~~~~t-
x
.a x <3
",.l!l '"
~ Q)-f:
m~~5
~~QJ;';::;
~~EE
IW!;;.~ ~
::>ss'E(.)
OOQJOO
lIIUUEQ)
- c: c: 00 ~
Clzj;g ;g ~ ~
~ii:ii:EE
,ifro :c u :c
::
rJl
s::
III
...
I-
o
I-
o
W
'"
Q)
~
:J
o
m
l:
'0
l:
:J
U-
rn
(5
f-
i="
C3
u:
w
e.
-
m
:J
-'
~
a::
:J
m
-'
..:
:J
z
z
..:
U
f-
a
w
f-
C3
u:
w
o
()j
:J
-'
~
a::
:J
m
w
>
f=
..:
-'
:J
~
:J
U
U
f-
a
w
<D
o
o
N
M
N
.471/1t!//~/UT "
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Members
FROM: Alice Laird, New Century Transportation Foundation
DATE OF MEMO: February 6,2006
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2006
RE: EOTC funding request
SUMMARY: Pitkin County and SnoWillass Village voted at the February 2 EOTC meeting to
approve 2006 funding for NCTF to continue building a regional alliance similar to the Denver
Transit Alliance, and to allow for continuing the overall work program to create a more c1imate-
friendly regional transportation system. This EOTC funding request must be voted on by each
individual EOTC member jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND:
Our region has made significant public investments in transit improvement plans: about $3
Million on the 2003 Corridor Investment Study and about $4 Million to date on the Entrance to
Aspen 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.
In order to implement the faster, more competitive bus system outlined in the CIS our region will
need to secure up to $60 Million in local/state funding to tap about $60 Million authorized in the
federal transportation bill.
Across the country one of the keys to ensuring that transportation planning documents lead to
solutions is creating broad-based alliances to work for financing and implementation. Transit
faces an uphill battle nationwide, and particularly in Colorado where there is minimal state
funding. The Denver Transit Alliance has been vital to Denver's transit successes and is funded
by a broad coalition of local governments, business and civic organizations. If you have not had a
chance, please be sure to check out their website at www.transitalliance.org.
Over the last 18 months, thanks to EOTC funding and an additional $50,000 we were able to
raise from other sources, NCTF has built the foundation of a regional transit alliance and
implemented a variety of programs and projects. The December 8th workshop presentations and
materials summarized NCTF results to date.
Current funding partners committed to supporting NCTF work in 2006 include the Aspen Skiing
Company, CORE, private individuals, grants from the Colorado Physical Activity and Nutrition
Program, and potentially RFT A through targeted work on dedicated funding in Garfield County.
Weare approaching Glenwood Springs as a partner on NCTF projects, and waiting to hear back
on additional potential partners. We are already well on our way to raising more than half of our
overall funding from sources other than EOTC. A budget is attached.
NCTF is an extremely efficient, frugal organization. The NCTF Board of Directors is a group of
volunteers, extremely dedicated experts on transit and related issues who have contributed an
enormous amount of unpaid time to advance transit in the region. The director, the only full time
staff person, is paid below public sector and private rates for similar work. Because we are a
501(c)(3) organization people have offered services and skills either for free (such as our office
space) or at a significantly reduced rate from what they charge the public or private sector. In
addition as a 501(c)(3) organization we multiply public investments by using them to leverage
additional grant funding.
Environmental implications
Nationally, the transportation sector accounts for over one third of all C02 emissions. On a
regional basis transportation accounts for a significantly greater share. No other organization in
the region is taking the comprehensive, integrated approach to creating a less carbon-
intensive, less oil-dependent transportation system than NCTF.
Our 2006 workplan is outlined on Appendix A, and focuses on an overall approach to reducing
climate change emissions from the transportation sector through increasing transit mode share,
decreasing dependence on private vehicles through community design and education,
encouraging replacement ofvehic1es with more efficient models, and greening our fuels.
NCTF would like to thank EOTC for all your support to date, and thank you for considering this
request. Please do not hesitate to call me at either 704-0992 or 704-9200 or email
ahubbardlaird({usooris.net if you need any additional information.
Attachments:
A - 2006 W orkplan
B - Budget
Attachment A: NCTF/Alliance Goals and Workplan for 2006:
Overall NCTF/Alliance for Sustainable Transportation Goals:
Reduce dependence on oil
Protect our climate
Invest in economic prosperity
Enhance quality of life and long term livability of our region
To pursue these goals NCTF is working to advance:
High quality regional transit, competitive with private vehicles
Bike and walk-friendly communities
Regional trail system
Safe routes to school! use of alternative transportation getting to school
Transit friendly, compact community design and development
Green fleets, clean fuels
2006 Work Program:
1. Increase dedicated and additional funding for transit and trails
Create a dedicated transit and trails funding source in Garfield (formulate, do groundwork
for ballot question if feasible this year)
Increase Eagle County's contribution to RFTA
Build the foundation for securing local and state match to implement BRT and
accompanying transit center improvements
Work with long-term statewide efforts to increase state funding sources for transit
Secure additional grant funding for transportation improvements
2. Grow and strengthen the regional Alliance for Sustainable Transportation:
Increase number and breadth of members from throughout the region
Conduct ongoing education and outreach on more climate-friendly transportation
Increase alliance members' understanding of issues through workshops and
informational materials
Link with other coalitions around the state to also work for more state support of transit
Increase understanding of Bus Rapid Transit and options for Implementation, develop
overall timeline on implementation.
3. Pursue private sector partnerships in transit centers and encourage transit oriented design and
pol icies
Conduct workshop on transit supportive land uses as an element of smart growth
Develop model polices and work for adoption in each community
Continue efforts to create private/public partnerships to fund the transit centers
envisioned in the CIS.
Advance a model transit oriented/private/public project
Work to ensure that our region can score will on the FTA transiUland use criteria required
for New Starts
4. Conduct regional Green/Safe Routes to School: outreach on transit, biking, walking to the 4000
students in schools throughout valley
Work regionally to pursue major funding for infrastructure improvements and education
made available through the federal transportation bill.
Continue with ongoing education, outreach to increase awareness of alternative
transportation among students, including holding 2"d Bike, walk, bus, and carpool to
school day.
Encourage design improvements to address physical barriers to walking or biking to
school.
I-
W
"
C
::>
In
z
C
~
Z
<C
"
0:
C
]ij
o
I-
'"
o
o
N
'"
o
u
W
C
'"
o
>
o
z
'"
o
t!
o
'"
o
~
W
Vl
'"
o
g
<C
'"
o
-?:
~
'"
o
w
c
~
'"
o
~
:E
'"
o
~
<C
'"
o
-
ro
:E
'"
o
D
W
~
"'
o
c
.c!:
I-
0:
o
..
w
0:
...
<C
U
z
<C
z
u:
>-
o
z
w
"
<C
=
..
..
1!
=
o
..
c
..
..
r
o
~
=
.
,:
t.
o
-=
.
u
.
.
Z
~
o
o
N
"lit;:
~;l
li.c f;o;l
I- ' l1
'-;0
;l..u
QE~
0000000
aeoocco
0000000
OLOOll'lOON
I; .-i ~ .-i ~I:I;
i<
Cl
"
o
". ;;3
. ~
~ ]
~ j
~ ~
Ul i:::i "0
:3 -= :3
= .& 0 <ti ~ a
o ..c ::: s::; Q
~ ~ ..8.g i;: a,".
9€ ~.E~:a-.~
~[ ~3~-;:."'.~
1:i~i!o~8::: -
~[ ~. g -1i ~ " g .~
o Vi ~:'=' ~ e"O Q.. ....
.~ .: ~ .E OJ e] ~ [:::
::: ..9:! S"d ~ UO ..E p., 9,
~..Qu.E.:l _p,:.....
r-.f'..
o
o
o
N
...
;;:
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
,0:
o
~
o
~
o
~
,0:
0:
.
o
c
~
.
'"
"
~
00...
00'"
0"''''
Ol~ !Xl
~I-
r-. 0 :::;
~ ~ ~
.'
*
, 0 ,
:e:;E
.'
*
, 0 ,
:e g ~
v' """ ...,.
*
~ g ~
.;.....iIl-
*
~ g ~
v~ """ ill-
*
, 0 ,
:e ~ ~
.-
*
, 0 ,
;e :;: ~
'If-..... if!-
*
; g ~
v' """ -Io'l-
*
~ g :::;
";-III-~
*
~ g ~
.;..........
*
, 0 ,
:e g ::::
v' ..... ""'"
*
, 0 ,
;e g ~
v' <,/I- -VI-
*
~
'"
w
'"
z
w
..
~
"0
.@
~
8 ~
'" .:i
o ~...
~i ~ ~
~ u ~ ~
t t> Ul ~
0: E 8 ..c
~ ~ N ~
~ .E <B kl
'" ~ 1:: .e-
~ ~ ~ ~
~ .; [ fIl
8 .~ g 'g
]" O'.c OJ
~ '" ~ rJ\ _ ~
g ~.8 =
6 ~ 0 '" ~
u oS ~ ~ 8
E '15 ~ ~ ~
e"; (J ~ ~ f-<
~::t: u:: Ul -fIl
.
~
~
0.
000
000
"'00
:;; ~ ~
o
o
~
"
*
~
o
o
N
<5
~
000000000
oaoooLl'looa
~ LO 0 0 0 .-i 0 0 0
~I ~ ~ ~ ~I .: ~ ~ .:
o 0
o 0
o 0
M .....
* *
o
o
,
N
*
o goo 0 0
~ ;:: :;:: ~ ~ g
N- ..... <II- """ ,...,
* *
o 0
o 0
o 0
M .....
* *
000 0 0 0 0 0
R 5ii ~ ~ :1i ~ ~ g
N N- N- ill- VI- ..... .....
................. .....
o
o
o
:i
o
o
:3
*
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g
,...' N N -1/\-.... ill- ....I
ill- -VI-..... .....
o
o
o
:i
o
o
~-
*
000
000
, ~ ~
"'or N 1'1-
* * *
o
o
o
'"
*
o
o
o
.'
*
000
000
, ~ ~
N N ......-
* * *
o 0 0 0
o ~ 0 0
~ ... ~::-
*
o 0 0 0
~ a ~ ~,
*
o
o
o
'"
*
o 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
R ~ 5': ;:: ~ ';) ~ 15
,..; "I' "I- ill- ill- ill- ....'
ill- <o't- ill- ill-
o
o
o
'"
*
o
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
'" II) II) "I
,..; "'I' N
* * *
o
o
o
,.;
*
o 0
~ ';)
* *
o 0
o 0
~ :;
*
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 5': ~ 15 5': ';) 5': 15
~ ~ ~ ';)- ill- ill- ill- ~
*
o
o
;;
*
~
o
o
N
'"
~:e
:( ~ l.~
e ~ ~ I:l.
o .- .,c
~ ~ ~.
. e
..s ':' t: ~
W "= ~ I:l.
0..: ~ ~ 'lj
li ~ ;a 01
.5,:::: ~ 8
~ ~ .!!l ',c
g tl .,S ~
.- ~ '" <8
g .!i .~ .5
~.Vi .s .!::
- ~ 'lj :g
] ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .~
i i ~ I
&! 1! 'E "
"':.2 c3 <(
~ .5
~
o
o
o
.g
"
o
"0
U
.
~
'Iii
"
c-
o:
'"
000 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0
II) II) 0 II) II) II) 0
,..; "I' "'I ill- ill- ill- ....'
* * *
o 0 0 0 0 000
~ ~ ~ ~ ';) ~ 15 ~
,..; "'I- ,~ ill- ill- ill- ....'
* * *
o
o
o
N'
*
o 0 0 0 0
15 S! ';) S! 0
,..; ;oj. ill- ;oj. 5
*
o 0 0 0
o ';) 0 0
~ ill- ~ :;
*
<'
I- ~
li 1!
:g'~ OIl
a ~ .~
1f .~ ~
"5j ~ .~ ~
-g = 1;:
it il! OIl!!
... ] '8. ~
"'.a d> :;t:
=-.a ...... t;
] < :!j == ~
.n: .8 g -
'lj g 'lj ~ ~
~ .~ a.a ... ~
<5 .< .W ~ i .[ .,g
== 3 .!! ~ .=0- .~
~ .S ~ ...., 3 e- ::l
~ ~ < ~ E ~ ~
~ Z u
g gl~ g gl~ a 'J,
'<tN OO'l \0
~;:.-l~ ~
N
00
~ ;::
* *
00
:=::J ;::
* *
00
:=::J ;::
* *
o 0
g: ;::
* *
o 0
g: ;:
* *
o 0
g: ;::
* *
00
g: ;::
* *
00
~ ;::
* *
00
~ ;::
* *
o 0
~ ;::
* *
00
&~
o 0
g: ;::
* *
. e
g 01 a
Hd
::- IU ~ '"
_w~~.
.;; ~ IU !S'-5
::i::E::E [J'J 0
o ~
o ,
Sill-
*
~
,
*
~
N
~
'"'
;;;
~
,
*
~
N
~
<0
N
~
~
,
*
~
N
~
<0
N
~
~
,
*
~
N
~
'"
;;;
~
,
*
~
N
~
~
~
~
N
~
<0
:;:
~
:;;
~
N
.
<0
:;:
~
,
*
~
N
~
:;i
~
~
,
*
i'O
o
,,;
~
~
,
*
~
N
N
<5
;;;
~
,
*
~
N
N
'"
;;;
~
,
*
~
N
N
,,;
~
.
.
li
Co
"
W
;;
o
I-
VIe
LliJ
l.VIe:D10:ra.n.d:D.~
TIle lIlY oIls_
lIlY IllDlDen 8IIIce
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
John P. Worcester
DATE:
February 13, 2006
RE:
Resolution authorizing Third Amendment to Lease Agreement with Aspen
Historical Society - Willoughby Park (Ski Museum Building)
Attached for your consideration is a proposed resolution that, if approved, would authorize the
City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen
and the Aspen Historical Society for a portion of Willoughby Park for the construction and
operation of a Ski Museum Building and Ski Center.
In 1965, following voter approval, the City of Aspen entered into a long term lease with the
Aspen Historical Society for the use of Willoughby Park for the construction and operation of a
Ski Museum Building and Ski Center. The lease agreement contains a provision that the Aspen
Historical Society must apply for a building permit no less than 5 years following the execution
of the lease agreement (December 1, 2000.) In November 1999, the Aspen Historical Society
requested and received a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement extending the time for the
building permit for an additional five years (December 1, 2005.) The Aspen Historical Society
has now requested an additional five year extension of this requirement. Please refer to Georgia
Hanson's letter appended hereto in which she describes the need for the extension and the
Society's current plans for the construction of the Ski Museum. (Ms. Hanson states that the
Society has previously requested two extensions. Only one extension has been sought in the past.
There was another Amendment to the original lease, but that amendment was executed to
remove the Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club as a party to the lease.)
Section 18 of the original lease, which would be amended by this proposed lease amendment,
defines an "Event of Default" by the Lessee as follows:
(b) Failure to obtain a building permit in accordance with Section II, Chapter 7 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to begin construction of the museum building as
described herein within sixty (60) months of the effective date of this Lease. (Lessee may
petition Lessor for an extension of this time upon a showing of due diligence in obtaining
a building permit).
As indicated above, the original Lease Agreement was amended once to extend the time an
additional five years.
Approval of the appended resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute a new
amendment to the original lease granting the Aspen Historical Society until December I, 2010,
to pull a building permit.
REQUESTED ACTION: This matter has been placed on your consent agenda. Approval of the
consent agenda would approve and adopt the attached propose resolution.
cc: City Manager
JPW- saved: 2/7/2006-451-G:\john\word\memos\ski museum lease amendment.doc
RESOLUTION NO. Q
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, A THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
THE ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR A PORTION OF WILLOUGHBY PARK FOR
THE CONSTRCUTION OF A SKI MUSEUM BUILDING.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a proposed Third Amendment
to the Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and the Aspen Historical Society for a portion
of Willoughby Park for the construction of a Ski Museum Building and Ski Center; and
WHEREAS, after due deliberation and consideration the City Council has determined that
it is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to approve said amendment and authorize the City
Manager to execute same on behalf of the City of Aspen.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that the City manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of
the City of Aspen the Third Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and
the Aspen Historical Society for a portion of Willoughby Park for the construction and operation
of a Ski Museum Building and Ski Center a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
Dated:
,2006.
Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, 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 , 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW- saved: 2/7j2006-279-G:\john\word\resos\ski museum amed to lease.doc
TillRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE
ASPEN illSTORICAL SOCIETY
SKI MUSEUM BillLDING AND SKI CENTER
TillS THIRD AMENDMENT
day of
City of Aspen as Lessor.
TO LEASE AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this
, 2006 between the Aspen Historical Society, as Lessee and the
WHEREAS the parties hereto entered into that certain Lease Agreement dated December 1, 1995,
whereby the Lessor did lease to the Lessees certain demised premises as described therein for the
construction of a museum building and ski center; and
WHEREAS, a certain First Amendment to the Lease Agreement was executed by the Lessor and the
Aspen Historical Society dated November, 1999, whereby the Lease Agreement was amended to
allow Lessee an additional 60 months to obtain a building permit for the construction of the museum
building and ski center; and
WHEREAS, a certain Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement was executed by the Lessor and
the Aspen Historical Society dated May, 2000, whereby the Lease Agreement was amended to
remove the Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club as a party to the Lease Agreement and making the
Aspen Historical Society the sole Lessee under said Lease Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Lease Agreement to allow Lessee an additional
60 months to obtain a building permit for the construction of the museum building and ski center.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree to Amend the Lease Agreement as follows:
1. Section 18(b) of the Lease Agreement is hereby amended to grant Lessee an additional 60
months to obtain a building permit, up to and including December 1, 2010, (retaining the right to
petition Lessor for an additional extension of this time upon a showing of due diligence in obtaining
a building permit.)
2. All other terms, provisions and conditions in the Lease, as amended by the First and Second
Amendments, shall remain in full force and effect.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
ASPEN illSTORICAL SOCIETY
By:
By:
Title:
Title:
JPW- saved: 2/1/2006-332-G:\john\word\agr\hist-soc-ski-museum amedn 2.doc
!
ASPENHISTORICALSOCIETY
February 2, 2006
Mr. John Worcester
City of Aspen Attorney
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear John:
In The Aspen Historical Society carries a lease which allows the Society to construct a
ski museum on the site of Willoughby Park, specific site and square footage to be
determined and approved through due process. The original lease (for 75 years) included
a requirement for construction to begin within five years. There have been two five year
extensions granted, the second of which expired on December 2, 2005.
It is no secret that the best laid plans for a museum were waylaid by other struggles that
the Society has experienced. Now the Society has a solid future virtually guaranteed and
we are in the middle of a strategic plan which will allow us to report back to you with
plans for a presence on the Willoughby Park site. We anticipate partnering with the
Parks Department and neighbors to come up with a terrific community space.
Our strategic planning process is slated to be completed in six to nine months. We are
working with the Executive Service Corps to produce a thoughtful community focused
plan. I respectfully request that the City grant another 5 year extension to the Aspen
Historical Society in order to allow us to complete our plan and proceed to develop a
master plan for the site with Parks and HPC and Community Development.
620 West Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.3721
970.925.5347 fax
www.aspenhistory.org
A 501(C)(8) CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION
TAX ID 84-6037756
MEMORANDUM
VI' a..,
TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council
FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planneri~
THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development l1,M
RE: PUD Amendment and Lot Split: 488 Castle Creek Rd. 1 st Reading of
Ordinance No.~, Series of2006. 2nd Reading scheduled for Feb. 27.
DA TE: February 13.2006
SUMMARY:
Haas Land Planning, representing Steel Partners Ltd., owner of 488 Castle Creek
Rd., is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment [26.445.100(B)] and Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption [26.480.030(A)2] from the City Council. The proposal for
a PUD Amendment is subject to final development plan review and approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section
26.445.030(C) Steps 3 and 4. This requires the P&Z to adopt a resolution
recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
PUD Amendment. On January 17, the P&Z voted 5-0 in favor of Resolution No.
4, Series of 2006, recommending approval of the PUD Amendment, with
conditions. The request for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption goes directly to
City Council. Applicant is also seeking an Administrative Growth Management
Review [26.4 70.040(B)( 1)] and an administrative review for Condominiumization
[26.480.090] .
City Council approval of this PUD Amendment and Lot Split would allow
administrative Growth Management and Condominiumization reviews. If the
PUD Amendment, Lot Split, Growth Management and Condominiumization
requests are approved, the applicant would be entitled to the following: Two (2)
detached single-family, free market units (3,335 square feet and 3,515 square feet)
and one (I) detached single-family, deed-restricted (RO) unit (1,500 square feet).
Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the deed-restricted
unit be designated as Category 7.
RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff has reviewed this proposal and recommends that City Council tind that the
project complies with PUD Amendment Standards of Review [26.445.050 (A-J)] and
qualifies tor a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption [26.480.030(A)2]. Staff believes that
applicant's request meets the Standards of Review for a PUD Amendment, qualifies
for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and is consistent with the purpose and intent of
previous land-use decisions regarding this property.
HISTORY:
In 1980, this property was annexed into the City of Aspen and zoned R-
15A/PUD. A single-family home of about 2,000 square feet existed on the site
prior to 1980, and there have been no improvements since that time.
During deliberations in 1980, the City Council recognized that R-15A zoning
without a PUD overlay made it possible for two free market units to be approved
with no employee housing required (ADUs were not required at that time). The
PUD overlay was added to require slope reductions, which reduced the density
allowance and limited the potential of development to either one single family
home (which existed at the time) or a duplex that included one employee housing
unit. (Please see Exhibit B; Minutes; Ordinance # 11 Series of 1980).
In 1999, then-owner Paul Anderson applied for a Rezoning in order to remove the
PUD overlay, which would have allowed for a subsequent lot split and the
development of two, single-family homes, each with an ADU. The Community
Development Department recommended denial of the Rezoning application,
citing the 1980 annexation and zoning deliberations: "The PUD overlay was
placed on the property... to ensure the existence of an employee unit on-site..."
according to the staff summary.
The staff summary acknowledged that two ADUs would be developed, or a cash-in-
lieu payment would be made, subsequent to a lot split, but added that, "Staff believes
any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher degree of
community benefit..." The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the
application. (Please see Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request,
1999.) The applicant appealed the P&Z decision to City Council, but the appeal was
withdrawn prior to 151 Reading.
Staff believes that if a condition of approval requires a Category 7 Employee
Housing Unit rather than an RO Unit as prescribed by an Administrative Growth
Management Review, the project would be consistent with the PUD Amendment
Standards of Review, as well as the purpose and intent of previous land-use
decisions regarding this property. On January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously recommended that City Council approve the PUD
Amendment with the condition of a Category 7 designation. The Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority has also reviewed this proposal and recommended a Category
7 designation. The applicant has agreed to this condition.
ApPLICANT:
Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Haas Land Planning.
LOCATION:
488 Castle Creek Road; a metes and bounds parcel (.824 acres).
ZONING:
R-15A/PUD
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A PUD Amendment is required to meet the Standards of Review in Section
26.445.050 (A-J). A Lot Split Subdivision Exemption is allowed under Section
26.480.030 (A)2. Administrative Growth Management Review occurs under
Section 26.470.040(B)(l); and an administrative review for Condominiumization
occurs under Section 26.480.090.
KEY Issul!:s:
Slope reduction provIsIons of the Land Use Code in combination with the PUD
overlay of this property reduce the effective lot size and allowable density tor this
property. While the actual size of the property is 35,895 square feet, these Code
requirements reduce the effective Lot Area to 22,945 square feet. The use-by-right for
this property allows for a single-family home of approximately 5,000 square feet.
including an ADU as small as 300 square feet, or a cash-in-lieu payment.
The request for a PUD Amendment proposes a decrease in the minimum lot area for
Lot I, a decrease in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot I and Lot 2 and a
decrease in the front yard setback for Lot 1. Approval of the PUD Amendment and
Lot Split Subdivision Exemption would allow for two (2) single-family homes (3,335
square feet and 3,515 square feet), one (I) ADU, or a cash-in-lieu payment, and one
(1) deed-restricted home (1,500 square feet).
In other words, this PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption would
allow for a net increase of 1,815 square feet of free market space compared to the
use-by-right option. but would simultaneously provide 1,500 square feet of deed-
restricted housing (at Category 7, according to the proposed staff condition). This
trade-off is in keeping with the purpose and intent of previous land use decisions
regarding this property.
Furthermore, staff believes the proposal meets the PUD Amendment Standards of
Review [26.445.050 (A-J)] through the mitigation of steep slopes with proven
engineering methods, the community benefit of a Category 7 single-family home, the
appropriate scale of three smaller homes rather than one large home in this
neighborhood. close proximity to both transit and pedestrian trails, the removal of
overhead utilities and the removal of a septic tank in the Castle Creek neighborhood.
(Please see Exhibit A for detailed staff findings.)
In addition to standard conditions for a Final PUD, additional conditions
recommended by staff include the designation of Unit B on Lot 2 as a Category 7
unit; the submittal of professional engineered reports to the Community Development
Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed
development; and the removal of overhead utility lines. Regarding environmental
conditions, a proposed condition of approval is the development of a handling and
disposal plan for the abandoned septic system; and permit requirements for
transporting any contaminated soil away from the property (while the 12 feet of fill
on-site is likely to originate trom the construction of Castle Creek Road, it is unclear
if other types of waste were disposed of at the site).
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No.~, Series of2006, approving a PUD
Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for property located at 488
Castle Creek Rd., with conditions, finding that the review criteria for the
application have been met."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Staff Findings - PUD Amendment, Standards of Review
Exhibit B: Minutes; Ordinance #11 Series of 1980
Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request, 1999
Exhibit D: Application
Exhibit E: Plannin~ and Zoning Commission Resolution and Minutes (to be
provided prior to 2" Reading).
ORDINANCE No.5
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD
AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WITH
CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273512300024
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting
approval of a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 488 Castle
Creek Road; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD
Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended by a
vote of 5-0 that City Council approve the proposal; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all of the applicable development standards; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Approval of the Development Plans
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the City Council approves the 488 Castle Creek Final PUD, which includes application for
PUD, Subdivision (condominiumization), subject to the following conditions:
1. A PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the
final approval by City Council and shall include the following:
a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement,
pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD/Subdivision Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the
tinal approval granted by City Council and shall include:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community
Development Engineer and showing easements, encroachment
agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical
improvements, and the location of utility pedestals.
Section 2: Dimensional Approvals
The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be printed on
the Final PUD Plan:
- Aooroved Pun via this Ordinance
Minimum Lot Size Lot 1 1 I .225 Square Feet
Lot 2: 24.600 Square Feel
Minimum Lot Area per Dwellin~ Unit 6.300 Square Feet (afler Lot Area reductions)
Minimum Lot Width (west property lintl 75 feet
sethack)
Lot 1 1 0 feet along west property line
Minimum Front Yard Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings. and 0 feet for
Q:rading/retaining associated with driveway
Lot 1 5 feet along north and south property lines
Minimum Side Yard Setbacks I,ot 2: 5 feet along north property line: 55 teet
along south property line
Lot 1 1 0 feet along east property line
Minimum Rear Yard Lot 2: 1 0 feet along east property line and property
lines adjoining Lot I
Ma:dmum Site Covtlrae;tl No Requirement
Maximum Heieht 25 feet
Min. Distance btltween Buildin~s on a lot I 0 feet
Min. Percent of Open Soace No requirement
Lot I 3.344
Allowable External FAR Lot 2: 5.0 I 5. where the free market residence is
allowed up to 3.5 I 5. and the Category 7 unit must
be at least 1 .500 S(lUare feet
Minimum Off-Street Parkin1!: Lesser of one space/bedroom or two spaces/unit
Section 3: Condominiumization
Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject
to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat
requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by
the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall
be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of
the condominium.
Section 4: DuiIdine: Permit Submittal
The following conditions are applicable to this approval.
I. The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final recorded ordinance.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building
permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and
any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site
replacement or mitigation of any removed trees.
e. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction
fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of
adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures
necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line.
f. The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports
performed by a qualified, licensed engineer to the Community
Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is
suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required
excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street.
g. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a
Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and
debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge
system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to
correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used
in designing any drainage improvements.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community
Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have
been read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an
alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks
Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the
agreement.
3. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building
Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the
State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building
Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report.
If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos
is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it.
4. All development within the subdivision shall meet the Residential Design
Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410, unless variances
from said standards are granted.
Section 5: Utility and Service Conditions of Approval
The following conditions are applicable to this approval.
I. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal
Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
2. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines.
3. The Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to
application for a building permit.
4. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering
Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road,
and in the approximate location shown on the Final PUD plans.
5. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
6. All utility connections shall be buried.
Section 6: Ene:ineerine: Requirements and Conditions:
The following conditions are applicable to this approval.
I. The Applicant and contractors are hereby notified that there will be no
construction material or dumpsters stored on the public rights-of-way
unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer.
2. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan as part of the
building permit application, and the management plans shall include a
noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking
management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues:
a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated
impacts on local streets; and
b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no
other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The
city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport
parking area.
3. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction.
A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during
construction.
4. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form
acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for
excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also schedule
the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water
tap.
5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is
limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday.
Section 7: Environmental Health
The following conditions are applicable to this approval.
1. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on
the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed,
placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of
the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or
Federal transportation and disposal permits.
2. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with
City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment
of existing septic system.
3. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited
numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant
must tile a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building
permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor
may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling
storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection
regulations that specify closures for dumpsters and other containers.
Section 8: Lie:htine:
All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time.
Section 9: Landscapine: Improvements
The following conditions are applicable to this approval.
I. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements as
set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on
Public Right-of-Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be
approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The
Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment license from the City
Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or
improvements in the public right-of-way.
2. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip
line of any trees to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of
the foundation as approved by the Parks Department.
a. The Parks Department must inspect and approve of the fence
location before any construction activities commence.
b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction
equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be
allowed within the fenced drip line.
Section 10: EmpIovee Housine:
The following conditions are applicable to this approval.
1. Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be a deed-restricted, for-sale unit
designated Category 7. Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office,
either as a single-family lot with accompanying development right, or as a
completed residential unit.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or
similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable
housing units.
3. A deed-restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
4. The ADU on Lot I shall be deed-restricted prior to building permit approval;
if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to
building permit approval, pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
Section 11: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Zoning Otlicer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee
schedule in efTect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide
the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of
structures on the site.
Section 12: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall
calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at
the time of building permit submittal.
Section 13:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 14:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 15:
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.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder.
Section 16:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of February, 2006, at a
meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 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 February, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Aspen City Council on this day,
February 27, 2006.
Approved as to form:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
City Attorney
I
/
I
;
! /
I "
, I
I "!
11(1
! ) JI~
/ II1I
I' <-,' ! I
~I' ' / /( ( ,
~_ j)P /I) \'
rt~ jUnl/ h \ \ \~
) j,/// / (~. 111\'
~.. ;\ / I // I\"f
\ / ,"' ./..-"."...",...,./ II,
, ..'- (/ "'~ ~\v 1\1
,,'" " .A'''/' ...'~ ,'"
,~ yru! \ ~/ · ..1/,11%
, / ,\ ll:.:.vY ,'\ · Ilim'll\
, . <n> g: c"'! ,.I \ I,' \
~.. r)(t.. co''> .",,\ ./'?"'" \'\\11 \
A / . \ ......A.... \ \ III,
'# / /,(/ / \' ,?' /- '1\'"
~;;':;W>>;;-l~ .. ;i17//o'.\~~i;/ !' \\~.'\
~/ /~ / l,l~\
. ~ ,/ .' \. \
~ ,/ \
. /' '" / /' ..
. ~ /___ ~ / /, _ . __.-~~-",,~c"=j~')I/
/ ,_ /' ,o' ,,/'/'// ~.' .C'.:-~~-,-~/'--a'l
. ~~ ./c/ ~/~_=~.---C;'-"'/>'~
, /~ /' ~ /-,-----~-.-"
, ..:..-:::::' ~~~~:n'
a.;.
'0
!,g
Oil'
B
~ ~ "'I"
?Ii > !;i::
m
>
G~~~ ~
~t71g: g:
~~~ ~
en
~
ill
m
'"
~
'"
~
~
m
m ~I~
""'-
CO
CO
~ ~ ,.
~ -~
~Imi~~~~i ~
cnUlcng:ooo ~
"T1"T1"'11~~~(/J en
- ~ ~
i'i en -
055
rn "'tI "'0
'" m m
'" '"
m ~ ,
6; l? :!!l
m l! "
it " -
m -
z
:;j
(')
).
Ci)
-;
r-
III
(')
::u
III
III
;;.;
::u
o
):,.
I:J
~ f I:
~ . =
. " ..
~ ! i
i ~ I
i f ~
~ m
~ i
i
g
.
[
UH~~o~J' ~
i~ ~a~~ f f !c~ !~~ ~E'
~,~~s: QQ]~~~"~
i =t~~ !I~ !~~ i~q
f ~i~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1.1
i"S IH fU ~~.
"~f ~p ~. H
i ni ~~! Ii U
~",i H 11 ~~
$l" l ~ ef
~f I i
i i
E
l-
i
I
i
a
.
5'
r
,
f
~
a
.
5'
J
c
,
"
it
~
a
a
I
! jE C
s ::Ie. SO
~ CI 3 i
"II I~ ~
! ;a Ii
Iii S
~ ~
i "
i ~
! &
E 0
i r
c .
, "
. ~
i f
c
j'
I
.
1:;<
~-
I1Q
",:?;
;:l::;!
m
~~
m"
"
~
~ ~
i ~ ~~ ~
f ~.~ ~
iil 88 ~
: Jg!G c:
:: .. 0
t ,.
;. II
,
i
I
"T1
-
Z~
)>eo
reo
:-00
C)>
. en
~-i
Qo~
r()
0;0
-im
enm
""O^
C;o
-iO
""0)>
ro
)>
Z
~
.
~
'"
[;;
~~E
s;!<e!
!Ie?tr-
!E ...
.
~
~.
n'
'"
[;; ~
S1~~
s";P
rnQIo?
Exhibit A
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD.
A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or
Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. The burden
shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application,
and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title.
A. General requirements.
I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findin\!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard,
Managing Growth: The proposed development is within the Urban Growth Boundary,
Transportation: The proposed development is across the street from a RFT A bus stop and
adjacent to the Marolt Trail.
Housing: The proposed development provides a deed-restricted, single-family lot/unit.
Economic Sustainabilitv: The size of this modest proposal does not provide an impact
regarding Economic Sustainability,
Parks, Open Space & the Environment: The proposed development will replace overhead
utility poles/lines, a septic system, and an above-ground propane tank with underground
connections to public electric, sewer and natural gas, These changes eliminate negative
visual impacts in an important travel corridor and remove a septic system located in
relatively close proximity to Castle Creek.
Historic Preservation: The existing building is not a historic resource,
Design Qualitv: Instead of developing the property with one large single-family structure
of some 5,035 square feet (plus garage), the proposal will result in a development that
breaks up the available floor area into three separate structures, which is contextually
more appropriate for this neighborhood.
Arts, Culture & Education: The size of this modest proposal does not provide an impact
regarding Arts, Culture & Education.
2. The proposed development shall he consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area,
Staff Findin\!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, The medium-density
residential use is an appropriate intermediate use, located between institutional and high-
density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone
districts to the south.
3, The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area,
Staff Findin\!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The area to the north,
east and west of this site is substantially built-out, and the area to the south is under the
purview of Pitkin County, A review of this proposal by the Pitkin County Community
Development Department resulted in no objections.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exemptfrom
GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development
and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan
review.
Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. As part of the
concurrent request for a Lot Split, applicant will be eligible for an Administrative Growth
Management Review 26.470.040B, which further provides that the one additional
allotment would not be deducted from the Annual Development Allotments or
Development Ceilings, 26.470,040(B)I.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
Thefinal PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements .lor all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445,040,
above, The dimensional requirements olthe underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions .lor the PUD, During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall he emphasized. The proposed dimensional
requirements shall comply with thefilllowing:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements .lor the subject property are appropriate and
compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of: and compatihility with, existing and expectedfuture land uses in the
surrounding area,
Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, The medium-density
residential use is an appropriate intermediate density, located between institutional and
high-density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County
zone districts to the south.
b) Natural or man-made hazards,
Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard.
Regarding wildfire hazard, the site was rated, "Low Hazard: Brush" by Rocky Mountain
Ecological Services. In addition, the response time to this site for emergency services is
short.
Regarding geological hazard, the steep slopes at the north and east edges of the property
were found to be well vegetated with no loose boulders, according to a Geologic Hazard
Assessment by Geologic and Natural Resource Consultants, In addition, the potential
hazard posed by the existing steep slopes can be mitigated by further soil testing, grading
and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures,
Regarding other hazards, the report notes that the property is not subject to rockfall;
swelling or hydro-compactive soils or bedrock; alluvial fan; landslide; talus slope; near-
surface bedrock; high ground water; or Mancos shale geologic hazards.
A subsoil study by HP Geotech based on an analysis of existing conditions made several
recommendations regarding foundation and retaining wall design, floor slabs, drainage
systems and site grading.
The site is covered by 12 teet of fill, presumably from the construction of the adjacent
Castle Creek Road. However, there is the potential that other hazardous materials were
dumped at the site. A condition of approval will make any clean-up and removal the
responsibility of the applicant.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep
slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms,
Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard.
The potential hazard posed by the existing steep slopes can be mitigated by further soil
testing, grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. There are no
significant waterways on this property, and vegetation consists largely of grass and brush.
The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the
very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed,
d) Existing and proposed man.made characteristics of the property and the surrounding
area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical
resources.
Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard,
The existing man-made characteristics of the property are represented by approximately
12 teet of fill. The proposal would excavate this layer and backfill where appropriate. The
medium-density nature of this proposal will not have a significant impact regarding
noise, traffic or parking, The site is located near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. There
are no historical resources in the immediate area,
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open
,Ipace and site coverage appropriate andfavorable to the character of the proposed PUD
and o{'the surrounding area,
Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The PUD variations
sought from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R- I 5A zoning are for
minimum lot size (Lot 1 only), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and front yard
setback for Lot I,
It is important to review the differences between the PUD proposal and the two use-by-
right scenarios. One use-by-right option under R- I 5A/PUD zoning would allow for the
development of one free-market home at 5,035 square feet, with an Accessory Dwelling
Unit as small as 300 square feet or a cash-in-lieu payment. The second use-by-right
option is a duplex at 5.455 square feet, with one free market unit at 3,955 square feet and
one R.O. unit at ] ,500 square feet. Clearly, the most favorable use-by-right option from
an economic perspective is to build one single-family home and an ADU, which does not
carry a significant deed restriction compared to the R.O. unit; the single-family use-by-
right option would also provide 780 additional free market square footage.
Comparing the use-by-right option of the single-family home/ADU to the current PUD
proposal, it becomes clear that the current PUD proposal creates a clear community
benefit.
Free Market FAR
Deed-Restricted FAR
includes minimum 300 s.f. AD
Single-Family 4,735 300
Use-by-right
Current proposal 6,550 ],800
Difference + 1,815 + 1,500
U)
In addition, the current proposal would allow for two free market homes at 3,335 s.f. and
3,515 s.f. and one deed-restricted home at 1,500 s,f., rather than one free market home
(including an ADU) at 5,035 s.L The current proposal would result in a more appropriate
scale of home for this neighborhood, while also breaking up the massing that is allowed
by right on this lot.
3, The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the
following considerations.
aJ The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including
any non-residential land uses,
Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, At least two spaces
per residence will be provided,
b) The varying time periody of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed
Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no common
parking proposed for this three-unit residential development.
c) The availability OfIJUblic transit and other transportation facilities, including thosefor
pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive
techniques in the proposed development,
Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed
development is near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the city.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed
development is near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may
be reduced it:
aJ There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to
service the proposed development
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does
not request a reduction in density.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensurefire protection, snow removal, and road
maintenance to the proposed development,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, The proposal does
not request a reduction in density.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural
hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may
he reduced it:
aJ The land is not suitahlefor the proposed development hecause of ground instahility or
the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, The proposal does
not request a reduction in density,
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due
to runoff drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does
not request a reduction in density,
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does
not request a reduction in density.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatihle with the terrain or causes harmful
disturhance to critical naturalfeatures of the site.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does
not request a reduction in density,
6, The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased i{there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development
pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's
physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density o{ a PUD may be increased i{
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals o{the community as expressed in
the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the
property is subject.
Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This proposal would
meet a significant community goal by providing for a 1,500 s.f. deed-restricted R.O. unit
as required by Section 26.4760.040(b)I. In addition, staff is recommending a condition of
approval requiring the unit be designated as Category 7 under the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, thereby establishing a greater community benefit. A
condition of approval will require the net livable area to be a minimum of 2,000, as
proposed by the applicant.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists
no negative physical characteristics o{the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5,
above, those areas can be avoided. or those characteristics mitigated.
Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, The steep slopes at
the north and east edges on this site can be effectively mitigated by further soil testing,
grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with,
and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern,
land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density
residential use is an appropriate intermediate density, located between institutional and
high-density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County
zone districts to the south.
C. Site Design.
The purpose o{this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
,Ipaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a ,Ipecijic rejerence to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are
preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findine:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard, This site does not
feature any existing natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific
reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and
vistas,
Staff FindiDl!: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The proposed
development preserves the vista from Castle Creek Road by locating structures at a
substantially lower grade relative to the road.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural
context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement o/vehicular and
pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard, There is no existing
development plan, but future development must comply with Residential Design
Standards.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service
vehicle access.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Existing conditions
which consists of a single curb cut at the north edge of the site, close to the Marolt Trail
crosswalk and RFTA bus stop. The proposal is an improvement upon existing conditions
from a safety standpoint, featuring a single curb cut at the center of the property, allowing
for improved sight lines and removing potential conflicts with the Marolt Trail crosswalk
and RFT A bus stop. There are adequate internal roads to access the proposed structures.
The proposal was reviewed by the Fire Marshall,
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The site has easy
access to the Marolt Trail, which leads to a RFT A bus stop. Handicapped access will be
addressed via the Building Code.
6. Site drainage is accommodatedfor the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties,
Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. An adequate
drainage plan will be a condition of future development.
7, For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to
accommodate any programmaticfimctions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. This is a residential
proposal.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose oj'this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed
features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
i. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate,
Staff Findinl!:: A landscape plan has not been prepared to date as individual home
designs have not yet been undertaken. The most significant vegetation resides in the
Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast comer of the property, outside
of areas to be developed. The applicant accepts a condition of approval requiring
submittal of individual landscape plans for review and approval of the Community
Development Director with each residential building permit. Any removed trees will be
mitigated according to City requirements.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made sitefiwtures, which provide uniqueness and
interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findinl!:: StatI finds the proposal complies with this standard. Significant
vegetation occurs in the Castle Creek Road right of way and in the far northeast comer of
the property, outside of developable areas. Other vegetation consists of grasses and brush,
There are no significant man. made site features,
3. The proposed method oj'protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. A landscape plan has
not been prepared to date as individual home designs have not yet been undertaken. The
most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very
northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. The applicant accepts a
condition of approval requiring submittal of individual landscape plans for review and
approval of the Community Development Director with each residential building permit.
Any removed trees will be mitigated according to City requirements,
E. Architectural Character.
it is the purpose oj'this standard is to encourage architectural interest, 'variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while
promoting efficient use oj'resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability
oj'a buildingfor its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building'sproposed
massing. proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use oj'
materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the
proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an
architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed
development, The proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to
existing and proposed architecture o{the property, represent a character suitable for,
and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources,
Staff Findilll!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Compliance
,
with applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards will be
required and will guarantee consistency with this standard.
2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage
of'the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use o{non- or less-intensive
mechanical systems,
Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Architectural and
mechanical plans have not yet been prepared for the project. By using existing
topography in accordance with the recommendations of the soils and geologic analyses,
significant portions of the resulting residences will be located below grade. This will
ensure natural cooling. The site plan also ensures adequate solar access/heating for each
building site.
3. accommodate the storage and shedding o{snow, ice, and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The twenty- five foot
setback area along the Castle Creek Road frontage will provide an area of approximately
9,700 square feet that can accommodate snow storage. There is currently no development
plan, but the appropriate shedding of snow, ice and water, as well as water/drainage
storage issues must be addressed in the Building Permit process.
F. Lighting.
The purpose o{this standard to ensure the exterior o{the development will be lighted in
an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns,
ThefiJl/owing standardv shal/ be accomplished:
1. AI/lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any
kind to adjoining streets or lands, Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is
proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findin2: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The
development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use
Code, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(F), Residential Lighting Standards.
Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard.
Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of
adjoining streets or lands,
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features,
buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is
prohibitedfor residential development,
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The
development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use
Code, and specifically with Section 26,575,150(F), Residential Lighting Standards.
Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard.
Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of
adjoining streets or lands.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall
he met:
I. The proposed amount, location, and design olthe common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features olthe property, provides
visual relief to the property's builtform, and is available to the mutual benefit of the
various land uses and property users of the PUD,
Staff Findinl!:: There is no open space requirement in the R-I5A Zone District.
No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD,
rendering thise standard inapplicable.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded
in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the
PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner,
Staff Findinl!:: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District.
No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD,
rendering this standards inapplicable.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrumentfor the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and sharedfacilities
together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial
development,
Staff Findinl!:: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No
designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part ofthe PUD,
rendering this standards inapplicable.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
hurden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified/inancial burden. The proposed utilities and public/acilities associated with
the development shall comply with the.fallowing:
1. Adequate public infrastructure.facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The project site
benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development.
The existing home on the site is served with electric, telephone, cable and City water.
The septic system will be removed and connection to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District (ACSD) service will be made. The above-ground propane tank will be removed
and underground connection with Kinder Morgan natural gas service will be made. The
cost of all necessary utility upgrades and extensions will be borne by the applicant.
Historic drainage rates will be maintained after development. The roads serving the
project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located
on a public road, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire
protection. The development will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any
public facilities or services,
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the
necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. While no adverse
impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the applicant will bear the costs of any
necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions,
3. Oversized utilities, puhlic.facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately
and where the developer is reimhursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Applicant has
consulted with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Aspen Water
Department, and jointly determined that no over-sizing of utilities will be necessary.
Applicant will fund extension of existing service lines in the area.
I. Access and Circulation.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly hurden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail/acilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a puhlic
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other
area dedicated to puhlic or private use,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The existing
driveway to the site enters at the property's northwest corner, near the Marolt Trail
crosswalk and the RFT A bus stop. The proposal involves a single point of access at the
midpoint of the western property line, improving sight lines and removing potential
confEcts with the crosswalk and bus stop. The shared access easement will be twenty
(20) feet in width, allowing for driveway function and pedestrian or bicycle movement
between the lots and Castle Creek Road. The shared driveway would split in three
directions to serve each ofthe homes,
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not
create trafjic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surroundinf!, roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The subject
property can be developed as a use-by-right with a single-family unit and ADD or a
duplex; the current proposal will allow for three single-family units, The surrounding
roads can safely accommodate the additional traffic without any improvements.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of,' or connections
to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to sif!,nificant public
lands and the rivers are provided throuf!,h dedicated public trail easements and are
proposedfor appropriate improvements and maintenance,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This site is not
adjacent to any significant public lands and rivers. The adjacent Marolt Ranch
Subdivision maintains Castle Creek frontage and easements for existing trails. This site
benefits from but is not directly connected to any historic pedestrian, bicycle or
recreational trails. Future residents at this site may reach the Marolt Trail via a public
right of way along Castle Creek Road.
4. The recommendations of the A.\pen Area Community Plan and adopted specijic plans
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are
proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, There are no
recommended plans in the AACP or adopted specific plans regarding the implementation
of recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths with regard to this property,
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private
ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and
emergency access,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no streets
in this PUD proposal, only a shared access easements, which allows access for
emergency vehicles.
6, Security [<ates, RUard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, orfor lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no security
gates, guard posts or entryway expressions proposed.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose o/this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts 0/ an
individual phase are miti[<ated adequately. 1/ phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adoptedfinal PUD development plan The
phasin[< plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is not a
phasing plan proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence
on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market
residence on the Lot.
2. The phasin[< plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants oj'initial phasesfi'om the construction of/ater phases,
Staff Findinl!: StafT finds the proposal complies with this standard. No phasing
plan is proposed, A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on
Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market
residence on the Lot.
3. The proposed phasin[< plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
publicfacilities, payment of impact fees andfees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to
be usedjointly hy residents o/the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing,
and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase,
Staff Findinl!: StafT finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no phasing
plan proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2
to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence
on the Lot. The necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of
impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents
of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation
measures will be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with
those payments, improvements or construction work,
26.480.030(A)2 Exemptions / Lot Split
The underlying R- 15A Zone District allows the development of two detached dwellings;
the proposed lot split enables the development of an additional single-family dwelling.
The split of'a lot for the purpose of'the development of'one additional detached single-
family dwelling on a lotformed by a lot split granted subsequent to Novemher 14. 1977,
is exemptfromfilll suhdivision review provided all ofthefollowing conditions are met:
a, The land is not located in a suhdivision approved by either the Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described
as a metes and bounds parcel which has not he en subdivided after the
adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969,'
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property was annexed
into the City of Aspen in 1980 as a metes and bounds parcel. It is not located in a
subdivision.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470,040(B)(l)).
Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this condition is met. The proposal would create two
lots where only one currently exists, The resulting lots will conform to the
dimensional requirements of the adopted Final PUD development plan for the
site. Development on the resulting lots will mitigate for affordable housing
pursuant to Section 26.470,040(B)(l). Lot I will include an accessory dwelling
unit or the applicable affordable housing impact fee (cash-in-lieu) will be paid.
Development on Lot 2 will satisfy atTordable housing mitigation requirements by
virtue of providing one deed restricted single-family dwelling unit, designated as
Category 7, with a minimum floor area of 1,500 square feet and a minimum net
livable area of 2,000 square feet.
c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption
pursuant to Section 26. 47Ii.04IJ(A}(4)}.
Staff Findinl!:: StatT tinds this condition is met. The subject property has never
been the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this (26.480)
chapter or a lot split exemption.
d, A subdivision plat which meets the terms of'this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of'this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no filrther
suhdivision may he granted for these lots nor will additional units he huilt
without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth
management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26,] 00,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. A Plat will be reviewed by the
Community Development and Engineering Departments for approval and
recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The Plat will include
notes explaining that further subdivision is prohibited unless applicable
approvals are obtained, and that any and all additional development must
comply with the applicable provisions ofthe Code.
e, Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the
office of the Pitkin County clerk and recurder. Failure on the part of the applicant to
record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City
Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City
Council will be requiredjiJr a showing of good cause.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The language of this criterion is a
condition of approval.
f In the case where an existinf!, single,family dwellinf!, occupies a site which is elif!,ible
jiJr a lot elplit, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split.
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property contains an
existing residence, The existing residence will be demolished prior to
development of either resulting lot; however, the existing residence will
remain through the lot split application review process and final platting
pursuant to the rights afforded under this standard.
g. Maximum potential build-out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed ofa duplex and a sinf!,le-family home,
Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The proposed lot split will create
two lots; Lot 1 will be developed with a detached single-family home and Lot 2
will be developed with two detached single-family homes (sharing the allowable
floor area for a duplex). A June 1998 formal code interpretation by the
Community Development Director in association with the 920 West Hallam
Street approvals allows a duplex to be expressed as two single-family homes.
"
I! '.
I'.
,I
'[
i[
:i
II
iI
"
I
,
I
All in favor, "motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1980 - Celia Marolt Annexation
&~'=b':f-
IS
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE # 11
(Series of 1980)
AN'ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF
1965 ~as read by the city clerk
Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the origin
al planning office recommendation was to zone it R-lSA. There was some concern that an
R-15A without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elimin-
ating possible employee units on the site. R-lSA as a single lot, a duplex would be
permitted with the second unit deed restricted; however, on a 36,000 square foot parcel,
the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to create
two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event. a
lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which is
being annexed, is recommended R-lSA mandatory PUD, and the mandatory PUD designation
should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduction formula;
this formula recognizes that steeply sloped 'sites are less developable and should have
less density potential. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20,000 squa
feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office feels the PUD designation.
should be added.
Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there might be a bandit unit in the build- '~
ing at this 'time and asked if staff had checked this out. Wells answered this has not
been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the
applicant, told Council this has never been used as a duplex; it is not set up like that.
veIls told Council the PUD designation has been applied to the adjacent site for the same
~easons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Council
'he P & Z hod recommended R-1SA with restriction against subdivision of the lot, so that
'he effect is basically the same, Oates said the applicant felt there were some advantage
,f coming into the city at the R-IS designation. Their zoning request was R-ISA without
he PUD. P & Z recommended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that
here was not a lot split, Oates said he would like to have the right to come back and
o through the subdivision process; however, he agreed not to avail Ordinornce #3, which is
utomatic lot split, Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unannexed
f the city does not get the benefit of the employee unit.
ity Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a zone'some-
hing which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the zone. To
=strict R-ISA would be subject to challenge. Stock recommended R-ISA/PUD. Councilman
5aac. said he felt the Council should go with planning office and attorneys recorrunendation
luncilman Isaac mOved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1980, as amended with PUD added
1 Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins,
ly; Parry; aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. .Hotion
lrried.
MEMORANDUM
e)(~ibif
C
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
Christopher Bendon, Planner ~
488 Castle Creek Rezoning - Public Hearing
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
May 18, 1999
SUMMARY:
The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre parcel ofland
currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's POO overlay is intended to
provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep slope and reduces the
aHowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is unique to parcels with a PUD
overlay and does !lot apply to other single-family properties. The slope reduction for this
parcel eliminates the possibility of applying for a lot split, limiting the current development
opportunities to a single-family residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to
affordable housing. Removing the PUD designatio!l would aHow the 'property owner to
apply for a Lot Split. '.
In 1980, the already developed parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and rezoned to the
R15-A ZOne district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property, according to the
Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot and to ensure the
existence of an employee unit on-site if the property were redeveloped as a duplex. It is
apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the community benefit of the parcel either
remaining a single,family home or adding one affordable unit over the development of two
free-market lots after a lot split. I
There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density Zone
district, However, staff believes changing the zoning to aHow more development should only
be considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community _ such as
affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the land use code, such as requiring ADU's with
lot split applications; have made progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent
benefii to the community. Staffbelievesany changes to the zoning of this parcel should be
associated with a higher degree, of community benefit, as required by growth management
review or as provided for in the AHl.PUD Zone District.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of
denial to City Council for removing the PUD overlay from this parceL
, APPLICANT:
Paul Anderson,
LOCATION:
488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.) ,
1
MEMORANDUM
Vl\b
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~W\
Joyce A. Allg~ty Director of Community Development
I
First Reading of Ordinance No.J!2......, Series of 2006, Boomerang Vacant
Parcel Rezoning and Lot Split
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
February 13,2006
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC
LOCATION: South side of West Hopkins Avenue between 4th and SUI Streets,
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2735- I 24-66-00 I
CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District with a PUD and
Lodge Preservation Overlay.
PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone District.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests to rezone the subject property from the R- 15 Zone District to the R-
6 Zone District in order to split the parcel into two (2) parcels for the construction of three
(3) detached residential dwelling units.
ApPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE:
The subject property is currently vacant but has PUD approval and vested rights to
construct seventeen (17) lodging bedrooms in seven (7) lodge units and two (2) affordable
housing units,
P&Z AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions,
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property located on the south side of West Hopkins
Avenue between South 4th and South 5th Street from the R-IS (Moderate-Density
Residential) Zone District with a PUD and Lodge Preservation Overlay to the R-6 (Medium-
Density Residential) Zone District. Their goal is to perform a lot split to create two (2)
parcels of land for the construction of three (3) detached single. family residential units. The
parcels to be created would be as follows:
· Lot I would be 12,237 square feet in size with two detached single-family residences;
. Lot 2 would be 7.500 square feet in size with one single-family residence;
. Vehicular access to Lot I is proposed from the 4th Street stub and vehicular access to Lot
2 is proposed from W. Hopkins Avenue.
This parcel of land has PUD approval and vested rights to construct an expansion of the
Boomerang Lodge that would consist of seventeen (17) lodging bedrooms and two (2)
affordable housing units. As part of the associated lot split application, the Applicant would
forfeit the development rights associated with the approved PUD upon recordation of the lot
split plat at the conclusion of the review.
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning and Lot Split (Two Step Review), The Applicant has requested the ability to
combine the review of the rezoning and lot split requests pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.304.060(B)(I), Combined Reviews, The Community Development Director has
determined that it would be appropriate for the review of the rezoning and lot split requests to
be combined to ensure clarity in the final decision. That being the case, the Planning and
Zoning Commission is the recommending body to City Council on both the rezoning and lot
split requests. The associated growth management exemptions for development on
properties created by a lot split are to be reviewed by the Community Development Director
pursuant to the review procedures set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(1),
Administrative Growth Management Review: Detached single:family or duplex dwelling
units. (The PUD section of the land use code exempts single-family and duplex
development on properties that have a PUD overlay from requiring a PUD amendment,
regardless of whether the property has an approved site-specific development plan as this
property does,)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Rezoninz and Lot Solit:
Several of the properties adjacent to the subject property are zoned R-I5, which is the zone
district in which the subject property is currently located. Of these properties that are zoned
R-I5, hardly any of them are developed in conformance with the R-I5 zone district's uses
and dimensional requirements. That being said, the majority of the properties in the
neighborhood are zoned R-6, including the Boomerang Lodge parcel that is located directly
across W. Hopkins Avenue. Staff does not find that the proposed rezoning would create a
spot zoning situation in that the R-6 zoning is found in the neighborhood.
In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning,
there are a couple of scena;ios to consider.
· With the PROPOSED lot and zone change, the Applicant the property could yield
three (3) moderatelv-sized single-family residential structures,
(Specifically, a single-family residence of 3,450 square feet of FAR on Lot I and two (2)
detached residences equaling a total of 4,274 square feet (two structures of 2,137 square
feet if allocated equally by the Applicant) of FAR on Lot 2,)
VERSUS
· Under CURRENT zoning, the Applicant could construct one very large single-family
residence or duplex by right as an alternative to building the lodging PUD that has
vested rights,
2
(Specifically a single-family residence of 4,784 square feet of FAR or an attached duplex of
5,204 square feet of FAR.)
Staff feels that allowing for three (3) smaller residences to be constructed on the property
instead of one large house or duplex will reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site,
which Staff believes is consistent with the intent of some of the residential design standards
that are in the City's land use code. Moreover, Staff believes that the proposed rezoning
and lot split would allow for a pattern of residential development that is more consistent
with the pattern of residential development in the neighborhood in that the other R-15
parcels located on the block range between 6,000 and 12,000 square feet and contain
structures of between 1,696 square feet and 4,323 square feet of FAR.
. 431 West Hopkins- 4,323 sq. feet of floor area
. 413 West Hopkins- 3,452 sq. feet of floor area
. 205 S. Third- 1,696 sq. feet of floor area
Additionally, the majority of the R-6 zoned properties in the immediate area are between
6,000 and 12,000 square feet, a size consistent with the proposed lots.
Vehicular Access:
As was described above, the Applicant has proposed to gain vehicular access to Lot 1 from
the South 41h Street stub located adjacent to the property. For Lot 2, the Applicant
proposes to take vehicular access from West Hopkins Avenue through a new curb cut.
Staff believes that there will be potential pedestrian/vehicular conflicts no matter where the
Applicant chooses to take access to the lots since a pedestrian trail surrounds the fathering
parcel in both the 4'h Street and Hopkins Avenue Right-of-Ways.
The Planning Staff and the Parks Department believe that the access configuration proposed
by the Applicant for Lot 1 is the most sensible configuration in that the trail adjacent to W.
Hopkins gets more traffic than the trail that crosses 41h Street. Therefore, Staff
recommends that the proposed access configuration included in the addendum to the
application be approved, Staff has further proposed a condition of approval in the attached
resolution, requiring that the two (2) single-family residential units on Lot 2 share a
driveway so that only one curb cut is necessary for this lot, thereby lessening the potential
vehicular/pedestrian conflicts to the greatest extent practical. The Applicant has worked
with both the Planning and Parks Department Staff to come up with an access location that
will not reduce the number off-street parking spaces,
A condition of approval has also been included in the proposed ordinance that requires the
Applicant to take some mitigation measures to make sure that trail users are made aware
that the proposed driveway to Lot I crosses the trail before they come upon it. These
mitigation measures include limiting the height of vegetation that can be planted adjacent to
the driveway so that a sight triangle for motorists exiting the lot is maintained where the
driveway crosses the trail. Additionally, a condition of approval is proposed requiring that
the Applicant relocate the existing trail sign to the south side of the proposed driveway to
Lot 1 and install a sign meeting the Parks Department's approval on the back side of the
existing sign to indicate the presence of the driveway.
3
GMOS lmvlications:
The Applicant has concurrently applied for an administrative growth management review
for the development of a single-family residence, multiple detached single-family dwelling
units, or a duplex on a lot created by a lot split pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26,470.040(B)(I), Administrative Growth Management Review: Detached single-family or
duplex dwelling units.
For a SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE to be constructed on a lot created by a lot split,
one of the following mitigation measures is provided:
a) Provide an above grade, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage
House pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses; Of,
b) Provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit, or a Carriage House, authorized through
Special Review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to
Section 26.520; or,
c) Provide an off-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area
accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended; or,
d) Pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or
e) Record a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling
unit being constructed.
For a DUPLEX OR TWO (2) DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS to be
constructed on a lot created by a lot split, one of the following mitigation measures is
provided:
a) Provide one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident- Occupied
(RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet; or,
b) Provide either two above grade, detached Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage
Houses (or one of each), or one above grade, detached ADU or Carriage House
with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant
to Section 26.520; or,
c) Provide either two Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage Houses (or one of each)
or one ADU or Carriage House with a minimum of 600 net livable square feet
authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or partially or fully
subgrade, pursuant to Section 26.520; or,
d) Provide an off-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area
accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended; or,
e) Provide two deed restricted Resident-Occupied (RO) dwelling units; or
4
t) Pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
The Applicant has proposed to either construct an ADU for each of the units within the
lot split or pay a cash-in-lieu fee. That being the case, the Community Development
Director will process an administrative growth management approval after the conclusion of
the rezoning and lot split review requiring that the Applicant mitigate for the units to be
constructed within the subdivision in one of the acceptable manners set forth above.
Trail Easement:
The Parks Department has requested that the Applicant grant a four (4) foot wide public
trail easement along the west side property line and along the southernmost four (4) feet of
Lot 2 for approximately ninety (90) feet to widen the existing trail. The Parks Department
has also requested that the Applicant grant a little more than four (4) feet around the
southwest corner of Lot 2 to allow for an easier turning radius for the trail. The Applicant
has agreed in the application addendum to grant the requested easement as long as it does
not impact the allowable FAR on the parcels. Staff has included a condition of approval
requiring that the Applicant grant the trail easement with the exact final location of the
easement to be approved by the Parks Department and shown on the subdivision exemption
plat.
Contaminated Soils:
During the review of the lodge expansion that was previously proposed and approved on
the site, Staff placed conditions requiring mitigation for contaminated soils with the
expectation that soils containing mine waste would be found on the site, The Applicant has
since had soils tests completed on the property that indicate that the property does not
contain contaminated soils. Therefore, Staff has not required mine waste mitigation
measures in the conditions of approval.
Vacation of Lodze PUD Avvrovals:
Staff is not excited about the fact that the Applicant is not looking to pursue the
development of the lodging approvals that are in place for the site given that the City has
lost a considerable amount of lodging beds over the past decade. However, Staff believes
that the Applicant could develop the property with a large single-family residence or duplex
by right since single-family and duplex development is exempt from a PUD amendment on
properties with a PUD overlay pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.020, PUD,'
Applicability. Staff believes that this proposal to rezone the property and obtain a lot split
approval will provide a more appropriate pattern of residential development than
constructing one large single-family residence or duplex on the property as is discussed
above. Through a condition of approval, Staff has reinforced that the Applicant will forfeit
the vested PUD approval upon recording of a lot split plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set
forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310,040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and
Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map.
Statf further finds that the lot split request satisfies the lot split requirements set forth in
5
Land Use Code Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Lot split. Staff recormnends that the City
Council approve the requested rezoning and lot split with the conditions contained therein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. b , Series of 2006, approving the rezoning of the
"Boomerang Parcel" located on the south side of West Hopkins Avenue between South 4th
Street and South 5th Street from the R-15 Zone District with a PUD and Lodge Preservation
Overlay to the R-6 Zone District and approve a lot split to divide the parcel into Lots 1 and
2 of the Boomerang Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B .- Application and Addendum (Section III)
Exhibit C -- Current Zoning & Vicinity Map
Exhibit D - P&Z Resolution No.3, Series of 2006 & Minutes for Second Reading
6
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
REZONING
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
StatIFinding
Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of
the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning will allow for a pattern of residential
development that is more consistent with the residential development pattern that exists in
the neighborhood than the underlying R-15 zoning that currently exists. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
AACP. As is described in the memo, Staff would prefer to see the lodging approvals that
are in place be acted upon. However, the Applicant has a right to develop one large single-
family residence or duplex on the site as an alternative to constructing the lodge approvals
that are in place. Staff believes that the proposed rezoning and lot split would yield a more
consistent pattern of residential development with that of the neighboring area. Staff further
feels that the proposal will likely yield a better distribution of massing on the property than
that of the existing residential development scheme that would be allowed on the site, which
is consistent with the design objectives established in the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding
The subject property abuts land that is zoned R-6, Park, and R-15, so the proposed rezoning
application would not create a spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site
would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the
staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in
that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex
residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant impact on traffic
generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would add at most the ability to
construct only one residential unit that counts towards allowable density above that which is
allowed under the current zoning. Additionally, the Applicant does have vested rights on the
property to construct seventeen (17) lodging bedrooms and two (2) affordable housing units,
which would generate considerably more traffic than the proposed development plan of three
(3) free market residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result
of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant
adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and
neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a more consistent
pattern of residential development with the remainder of the properties in the neighborhood
than is currently allowed on the site, . Staff further feels that the proposal will likely allow for
the massing of residential units on the site to be spread out over the entire property. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has argued that the recent development in the surrounding area is more
consistent with the development allowances in the R-6 Zone District than the R-15 Zone
District. Additionally, the Applicant has come to the realization that expanding the
Boomerang Lodge across the street is not viable for their operations so they are now looking
8
to develop the subject property as a residential use, which they could do by right. Staff
believes that the residential development pattern that would likely result from the proposed
rezoning would be appropriate with the mass spread out in separate structures over the entire
parcel as opposed to getting one larger structure on the site under the current zoning. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the
purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
9
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development on a lot formed by a lot split granted
subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following criteria are met:
A. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin
County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land
is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided
after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on
March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Staff Finding
The property subject to the proposed lot split is not within a previously executed
subdivision since the subdivision plat associated with the vested timeshare lodge project
was never recorded, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to
the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which
development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to
Section 26.470.040(B)(I).
Staff Finding
There will be no more than two lots created by this lot split, Lots I and 2 of the Boomerang
Lot Split. Both of the lots will conform to the R-6 Zone District in which the associated
rezoning application proposes to rezone the fathering parcel to. The Applicant can at most
develop a single-family residential dwelling unit on Lot I and two detached residential
dwelling units on Lot 2 because of the density requirements of the underlying zoning. To
obtain administrative growth management review approval to develop each of the lots as
described above, the Applicant has consented to providing one of the employee mitigation
methods set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(I), That being said, the
Applicant has proposed to construct an ADU or pay cash-in-lieu to mitigate for each of the
proposed residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the
subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or
a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C)(I)(a).
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the subject lot has not previously been approved for a subdivision
exemption or lot split. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to
the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no
further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units
10
be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter
and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding
No further subdivision will be granted for Lots I and 2 and no additional units will be built
without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management
allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. The required subdivision plat with a note allowing
no further subdivision of the newly created lots, as approved by City Council will be
submitted by the Applicant and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the
office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days
following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and
reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a
showing of good cause.
Staff Finding
The Applicant shall record the required subdivision exemption plat and agreement within
one hundred and eighty (180) days of approval by the City Council. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
F. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which
is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to
application for a lot split.
Staff Finding
The site is currently vacant. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this land use
request.
G. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split
shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a
single-family home.
StatIFinding
The underlying zoning allows for a duplex or two (2) detached residential dwelling units on
one of the parcels and a single-family dwelling unit on the other parcel to be created by the
lot split. Therefore, there will be at most three (3) units of density developed on the two (2)
parcels to be created by the lot split. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
II
ORDINANCE NO. 6
(SERlES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING THE
"BOOMERANG PARCEL" TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM-DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT
AND APPROVING A LOT SPLIT, CREATING LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE
BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcellD: 2735-124-66-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, requesting to rezone the vacant "Boomerang Parcel" located
on the south side of W, Hopkins Avenue, containing portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City
and Townsite of Aspen from the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District with a
PUD and Lodge Preservation Overlay to the R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone
District and requesting approval of a Lot Split to divide the 19,737 square foot property into
a parcel of approximately 12,237 square feet and a parcel of approximately 7,500 square
feet; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval with condition of the
proposed rezoning and lot split application; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the development proposal during a duly noticed public hearing opened on January 17,
2006, and continued to January 24, 2006. The Planning and Zoning Commission
approved Resolution No, 3, Series of 2006, by a five to one (5-1) vote, recommending
that City Council rezone the subject property to the R-6 Zone District, and recommending
that City Council approve the requested lot split with conditions, under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section I:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments
to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the City Council hereby rezones the
vacant "Boomerang Parcel" containing portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Townsite of
Aspen, from the R-I5 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District with a PUD and Lodge
Preservation Overlay to the R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone District.
Ordinance No. , Senes of2006
"Boomerang Parcel" Rezoning. Page I
Section 2:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.480.030(A)(2),
Subdivision Exemptions.' Lot Split, the City Council approves a lot split to divide the vacant
"Boomerang Parcel" into Lot I of approximately 12,237 square feet and Lot 2 of
approximately 7,500 square feet for the construction of three (3) detached dwelling units,
with the conditions contained herein. Lot I is limited to one (1) single family residence of
3,450 square feet and Lot 2 is limited to two (2) detached residences totaling 4,274 square
feet.
Section 3: Subdivision Exemption Plat
The Applicant shall submit and record a subdivision exemption plat that meets the terms
of Land Use Code Section 26.480 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
no later than 180 days after final approval is obtained, Furthermore, the Lot Split Plat
shall clearly label the proposed lot line that separates Lot I from Lot 2 and show all
easements of record.
Section 4: Subdivision Exemption Agreement
The Applicant shall submit and record a subdivision exemption agreement that meets the
terms of Land Use Code Section 26.480.030, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder no later than 180 days after final approval is obtained.
Section 5: Building Permit Application
The building permit application for each of the residential units shall include the
following:
1, A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution,
2. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
3. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
4, A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any
removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a
detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new
plantings proposed on the site. Additionally, a right-of-way landscaping plan
shall be provided as part of the building permit application identifying that any
trees removed from the right-of-way will have to be relocated, Any disruption or
damage to the right-of-way irrigation system during construction shall also be
repaired to the satisfaction of the Parks Department.
5, A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado
licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and
after construction, If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation
Ordinance No. , Series of2006
"Boomerang Parcel" Rezoning, Page 2
report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency.
should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
6. A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements. The construction
management plan shall include a plan for protecting the Midland and W. Hopkins
Avenue Trails during construction, This plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Parks Department prior to building permit issuance.
7. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
Section 6: Growth Manae:ement Allotments
The Applicant shall obtain administrative growth management approval and provide
affordable housing mitigation by enacting one of the acceptable mitigation measures for
each of the three (3) residential dwelling units to be constructed on Lots I and 2 of the lot
split pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(I), Administrative Growth
Management Review Detached single~family or duplex dwelling units, as amended from
time to time. Any ADU to be constructed on Lots I and 2 shall meet the ADU design
standards set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.520.050, ADU Design Standards, unless
any variance(s) is duly obtained.
Section 7: Use and Dimensional Requirements
The lots created by the lot split shall be subject to the use and dimensional requirements
of the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) Zone District. The residential dwelling units to
be developed on Lot 2 shall be constructed as two (2) detached dwelling units rather than
an attached duplex configuration as is proposed by the application.
Section 8: Residential Desie:n Standards
All residential dwelling units to be constructed on Lots I and 2 shall meet the residential
design standards in place at the time of building permit, unless any variance(s) is duly
obtained.
Section 9: Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to Lot I shall be taken from the South Fourth Street stub located
directly to the east of the property. There shall not be any vegetation taller than 30 inches
from existing grade planted within the area fifteen (15) feet south or north of the
driveway to be accessed from 4th Street, at the property line or in the public right-of-way
to maintain a sufficient view corridor for trail users to see vehicles crossing the trail. The
Applicant shall also relocate the existing Midland Trail sign to the south side of the
driveway and attach a new sign on the backside of the Midland Trail sign indicating the
presence of the driveways crossing the trail to trail users.
Vehicular access to Lot 2 shall be taken from West Hopkins Avenue via a single curb cut.
The residential units on Lot 2 shall share a single driveway and the curb cut shall be
designed and constructed such that it will not provide a net loss in on-street parking in the
W. Hopkins Avenue Right-of-Way (it may be necessary to reconstruct and realign a
Ordinance No. , Series of2006
"Boomerang Parcel" Rezoning, Page 3
portion of the existing sidewalk/trail to ensure no net loss of on-street parking). The
driveway access shall meet the City Engineering Department's standards for drive ramps.
The driveway entrance points shall be in substantially the same location as they are
shown in the addendum to the application.
Section 10: Curb and Gutter
The Applicant shall construct curb, and gutter along the West Hopkins Avenue frontage
of the property being divided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the
units in the project. The timing of this installation may be changed if approved by the
City Engineer. If the W. Hopkins Pedestrian Trail is altered during construction, the
Applicant shall repair the trail to the condition it was in prior to construction while
allowing for the potential for modest realignment.
Section 11: Trail Easement
The Applicant shall grant a four (4) foot wide public trail easement to the City of Aspen
along the western side property line of Lot 2 and on the westernmost 90 feet of Lot 2,
running directly adjacent to the southern property line. A slightly wider easement shall
be granted at the southwest corner of Lot 2 to allow for a moderate turning radius on the
trail. The exact location of this easement shall be approved by the Parks Department
prior to recordation of the final subdivision exemption plat. This easement shall be
shown on the subdivision exemption plat and shall be described in the subdivision
exemption agreement. The easement shall not affect allowable FAR or density.
Section 12: Landscaping
The Applicant shall install a tree root barrier on the trees that are to be planted within ten
(10) feet of the W. Hopkins trail to prevent future root damage and trail upheaval. The
Applicant shall also install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any
trees to be saved subject to the following provisions:
a. The City Forester or his/her designee must inspect this fence before any
construction activities commence.
b, No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment,
construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip line.
Section 13: Soil Subsidence and Rock Fall Hazards
The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a
qualified, licensed engineer demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed
development. The Applicant shall also submit a report from a qualified, licensed
engineer demonstrating that rock fall from the slope above the proposed development
will be sufficiently mitigated to prevent rock fall hazards. This report shall be submitted
for review by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of full
structural building permits,
Section 14: Fire Mitigation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the
Aspen Fire Marshal in any residential unit that is 5,000 square feet or more. Use of
Ordinance No. , Series of2006
"Boomerang Parcel" Rezoning, Page 4
charcoal grills shall be prohibited in this development because of fire danger concerns,
This prohibition shall be included in the Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the
development.
Section 15: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations, No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed.
Section 16: Park Development Impact Fees
Park Develooment [moact Fees shall be assessed on each residential unit constructed on
Lots I and 2 at the time of building permit issuance. The park development impact fees
shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance
using the fee schedule in place at said time.
Section 17: School Land Dedication Fees
School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, and a proportionate amount of all
applicable impact fees shall be due at the time of building permit issuance for each
residence within the lot split.
Section 18: Exterior Lil!:htinl!:
All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26,575,150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 19: Previous Approvals
Upon recordation of the subdivision exemption plat, the previous lodge approvals will
become null and void for good cause found.
Section 20:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fi.llly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 21:
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 22:
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
Ordinance No. . Series of2006
"Boomerang Parcel" Rezoning, Page 5
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 23:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of March, 2006, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 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 Btl' day of February, 2006,
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13tl1 day of February, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No,_, Series of2006
"Boomerang Parcel" Rezoning. Page 6
DETERMINA nON OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE KINDER MORGAN
INC GAS PIPELINE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL USE
PERMIT
Determination No. -2006
RECITALS
I. Kinder Morgan fnc (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer
(hereafter "Hearing Officer") for 1041 Hazard Review and Temporary Commercial Use approval to
construct a 6" gas pipeline along the Brush Creek Valley from the Cozy Point South property to
the Seven Star Open Space Parcel. The construction will commence May 15,2006, and end in
August of 2006,
2, The properties are zoned L1R and the extension is approximately 2.4 miles in length.
3. The Hearing Officer heard this application at a public hearing on January 31,2006 at which time
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
4. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Standards ofthe
Pitkin County Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer that approval is
hereby granted to the Kinder Morgan Inc 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application
and public meetings except as amended herein.
2. Prior to submittal for any Building or Earthmoving Pennits, the Applicant shall record a 24 X 36
inch mylar 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan in accordance with Section 5-70-040 of the Land Use
Code. Community Development shall approve the site plan prior to recordation.
3, No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, entry or
ranch gates, and vegetation removal or disturbance shall occur outside of the approved disturbance
envelope except for access and required restoration activities.
4. The Applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Snowmass and Aspen Fire Districts, a
Flame Permit and Strategic Fire Safety Plan prior to issuance of an Earthmoving Permit. The
Permit and Plan shall be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of an Earthmoving Permit.
5. Prior to the issuance of an Earthmoving Permit the Applicant shall submit a Public Information
Plan for review and approval to the County Engineer, Community Development and the County
Emergency Management Coordinator.
6, Prior to the issuance of an Earthmoving Permit the Applicant shall submit to the County
Engineer for review and approval a site plan that shows locations of any and all erosion control
measures (BMP's),
Zoning and Vicinity Map of Boomerang Vacant Parcel
AH PUD
Subject Property
Rezoning Request
R-15 to R,6
N
o 60 120
240
360
480
Feet
I==",k.L-,,+ (' _
MEMORANDUM
VI' C.
TO:
Mayor and Council
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
FROM:
Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director
CC:
John Worcester, City Attorney
DATE:
January 31, 2006
RE:
Proposed 2006 Revisions to Water and Electric Rates
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance wiIl implement rate revisions for Water and
Electric customers consistent with the recommendations of the Utility Business Plan.
The rates contain provisions to increase revenue from the highest level of water and
electric customers and will be used to fund conservation programs consistent with council
direction. If adopted by council under the proposed schedule, the ordinance would
become effective April 1, 2006. The first biIls reflecting these changes would be dated
April 30, 2006. A copy of the 2006 updates to the Utility Business Plan, incorporating
the direction of council, is attached to this memo.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council considered the Utility Business Plan
for Water and Electric in late 2004. The plan included a series of rate revisions for the
utilities spread over a two-year period for electric and over a four-year period for water.
The plan recommendations were adopted through new rate structure and charges
implemented in the spring of2005. Council held a work session in November 2005 to
review actual results from the first year of operation and to fine tune the rate
recommendations in view of actual revenue. New initiatives in the area of water and
electric conservation were discussed.
DISCUSSION: During the November 2005 Utility Business Plan work session, council
identified a number of objectives to be incorporated in the plan and rate-setting process.
No planned changes were identified for the electric rates other than those recommended
in the November 2005 work session. The draft Business Plan included reducing the
number of years for water rate increases from four years to two years, partially in
response to higher than expected revenue. In addition, Council expressed a desire to
further increase unit cost to the highest user groups of water customers ,with the
increased revenue going towards a water conservation fund. In addition, Council
believed it was desirable to increase the financial reserves in the water fund to deal with
water rights challenges in the Upper Roaring Fork drainage.
CURRENT ISSUES: The Water and Electric Utility Business Plan Study dated January
30, 2006, (2006 Study) presents two options to adjust rates. The additional revenue from
either of these would be used to fund conservation programs. Two scenarios are
presented beginning on page 4 of the 2006 Study, which is attached. Scenario I would
generate approximately $150,000. The additional revenue would be generated by
lowering the water consumption threshold for the top two blocks (blocks 3 and 4) and
through increased rates for consumption in these two upper tiers. Details of potential
conservation uses for these funds is also attached.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications of the proposed rates are
detailed in the attached Long Range Financial Plans for the water and electric fund as
part of the 2006 Study. A comparison of the existing 2005 and proposed 2006 rates is
also included for both water and electric customers.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The expanded conservation program
elements for both the water and electric funds will contribute to increased resource
efficiency, and support the City's Canary Initiative.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends implementation of the 2006 water and
electric recommendations contained in the 2006 Study. Scenario I is recommended for
water rates.
ALTERNATIVES: During the most recent work session council requested an increase
in funding for the water conservation program, without specifying an amount to be
generated. Scenario 2 would generate approximately $80,000 annually as opposed to
Scenario I which would generate $150,000 additional revenue for this program.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt ordinance '::J- 2006.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: (l~~~ [lif2.
(j tP(Jt.L.W O+,-.Q.,Wiut (.II.. AJ.r> '+f;:.. C:i..k;....\ 'D.3 Sc.t<..ed~
ORDINANCE NO. ~
Series of 2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN
WATER AND ELECTRIC SERVICE RATES.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring all users of the water and
electric systems operated by the City of Aspen to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of
providing such services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not
raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that rates charged for water and electric
service should provide an incentive for conservation of natural resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDATh'ED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 25,04,040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which
section sets forth n10nthly electric serv"ice rates, is hereby an1ended to read as follows:
25.04.040 Electric service rates.
(a) All retail customers of the Aspen Electric Department shall pay a monthly customer
availability charge as follows: residential customers shall pay nine dollars ($9.00) per
bill; small commercial customers shall pay nine dollars ($9.00) per bill; and, large
commercial customers (those having a minimum usage of30 kilowatts (kW) as well
as a operable demand metering system) shall pay twenty-seven dollars ($27.00) per
bill. In addition to the monthly customer availability charge, the customer shall pay
the sum of the metered use of electric energy measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh)
I.L
during the department's monthly meter reading cycle multiplied by the appropriate
retail service rate as follows.
(i) The retail rate for residential customers shall be $0.0625 per kWh for first
seven hundred (700) kWh of metered usage; $0.0781 per kWh for metered
usage from seven hundred one (701) to two thousand (2,000) kWh; and,
$0.1 172 per kWh for metered usage in excess of two thousand (2,000) kWh.
(ii) The retail rate for small commercial customers shall be $0.0850 per kWh for
metered usage.
(iii) The retail service rate for large commercial customers, with operable demand
metering systems in place and measured usage of thirty (30) kW and greater,
shall be $0.0625 per kWh for metered usage plus a demand charge of$5,00
per k W of metered peak usage for that meter reading cycle.
(iv) Until such time as large commercial customers have operable demand
metering systems in place, they shall be charged the retail service rate of small
commercial customers as defined in section 25.04,040 (ii).
(v) Payments for electric service charges shall be due twenty (20) days after the
billed date. Any amount due, but not received by the city on or before the next
billing date, shall be subject to a past due charge of one and one-half (1 \-2)
percent of the total amount due; subject, however, to a minimum charge of
three dollars ($3.00). Balances ofIess than five dollars ($5.00) shall not be
subj ect to this charge.
Section 2.
That Section 25.16,010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which
section sets forth monthly rates for metered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.16.01 0
Monthly rates for metered water service.
(a)
All metered customers except temporary construction accounts shall pay the sum
of charges (1) through (7) that follow:
(1) A demand charge of$4.35 per ECU per month for billing area I; $8,71 per
ECU per month for billing area 2; $8.71 per ECU per month for billing
area 3: $5.44 per ECU per month for billing area 4; $7.62 per ECU per
month for billing area 5; $8,71 per ECU per month for billing area 6; and,
$6.53 per ECU per month for billing area 7.
(2) A variable charge of$I.61 per thousand (1,000) gallons of first five
thousand (5,000) gallons of metered usage per ECU.
(3) A variable charge of$2.09 per thousand (1,000) gallons of metered usage
from five thousand one (5,001) to fifteen thousand (15,000) gallons per
ECU.
2
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Section 3.
A variable charge of$2,97 per thousand (1,000) gallons for metered usage
from fifteen thousand one (15,001) gallons to twenty thousand (20,000)
gallons per ECU.
A variable charge of $4.46 per thousand (1,000) gallons for metered usage
in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) gallons per ECD.
A pumping charge of$1.09 per thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with
service through one pump station; $2.18 per thousand (1,000) gallons
pumped with service through two pump stations; and, $3.27 per thousand
(1,000) gallons pumped with service through three pump stations.
A fire protection charge of $ I .24 per ECU per month with a billing area
factor of 1.0, multiplied by the applicable billing factor set forth in section
25,08.070(b).
That Section 25.16.01 I of the Municipal Code ofthe City of Aspen, Colorado, which
section sets forth bulk rates for metered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.16.011 Bulk rates for metered water service.
(a) The demand charge for filler hydrant bulk water sales pursuant to Section
25.08,020(e) shall be $10,00 per use,
(b) The variable charge for filler hydrant bulk water sales pursuant to Section
25,08,020(e) shall be $4.46 per thousand gallons.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of
, 2006, in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of
the City of Aspen on the _ day of
,2006.
3
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
4
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
,2006,
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
.
v,'~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor & City Council
THRU:
Paul Menter, Finance Director
FROM:
Don Pergande, Budget Analyst
February ih, 2006
Adoption of Budget Supplemental - Ordinance NaB (Series 2006)
This item will be discussed on Monday, February 1 JiI\ 2006
WI/rELEt<... Of'e-R.1J, Hew.51=-- su.PP;'CMP:N7/t L
DATE:
SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2006 budget that increases the city-wide total
expenditure appropriation from $101,6 to $102.4 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers,
budget authority increases from $84.5 to $85,3 million.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation
authority. The reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget
authority,
CITY OF ASPEN - 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL #1 AMENDED BUDGET
Descrintion Amount Location
2006 Amended Budget: $84,501,115 See Attachment A
Inter-Fund Transfers: $17101,924
Total Ordinance: $101,603,039
Total Supplemental #1
Requests: $832,650 See Attachment A
Less Inter-Fund Transfers 1$17101 924\
NEW NET
APPROPRIATIONS: $85,333,765 See Attachment A
All of the supplemental requests for the Wheeler Transfer Tax Fund have been approved in a previous
work session, This is the formal reading of the appropriations from the work session. Below is a brief
description of each item. Attached is the work session memorandums presented to council on the
January 24th Here you will find detail descriptions of the Marketing Plan, the Co-Promotions Proposal,
and the additional Capital projects approved on January 24th, 2006.
New Requests:
Wheeler Transfer Tax Fund- The Wheeler transfer tax fund is requesting $832,650 in total.
$416,750 is for the Co-Promotional operations model at the Wheeler. This additional operating cost will
be offset by an estimate of $491 ,000 in supplemental revenue generated from this model of operations.
$215,000 is for the complete marketing plan. This request will be funded by the Wheeler cash reserves,
This marketing plan has been approved in conjunction with a number of capital improvements to the
physical plant and systems currently at the Wheeler Opera House. The total amount approved at the
January 24th work session is $429,900 in additional capital improvement to the current capital plan
appropriated in the 2006 budget. At this time the Wheeler staff is requesting that $200,900 of the
$429,900 be appropriated. Staff will bring the additional requests in front of council when the costs
associated with the projects are more concrete. The $200,900 of new capital requests will be funded by
the Wheeler cash reserves,
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: January 24, 2006
AGENDA TOPIC: Wheeler Co-Promotion, Marketing and Capital Improvement
Proposals
PRESENTED BY: Gram Slaton, Executive Director, Wheeler Opera House
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
WHEELER BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
All
Cathy Markle, Brian O'Neil, Pam
Cunningham
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Proposals and supplemental budget requests were submitted and discussed with council in the
following Wheeler issue areas:
. Co-promotions
. Marketing
. Systems and Capital Improvements
(Attachment I)
(Attachment 2)
(Attachment 3)
A proposed 2006 Presenting/Co-Promoting operating plan and revenue and expense budgets
were presented. The budget would allow 27 relatively high-profile co-promotion opportunities
throughout the year. The expenses and revenues per show are estimated averages. Total
Programming and Co-promotion costs are expected to be $416,750, with offsetting Ticket Sales
revenue coming back to the Wheeler of $491,000. Without specific Council direction to the
contrary, under no circumstances would the co-promotion model continue unless it was at least
breaking even. The proposed budget indicates an annual operating "profit" of about $75,000,
with an average ticket price of $20 for low to moderate risk shows and up to $100 for the higher
profile shows. Management is reasonably confident with the general predictability of these
numbers; however, without clear knowledge of the co-promoted and self-promoted shows that
might be considered and accepted during the 2006, it is impossible to better forecast what the
final numbers, including percentage of house sold, might ultimately be. After discussion Council
directed staff to proceed with appropriation of the requested $416,750 expense budget and the
estimated $491,000 revenue budget. Council members further directed Wheeler staff to make
sure that co-promotional opportunities were extended not only to private presenters, but also to
local non-profits and groups such as the Wheeler Associates. Council wanted to ensure Wheeler
programming by not just big name artists. Co-promotions need to provide an opportunity for
locals to reconnect with the Wheeler as well.
I
A three-tiered marketing proposal was then presented to council:
Bare minimum marketing, which includes the current approach of traditional marketing via print,
radio, cable TV, and Internet, is estimated to cost $140,000 for 2006, of which $15,000 is already
in the base budget for this year.
Augmented marketing, which includes the above, plus additional marketing monies for combined
advertising with Aspen-advocate groups, wider Internet and Front Range presence, and additional
anciIlary advertising, is estimated to cost $190,000 for 2006.
Complete marketing, which includes the above, plus marketing monies for focused cable and
airline advertising, is estimated to cost $230,000.
Individual marketing components and associated costs were presented and discussed. Council
directed staff to proceed with appropriation of $230,000 for the complete marketing plan as
presented, along with direction to evaluate the effectiveness of each marketing tool for the 2007
budget.
In addition to the marketing packages outlined above, staff presented a list of proposed phvsical
plant/svstems changes estimated to cost about $430,000. Council advised caution in proceeding
too quickly with seating, signage and visual arts changes. Council also requested that the exterior
lighting mock up be completed as soon as possible and that whatever changes are made to the pit
cover aIlow dancing on top. Staff requested and received direction to proceed with supplemental
budget authority on the new ticketing system, replacement telephone system, interior electronic
marquee, and poster case on the elevator shaft. The total estimated cost of those four items is
about $201,000. Staff will proceed with the procurement process and bring back contracts on
those items, Staff wiIl also continue the research and stakeholder discussion on the new seating,
pit replacement and boiler replacement projects and come back to council at a later date with
supplemental appropriation requests and contracts for approval.
ACTION ITEMS:
I. Prepare supplemental appropriation requests
2. Complete procurement process
3. Get contract approval on capital requests
4. Complete systems improvements
5. Implement co-promotion and marketing plans
6. Evaluate 2006 effectiveness and prepare new
budget proposals for 2007
DUE DATE:
February 2006
Feb.March 2006
March-April 2006
May 2006 and Sept 2006
Feb-Dec.2006
Oct. 2006
Estimated Date for FoIlow-Up with City Council (if necessary):
A supplemental appropriation ordinance in the amount of $832,650 for expenses and $491,000 in
co-promotion revenue will be presented to Council in February.
Council Member Comments:
2
-+-
WHEELffR--OPERA HOUSE L
PRESFNT1NG/COPROMOTiN_G8-~.E.AKOUT_SHEET I
------ ----------- ~_~__===_____=l______~stimate(i-
I Cost
I
I _-----'---____---1
Da-vidBromberg Feer--- $7,500.00 L___
_____-__~:_==__~~==-~______~~l::C?l]cj .c:!.!yJ::~l!~!!!g_~l?~tl~~yl~[~--- $5,000.00 I
4 Dthee W D H Peesented at Modecete R;sk ($7,500, $15,000 Fee) -$45,000,1501-::-,==--'
----__~9therW~Q.!:U=!"~sented at High Risk ($16,OOO -- $40,000 Fee) $112,000.00 '
Robert Earl Keen (Copra) $1i.QQ[QQ~~rtii~~Re'mb-yrsement and ~roflt
-- ___m ___.w...__9_tardust (CoP..!9J .__ ___ $8,00000 I Partner's Reimbursement and Profit
__ ____________----,-----~ss Canadi~r:!_f3~~~_~9(qqe~~)L_____ __ _~~,OOO 00 jpartner'S Reimbursement and Profit
f3._~llroa~ ~?!ih/Honky Tonk Homeslice (Copro)L___ $6,000 o~~partner's Reimbursement and Profit
_____ ___..__ __ Cowboy Junkies (Copro!L__ $14,00000 Partne?s-Rerrnbursement and Profit - --
12 Other Co pro'dPro9uctionsat,_$_15,OOO avgl $180,00000 Partner's Reimbursement and Profrt--
-----:--=--:-~:~~__ =-~=_ TOTA!:/_PRESENTiN~&-Cb~PROrv!Qtlf'iG-I~~_L_ $3~~~Oo:orr--- _____ _____:=--===---------
=.:J':"'_u__ ___-------__
iAdditil:mal costs include travel, hQtelrooms, cateringL~~~_li!"!_i?,
i and other artist-rider required _expenses
-------=---==__ __ David Brombe~gnAd~itional $750.00--( --
-- -------------4-6ther W 6~~~e~P~T~~~~~t:p~~~--~a~6~~:1 - ----$$46-~,00500~-06~.ooOOoOI- ___~=-__n____--- -- - ---------- --- ---- ---
______n__ -4- Other w-a -~rPr~~_~~!~.d atHjgh.~!s~ Ad~~_~~~~ - ----------
______ ____ Robert Earl ~een AEditional _ _---.:.--=-_:..._...J350.001____ _ _ _ ______________
Stardust Additional, $2,60000 I
---------- --- --Cross Canadian Ragweed AddltlOnalr-----$3-S0 00
---Railroad Earth/Honky Tonk Homesllce Addli.iOnalr----- - -$35000 1--
----------- - ------------------ Cow-boy-jurikIesAdditionall $3S0~OO---
_ 12 Ot.b..~_c:.2~_Q'd prqQ.u~~!?nS_A~di~9El?J'(-af$~gQ~~~g}~ :- ____~OOO.OQ._,
ATTACHMENT 1:
_L
I
u_..L.-, ,._________
,+-,
Notes
EB..E,$~N_TI~0/00-PRqM.o~ING-ARTIST FFFS
_?~F-~}:~TIt'-Jc;7r.o-:p~OMnTINC; ARTIST ~DpITlqNAL COSTS
S;:!.1.~I-
, I
'-TOTAL FD-;;-P~ESENTING-':N~~D'PROM6T1NG EXPENSE,I----:..~4;6-;50.~'--:..-
"...,.. .. ., _J-- ,
PRF~~NTINC;/CO PR0MOTING TI~KFT SAI FS RFVFNIIF_ -r--
David Brombergl ---- $15,000.00
Second City To-lirlngCclrTlpanyi $1-2,SOO.60-:
- -------- 4 Other viJ6HPresentedatModerate Riski------~69,000,06- i ------------
-.--- - 4 Other_ vv_() H Presented at_f:ligh Ri~-- $140,QOo.o6T
____________ --- ----_Robe~~~rl_K~e_~r~ - _...11~,SOO.QQ..I
_______ Stard_u~tl______ $7,500.00 I
__ __9r9~s t<!..IJ~~~!:!__~agweedL__ __ F,5Q9,9.9.! ____
Railroa~ Earth/Hanky Tonk Homeslicei . F,50Q,00 r
u. . - _m ------ Cowboy JUili<ieSI----- $17,500.00 i
- - --- -~_~.!? qther-Copro'd Productionsi-------$?iQ.~QQ:.QQI= ----------==---=-~-===--
TOTAUPRESENTING !i.f_C?-PROMOTING ADDITIONAL:___
IQIALLeB-ES!=NTING & C9PRC~MOTlN~ TICKET SALES!
$491 000 00 L _
,
,
I
- ---NET sURPLusFRorvfPREsENTING AN-b- CCi:-PRONlOl'ING::
, , 'r
$7~2~0_~0 i
200S Wheeler Presents and CC Supplemental 8ud9l:!t~:;
Programming Monies Spent in 200S:
- -------------- --------------- RE-MAlNlNGuSAl-ANCF.;-:-
--------1
$316,637.48 I
- --11?O,69~-?pproxirriaienfinaj}igure'
-$16602876' -------- - ___d
Ii
ATTACHMENT 2'
-J-
_I
t---=-_~
__--L
-1---
. ~-==~=- ==--==-'F-- --
Paid Tickets/Box Officec--- --- ----" --- 4021 ,., $12,05foo'---
___ ..t::::~-..:.-=___-=...:....r=---T
~~:sg~;'~~~7 ~osis:---- --~-_1, Paid Rv C~C-+=_~n_--~r-paidBi~::~:o~
~Z~:~i~~est @ 9 x $1?~ - __ ,... u---~__=t..-=--=...$300~- ---T-------$~, 1250~
~~~:~~~~~Jg_~~/~~~~~~~t_. .-..1=-==- ":>fjE6[____~=_..-"~.~ __,
Backlineand Risers ________ ___I ___ ,! _ _ __m _~_
Towels, etc. [$2500r-
Adyeljisjng/Prornoti_~~____ ______ _ __ _:_~- -- ~_ i--- ~__~~~---
Co~Promo~VVorksheet
-------------------
NO NAME ARTIST
--"----------
Anytime 2006
,:>2,006.00
CAC Personnel Costs:
Tech Labor
BoiOffice- P-ersonn-eln
--------- --
Custodial
________n_
Other
r--
I $406001-
------..-_ $60001_
--=-T
I
-L
L____
House- Costs: -T---------- I
lJtjlities/:)LJl:Jsidy to Aspen ArtsGroup~ "--$350,001"
~~~~nh~(@f30/head)_I-m$120.51.' --
Tkts1@..Jl6.5_ea ,$24 10,
g:~:;---n-l " ,',[.--- --T
----- I -- ______1 ---1-
CAC Shar:---- - -- t----..:.:>1,~~2~~F-_-~~,03717, =____$10,62500
partnerShare-_. __ ,__ ....__~----' _$6,018,29.__... ___, -'T $6,018,59
____-- TOTAL N::rt:~ ::_~~~!----"--==I" __~138~--
--- --.-nCAC"Sh~reF- - ~ n~6.>J1i ---- _J
___..:.--. -, 'T--n __ [___n :
- # of se:~:-"L-Tkr~:ice- "r--
----. 1-----
$30.00 . $7,95000
---- $30,06' .. -----'$7,200,00
$15,150.00
l'
- -----
$6.91
GROSS POTENTIAl'
Price Section One
Price Section Two
---j--oo-
-.....265[
240 ,
505 i
- --'1---..
I "
I ----~~-~___ __-.L_
------ -I Net I
-----------
Tkt Price
--,-------
,
Estj!!1<1terl _Rrea~_~yen Attend;mce"
# Of Seats
-- -r-
Price Section One
----- ----
Price Section Two
----~,
?3.9+
163 ,
402 I
$30,00 i
'$30,00 1-
$7,155,00
" ---$4,896,00
$12,051.00
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE I
MARKETING REPORT'------,-' I '
-u~c6siBREAKO~!. SHEET - - ._--.- -- - - }=i----Es"'mated I
-mU--! i
--BARE MiNiMuM MARKETING/2006 YEAR Cost I i
,.,.." .. ,. I._----ti----'-- , '"
Indiyidu~~_p"~rformance AdVertiSi':!.9.C= ,n $54,000.00 ~ Budgeted for 27 performances @ $2,000 each for print
Rental Performance/Community Event Advertising I $16,000.00 i Budaeted for 20 performances/events @ $800 each for print
- ---~---- Monthly Trifol~BTochures: $7,500.00 I Budgeted at $6?S7mo; fig'ure includes printing and distribution
Postcards And Mailers! $6,OOO.OQ ~~~!~~. for 12 pieces at an average of $500 each _
_~_~l?_~.e~g~_~_~_d Specialty Advertisingi- $8.000.00 Includes concierge guides, Aspen t~urist maps, elc.
,
1
'Notes
Print.
BaJ:!jQ;
$27,objj~If(j" .
$2,500,00 I
$3,000.0()
S"udQeted for 27 PI?r!9~rT1.~n..c~.~@ $1 ,OOO-each for radio
Budaeted for 5 performances/events @ $500 each for radio
._ I..~l? sessions per week for 50 weeks @$30 each
AUGMENTED MARKETING/2006 YEAR
____ _____/~!-'.etJ:j1e above, plus;
'~_.._--"
I
$14000000+---
["
i
Erint.
--
. -,-,-,,- ------
_L __",
i
!
1
~io;66o'.-bot- ------
,- -----
_____ Combi!!~tio~_AdvertisinQ with DP&R1ACRA
QJbJu;
..---
,
,
$30,000.00 r- ---,
Website placements, FR publications, etc.:
-.-- ~
-".-.-
~
$50 000 DO! I==--'
I ,-------'--'
.. S19000_0001T ,- ,---
T()TAL FOil MINIIilAL A,NDAUGMENTEDMARKETING
COMPLETE MARKETINGi2006 YEAR
________ ~.. _.~_C!.fth~ above; plus:'-
, I
TelevlslonNlsual Media. I I !
M~unta;nloP Ski & Snowboard Senes sponsors, ~~ -$40'OO~OOO~ _ __
TOTAL MINIMAL AUGMENTED COMPLETE MKTG $2300MJill .
--- I I -_.,,,---
- - --- .. ,- -, "Currently Budgeted/2006..)'ear:! $15,000.00 -,=,__,_,_..__~
= =-_ ~~"~""~"'"" '~mL";~"-~~~
'____ Suee/ementeL/,1ar~'!.tiI19Appropriation for 2005:. $151,200,00 +--_
__~____,4,mgu~i.us'!.dJi!t'!.'!.,Force Marketillg),._,_ ...!l..3.2,480.41 '
Balance Remainino: I $118,719.59
WHEELER OPERA. HOUSE
MARKETING REPORT
ens! BREAKOUT SHEEY
Estimated
i"!""lYSICAI PI ANTISY!;TFMS RFOl!lRFMFNTS Cost
I
Ne':."'.JicketinfL~Ete~. Sof!Y!~~
Replacement Telephone System
lCDflED Elec!ronic Marquee (interior only)
Poster Case (exterior wall of elevator shaft only) I
Exterior Lighting for Wheeler Fa~~de~
New Seating (Entire Auditorium) I
Pit Replacement i
Faux Finishes/Interior PaintinQl
TOTA-PHY.P NT
M
OQ"OQ
"r
.,.
Bud, eted in Final Financial
2006 AMP 1m acl Notes
$0.00 I $80.000.00
$10,100.0e) $29,900.00
$O.OO! $90,000.00. pane!splus50ftwareplus~lruI;tural.i!P~'pl~laborexpense
$O.OO! $1,000.00 ,ted,p~~r~~;wouldrequireelectric..installation
. .~.OO. I not applicable?- - ,Wheeler's un~erstanding is that~ City may initiate and provide
$50,000.00 $~~~,OOO.OO illudgele\l at 500 seats x S398 per seat including fiOOrfe!l:air, e_IE,_,_
$0.00 $80,000.00 ,Not budgeted in Wheellll" AMP: necessary as part af seating replacement
$10,000.00+ $0,00 iSep.:cated from amount available for exterior painting in 200~ ~heeler AMP
lli.1J
'S429900.00-'
ORDINANCE No.8
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER
TRANSFER TAX FUND $832,650.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following fund: WHEELER TRANSFER TAX FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: WHEELER TRANSFER TAX
FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the
Attachment A.
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the day of
2006.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor '
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the _ day of
,2006.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
A
Total City of Aspen 2006 Appropriations by Fund - Appendix A
--,-- -----...--- -- -------,- --.. -. --- ----- -..-- -----f------- -- ---- ---- -
, ,
" i - .. ------------------ ; -, --
, , i
lotal
Expenditures & 2006 2006 Amended
Fund # Fund Name Transfers Out Supplemental #1 Budget
General Government Funds
- ----- -------..--
000 II.sse~....n~~er11_en!Plan _ __ ___ u__$4,cJ52,826 $0 I.. $-4,052,826
---------
001 General Fund $20 675 692 -iQ $20675692
----..- ----- --..- ------- --
Subtotal General Gov't Funds: $24,728,518 " ,. ., $0 $24,728,518
Soecial Revenue Funds
..,. , .. . mm".. ., u_
100 Parks and Open Space $8,711,877 $0 I _$8,71,1,877
.. ---- WiieelerOpera-House ---- ---- $2,858,091 $832,650 ,$3,690,741
120
_n ________..__ no
130 [odgliiQ-taxFund'- ---,---- $995,087 $0 $995,087
-------- Parkin~i ImprovemenTFund--n- . $1,743,583 - $0 $1,743,583
140
------ --- Hou-s-ing-Oeveilopmenf- $26,973,025 $0 ,$~6,9..73,02_5
150 ,-
Early childhood Educ, Initiative ~ ,..
151 AVCF $180,922 $0 $180,922
'kids FirsDYellow-Srick-----..- . - _____..___u_
152 $1417766 iQ $1 417766
Subtotal, Special Rev, Funds: $42,880,351 , $832;650 $43,713,001
------- Deb-t'Sei'Vice'Funcfs--u'----' ,.. ------ - ----- ..,
DebtService Fund - _______m_ ___ iQ $5 925000
250 $5 925 000
Subtotal; Delif Service Funds: $5,925,000 $0 $5,925,000
u_ ------ , , - ---- ___un
340 Parks Capital Improvement Fund $1,946,088 $0 $1,946,088
Enterprise Funds ",... ------ .,
------- - _____u___ -
421 Water Utility $6,890,064 $0 __$138.90,064.
__m_ __
431 EleCtricUtnity , $6,016,4-4,3 $0 .......!6,OJ.l3,4.43
----- -------- ----------
444 Ruedl Hydroelectric FacnitY - $283,453 ., $0 n" , $26:3,453
--- - ------------
450 TransportatTon Fund' $4,768,208 $0 ___$4,768,:<08
471 Municipal GolfCcurse $1,123,759 .,. , $0 $1,123.7~9
491 Truscott Housing $2,074,264 $0 $2,074,264
---- ----- , -- on
492 MaroTfHousln~i- $1 068 099 iQ $1 068099
Subtotal,-En"terprise Funds: $22,224,290 $0 $22,224,290
---------- ----- -, u " $2,875,600
501 Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $2,875,000 $0
Trust & Agency Funds ...,
620 620 Housing Authority ,$942,832 $0 $942,832
622 622 Smuggier Mountain Fund . $80 960 $0 $80 960
Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: $1,023,792 $0 $1,023,792
At:.UiJNDS: $101,603,039 $832,650i $102,435,689
, ,
I
Less Interfund Transfers $17,101,924 $0 $17,101,924
--------------- .. ..., -
EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS
APPROPRIA TlONS: $84,501,115 $832,650 $85,333,765
MEMORANDUM
\/\\\ p
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~Vv)
James Lindt, Senior Planner;::::S:L----
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Second Reading of Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, 202 North Monarch
Street Subdivision - Public Hearinl!:
DATE:
February 13,2006
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
Blu Vic, LLC.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION:
Lots K, L, M, N, and 0 of Block 78, City and
Townsite of Aspen; 202 N. Monarch Street.
CURRENT ZONING:
Lots K-M are zoned R-6 (Medium- Density
Residential),
Lots Nand 0 are zoned Mixed Use (MU).
PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST:
Subdivision to split the existing parcel into
two parcels ofland.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision approval
to subdivide the existing parcel of land into a
9,000 square foot residential parcel and a
6,000 square foot mixed use parceL
Photo Above: Property as seen from
E, Bleeker Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached
ordinance, approving the proposed Photo Above: Property as seen from N.
subdivision request with the conditions of Monarch Street.
approval included therein,
REVIEW PROCEDURE
A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.480.040, Subdivision.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Blu Vic, LLC, requests subdivision approval to subdivide the existing 15,000
square foot parcel located at 202 N, Monarch Street into two (2) parcels; a residential parcel
(Lot I of the proposed subdivision) of 9,000 square feet to contain the existing historically
designated single-family residence and a 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the proposed
subdivision) for future development under the Mixed Use Zone District's requirements. In
conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant would like to open a portion of the
currently unopened but platted alley and improve it to the City's standards for public alleys
to provide vehicular access to the proposed 6,000 square foot parcel for development under
the Mixed Use Zone District's requirements,
The existing 15,000 square foot parcel contains a single-family residence that is designated
on the Aspen Inventory of Historically Designated Sites and Structures, The Historic
Preservation Commission has approved the existing shed for demolition (resolution was
attached as Exhibit "E" in the first reading packet). The parcel currently has a split zoning
with the westernmost 9,000 square feet of land being zoned R-6 and the easternmost 6,000
square feet being zoned in the Mixed Use Zone District. The proposed subdivision places the
new parcel boundary line where separation in zoning currently exists on the fathering parcel.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Subdivision:
In reviewing the subdivision request, the proposal appears to satisfy the subdivision review
standards set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision. The proposal would
create parcels that conform in their respective zone districts (R-6 for the westernmost parcel
and Mixed Use for the easternmost parcel). Additionally, the proposed subdivision would
not create any use or dimensional requirement non-conformities related to the existing
structures on the fathering parcel as long as the existing shed is demolished pursuant to the
demolition approval that was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff further
2
believes that the land is suitable for subdivision and contains no significant geologic hazards
that would prevent development of the parcels to be created through the subdivision.
Staff also tinds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen
Area Community Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would create a vacant parcel for infill
development within the original Aspen townsite from a fathering parcel that was significantly
underutilized. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant has also proposed
to provide a sidewalk adjacent to the Monarch and Bleeker Street right-of-ways, thereby
filling in a missing sidewalk link on both streetscapes as is consistent with the expressed
transportation goal of sidewalk connections within the City.
OoeninfZ and ImorovinfZ Allevwav:
City Council has the following options related to allowing vehicular access to the properties
in the proposed subdivision:
. Approve opening and improvement of the western 105 teet of the platted, but
unopened alley to access both lots from North Monarch Street (represented in the
proposed ordinance), or,
. Approve opening and improvement of the eastern 145 feet of the platted, but
unopened alley to access the proposed mixed use property from North Mill Street and
opening and improving the western 90 feet of the platted, but unopened alley to
access the residential parcel from North Monarch Street, or,
. Approve access from E. Bleeker Street through the existing curb cut.
As was briefly introduced in the project summary section of this memorandum, the Applicant
originally proposed to open and pave a lOS-foot long portion of the platted, but unopened
alleyway that exists to the north of the fathering parcel to allow both the proposed mixed use
and residential parcels to gain vehicular access from the alley from Monarch Street. In
conjunction with opening and paving this portion of the alleyway, the paved parking pad that
is located adjacent to North Monarch Street in the public right-of-way, (primarily used by the
neighboring property at 212 N. Monarch Street) was to be removed, Also, the Applicant
proposed to remove the other paved parking pad that is currently accessed from East Bleeker
Street.
3
However, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that access be taken from
East Bleeker Street rather than opening the alleyway as is proposed, Many of the
Commissioners indicated that they could not recommend the opening of the alleyway without
knowing what the specific development plan was going to be on the mixed use parcel. The
Commission was concerned about a high volume of commercial traffic using the alleyway
through what is perceived as a residential area, The Commissioners identified that if they
were informed of what the specific development plan would be constructed on the proposed
Lot 2, they would have a better idea of how much traffic would be using the alleyway. But
without a specific development plan for Lot 2, the Commissioners could not support opening
the alleyway.
The Applicant has proposed to amend their access since first reading, In response to the
Planning and Zoning Commission's concern about commercial/office traffic, the Applicant
has proposed to open and improve the easternmost 145 feet of the platted alleyway to access
the proposed mixed use parcel (Lot 2) from the alley off of N. Mill Street. Vehicular access
to the residential parcel is still proposed to occur from N. Monarch Street by opening the
western 90 feet of the alleyway, Oeneral plans for the revised vehicular access are attached
as Exhibit "I".
The City Engineer (comments were attached as part of Exhibit "D" in the first reading
packet) feels that it would be most appropriate to access the proposed Lot I from Monarch
Street via an improved alleyway. The City Engineer would further prefer that the Applicant
access the proposed Lot 2 from Mill Street to the east through the alleyway into an
underground parking garage or from the alleyway via Monarch Street as was originally
proposed. It has been expressed by the City Engineer that the least desirable method of
access to Lot 2 would be from East Bleeker Street.
The Historic Preservation Commission has also expressed that accessing the properties from
East Bleeker Street as was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not
consistent with the Historic Preservation guidelines. The Historic Preservation Commission
has indicated that they support vehicular access being provided from the alleyway as
proposed by the Applicant. Comments from the Historic Preservation Commission are
attached Exhibit "0".
Staff believes that it would be best to remove both of the paved parking pads that are located
in the Monarch and Bleeker Street right-of-ways and bring vehicular access to the parcels
from the alley as is encouraged by both the City's commercial and residential design
standards. Moreover, Staff feels that this is a good opportunity to restore the streetscapes of
Bleeker and Monarch Streets adjacent to the fathering parcel with attached sidewalks, while
removing the possibility of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts that exist with the paved parking
pads, At this time, without forcing considerable changes to the vehicular circulation for the
properties located to the east (Jerome Professional Building), it looks like the best option
would be to allow the Applicant to access the proposed Lot 2 from Monarch Street via an
improved alleyway as is proposed, However, Staff believes that revised access plan that is
attached as Exhibit ''I'' is also consistent with the residential and commercial design
guidelines, but would likely cause greater disruption.
The attached ordinance contains a section allowing for the opening of the western 105
feet of the alleyway as was originally proposed. If City Council does not agree with the
4
opening of the western portion of the aIleyway to access both lots as the Planning Staff
would recommend because it limits the disturbance, Council needs to remove Section 7
from the proposed ordinance and add a section that designates that access shaIl be
taken based on the revised access plan attached as Exhibit "I" or from Bleeker Street as
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended.
Sidewalks:
Staff prefers the installation of sidewalks that are detached from the curb throughout town,
Detached sidewalks allow for a landscaping buffer between the street and the sidewalk that
makes for a more pleasant pedestrian streetscape than do attached sidewalks. Additionally,
these landscaping buffers provide for snow storage. Staff is requiring an attached sidewalk
instead of a detached sidewalk in this situation because a detached sidewalk would conflict
with and require the removal of the existing lilacs in the East Bleeker Street Right-of-Way
that the Parks Department would like preserved. Similarly, along North Monarch Street Staff
is requiring an attached sidewalk because a detached sidewalk would conflict with several
existing street trees that the Parks Department would like preserved,
Historic Preservation Commission Jurisdiction:
Staff has included a requirement in the proposed ordinance that development on both of the
proposed lots would require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) since the entire fathering parcel is designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites
and Structures, Typically when a historically designated site is split or subdivided, all of the
new parcels that are formed from the fathering parcel maintain their historic designation
status. Therefore, HPC will maintain their review purview over all development within the
proposed subdivision to ensure that all development on the two (2) parcels is compatible with
the historic resource located on Lot I of the proposed subdivision.
Growth Manal!.ement Imvlications:
In looking at the growth management implications of the proposed subdivision, the Applicant
is not currently proposing to construct any additional development on the 9,000 square foot
parcel (Lot I of the proposed subdivision) that is to contain the existing historic residence,
and thus would not require growth management approval or employee housing mitigation.
Additionally. the Applicant has not proposed a specific development plan at this time for the
proposed 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision), At the time that Lot 2
is to be developed, all necessary growth management allocations will need to be obtained
pursuant to the terms of Land Use Code Section 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
This has been included as a proposed condition of approval in the attached ordinance,
School Land Dedication:
The Applicant is subject to school land dedication for the addition of the residential units to
be developed within the proposed subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,630,
School Land Dedication. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of dedicating land.
The amount ofthe required cash-in-lieu payment is based on the following equation:
Cash Payment=Market Value of the Land Proposed for Subdivision x Land Dedication
Standard (based on number of bedrooms proposed) x 0.33
In this instance, the amount of the required cash-in-lieu payment cannot be determined at this
time because the proposed development on the mixed use parcel has yet to be designed.
5
Therefore, the dedication amount cannot be determined because it is calculated based on the
number of bedrooms being proposed within the subdivision, which is still an uncertainty.
The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time
of building permit issuance for development on the 6,000 square foot, mixed use parcel.
Staff has proposed a condition of approval, ensuring that the school lands dedication fee in
effect at the time of building permit submission will be paid prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for new development within the subdivision. Thus, Staff believes that the
proposal will meet the land dedication standard.
Park Development Impact Fee:
Development within the subdivision is subject to a park development impact fee upon
construction of new residential bedrooms or commercial/office space pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26,610, Park Development Impact Fee. Staff has included a proposed
condition of approval requiring that the applicable park development impact fee be paid prior
to obtaining a building permit for new development within the subdivision based on the fee
schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030 at the time of building permit
submission,
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Streets
Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed subdivision and their
comments have been included as conditions of approval as deemed appropriate. The City
Engineering Department has requested that the Applicant provide sidewalks meeting the City
Engineering Department's interim design requirements along North Monarch Street and East
Bleeker Street adjacent to the property within the subdivision, Additionally, a condition of
approval has been included in the attached ordinance that would require the Applicant to
provide a detailed plan for landscaping improvements in the City's right-of-way along the
East Bleeker Street and N. Monarch Street frontages in conjunction with submitting a
building permit application for new development within the subdivision.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the proposed
subdivision, However, the Commission did not recommend that Council allow for the
opening and improvement of the alleyway. Instead, the Commission felt that it would be
more appropriate to take access to the parcel from East Bleeker Street. The Planning and
Zoning Commission's resolution was attached as Exhibit "F" in the first reading packet and
the minutes are attached hereto as Exhibit "H".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the subdivision review standards are met by the proposal and recommends
that City Council approve the proposed ordinance to split the property at 202 N. Monarch
Street into a parcel of 9,000 square feet and a parcel of 6,000 square feet. Staff has further
recommended that the Applicants be able to open the western 105 feet of the platted
alleyway as was originally proposed and the ordinance reflects this access option,
As has been previously discussed, if Council believes that the alley should not be opened and
that access to the parcels in the subdivision should be provided from East Bleeker Street,
Council can simply remove Section 7 from the proposed ordinance and add a section that
designates that access shall be provided from East Bleeker Street. Alternatively, if City
6
Council feels that the best access option would be the revised access plan attached as Exhibit
"I", which splits access to the parcels via opening the alleyway form both Monarch and Mill
Streets, Council can remove Section 7 from the ordinance and replace it with a section that
designates that the access shall be split per the plan provided in the Applicant's addendum.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the 202
N, Monarch Subdivision to divide the property described as Lots K-O, Block 78, of the
City and Townsite of Aspen into a 9,000 square foot parcel and a 6,000 square foot parcel
and allowing for the western 105 feet of the Block 78 alleyway to be opened and
improved. "
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A.. Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application (Included in first reading packet)
Exhibit C -- Zoning Interpretation (Included in first reading packet)
Exhibit D -- Referral Comments (Included in first reading packet)
Exhibit E -- Historic Preservation Resolution (Included in first reading packet)
Exhibit F -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution (Included in first reading packet)
Exhibit G --Historic Preservation Commission's Comments about Access
Exhibit H --Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Exhibit I "Application Addendum- Revised Access Plan
7
ORDINANCE NO.2
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS, THE 202 N. MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION, DIVIDING THE
PROPERTY AT 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS OF
LAND, CREATING LOTS 1 AND 2, OF THE 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET
SUBDIVISION CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-073-17-005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Blu Vic, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, Inc, requesting to
subdivide the property located at 202 N, Monarch Street (Lots K-O, Block 78, City and
Townsite of Aspen), to create Lots I and 2 of the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision;
and,
WHEREAS, the fathering parcel has a split zoning with the westernmost 9,000
square feet (Lots K-M) being zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential) and the
easternmost 6,000 square feet (Lots N-O) being zoned Mixed Use (MU); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot I is to contain 9,000 square feet and maintain the
R-6 (Medium Density Residential) zoning designation that the land currently contains;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot 2 is to contain 6,000 square feet and maintain the
Mixed Use (MU) zoning designation that the land currently contains; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that City Council approve with
conditions, the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision without allowing the opening and
improvement of the alleyway pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
No. 37, Series of2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that they supported
keeping the alleyway closed and providing for vehicular access from E, Bleeker Street to
the new parcels to be created; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noted public hearing on February 13, 2006, the Aspen
City Council reviewed the proposed 202 N, Monarch Street Subdivision and approved
Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the 202 N. Monarch Street
Subdivision, and opening of the western 105 feet of the Block 78 alleyway; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section I:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
City Council hereby approves the 202 N, Monarch Street Subdivision, subdividing the
parcel located at 202 N. Monarch Street into 9,000 square foot parcel (Lot I of the
subdivision) and a 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the subdivision), with the conditions
contained herein.
Section 2: Plat and Al!reement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of
Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval.
Section 3: Dimensional Requirements
Development on Lot I of the Subdivision shall conform to the dimensional requirements
of the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) Zone District. Development on Lot 2 of the
Subdivision shall conform to the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone
District.
Section 4: Growth Manal!ement Allotments
Since the Applicant is not proposing any development on Lot I of the subdivision at this
time and there is not a specific development plan proposed on Lot 2 of the subdivision,
any future development within the subdivision shall require receipt of applicable growth
management allocations prior to submitting for a building permit.
Section 5: Historic Preservation Review on Both Lots
Any development on either Lot I or Lot 2 of the subdivision shall be subject to review
and approval pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Aspen Inventory ol
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Section 6: Sidewalk, Curb. and Gutter
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new development within the
subdivision, the Applicant shall have installed an attached sidewalk meeting the City
Engineer's design requirements along the entire lot frontage abutting both East Bleeker
Street and North Monarch Street. The Applicant shall consult with the Parks Department
in designing and installing the sidewalks in order to preserve the significant lilacs that
exist along East Bleeker Street and the Silver Maple trees and Siberian Elm trees that
exist along North Monarch Street. Additionally, prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy on any new development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall upgrade
the curb and gutter along the entire lot frontage abutting both East Bleeker Street and
North Monarch Street to meet the City Engineer's design requirements,
Section 7: Allevwav Improvements
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development within the
subdivision, the Applicant shall have opened and paved to the City Engineer's standards,
a lOS-foot long portion of the alley in Block 78 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, to
provide vehicular access to both lots in the subdivision from the alleyway. Improvements
to the alleyway shall allow for the existing shed encroachment at 212 North Monarch to
be maintained. In conjunction with opening and paving the alleyway, the Applicant shall
abandon and remove the existing parking pad and curb cut on East Bleeker Street prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new development within the subdivision.
Prior to improving the alleyway, the Applicant shall submit a detailed design plan to the
Community Development Department for the alleyway improvements that addresses soil
stability, erosion control, and drainage as well as a detailed site improvement survey, In
designing the alleyway improvements, the Applicant shall consult with the City Engineer
and Parks Department to determine an acceptable grade to ensure the protection of the
Sub-alpine Fir tree that exists adjacent to the planned alleyway improvements.
Section 8: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in
the subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within
the subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with
the subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in
effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section
26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule.
Section 9: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any
construction within the subdivision that adds new residential/lodge bedrooms and/or
commercial/office square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount
due using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development impact Fee: Fee Schedule.
Section 10: Sewer Line Extension
The Applicant shall be required to provide a main sewer line extension to serve Lot 2 of
the subdivision, subject to the review and approval of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, prior to the development of Lot 2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed service
plan for review and approval by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to
building permit submittal on Lot 2.
Section I1: Fire Sprinklers
Development on Lot 2 shall contain fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system meeting the
requirements of the Fire MarshalL
Section 12: LandscapiDl~
The Applicant shall submit a tree protection review plan and a tree permit for any new
development within the subdivision. The Applicant shall also submit a landscape.
planting plan for improvement of the City right-of~way for the entire lot frontage abutting
both East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street that will be reviewed by the Parks
Department in conjunction with submitting a building permit application for new
development in the subdivision.
Section 13:
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 14:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 15:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of February, 2006, 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,
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of January, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of February, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John p, Worcester, City Attorney
Subdivision
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements,
J. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the Aspen
Area Community Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area
of town, which should encourage the residents to use alternative means of transportation
such as walking and riding their bicycles as is encouraged by the AACP. Staff also finds
that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would create a vacant parcel for infill development within
the original Aspen townsite from a fathering parcel that was significantly underutilized. In
conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant has also proposed to provide
sidewalk adjacent to the Monarch and Bleeker Street right-of-ways, thereby filling in a
missing sidewalk link on both streetscapes as is consistent with the expressed transportation
goal of adding sidewalk connections within the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the area.
Staff Finding
The Applicants have not proposed a specific plan for Lot 2 of the Subdivision, but have
represented that development on the site will be constructed in compliance with the
regulations established in the underlying Mixed Use Zone District. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development
of surrounding areas.
StatI Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the future development
of surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Finding
The Applicant at this time is not proposing any additional development on the proposed Lot
I than what exists and the existing single-family residence is within the allowed dimensional
requirements of the R-6 Zone District in which it is located. Additionally, the Applicant has
not proposed a site-specific plan on the proposed Lot 2, but has made a representation in the
application that all new development on Lot 2 will meet the Mixed Use Zone District's
dimensional and use requirements. The Applicant has also represented that all development
on Lot 2 will need to obtain necessary development allotments prior to being developed.
StatI finds this criterion to be met.
8
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because offlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension
of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the properties are suitable for subdivision, Only a small corner of the
proposed Lot 2 contains steep slope and there are no known geologic hazards that may harm
the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, staff believes
that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the
property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor
the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
I. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals
of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and
provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations
by professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable required improvements
pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements
of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of
new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has not proposed any new construction within the subdivision at this time.
This application is simply to subdivide the existing parcel into two (2) parcels of land. Any
future development on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision will require the Applicant to apply
for and obtain all necessary development allotments prior to commencing construction. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
9
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards
set forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of
providing land. In this instance, the amount of the required cash-in-lieu payment cannot be
determined at this time because there is not a specific plan proposed on Lot 2 of the
subdivision, Therefore, the dedication amount cannot be determined because it is calculated
based on the number of bedrooms being proposed in the subdivision, which is still an
uncertainty. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee
at the time of building permit issuance for development within the subdivision. Thus, staff
finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44-2001,92)
Staff Finding
The Applicant has not proposed a specific development plan for Lot 2 of the proposed
subdivision at this time. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires all
necessary growth management allotments to be applied for and obtained prior to developing
Lot 2. Staff finds this criterion to be met if all applicable development allotments are
obtained prior to developing Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision.
10
Page I of I
EX~lb;t \\'G(/
James Lindt
From: Amy Guthrie
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:03 AM
To: James Lindt
Subject: HPC recommendation on 202 N, Monarch
On January 11,2006, HPC was updated on the current discussions about vehicular access to the 202 N,
Monarch Street property, They would like the following input to be forwarded to City Council as part
of their Subdivision review.
I. They are not in favor of any vehicular access (existing or new) from Bleeker Street. This is
inconsistent with the historic development patterns of Aspen and the West End, and will create conflicts
with design guideline compliance.
2. Their first preference would be for development on the west lot to be accessed through the alley from
Monarch Street, and development on the east lot to be accessed through the alley from Mill Street.
3, If access from Mill Street is not possible for the east lot, they prefer all vehicles use the alley from
the Monarch Street entrance,
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970.920.5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
I/27/2006
e~,'kl). '';-1/
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting ofthe Planning and Zoning
Commission in Sister Cities at 4:30pm. Members Brian Speck, Steve Skadron,
Dylan Johns,.John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present.
Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were James Lindt, Chris
Bendon, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger said there were a couple of developers that were placing affordable
housing in the basement of the project and she thought that was not acceptable
according to the rules. Kruger requested an update. James Lindt replied there
were 2 different sets of rules for ADUs and employee housing but based on the
code requirements they do not have to be above grade. Kruger requested a work
session regarding ADUs and employee housing below grade because ofthe
interpretations that might come before the commission. Jasmine Tygre suggested
that item be placed on the wish list for the work session. The commission agreed.
There were seating constraints in the Sister Cities room for the public.
MINUTES
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from November 22nd;
seconded by John Rowland. All in favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
John Rowland recused himself on the Limelight.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/22/05):
202 NORTH MONARCH SUBDIVISION
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the 202 North Monarch
Subdivision. Notice was provided that meets the requirements.
James Lindt explained this application was submitted by Blue Vic, LLC requesting
an approval of subdivision into 2 properties from a 15,000 square foot parcel to a
9,000 square foot and 6,000 square foot parcel. P&Z is the recommending body to
City Council. It currently contains a single family house that was historically
designated and the parcel was currently split zoned. The western 9,000 square feet
was zoned to the R-6 zone district and the eastern 6,000 square feet was zoned to
the mixed use zone district. The applicant also proposed to open the western 105
feet of the alleyway and abandon the existing curb cut on East Bleeker and a
sidewalk would be installed on Bleeker and on Monarch Street property lines. The
applicant would remove a neighboring parking pad used by the neighbor to the
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
north in improving the alleyway. Lindt said the subdivision request meets the
review standards that conform to the separate lot sizes in the separate zone
districts; the single family residence would still be in conformance with the new
property size after the subdivision review. Staff believed it was consistent with the
AACP goals for infill development and that it would provide a better pedestrian
streetscape along Bleeker Street by abandoning the existing curb cut and providing
sidewalks.
Lindt said the proposal to open the alley is probably the most controversial issue
associated with this application. Staff supported the opening ofthe alley because it
would allow vehicular access from the alley, which was consistent with the
residential design standards and commercial design standards in the city code.
Stan Clauson and Tim Semrau represented the Blue Vic LLC. Stan Clauson
pointed out the existing parking pad and curb cut that would be eliminated as per
this proposal. Clauson said the historic preservation guidelines recommend that
whenever curb cuts and driveways can be eliminated because of alley access, they
should do so; this is a historic preservation parcel, the house was a Victorian House
from the Mining era. Clauson said that both properties after subdivision would
come under the purview of historic preservation; the proposed lot 2 that would be
created would be reviewed for compatibility with the historic resources that were
adjacent. Clauson noted that next to the lot to be created was the Jerome
Professional Building; the alley has a very steep embankment, which would
prevent the alley from being continued to Mill Street (an almost 20 foot drop).
Clauson distributed photos of the alley comer showing the entrance where the
paved parking was utilized but there was no agreement with the city that allowed
for that installation. Clauson stated the alley looking to the east was very level up
to the point where it drops off and from Mill Street the platted alley was used by
the KSPN building for a patio. Clauson said that opening the alley makes the most
sense for the standpoint of ingress to serve the residential property and proposed
mixed use property. Clauson said that a sidewalk would be built to city
specifications from the alley. Clauson said the shed was deemed not to be historic
and would be demolished and that alley encroachment would be eliminated.
Clauson said the house on the other side ofthe alley has a shed that encroaches on
the alley that would need to be properly addressed.
Tim Semrau stated that he was the managing owner of this property and
sympathizes with the neighbors who have parked in this alley for many years and
don't want to see any change. Semrau said that he was willing to do whatever the
city will allow to minimize the size of the alley with the alley going through,
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
John Rowland asked if the toe ofthe hill was the end of the alley. Clauson
responded essentially yes and explained the graphic was indicating the portion of
the alley to be opened and paved and immediately afterward the grade goes down
beyond that. Rowland asked if there was an access minimum getting into the
property. Lindt replied there will be turning radius but there was not a minimum
width in the code.
Steve Skadron asked if there was a formal description of what would be built on
the 6,000 square foot parcel. Semrau answered there was no formal plan but it
would conform to the mixed use code requirement. Skadron asked if they needed
to know the impact the development would have on the use of the alley. Lindt
replied that all alleyways have the ability to be utilized by either commercial or
residential development so there were minimum standards in terms of width and
access. Semrau stated currently there were only 2 parking spots required for this
lot but they anticipate 5 spaces on the back of that lot. Clauson said the alley that
was platted there was platted as any other alley platted in the townsite. Skadron
asked about the traffic brought onto North Monarch past the blue Victorian into the
alley; he asked the impacts on the neighborhood and that portion of the West End.
Skadron said this was an alleyway in a residential area that was providing access to
a commercial development. Lindt responded that the alternatives go against the
city code residential and commercial design standards; anytime that you can take
access from the alleyway you should do so. Lindt said that P&Z could grant a
variance. Joyce Allgaier stated the purpose for alleyways was for service access
and all alleys in the city were intended to serve that function. Allgaier said the
zoning code dictates what can happen on the lots.
Dylan Johns asked for clarification on the historic use of the alley for parking.
Lindt replied that it was an existing platted alleyway; he distributed photos from
the 1880s showing the alley. Lindt said it was closed off for sometime and the
applicant's have the legal right to access through there but they don't have the right
to improve the alleyway without the city approval because it was a city right-of-
way, basically city property. Johns asked if this was a combined review for
subdivision and to improve the alleyway. Lindt replied that it was.
Public Comments:
1. Jim Markalunas, public, referenced the book Aspen on the Roaring Fork
pages 152 and 153, which was an overview in 1890 shows no alley by the Janet
Elder residence and the Willits map shows it as the Guthrie residence at the time,
Markalunas said that he was opposed to opening the alley and it would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. Markalunas said that alleys had to have a
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
function and this alley cannot physically connect because ofthe bluff line to Mill
Street.
2. Bert Myrin, public, commented that the land use code section 26.480.050(b)
could be used to deny a subdivision; the proposed alley creates a dead end alley
with mixed used and there were not any dead end alleys. Myrin said to picture
trucks trying to turn around with emergency vehicles trying to access. Myrin
referenced section 26.480.050(a) regarding character ofland uses of the area; the
side of Monarch was very residential and the historic tours started there. Myrin
suggested the applicant dedicate an easement off of Bleeker dividing the lot lines
between lots I and 2 to create an access alley. Myrin did not want the current alley
vacated. A letter was submitted by Bert Myrin.
3. Walt Madden, public, stated that Monarch was unique that the houses all
faced one way and traditionally alleys were behind the houses instead it comes out
the other way. Madden said the commercial lot would be accessed through the
street cones indicating the street and accessing the alley from the side.
4. Phil Hodgson, public, stated that he was in the house across from the
proposed alley; the 1892 book of general deeds has the ownership of the alley in
the possession of212 North Monarch, at some point that went away. Hodgson
said there were several buildings in the alley space due to this situation; NeIls
Elder lived at 202 North Monarch since 1917 and said the neighbors respected the
open space the alley allowed them. North Monarch was a residential neighborhood
and to open the alley to commercial traffic would be a detriment to the character of
the neighborhood. Hodgson said besides being blocked off as the walking
experience on North Monarch there were troops of toddlers from the preschool
crossing the alley site, carriage tours, city races, pedestrians and bicyclists using
the road. Hodgson said he did have a parking space granted to him by the city
attorney and Michael Gassman, city councilman in 1990. Hodgson said that he
would relinquish this space to return it to the unfinished alley in order to preserve
this space; a public alley needs to access streets but this dead end alley could serve
the commercial area. Hodgson said he was opposed to opening this area. Hodgson
appreciated the concern for the large fir tree and other greenery in the affected
area. A letter was submitted by Phil Hodgson.
5. Robert Ryan, public, stated that he was the oldest son of Rainard and Janet
Elder and said that the shed was a slightly different structure used for chickens; a
chicken kicked over the lamp and burned the shed down, that was where the
dilapidated structure that was there now. Ryan said the back hillside was not as
large as it was because it was used as the dump for the Hotel Jerome. Ryan said
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
there was a dairy on lots Q,R,S and they had a garage off of the street, which was
tom down in the 1960s. Ryan said from going through photographs he has not
seen evidence of the alley ever being use. Ryan said he hoped that things could be
worked out in a positive way because the character of that area hasn't changed.
6. Hailey Pace, public, voiced concern for the pedestrian traffic because it was
a pedestrian corridor on North Monarch Street and will be heavily impacted by the
increase in traffic flow; this corridor was a walkway in the summer with temporary
barricades at the intersection of Monarch and Bleeker. Pace said this area was
used by pedestrian and bicycle traffic throughout the year to access the shopping
area around Clark's Market and the Post Office. Pace said the use of the alley on
the opposite side of North Monarch was by large groups of children from the Red
and Yellow Brick Schools; hence the opening of the alley will clearly bring
increased traffic hazards and parking problems to the area that has developed
naturally as a pedestrian and bicycle corridor. Pace did not believe in encouraging
the routing of commercial traffic through a residential neighborhood when the city
was looking into limiting traffic in the West End neighborhood Street to access
Highway 82 and this did not support the Aspen Area Community Plan. Pace said
that Bleeker Street was the alternative with a curb cut and to keep traffic out of the
residential area and allow the alley to remain open space thus adding to the overall
streetscape. Pace said that opening the alley would serve only the private builders
and not the public interests.
7. Drew Hodgson, public, stated that opening the alley would increase the
traffic flow; there were a lot of toddlers from the Yellow Brick School and families
that ride their bikes, people that access Clark's Market and the Post Office through
the little trail way. Ms. Hodgson said that the trucks coming out ofthe alley will
create a dangerous situation for the small children; this has always been a
residential street that has the cones in the summer for the walk experience and
carriage rides. A letter was submitted by Drew Hodgson.
8. Wyley Hodgson, public, said that he was the son of Phil Hodgson. Hodgson
questioned the suitability of the land for subdivision because the hillside was not
very stable and the area was used as a dump. Hodgson said there were possible
geologic hazards as rock creep and debris flow and there was no explanation of
how the applicant would deal with these. Hodgson said the curb cut was the
historic parking area and the original parking access. Hodgson objected to the
piecemeal setup of the development; he believed that access from Bleeker made
more sense. Hodgson said the curb cut should be shifted to the lot line between the
2 lots, which would give straight access and a better approach then opening the
alley. A letter was submitted by Wyley Hodgson.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
Letters were also submitted from Tom and Donna Ward, William Lake and Quinn
H. Young (all against the opening of the alleyway).
Clauson said that they have looked at all of the alternatives and looked as if it was
using a platted city alley; they wanted the recommendation from the Planning &
Zoning Commission as to what was the best form of access. Clauson stated the
allowed uses in the mixed use zone district were very limited and they include
residential uses, office and service uses were provided. Allgaier and Lindt noted
that historic landmark property, which this was, could have retail or restaurant use,
until Council takes the historic landmark off of the property. Clauson said the
intention was office use.
Semrau stated that they have every intention of restoring this house to the 1885
glory; he said the historic preservation officer wanted the house left in the corner
and the access to the house from the alley.
Tygre said that once again P&Z had different thoughts on the AACP in this very
neighborhood and the unease has to do with responsibilities as outlined in the code
for this particular property once this leaves P&Z, the uses, architecture, access and
other reviews will be determined by another body. Tygre sympathized with the
applicant being placed in this position because what P&Z says could be 180
degrees the opposite of what HPC determines.
Kruger said it was good to hear the history and from the neighbors. Kruger said
that she could support the subdivision but not the entire application because the
impacts were unknown to the neighborhood and unknown to what would go on
that property therefore she could not support the access and the opening of the
alley.
Johns said that he would support the subdivision but would not support a
concurrent request to open the alleyway. Johns agreed not feeling comfortable
with the unknown changes to just grant access without the information.
Skadron said that he felt similarly and added that he valued the fact that the
character of the area has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in
contrast to the property. Skadron stated that he was a strong proponent for biking
and walking in the area. Skadron also supported the subdivision but not allowing
access through the alleyway.
Rowland echoed his fellow commissioners' comments and the review criteria did
not address access. Rowland asked for staff comments on the piecemeal process.
Lindt responded that by right the applicants have ability if they meet the criteria to
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes December 06, 2005
subdivide the property without having a development plan if it was granted by
Council.
Speck echoed the same sentiments by supporting the subdivision but the alley was
of concern and required more information. Speck said not knowing what was
going there with the dead end aspect was of concern.
Tygre agreed and this was a significant parcel because it was important to residents
as well as visitors and it was an important street as the entrance to the West End.
Tygre commended the applicant for wanting to restore the house but shared the
commissioners concerns about what was going to be on that property. Tygre said
there were quiet offices and noisy offices and the commission did not have the
right to say who could rent the property. Tygre said the East Bleeker entrance was
not that wonderful either but it preserved the Monarch Street side of the property;
there was a lot to be considered.
Lindt said at the time a specific development proposal comes in for the Growth
Management portion of the application that access could be looked at again to
determine if access was appropriate off the alley at that time or if it was still
appropriate off East Bleeker for the proposed development.
Johns suggested striking the alley access section from the resolution at this time.
The other commissioners supported Dylan's suggestions.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #37, series of2005,
recommending City Council approve with conditions the 202 North Monarch
Subdivision to divide the property described as Lots K-O, Block 78, of the city and
townsite of Aspen into a 9,000 square foot parcel and a 6,000 square foot parcel
without any alley improvements or reference to the alley, Seconded by Ruth
Kruger. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes,' Skadron, yes;
Kruger, yes,' Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LIMELIGHT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPEMNT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Limelight Final PUD. James
Lindt provided the proof of notice and mailing.
Lindt distributed letters from Jim French and Les Roos for the record. Lindt stated
that John Worcester, the City Attorney, said the Planning & Zoning Commission
had jurisdiction to proceed with the public hearing.
8
20 January 2006
f-yttJ6;J. ''-11
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC
Planning. Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Transportation Studies
Project Management
Mr. James Lindt, AICP
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
120 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
200 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHOI\E: 970.925.2323
FAX: 970.920.1628
E-MAIL: info@scaplanning.com
WEB: \vww.scaplanning.com
Re: 202 N, Monarch Street, Subdivision Application
Proposed Alternate Access
Dear James:
On behalf ofBlu Vic, LLC, we are writing to request consideration by staff, the Planning
& Zoning Commission, and City Council of an amendment to our application for
subdivision of the property consisting of Lots K, L, M, N, and 0 of Block 78 Aspen
Historic Townsite into two parcels. Specifically, in our original application, we proposed
providing access to both properties from the platted but unopened Block 78 alley extending
from North Monarch Street and abutting the rear lot line of both parcels.
In proposing this access, we were responding to design guidelines and planning criteria
that support the closure of existing curb cuts within the Historic Townsite and the use of
platted alleys wherever possible. It would be the intention to close the existing curb cut
that now provides access to the property from Bleeker Street. In taking this approach, we
also had the support of Community Development staff and the City Engineer. We were
also responding to Section 26.580.020 of the Land Use Code which details the required
improvements to be provided by subdivisions. This section clearly lists "paved alleys" as
part of the required improvements.
Subsequently, however, the Planning & Zoning Commission received input from some
abutting residents expressing concern that using an alley entrance from North Monarch
Street would bring commercial vehicles into a residential neighborhood and cause undue
traffic impact. Based on this input, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the
continued use of the Bleeker Street curb cut to provide access to the proposed Mixed Use
parcel. It is our understanding that continued use of the curb cut is not supported by City
staff, nor is it supported by the Historic Preservation Commission, which has purview over
this site because of the historic residence located there.
However, to resolve this issue, we are proposing an alternate access arrangement. This
alternative received the unanimous endorsement of the HPC at a worksession held on 11
January 2006, The alternative would consist of opening the Block 78 alley from both
directions, that is, from North Monarch Street and from North MiIl Street. Residential
traffic for Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision would take access from North Monarch Street,
while traffic accessing the proposed Mixed Use Lot 2 would take access from North Mill
PLA.NNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS
Mr. James Lindt, AICP
20 January 2006
Page Two
Street. In this way, the impact of opening the alley from either direction would be
minimized, Naturally, emergency access to service either lot could be provided from both
entries and this would further enhance safety considerations.
It should be noted that, while the alley opening from North Monarch Street is a relatively
simple task, with minimal encroachment into the public right of way from abutters, this is
not the case with the alley accessed from North Mill Street. There are some
encroachments into the public right of way from the adjacent KSPM Building. These
encroachments do not render opening the alley technically infeasible, but support from the
City would be required to remove these private encroachments from the public right of
way.
Attached is a drawing, illustrating the proposed alternative access. The drawing is
illustrative of the access and not intended to represent a final design solution that would be
arrived at in conjunction with the City Engineer. We believe that this will resolve the
concerns of abutters and the Planning & Zoning Commission, while supporting the City
policies with respect to curb cuts. As always, we look forward to working with you to
develop the best possible access solution as part of the subdivision approval process.
Please let me know if you require any additional information as part of this application
amendment.
~-
tan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attachments: Alternative access drawing
Jim and Ram 0 n a
624 W. North Street,
Markalunas
Aspen, CO 81611
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Re: Lots K-O, Block 78, Aspen Townsite, Blue Vic LLC
Request to open a platted alley
Dear Council persons,
Since we will not be in Aspen at the time of your discussions concerning
this matter, we are asking you to submit our letter into the record.
We respectfully request that you not open this Alley for the following
reasons.
1) Historically, The platted alley has never been used as an alley.
2) All of the gracious Victorian homes in this block face west on
Monarch Street between Bleeker and Hallam Streets.
3) An alley would destroy the ascetic qualities of the "streetscape";
long established, and well documented in historic photos.
4 ) An alley would serve no purpose, other than to disrupt the
tranquillity of the adjoining properties.
We would take this opportunity to point out that there are other
significant historic blocks which have platted alleys, but these alleys are
closed and are not in "Public Use" for practical and ascetic reasons.
Examples are:
1) Wagner and Paepcke Parks, Aspen Townsite
2) Aspen Historical Society property, Aspen Townsite
3) Aspen Institute Property, Hallam's Addition
In closing, we respectfully oppose opening this alley, because it will
destroy the historic beauty and tranquillity of the block.
pectfully submitted,
-~ \i?~
nd Ramona Markalunas
Page 1 of 1
James Lindt
From: Annie Jensen [goosiegracelet33@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 20067:02 PM
To: James Lindt
Subject: Monarch Street Alley
James Lindt, Community Development Dept.
c/o City Hall
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Mr. Lindt,
My name is Annie Jensen and I was born and raised in Aspen, Co and a current resident of New York
City. I am writing on behalf of the unopened alley near 2 I 2 Monarch St. I was appaIled to hear that a
commercial development was going to replace the beautiful blue house that currently occupies the
space. I realize however that the world is changing (I still miss Tom's market!) and things change, It
would be tragic however to open an alley in such a beautiful location that is currently residential.
Aspen's unique qualities include these historic neighborhoods, by allowing this change I feel the city
would be opening the door for many other such changes in the future,
Please consider my voice, and the voice of many long time locals, as we plead with you not to open this
alley,
Sincerely,
Annie Grace Jensen
Annie Jensen
303-345-5472
201 Clinton Ave, Apt 15-A
New York, NY 11205
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.
2/2/2006
February 2, 2006
James Lindt, Community Development Dept.
c/o City Hall
130 S. Galena Street, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RECEIVED
FEB 0 6 2006
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Lindt,
I am writing to you to express my concern over the possible opening of Alley Block 78
for private use on Monarch Street. I would hope that you would not consider this as a
possibility in connection with the proposed development for the comer property on
Monarch and Bleeker. I feel the opening of this alley for delivery trucks and automobiles
would adversely affect the character of this historic neighborhood by disrupting
residential life for the residents as well as detract from the Walk Experience route that
visitors and locals use each summer through the beautiful West End. The alley would
stand out like a sore thumb as it is on the side of the house at 212 Monarch Street, not
behind homes as other alleys in that part of town.
I moved to Aspen in 1967 and have up until last year, lived in town for the better part of
my life, raising my son here. I met the Hodgson family (owners of the home at 212 N.
Monarch Street) in the early 1980's as our sons became instant best friends upon meeting
in preschool and we've continued this friendship through the years. Prior to Patty
Hodgson's untimely death, many times over the years we would gather at the Hodgson
home prior to a dress rehearsal or concert at the Tent and walk from their Monarch Street
home to enjoy the homes and gardens of the West End on our way to the Music Tent.
Those are really some of my fondest memories of many summers in Aspen. I must say,
that I really hate the idea of more density and congestion infringing on that beautiful part
of town.
Although I moved to Basalt last year, I continue to work in Aspen and still feel very
much invested in its future. I hope you will give this proposal to open and pave this alley
on Monarch Street thoughtful consideration before making a decision.
Thank you for you for reading this letter.
Sincerely,
"-
~DG.:. lA.k~ In,
~oJ.f: &, 8/bz (
pk"lqd+-38I.olf
it"'"
04:55P FROM:GILBERT 303 722 5766
TO: 13703205433
p: 1/1
Darry Gilbert
1820 S. Broadway
Denver ,CO 80210
(}O}) 548-5710
5 r.e1--~--- ,...,'u\~
.1 U1Udl)' L..VVV
Mr. James Lindt, Comtnunity Development Dept.
CIO City Hall
130 S. Galena St. Jrd Fluor
Aspen, CO 8161 I
Rc; Proposed development of 202 N. Monarch SI.
Dear Mr. Lindt:
I. have; bc;c;u u fr.equent vi~i.tor. to Aspen for. the 1,Qi!t, fotty ye(l(S. I h;;lve sptlnt mOst o{ my
time in the" west end ". I would like to rompliment the City of Aspen for their careful
plaru'1lng and control oft.hedevelopment in this fCsidential area.
As you are aware, the proposed development of the above reterenced site includes the
opening of the alley, block 78, at the Monarch St. side. This would allow commercial
traffic to flow through a residential neighborhood. It seems to me, that this additional
traffic should come from the already conuncrcially zoned access points offBIcckcr St. or
Mill St,
For the record, I would like to state 1l1a! I agree with the previous findings ofthe Aspen
Planning and Zoning hearing ( 6 December 2005). That is to keep the alley closed.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
-.,", ~)
B~
~
Fob-06-06 08:16am From-BUREAU OF LAND MGT
5055254412
T-S8S P,02/04 F-527
Jame:s Line!t
Community Pevelopment pepamnent
c/o Aspen CIty Hall
130 S, Galena St" 3re! Floor, Aspen, CO 81611
Email: jameslliilci.asnen.cQ,ljS
Fax; (970) 920-5439
F"bruary 3, 2006
Pear Mr Line!t:
This letter is to infurm you ane! the City Council that 1 am in agreement with the Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z) unanimous opposition to the application by Tim Se:mrau to open ane! pave 105 ft, of
Alley alack 78 on Nonh Monarch St. Members of the P&Z wc:re quoted as saying, 001 value the fact that
the cluulcrer has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in stalk contraSt to the property and
conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking." Another quote from the unanimous P&Z deCIsion
in reference to the proposee! e!evdopment: ooThis is a parcel that is very significant to visitors because it
is the entrance to the whole west ene! tour. The:re seems to be: unanimity among the commine:e: that the
mix of pedestrian and commercial uses is inappropriate." Please conside:r the comments from the P&Z
Conunission as well as the following in your deciston process,
My concern regare!ing Tim Semrau's development proposal stems from my 20 years of growing up next
door at 212 N. Monarch St. My family has lived in Aspen for five gener4tions. My father, Philip
Hodgson, currently resie!es in this house, and I tore:see our house: being in the family for many future
generations. The:refore, I have: great interest in preserving the historic ane! environmental values to this
city block. This city block has served as a tamiJiar gateway to the West End for e!ecade:s. The "Walk
Expe:rience" was initiated while 1 was growing up in Aspen. At thi, time, traffic was dramatically
decreasee! allowing a pede:strianlbicycle friene!ly corridor. 1 do not foresee another location which can
provide such historical and convenient access to the West End. 1 urge you to please consider the
consequences of opening the alley and subdividing the lots associated with 202 N. Monarch. I fear the
increased tratlic and condensed housmg will deler those whom historically have enteree! the We:sl Ene!
to tind a sense of Aspen's Victorian history as well as the Aspen Music Festival. My specific concerns
and logical alternatives to Mr. Semrau's proposal are listed below.
Specifically, I have grave concerns regarding the opening of the alle:y and propc:rry subdivision. The
Alle:y Block 78 at the Monarch side is planed but has neve:r been opened. The purpose of opening the
alley is to access the private residence and "the fIlt\lre mixee! use dc:velopment" on the MU lots, if the
sube!ivision IS approvee!. Additionally, 1 understand lhat a side:walk would be instalkd on Bleeke:r St,
and would wrap around on Monarch St.
My specific concerns with opening Alley Block 78 are:
I) Conunercial traffic in a re3idential neighborhood to access Mixed Use building
lncrease:e!nojse concerns
Increased parking problems
Increased traffic and subsequent pedestrianlbicycle contlict
Quam H. 'l'OLll\~ Comnl'Tlt:.for ^~ ClryCoUlll"11}4-" Opcml'lguf Alley ~Iock 78 ana Sub<l11ll~10nof202 N. Mooarcl'l.^Sp<=fl.cO Pal}c 1
... "'''-~~'--''~'''''-~'''~~''-.""<"---"~,,,,,,---~-'----
Fob-OB-OB 08:18am From-BUREAU OF lAND MGT
5055Z5441Z
T-181 P,Ol/04 F-5Z7
Saf.:ty concerns
2) Effects on the "Walk Experi.:nce" 10 sununer season and th~ general use of this ponion of
Nonh Monarch St.
"Walk Expaience" user:> will encounter dramatically increased naffic flow, (e.g., service
trucks, garbage trucks, MU building tenants),
A new sidewalk wiIl alter the character of the "Walk Experi.:nce" which is currently used as
a detetTentto automobiles in the West End during the sununer season and allows pedesmans
to walk in the street,
Increased traffic due 10 the opening of the alley will present safelY concerns for the
pe4~strian and bicycle corridor, (e.!;., pedestrian and bicycle access to Clark's Market, post
office) via walkin!; and bike nails, especially if a sidewalk is designed to pass in front of a
h~avily used alley.
Horse carriage rides will encounter more naffic,
3) Safety compromised to young children who often use N. Monarch 10 access Red and Yellow
Brick Schools, because of increased traffic flow,
4) Effects on streetscape:
Visual impact of 105 foot alley/dnveway replacin!; previous maintained open space that
included trees, shrubs, and gardens.
Disruption of historic continuity ofth.: bloclc (the east side of Monarch is one of the few
remainin!; "untouched" historiC blocks in Aspen).
Historically, the front of houses in the West End did not face alleys. The alleys were placed
along the backside of houses, Theretore, the orientation of the historic houses adjacent to
the alley explains why Alley Block 78 was never opened.
5) Public alley being opened exclusivdy for private use.
The Public alley will only be serving automobile access to a private Mixed Use buildmg and
a private residcmce.
Alley lUock 78 is a dead end alley that provides no publ ic access, only private. This is not in
the interest of the citizens of the cilY or county.
6) Effects on the sub alpine Fir tree at212 N, Monarch St,
The city Parks Dept, believes a paved alley can be installed without affecting the Fir tree that
is encroaching into the alley. The Fir is estimated to be 80-100 years old. Other foresters and
biologists do think there could be negative effects on the Fir if a paved alley is installed.
Also, Mr. Semrau's application to open the public alley and subdivide the propeny is inconsistent with
Aspen Area Commumty Plan (AACP) objectives. The AACP Ext::Cutlve Summary states its desire for
"Maintaining Conununity Character & Design" and to "Promote a standard of design that is of the
highest quality and is compatible with flte historic feaTUres of the commwuty and environment." Page
42 of the AACP discusses the ciry's developm~nt philosophy: "'The sU'eelSCape of Aspen is about
u-eedQm and diversity as w.:ll as historical continuit)'. The spaces between buildings, particularly in the
publi!: realm, (e,g" streets, plazas, parks and yards), are often more important than the buildings
themselves,"
The preservation of open space suppons the highest quality of deSign. 1 would argue that mOSt 'hi~h
quality design' would include proportional balance with the surroundings (e,g., open space such as lawn
QUlOn H 'fauns Comnldlbi For AI>-ptn ri~ Council~: Op,:mn~ of Allc:y Block 7S :11\<1 SubdlVdJon of202 N Mon:arc:n, ~pcn. CO P;.tge 2
Fob-OS-OS OB:1Bam From-BUREAU OF lAND MGT
5055254412
T-lBl P.04/04 F-52T
and landscaping). Otherwise, these developments resemble: the crammed feeling of tract housmg wilh
liule architectural regard for the overall design of the conununity.
Alternatives ro opening Alley BICK:k 78:
1) Provide access to Mixed Use buildings and residence from Bleeker SI., behind Hotel Jerome.
Dlle to the aforementioned historical inconsistencies of opening Alley Block 78, lthe alley's
orientation relative to Ihe adjacem houses), section 14.20 of the Historic Preservation
Guidelines thai SUIteS, "Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be
removed if parking can be placed on the alley," should be overruled because oflhe funher
historic degradanon this action will cause.
Bleeker St. already serves Mixed Use and Commercial entities. Therefore it makes most
sense to keep consislent with city zoning and bnng commercial traffic access through a
conunercial street, not a reSidential streel.
The visual impact of having all access for the propeny on Bleeker St. would be far less than
on Monarch. The distance needed for access is also flIr less from the Bleeker side rath"! than
the Monarch side. Therefore it makes mOSt sense from an impact perspective to move the
proposed single access point fOT both the residence and MU buildmg from Alley Block 78 to
the already existing curb cut on Bleeker St.
2) Provide access from Mill SI.
Again, use a commercial street to provide access for conunercial traffic.
By opening alley on Mill St., the city can eliminate the currem curb cut that accesses Ihe
KSPN building's parking lot,lthe alley runs aQiacem 10 the parking lot),
Opening the Mill St, end of Alley Block 78 does provide access to Tim Semrau's propeny
qespite the grade difference (approx. 20-25'). The grade is similar to the Bleeker St. grade,
and hence can be bllill to access the propeny, Alternatively, Semrau can build an
underground parking lot at the lower grade and install a staircase or elevator to access his
MU building. The private residence will have its curb CLlI moved west on Bleeker St, to new
propeny line (if subdivision of the R-6 lots and MU lots is approved).
Thank you tor your consideration of these comments, This is a very historical and visual location in the
city of Aspen, The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed unanimQusly to decline Mr. Semrau's
proposal to open the alley, Please consider the above suggestions as preferred alternatives 10 Mr.
Semrau's application,
Sincerely,
~~~
Quinn H. Young
700 Canyon pomt Rd.
Las Cruces, NM 88011
l50S) 525-4323 (voice)
(505) 525-4412 (fax)
Emai\; Quinn YouDlztamm.blm.gov
QloIinn H. YOWlS COll1TT\alts For A.Sp~C1t)' COl.lncl1 Rr. Opaling of Alky aloek. 78 anQ Su'bdilfllilon of::Z02 N Muusrch. ^spcn. co P-..gc 3
02/06/2006 11:18 FAX 4195303606
SAFETY & R1 SK MANAGEMENT
I4i 002
James Lindt
Community Development Department, c/o Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Fax: (970) 920-5439
Email: jamesl@CLaspen.co.us
February 5,2006
Dear Mr. Lindt:
Please include my comments in your official compilation for review by City Council. I am very
concerned about the proposal to open a historically unopened alley on a very important city' block of
Aspen. I am quite familiar with this location, as I have visited Aspen many times in the past. This
block, on N. Monarch St., is very popular among locals and visitors alike, as it has alWays been a quiet
and peaceful transition to the west end from the hustle and bustle of Main and Mill S1. It seems that the
Planning and Zoning Commission agrees that the proposal of opening the alley on Monarch St. is not
appropriate for Aspen. Quotes from the P&Z Commission hearing included: "This is a parcel that is
very significant to visitors because it is the entrance to the whole west end tour, There seems to be
unanimity among the comniittee that the mix of pedestrian and commercial uses is inappropriate." Also,
"I value the fact that the character has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in stark contraSt
to the property and conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking."
Further, what truly concerns me is the presence of elementary school aged children in the close vicinity
of this proposed development. It seems that allowing the encroaChment of commereilil and increased
residential traffic into this quiet neighborhood would pose a threat to the children whom typically use
this route. Also, I know many who enjoy "The Walk EXperience" to access the stores/post office via tbe
footpath to avoid the congestion along Mill S1. Then, of course, others walk and bike leisurely to the
Music Tent and to ACES without the current concern of vehicle congestion and danger. I foresee that
there could be many potential accidents for bikers and pedestrians with traffic accessing and leaving this
proposed driveway location.
There must be some alternatives to provide commercial access from a different street which would not
compromise the integrity and safety of this walking corridor, I hope that this alley can remain closed as
it always has and was meant to be, lbank you.
Sincerely,
'~'k~
Mimi Konicki
4804 Princess Court
Sylvania., Ohio 43560
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Bob and Crispen Limacher
DATE: February 4,2006
RE: Alley opening between 202 and 212 N. Monarch St., Aspen
We were thrilled after attending the P&Z meeting in December, 2005 when the committee
unanimously denied opening the easement/alley between 202 and 212 N. Monarch St. !
They had great concem regarding commercial traffic in a residential area and had questions
about the plans for the property. Now we have found out that the developer, Tim Semrau
is asking City Council to overrule the advice from P&Z. The same problems are still
present as we and others specified in our letters to the P&Z, and that you have in your
packets.
The developer was given his first request to subdivide the property but was denied the
alley opening which is crucial to his plans. He won't be able to do as large of a
development without the city giving him his driveway through the easement/ alley. Does it
seem right to open an alley to commercial traffic within 10ft. from an existing original
Victorian, asphalt a city owned open space, create commercial traffic problems in a
residential neighborhood, ruin old victorian gardens and perhaps a 100 year old fir tree ALL
to benefit a developer? Opening the easement/alley will not benefit the city, the
community, or the neighborhood.
The developer has not publicly discussed his plans, has anyone seen any? He needs the
city to provide greater access via the easement/alley so he won't have to use his property
to do so, which would cut back his larger development options. It is the property owner's
responsibility to provide access to his development, not the city's. There is already
access from Bleeker St. Mr. Semrau has told the neighbors he hopes to build the multi-use
complex, move the blue victorian towards Monarch St. and build a multi family complex
between there and the victorian at 212 N, Monarch. These ideas are NOT in the best
interest of anyone.
We are skeptical about the developers' plans since we watched his development at the
corner of Bleeker and Garmisch St., where we used to live in the 1960's, turn into an
oversized high end project. Gone was the large lawn that was on half the property, and the
off street parking for the area. With the present situation on Monarch you are playing with
the integrity of old victorians, don't let it become another oversized project,
Please don't destroy the neighborhood! Leave the easement/alley as it has been for over
100 years. Make the developer come up with different ideas for his development. Ask for
his plans! Don't allow him to ruin one of the only true victorian blocks left in Aspen by
paving open space.
We trust the City Council will think carefully about this proposal. Go to the site, visualize the
proposal and it's ramifications ( and imagine the green lawn and gardens that are under the
snow). Please agree with the P&Z and deny this request!
~~~~i~ration,
&i4 ~
Bob an~n Limacher
Brooke H, Latimer
49 Siscowit Road
Pound Ridge, NY 10576
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in the hope that the proposed subdivision and development with alley access
at the comer of Monarch Street and Bleeker Street will be rejected. I applaud the
Planning and Zoning Committee for their unanimous vote against opening the alley to
access this development.
As stated by the AACP, the model for future development in Aspen would be one in
which "automobile traffic should not be allowed to grow and should ideally decline".
Pedestrian areas should be increased. The proposed opening of the alley would do the
opposite. The charm and the historic feel of Aspen a block from Main Street should not
be encroached upon. The increase in traffic, parking problems, noise pollution and above
all, the loss of yet another block to MU growth seems totally wrong.
My family built a home in the Aspen area nearly forty years ago and we have family ties
to the town dating to its original mining days. We have been enjoying Aspen for decades,
and I hope that experience won't be diminished by seeing the charm and character of the
town erode,
Sincerely,
,ldltd~ (j -rP~v::,
Brooke H. Latimer
1:'d
1:996-996-801:
J81lBM )!JBl^j
BV9:~~ 90 90 q8~
Mr. J ames Lindt
Community Development Department
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena St. 3'd Floor
Aspen, CO 81615
February 3, 2006
RE: Opening Alley Block 78
Dear Mr. Lindt:
We are writing to express my opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Alley
Block 78 on Monarch Street. We have been frequent visitors to Aspen for the past
twenty years and have enjoyed the pedestrian-friendly streets, especially in the West
End. We have always been impressed at the way the City of Aspen has preserved its
historic value and streets capes by curbing the traffic in the historic neighborhoods
and keeping it a desirable place to walk and bike.
The proposed development would make it an undesirable street to walk down as it
would increase traffic by routing commercial vehicles through a residential
neighborhood. Because this street is heavily used by pedestrians, this poses serious
safety concerns. Additionally, a 105 foot alley solely for residential use will drastically
alter the streetscape as well as the historic character of Monarch Street. The
proposed alley will eliminate the natural beauty by replacing a beautiful open space
with trees with a 105 foot long slab of concrete.
We strongly agree with the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning
commission to keep the alley closed. We hope that the City of Aspen wiIl continue to
value its historic residential neighborhoods by finding another access point for the
traffic, thereby keeping Monarch Street a safe and friendly place for pedestrians.
Sincerely,
Holly and Luke Hayden
12 Winding Way
Chester, NJ 07930
,__,._~_~__,.".^."_o...._~.~~..__.._._....~_,_.,o..,,,"_,....._,, ".~._-,-"'---<~-
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mara [faithaspen@yahoo.com]
Monday, February 06, 2006 11: 11 AM
James Lindt
Opening Alley Block 78
Mr. James Lindt
Community Development
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81615
Department
3rd Floor
February 3, 2006
RE: Opening Alley Block 78
Dear Mr. Lindt:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Alley Block 78 on
Monarch Street. I have lived in Aspen for the past 10 years during which I have enjoyed
accessing the quiet streets as a pedestrian - walking, biking or rollerblading. In fact,
one of the reasons.that I have resided in Aspen so long is because I appreciate the small
amount of street traffic and the fact that I can walk and bike to work. I am very
familiar with Monarch Street as I use it frequently to access Clark's Market and the Post
Office.
The proposed development would make Monarch an undesirable street to walk down as it would
increase traffic by routing commercial vehicles through a residential neighborhood. As
one of the many pedestrians who access Monarch Street, I am very concerned of the impact
this opened alley will have, especially when it comes to safety. I think of the walking
tours that begin on Monarch Street, as well as the carriage rides, the children who walk
to the Early Learning Center, AND the Race for the Cure which utilizes Monarch every
summer! Thousands of people enjoy Monarch Street because it is a safe and traffic-free
street.
Destroying a beautiful open space in order to install a 105 foot driveway solely for
residential use is ridiculous as it will drastically alter the streetscape as well as the
historic character of Monarch Street. I can already imagine the cars and semi trucks
flying in and backing out of the alley with little regard to the pedestrians walking down
the street.
Additionally, 1 would like to point out that the proposed development conflicts greatly
with several AACP goals regarding degreasing traffic flow, maintaining pedestrian safety,
and preservation of the historic features of the community and environment.
If developers are not held to these standards and goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan,
then our town will turn into just another city.
I am delighted at the Planning and Zoning commission's unanimous decision to keep the
alley closed and I join them in their opposition. I hope that the City of Aspen will
seriously consider the impact of the proposed development and uphold the AACP goals by
placing the alley off of the commercial streets (Mill or Bleeker) and keeping Monarch
Street a safe and beautiful place for pedestrians.
Sincerel y,
Mara R Sanderson
1
02/05/2005 14:15
8502102142
SUZANNE H GALLUP
PAGE 02
Mr. James Lindt
Community Development Department
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Email: jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us
Fax: (970) 920-5439
February 6, 2006
Dear Mr, Lindt
As frequent visitors of Aspen, Colorado, we were shocked to learn of a proposal to open a city
alley in a historic neighborhood. We recently reviewed the unanimous decision by the
Planning & Zoning Commission in response to Mr. Tim Semrau's development proposal and
agree fully with the P&Z that the alley must not be opened. Specifically, the P&Z commented,
"1 value the fact that the character has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in
stark contrast to the property and conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking," and,
"This is a parcel that is very significant to visitors because it is the entrance to the whole west
end tour, There seems to be unanimity among the committee that the mix of pedestrian and
commercial use is inavvrouriate."
We agree with the P&Z comments, as we are very familiar with this historic block, where the
large blue Victorian has served as a beacon for all those on foot in pursuit of some music at the
Tent. We do not believe that Aspen's many visitors would enjoy the altered character of this
block, with a newly paved alley and the hazard of commercial and residential traffic to
pedestrians and bicyclists, For thirty years, we have enjoyed walking through the West End
and meeting others on our strolls, This proposal would not lend well to tourists interested in
taking the historic walking tours, which depend on un-congested, quiet streets to view these
beautiful West End neighborhoods. We are unclear why this particular alley would be opened
for commercial access while there does not seem to be commercially zoned property on l:llis
street! .
Please include our comments and consider those of the P&Z Commission in your review of
this development proposal. We, along with many others might reconsider continuing our
traditional vacations to Aspen if proposals such as this are approved, The integrity of Aspen's
history should be well preserved as this is what puts Aspen well above other mountain resort
communities.
David Hyman & Barbara Reid
1243 Bunny Court
Aspen, CO 81611
February 6, 2006
Mr. James Lindt, Community Development Department
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena St. 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81615
RE: Alley Block 78
Dear Mr. Lindt:
As the City Council reviews the proposed redevelopment of Alley Block 78 on Monarch St.,
we hope that they will not allow a new alley to open off of Monarch Street.
Weare concerned that the proposal for an alleyway off of Monarch St. to serve a new
commercial building on Bleeker St. will have a major negative impact on this historic
residential block. No alley exists at present and the proposed alley, though apparently platted
at some point in the past, is uncharacteristic of other west end alleys. Typically, the alleys in
the west end are residential and run along the backside of residential properties. They
provide passage from one block to another. The proposed alley would run along the side of
the bordering houses and is a dead end alley. Worse yet, the proposed alley dead-ends into a
new commercial building. The introduction of commercial traffic into this historic and
pedestrian residential neighborhood would irretrievably damage its character.
Within the Aspen Area Community Plan, under maintaining Community Character and
Design it states as a goal: "Promoting a standard of design that is of the highest quality and
is compatible with the historic features ofthe community and environment." We contend
that the proposed development of Alley Block 78 is not compatible with the historic features
ofthe community and environment, and very specifically, is not compatible with its
immediate surroundings. Opening up an area that has never been an alley and not even
remotely used for commercial purposes will change the character of this block profoundly
and forever.
We urge you to move the access for vehicles from the proposed new alley opening off of
Monarch St. to the already existing block cut on Bleeker. This last block of East Bleeker is
already a widely used commercial thoroughfare. Monarch, while just around the comer, has
a distinctly different character and is indisputably residential and non commercial - and is the
beginning of the pedestrian walkway that creates an important vehicle deterrent in the
summer.
To quote again from the Aspen Area Community Plan: "We must continue to build on what
we have by authentically preserving historic structures and creating thoughtful new buildings
that encourage and shape that feeling of historic continuity." The City must maintain the
historic residential quality and the historic value of such important enclaves as this unique
comer ofN. Monarch St.
The AACP's sentiment that "The spaces between buildings, particularly in the public realm,
i.e. streets, plazas, parks and yards, are often more important than the buildings themselves"
is a perfect dictate for the preservation of this historically non-commercial residential block.
Sincerely,
~~
02/06/2006 16:38 FAX 1212 286 4177
SIIALL SPACE ADV
~002
Mr. James Lindt
Conununity Development Department
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena St. 3'" Floor
Aspen, CO 81615
February 6, 2006
RE: Opening Alley Block 78
Dear Mr. Lindt
I have vacationed in Aspen several times over the years and have stayed in the W cst End
each time. Coming from a big city, I always enjoy the scenery, and the quiet, peaceful streets
in this neighborhood It is a nice break from the noise and pollution that I am used to back
home. I am very familiar with the open space that is being threatened. That being said, r
would like to express my opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Alley Block 78 on
Monarch Street.
The proposed olley would make Monarch an undesirable street for pedestrians as it would
increase traffic by routing commercial vehicles through a residential neighborhood therefore
posing safety concerns for the many people who walk and bike down MOlliLIch,
Additionally, a 105 foot alley solely for residential use seems unreasonable as it will
drastically alter the stteetscape as well as the historic character of Monarch Street.
r sttongly agree with the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning commission to
keep the alley closed. r am also in agreement to placing the proposed alley off of a different
street such as Bleeker. r hope clut the City of Aspen will carefully consider the value of this
historic, residential neighborhood, and thus honor it by using one of the many alternatives to
the proposed development which will not compromise its beauty and history.
Sincerely,
~I&.. 4-
oW\...
Jenny Montasir
490 tom St
Brooklyn, NY 11215
917-340-0664
jmontasirlliJ..vahoo.com
I""'
OS OS,43p
Fisher~ ~ Wildli~e Soi.
(505) S4S-1281
p.l
James Lindt
Aspen City Hall
Community Devclopment Deparlmenl
130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspcn, CO 81611
February 1, 2006
Deilr Mr. Lindt:
I am a frequent visitor to Aspen. My wife grew up next to the proposed development area, and her
family still owns properly on Monarch Strcet. As such, I am very concerned about thc proposed
dcvelopmenl. I agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's unanimous opposition to the
application by Tim Semrau to open and pave 10S n, of Alley Block 78 on North Monarch Strcet.
My opposition is based on the following:
Mr. Semrau appears to be segmcnting his development plan. Thc proposal calls for opening the
allcy to access residential (current use) and commercial (not current use) buildings on 202 N.
Monarch (See Figure Below). Apparently, Mr. Semrau plans on subdividing the lots associated
with 202 N, Monarch. Exactly how these lots will be subdivided has not been fully disclosed.
Without full disclosure orhis development plan, the City Council has no ideal of consequenecs of
the proposed opening, Mr. Semrau should be required to submit full architectural designs of his
proposed development to the City Council and residences of Aspen. The proposed development
can only be fully evaluated once thcre is a full disclosure of development plans. As such, the
opcning of Alley Block 78 on North Monarch Street is not justified.
In addition, the Aspen Arca Community Plan statcs its desire for "Maintaining Community
Character & Design" and to "Promote a standard of design that is ofthe highcst quality and is
compatible with the historic featurcs of the community and environmcnl." The Aspen Area
Community Plan states that the city's dcvelopment philosophy is; '~rhe streetscape of Aspen is
about Ireedom and diversity as well as historical continuity." 'The spaces betwcen buildings,
parlicularly in the public rcalm (e.g., streeL5, plazas, parks and yards), arc onen morc important than
the buildings themselves." The proposed subdivision and alley opcning is in thc historical West End
neighborhood, and anccts Aspen's Victorian history. As such, subdivision plans in this neighborhood
need to be closely scrutinized, Memhel's "fthe I'fanning and Zoning Commission noted thatlhis
neighborhood is "... very signilieant to visitors because it is the entl1lnee to the whole west cnd tour. "
and that" .., the mix of pedestrian and commerei," uses is inappropriate...," and "opening the alley
slands in slark conlnlstlo the propcrty and conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking."
Clearly, thc hislorie nature ofthis neighborhood, and the location and eUlTent use ofthe neighborhood
needs 10 be considered strongly in devclopment project~, Currently, there is no evidence lhat Mr.
Semrau proposal addresses these concerns.
I am also concerned that the opening of the Alley Block 78 on North Monarch Street and potential
development on 202 N. Monarch would increase commercial traffic in a residential neighborhood.
Bcyond the obvioLls safely concerns ornearhy schools, commercial (raffic will increase noise
conccrns, increase parking problems, and increase trafjje and subscqllent pedcstrianlbicyele
conflict. This will dramatically alter lhe "Walk Experience" of vacationers and residents in
SUlnmcr season and the general USe "fthis portion ofN. Monarch Street.
l.f.s
Feb-06-06 06:14pm From-
15065211449
T-T34 P 002/003 F-T6T
In addition, vegetation near the proposed development site has trees that are approaching 100 years
old. Development near this vegetation (such as the alley) will likely have negative effects on the
long-term swvival of this vegetation. Soil compaction reduces water infiltration and the ability of
vegetation to persist. Additional poIJution runoff from new road and consnuction site may also
alter the integrity of trees and vegetation. All development plans needs to consider vegetation, as
the loss of vegetation alters the integrity of the view shed, and ultimately may reduce the long-term
economic viability of the neighborhood through reduced propeny values.
At this time, I do not believe Mr. Semrau has explored all possible development options. For
example, commercial access to proposed development area couId be obtained from Mill Street or
Bleeker Street (See Figure Above). This may reduce some of my concerns outlined above. If all
access for the property was on Bleeker Street, the visual impact to this historic neighborhood would
be reduced.
I urge you to please consider the consequences of opening the alley and subdividing the lots
associated with 202 N. Monarch. The City of Aspen has developed a strong economy based on
tourism. This Strong economy has had a positive effect ou propeny values in the Aspen. However,
a strong continued economy is dependent on wise planning and retaining adequate view sheds for
both residents and visitors. Altering the historic Victorian neighborhoods will Ultimately reduce
propeny values, and lead toward reduced tourism as vacationers choose other destinations. Many
tourism based cities in the West have experienced rapid urban growth that has ultimately reduced
long lerm economic gain through poor urban planning.
2 .t: 3
Feb-06-06 06:14pm From-
15055211449
T-T34 P003/003 F-T5T
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I fully agree with the Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously decision to decline Mr. Semrau's proposal to open the alley. The
location of this proposed development and outcome is very important to the city of Aspen. Please
keep me informed ofthe outcome of this proposal and future development projects in Aspen. I
wish to be included on your mailing list of public meetings.
s~~
Kendal Young
700 Canyon Point Road
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011
3 ~~.3
f'"''''''
James Lindt
Community Development Department
c/o Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Fax: (970) 920-5439
email: jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us
00:58
970-920-5409
ASPEN POLICE
PAGE 01/01
February 5, 2006
Dear Mr. Lindt:
For the record, I. agree with the comments presented by thc Planning & Zoning Commission in a
unanimous decision to decline Tim Semrau's proposal of opening the closed city alley block 78. Please
include my comments in your review for City Council. Quotes from the P&Z Commission hearing
spoke well for Aspen: "This is a parcel that is very significant to visitors because it is the entrance to
the whole west end tour. There seems to be unan.imity among the committee that the mix of pedestrian
and commercial uses is inappropriate." Also, "1 value the fact that the character has remained
unchanged and opening the alley stands in stark contrast to the property and conflicts with the AAC?
goal of biking and walking."
J hopc this proposal is considered carefully, as the nature ofthis neighborhood is valued for its quiet and
relaxing atmosphere. Currently, biking and walking are encouraged and traffic is compatible. The
opening of the alley would threaten the pedestrian friendly character of this area. Further, elementary
school aged children used this routc to access the Yellow Brick and Red Brick schools. These children
should not be put in a dangerous situation by the congestion that 11 new driveway would introduce to this
street.
Many locals prefer to use this corridor to access the Aspen Music Festival, Clark's Markel, the post
office, etc. instead of walking or biking down busy Mill St. Why introduce more traffic and
pedestrian/vehicle conflict to an area which currently is not that way?
Please consider some alternatives to this proposal. There does not seem to be any benefit to Aspen's
cit;,;ens with opening the alley.
Thank you.
Bethany Wilkes
PMB 13 P.O. Box 10006
Saipan, MP 96950
beewiJkes@gmail.com
February 7, 2006
James Lindt
Community Development Department
C/o Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611
iamesl@ci.aspen.co.us
Dear Mr Lindt:
This letter is to inform you and the City Council that I am in agreement with the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) unanimous opposition to the application by Tim Semrau to open
and pave 105 ft. of Alley Block 78 on North Monarch St. The opening of this alley would
interfere with the beautiful entrance to the West End of Aspen, which highlights Aspen's
unique character and history.
I grew up in Aspen, attending Aspen Middle School and graduating from Aspen High
School, and I continue to return to visit family who still live there. Over the years. I have
been pleased that Aspen has worked to maintain its historic character and have enjoyed
showing off the town to my friends, many of whom visit Aspen several times a year.
The city block on North Monarch Street may not seem like a significant area to
some; however, it is an integral part of Aspen's original heritage. In order to
maintain its reputation as not only a world-class ski resort, but also a charming
mountain town, Aspen needs to remain pedestrian friendly. Opening the alley on
North Monarch would lead to increased traffic and interfere with Aspen's Victorian
history. Additionally, increased traffic will increase safety concerns for both
residents and visitors in the neighborhood. I am very concerned about the opening
of the alley and property subdivision. As the quote proclaiming the unanimous
decision of the P & Z states, "this is a parcel that is very significant to visitors
because it is the entrance to the whole west end tour. There seems to be unanimity
among the committee that the mix of pedestrian and commercial uses is
inappropriate. "
Thank you very much for your time and your attention to this matter
Sincerely,
Bethany A. Wilkes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
tom [tcardamone@aspennature.org)
Monday, February 06, 20065:52 PM
James Lindt
The stately fir tree next to the Hodgson home on Monarch shouldbe saved. Tom Cardamone
Dear ,James f
Please convey my strong encouragement to City Council to give special consideration to
protecting the beautiful fir tree next to the Hodgson home on Monarch. That subalpine fir
tree is certainly one of Aspen's finest specimens. Opening up an alley over the root
system of this tree would certainly endanger the health of such a large specimen of a
species which tends to be susceptible to disease.
Thank you.
Tom Cardamone
1
Donna and Tom Ward
PO Box 2954
Aspen, Colorado 81612
James Lindt
Community Development Department
City Hall
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado
Members of City Council
Dear .Tames and Members of City Council,
We are writing to address the issue of ofening the alley on Monarch Street that
will come before City Council on February 13t. We have serious concerns regarding
opening the alley in question. We previously wrote a letter to that effect and attended the
meeting held with Planning and Zoning to initially address this matter. It was clear at
that meeting that all P&Z members were opposed to granting access through the alley to
Mr. Semrau's development at that time. They felt they did not have a complete picture of
the eventual development. Many of their reasons were ones we share as well. The
opening of an alley in that location is in "stark contrast to the property", establishing a
commercial element in the midst of a residential block. It would create interference with
already established uses of walking and biking. This particular block is also an entrance
to the west end neighborhood which is a unique element of Aspen with its historic and
residential nature. An additional factor to be considered in terms of maintaining the
consistency of the residential character is that most existing alleys in city residential areas
run at the back ofthe residences rather than by the side.
Apparently the proposed development plan is for three residential lots and two
mixed use, creating increased density on that corner with residents and traffic related to
the businesses. Providing access from the commercial streets would preserve the
residential character of this historic block. The west end is a special area in which the
city has maintained and enhanced its neighborhood quality while including the pubic uses
of the Red and Yellow brick buildings in appropriate ways. As thirty year residents we
appreciate this special part of Aspen. Allowing this alley to be opened in this unique
residential and historic block would be inconsistent with the efforts the city has made to
creatc and maintain a neighborhood which is inviting to pedestrians and bicycle use.
We are aware that alternatives to the use of the alley are being brought forward,
providing access from either Bleeker or Mill Streets. We hope you will consider the
merits of these alternatives as you make this important decision.
Thank you for your time and effort in the consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
Tom and Donna Ward
Page I of I
James Lindt
From: Denis Cyrus [cyrus@sopris.net]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:20 PM
To: James Lindt
Cc: wyleyhodgson@gmaiLcom
Subject: Semrau subdivision I opening alley Block 78
James Lindt
Community Development Dept.
City of Aspen
February 6, 2006
James:
I am the caretaker of the residence at 232 E. Bleeker, which is adjacent to the alley on the west side of Monarch
St. which the Semrau subdivision proposes to open on the east side of Monarch. I am writing to express my
objection, as a resident of and voter in the City of Aspen, to the proposed opening of the dead end extension of
the alley at Block 78. This residential area has already been heavily impacted by the daily parking and traffic
generated by the nearby commercial uses on Main and Mill Streets. The commercial uses have not previously
intruded into the neighborhood beyond the corner of Bleeker and Monarch. Yet the opening of this alley will bring
commercial traffic and parking access through this residential block, along the path of the city's own "Walk
Experience". Since there already exist access points for commercial traffic from both Bleeker and Mill Street, it
seems unnecessary to consider opening the alley for these purposes. If the alley extension is used for residential
access, it goes through what is historically the front yard of the homes on the east side of Monarch Street, and
becomes a driveway rather than an alley. I feel that this would have serious negative impacts on the streetscape
and historic fabric of this block of Monarch Street. I ask and encourage City Council to NOT open the alley
extension at Block 78.
Thank you,
Denis Cyrus
14 Sievers Circle. Aspen
2/7/2006
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sandy Johnson [skjdesign@comcaslnet]
Monday, February 06, 2006 10:23 PM
James Lindt
alley opening on Monarch Sl
Dear City Development Department,
I would like to say that I do not think that the alley should be opened. It has never
been an alley, N. Monarch street is clearly residential in nature, not conducive to
commercial traffic, and should be retained as the beginning of the beautiful West End that
it has
always been. P&Z has recommended that the alley not be opened as
well, please listen to their studied opinion. Thanks you.
In general, I feel that the current Development Department and City Council are trying to
allow too much overbuilding. We are losing our character if every developer is allowed
to exceed current height
limits, or density, or not do affordable housing, etc. We have worked
very hard to set guidelines which maintain Aspen as a place that is different than other
resort towns. Our future depends on the decisions we make now.
We do not "owe" developers the right to develop our town to the max for their personal
financial gain.
Stick with the city codes, precedence in history, and let.'s stop the excessive over
building that is causing the majority of our traffic
problems, need for more and more employee housing. Slow down.
Sandra Johnson
51 Overlook Drive
925 6191
1
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
a marti nez9442@charter.net
Tuesday, February 07,2006 12:11 AM
James Lindt
James Lindt
Community Development Department
c/o Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Fax # (970) 920-5439, Email:
jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us
February 3, 2006
Dear Mr. Lindt:
I was outraged when I learned of a current application by Tim Semrau to open and pave the
alley that is platted but has never been opened on N. Monarch St. I question why Mr.
Semrau thinks opening a closed, DEAD END, city alley to accommodate noisy, commercial
traffic would benefit Aspen's locals and visitors versus the current closed alley which
provides scenery and open space?
It seems the Planning & Zoning Commission agreed that this is not a good idea for Aspen's
citizens and tourists. Quotes from the recent P & Z hearing stated, "This is a parcel
that is very significant to visitors because it is the entrance to the whole west end
tour. There seems to be unanimity among the committee that the mix of pedestrian and
commercial uses is inappropriate." Another quote states, "1 value the fact that the
character has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in stark contrast to the
property and conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking." This unanimous decision
by the P&Z to decline the proposal to open the alley strongly reflects the progressive
vision of the City of Aspen. 1 applaud this decision and its consistency with the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Clearly, if Mr. Semrau is to develop this historic block, he might consider alternatives
which are more thoughtful of Aspen's citizens. I can only imagine the resulting
congestion and biking and walking conflicts the opening of this alley would create. The
view of these grand Victorian homes in their historic setting would be irrevocably
devastated and without benefit to the community with Mr. Semrau's proposal. His proposal
would be incompatible with the Aspen Area Community Plan's Executive Summary which notes
that "Maintaining Community Character & Design" would be achieved by promoting a standard
of design which is..." compatible with the historic features of the community and
environment."
Aspen has a reputation for considering the town's historical integrity before conflicting
development proposals. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognized this and agreed
unanimously to decline Mr. Semrau's proposal to open the alley. I hope the City Council
will consider these comments in their review.
Thank you,
/s/ Anthony M. Martinez
Anthony Martinez
1652 Imperial Drive
Redding, CA 96003
1
,
30 November 2005
NIT. JmnesLmdt,AlCP
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
120 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Lmdt,
I mn writmg m regard to the proposed subdivision at the property of202 N. Monarch St.,
and the request of opening the western end ofthe alley m Block 78. As a native Aspenite
and bemg raised at the adjacent property, 212 N. Monarch St., I have seen our
neighborhood transformed with tremendous growth, such as the addition to the Jerome
Hotel and the duplex m progress at the prior Frost residence. The property of202 N.
Monarch St. is unique m its size, its substantial open space, and its reportedly two Mixed
Use lots. Hence, the potential development of this property is substantial.
Proposal Objections:
I do not feel the applicant should be allowed to present his development plans piecemeal,
thus discovering what the city approves before he reveals his next step m development. I
believe the application submitted by the applicant does not meet the city codes on two
accounts:
26.480.050 Subdivision Review Standard
Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subd.ivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hazard or other condition that will be harmfi.11 to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: The land is suitable for subdivision in every respect and contains no
unusual hazards or topography.
Lots N and 0 are partially bordered by "prohibitively steep topography" (quoted
language from applicant's application, p. I). This bordermg hillside is a glacial morame
and a past dump site and is composed primarily of unstable dirt and large graveL Such
topography clearly presents the geological conilltion of soil creep and is subject to other
geological hazards, e.g. rock creep, debris flow, etcetera, if this hillside is not reinforced
m the case of future development. The applicant has mentioned, (m mstances other than
his application), a retaining wall to prevent these hazards. However, while a retaining
wall would be a necessary component to ensure safe development, the hillside itself
would also need to be reinforced will steel and concrete. Such an operation of terrain
infill would be considerable. The retaining wall would need to be approximately 30 feet
tall and infilling this hillside will significantly alter the natural appearance of the hillside.
alley is not compatible with the historic residential context of this property, and
moreover, the historic landscape will be significantly impacted by the addition of I 05 feet
of paved alleyway running between the yards of two historic homes.
Commercial Traffic Concerns:
I would like to mention the conflicts of bringing potential commercial traffic through this
section of the West End. Ifa mixed use building is constructed with its only access point
from North Monarch St., a number of heavy vehicles and trucks, such as delivery trucks,
maintenance workers, garbage service, etcetera, will be coming through the residential
street. This does not support the Aspen Area Community Plan under the philosophy of
the Transportation section which asserts "[f]ewer trucks and other heavy vehicles should
traverse the city's streets" and ".. . more and better bikeways and walkways should
increase. The volume of traffic on streets and highways in the Aspen area should not be
allowed to grow, and ideally should decline."
Routing commercial traffic through a residential neighborhood does not make sense
when the city is currently working with projects and ideas to limit or stop commercial
traffic from using the West End neighborhood streets to access Highway 82. Moreover,
this section of Monarch St. is a pedestrian corridor and will be heavily impacted by this
potential increase in traffic flow. This corridor is the beginning of the "Walk Experience"
in the summer time, and temporary barricades are placed at the intersection of Monarch
and Bleeker to invite pedestrian traffic and deter non-residential vehicular traffic.
Throughout the entire year, this area is used heavily by pedestrian and bicycle traffic to
access the shopping area around Clark's Market and the post office. Most significant to
note is the use of the alley on the opposite side of North Monarch St., (the alley behind
the Community Church that enters Aspen St.) by large groups of children from the Red
and Yellow Brick Schools. Hence, the opening of the alley will clearly bring increased
traffic hazards and present safety concerns for this area that has developed naturally as a
pedestrian and bicycle corridor.
Alternative Access Points:
In conclusion, I would like to suggest alternatives to the alley as the proposed access
point for the property. I believe access from Bleeker St. is a very easy solution. Bleeker
St. is zoned for commercial traffic and runs adjacent to both the R-6 and MU lots
(Monarch only runs adjacent to the R-610ts). There is already a curb cut accessing the
historic parking area off of Bleeker St. that could easily be used to access a driveway that
would access both the R-6 lots and MU lots. This would keep commercial traffic out of
the residential area and allow the alley to remain open space, thus adding to the overall
streetscape. This driveway off of Bleeker St. would also be a shorter distance than the
proposed access via the alley, and it would not disrupt the historic content ofthe block, as
it would be placed behind the historic Victorian on the property. Moreover, it makes
more sense to use a private drive off of Bleeker St. to access private units rather than
using a public alley for private use, (because the western portion of the alley dead ends
into a hillside, there is no further public use obtained by opening this alley).
Another option to eliminate comrriercial traffic from entering the residential area is to
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wyley Hodgson [wyleyhodgson@gmail.com]
Monday, February 06, 2006 11 :53 AM
James Lindt
202 N. Monarch hearing
Hi James,
I've cornmmunicated with Nick and he mentioned that at this point it is too speculative to
consent to any given proposal for access. I don't know if you have spoken with Nick yet,
but I feel it is necessary to notify City Council prior to the hearing that Nick's notes
in the packet are based on speculation.
Also, do you know when on the agenda the 202 Monarch hearing is scheduled for? Just
curious to know if we'll be finishing up early or late. Also, there might be a letter or
two that are coming in late. I know that means they won't be included in your final
packet, but will still be read at the hearing? Please let me know.
Thanks
-Wyley
1
James Lindt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Nick Adeh
Saturday, February 04. 2006259 PM
Wyley Hodgson
James Lindt; Alex Evonitz; Randy Mosby
RE: 202 N. Monarch access
Hello Wyley,
I received your idea of providing a curb cut on Bleeker for the subject subdivision. As
you mentioned in your earlier email, it will be too speculative to consent to any proposal
unless an engineered site plan with access point is designed and reviewed. A property
vehicular access from the existing public access ways such as the existing alley curb cut
is a superior alternative because we will preserve all on-street public parking spaces for
public use.
Regards,
Nick Adeh
---Original Message-----
From: Wyley Hodgson [mailto:wyleyhodgson@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:42 AM
To: Nick Adeh
Subject: Re: 202 N. Monarch access
Nick,
I just wanted to follow up and see if you received my proposal regarding access for 202 N.
Monarch St. Also, I have spoken with James and he said a curb cut can be relocated
provided there is sufficient space for it. I believe there is plenty of room along Bleeker
St. to move the curb cut up the block, so I don't think that aspect of my proposal would
be a problem.
Thanks
-Wyley
On 1/30/06, Wyley Hodgson <wyleyhodgson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> We spoke yesterday regarding your comments about access points for the
> property at 202 N. Monarch St. Please review this proposal for an
> alternative access point (please see attachment). I can be reached via
> email or phone.
>
> Thank you
>
> Sincerely,
> Wyley Hodgson
> cell:970.390.4275
>
>
>
1
if".O.
~ Johnson
2/7/2006 10:00
PAGE 001/002
Fax Server
WIlUam T. Lake
3235 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
February 6, 2006
BY FAX TO 970-920-5439 AND
EMAlL TO jamesl@cl.8spen.co.us
Mr. James Lindt
Aspen Community Development Department
City Ball
130 S. Galena Street.
3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Application ofBlu Vie, LLC and proposed Ordinance NO.2
Dear Mr. Lindt:
I am writing in reference 10 the above application to subdivide the lot at 202 N. Monarch Street
and 10 open the platted, but never used, alley to provide car and truck access to lhe divided lot.
I am a frequent visitorto Aspen, and one who cares deeply about the ehardCter oflhe town. My
family shares ownership of a property outside oflown that we visit frequently. My wife's
relatives have been residents in Aspen intermittentl y since the 1880s, and we, like so many
others, share a deep dedication to the unique historical qualities of the area.
I fully recognize that improvement of valuable real estate assets is an important part of the
economic vitality of the town. Consistent with my interest in lhe town and its heritage, however,
I am always concerned, when development is proposed, that it proceed in a fashion that protects
Aspen's heritage and minimizes any impact on it. The West End of town is particularly
important in tbat regard, since it includes streets that embody the Victorian era and the historic
life of the town.
North Monarch Street is a natural starting point for any stroll through the historic district, and
alterations such as the opening of the alley way propos<.>d by this developer would significantly
affect tbe pedestrian atmosphere of the West End. Using an entrance on North Monarch Street to
access a mixed use developmenl would add to traffic congestion and noise. Equally important, it
would create n commercial intrusion abutting an otherwise pristine residential area valued by
tourists like myself and full time residents. Our tamily's enjoyment of walking and biking in the
West End would be adversely affected, especially with an increase in commercial traffic
(garbage trucks, tenants for the mixed use project, and servic e vehicle
Steptoe & Johnson
2/7/2006 10:00
PAGE 002/002
Fax Server
I am also concerned about the visual impact of the proposal, which would in volve loss of
existing trees and shrubs and the proposed installation of a sidewalk. None of this furthers what
should be the paramount interest to preserve this unique historic street.
Aspen needs to be much more vigilant than it has been in the past ifit wishes to preserve and
nurtUre its historic character. When development such as this is proposed, tbe propounders of
such proposals should be chalk,nged to come forward with proposals that safeguard Aspen's
history, not encroach upon it. Opening Monarch Street to additional vehicle traffic, both
commercial and residential, ifpennitted, would be a step backwards. Please preserve Monarch
Street as the natural entrance to the historic West End - while each decision alone may not
initially appear as that signilicant, these kinds of decisions about development become
cumulative and ultimately can result in making Aspen a place a much less desirable place for
tourists and Aspenites alike.
I would appreciate it if you would sbare this letter with the Mayor and members of the City
Council for their consideration of this matler.
n,ank you very much.
Sincerely,
Lv LLL..~ ~~--
William T. Lake
- 2-
Drew Hodgson
212 N. Monarch St
Aspen. CO 81611
Mr. James Lindt
Community Development Department
CC: City Council Members
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena St 3''' Ploor
J\spen, CO 81615
February 7. 2006
RE: Opening i\lley Block 78
Dear City Council Ivlembers:
I am writing once again to convey my deep concern and opposition to the proposed redevelopment
of Alley Block 78 on Monarch Street. There are a number of reasons why opening the alley would
have a negative impact on Monarch Street. Aside from being unsightly, the proposed alley will also
increase the traffic flow through Monarch Street which will ultimately cause safety issues, it will
endanger the sub-alpine Fir at 212 N. 1vfonarch, and it will cause increased noise concerns as well as
more parking problems (which already exists as is).
The street is currently used daily by many pedestrians including young children from the Early
Learning Center, as well as the everyday pedestrians who use it to access Clark's market, the Post
Office, the bike trails, ete. During the summer seasons, Monarch Street is coned off to traffic as it is
accessed by iliany tourists who enjoy the "\vTalk Experience" to view the historic homes in the area as
well as those who enjoy taking the horse carriage rides.
As you know, the Planning and Zoning commission voted unanimously to oppose the opening of
the alley after citing concerns that the proposed development would alter the character of the street
which has remained unchanged, and that opening the alley "stands in stark contrast to the property
and conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking" (Steve Skadron). j\dditionally I would like
to point out that the planned alley contradicts the ..AACP's Historic preservation philosophy of
promoting "a standard of design that is of the highest quality and is compatible 'With the historic
features of the c01nmunitv and environment."
The proposed alley poses serious safety concerns as it will increase traffic by routing commercial
vehicles through a residential neighborhood that is heavily used by pedestrians. Additionally, a 105
foot alley solely for residential use seems ridiculous as it will drastically alter the streets cape as well as
the historic character ofI'vIonarch Street by replacing a beautiful, tree-lined open space with a 105
foot long slab of concrete. rvIoreover, who needs a 105 foot long driveway?! Again, this gready
conflicts with AACP goals because it increases traffic and heavy commercial equipment rather than
decreasing it.
Commission member Jasmine Tygre's comments really emphasize the importance of keeping
t\.fon:lrch Street the way it is: "This is a parcel that is very significant to visitors because it is the
entrance to the whole west end tour. There seeins to be unanimity among the committee that the
mix of pedestrian and commercial uses is inappropriate." I applaud the Planning and Zoning for
upholding thc goals and philosophy of J\}\CP and am grateful that they recognize the importance of
this historic neighborhood.
I urge YOll to please consider these issues and to preserve the historic character and beauty of
Monarch Street by replacing the location of the proposed alley to the existing block cut on Bleeker
Street where it belongs. T
Sincerely,
Drew Hodgson
. ,
L~ /0 '1h E- ~o ;'0 f<-
S ftV f.. ~ L 0 L~'- ~tVD 's cf-f1"1-R.-A-G-r&R-
'-rh t.... /.3L.14 S V~'-loRh~l-,v (~L
D....b E.f'Z 's hQ\..{.s'C... \ 0 IV n L C oILrJ&R-
CJ/::: yYJ o"v f-hL'- h ;:r fl.J p .6 L ~ L k.t.R..... w,q. S,
i 13 0 U ~ ttr t5 'i -n vYl S f.W\. R-14t.-L . 'f11, L
P Ll4rJ S foQ.. ~ t... f R opu.ery t4R-L V f.,~
U--fl-Sf.../,-r;,J b -,-0 VYI L :
-- qrJlh--t-t-, oP f.,v 6 P U-fl
f3[qiA.Ji;... L"v fhJ. ff2-o fU- If ,q-tV~ 'Jl.1. z... oAlf.-
,Nt. x-r (0 1-( (Th L 1-+-o'P6so,v'.j j
- '/h t f(LOPUiLry ,8E..,,.Vb
-p WSL.OP QJ ff..!i mix t..-"?:::, u-s s.
fh [.. S. L -r w 0 ---rh. n/ bJ.J Q 0 If 6ft /(I).J.-,-
t:.UfA2.-t'1l1.".;b '"/l1.L W~J ~Nb Kf.-P/LLU",v,S
,.4JtJb Th L (l-SPtttJ IHU:-r/ CurvtW1.l-tNt'l
PLI't-AJ Lu~~c-h VV\/L. .s~mRttu w/t.J fJ.
; PM""" or: '/1i ~IJ.. i. WIl-..l- Sf...:'
.- VV\ 0 ,Q..... ~ c,CIYVI V'Y\.U '-, >'h- J SH1 c....L...W ;J:AJ
It (2. W '\:) f.-AJrfh..- 1/-e-f;.A- / m .ol2...L. "f12.--~ c-/
mo/2...L.- V"-"'\'-"L-~-S t.3/'TG<~'.J~ V[?/
- .:FJVf<U!..rf./Lf.-,vc.fc.. U,),""" '111 s.. 13/ '-1(..L ~ /
PS"b W,R-tM S/~L~-rS .
- L z_S;; .s ~ U1f ro.R- 4-t-L..; t..s. P t.- t:_1 fh-t.. 7
K t~..s 4.[ fW' /:''11-1f-. 2.. L. P f.).Q.. ~,-k 184/'-'0,;';6.
-f11,~ per2 varCb 461+ItIJ~-Y-
OPE.-NjyIJl::! IhL Ih-L~
f}tJ p LVI '.s HDP L --r1--1 L c.'{ C.OI.-tN'- t L-.
r OL.L.. ou..J -.S S 4. I -,-- f-J- ,S W L. L-L It s
j--h1IS Vh ~ S LVYl ~ 41.1 I<. E.. L,h ~ ,.,.- t + I -.s.
C9 J U!...- fh--L- fJ l... ~
PLf.-./rS s.- fJ-rI"c;tl/C C-I-rj COI..tNC.I~
ON VVlOt\/'i:::,(f / rf43e(A~1 /3.
/I lJ ~ c...o.J <:... t-f- ~t4:> (! m 7- €.~
Kl.<..:~ ~I.J",:J
A-Sp.E..".)
9d-~--71d-3
6 February 2006
Dear members of City Council,
I am writing in regard to the proposed subdivision at the property of202 N. Monarch St.,
and the request of opening the western end of the alley in Block 78. As a native Aspenite
and being raised at the adjacent property, 212 N. Monarch St., I have seen our
neighborhood transformed with tremendous growth, such as the addition to the Jerome
Hotel and the duplex in progress at the prior Frost residence. The property of 202 N.
Monarch St. is unique in its size, its substantial open space, and its reportedly two Mixed
Use lots. Hence, the potential development of this property is substantial. I am strongly
opposed to the request of opening the platted alley of Block 78.
I would like to note a portion of the packet presented to each of you from the Community
Development Department. The packet contained a copy of an email from Nick Adeh of
Engineering to James Lindt of Community Development. The email indicates that
Engineering tinds the most suitable access to the single residential unit is from Monarch
St. and the most suitable access to the MU lot is from Mill St. via an underground garage.
Bleeker was considered the least favorable access due to engineering difficulties. I have
contacted Nick inquiring about the difficulties of access from Bleeker., and he explained
to me that difficulties would arise if Bleeker was used to access an underground garage.
Nick, however, explained this is based on speculative information, as an underground
garage is not necessarily part of the applicant's plan as nothing has been publicly
disclosed regarding the future development of the site. Hence, other access proposals are
possible in which Bleeker, Monarch, or Mill may be favored over another. In regard to
the gain or loss of on-street parking if the Bleeker curb cut is removed and the alley
opened, the City will ultimately see a net loss of one on-street parking space, (please see
the last page ofthis letter for additional details). Moreover, the only off-street parking
required for this proposal is two parking spaces for the MU development. No off-street
parking is required for improving a historical residence; it is only a luxury for the
development of the property. Please consider this when making your decision as the only
access needed is for commercial traffic to the MU lot.
I concur with the unanimous opinions expressed by the members of the Planning and
Zoning Commission whose reasoning to keep the alley closed included the
pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular conflict on Monarch St., the disruption and detriment of
the historic streetscape, and providing access to unknown entities. Moreover, I do not
agree with the applicant's piecemeal approach in presenting this proposal. However,
because we do not know the scope of the project, I have raised the following
considerations based on the information that has been presented by the applicant.
Historical considerations:
In the applicant's request to open the alley for access to the property, he states the curb
cut on Bleeker St, will be removed. The applicant believes this follows HPC guideline
14.20 which states:
.
Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible.
Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed
on the alley.
After performing historical research, it is clear that the property of202 N. Monarch does
include a historic parking area. Photographs and inquiry to the previous owner of the
property indicate that the current curb cut on Bleeker St. is the site of the historic parking
area that once included an enclosed parking structure. Therefore, I argue that guideline
14.20 does not provide reason to displace the current parking area for the historical
residence to the un-opened alley but rather this guideline provides a reasoning to
maintain the status quo. Moreoever, I would like to cite additional HPC guidelines that I
believe cont1ict with the proposal to open the alley for access to this property.
Chapter 14, Introduction:
Driveways & parking
Historically, parking was located to the rear of a site. This tradition should be continued, and in
all cases the visual impacts associated with parking should be minimized. The number of curb-
cuts seen along a street are limited since new ones are not permitted. On-site parking, when
necessary. should be subordinate to other uses and front yards should not be "parking areas."
Because of the location of the three Victorian homes on N. Monarch St., the platted alley
was never opened because it would dead end into the hillside. Moreover, the alley runs
along the side of two of the houses which, as mentioned in the HPC guideline above, is
not historically consistent and would only serve the 202 and 212 properties, not 218. It is
due to these unique features of the property that the platted alley has remained closed. I
agree with the HPC guideline that "front yards should not be 'parking areas"', and
therefore I believe the un-opened alley which serves as front yard for both the 202 and
212 properties should not be converted for parking access.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are
not permitted.
Again, I agree with the HPC in that existing curb cuts should be utilized, especially in
this case as the existing curb cut Bleeker St. accesses the historical parking for the
residence. Moreover, access from Bleeker follows the consistency of the HPC guidelines
by placing parking at the rear of the site. Also, by placing the driveway off of Bleeker,
the visual impact will be far less than if placed in the alley off of Monarch, as the Bleeker
side contains denser plant landscape and provides a visual of the backside of the property.
The Monarch side is open space and provides what many people consider the entrance to
the historical West End.
Lastly the policy of the HPC Streetscape and Lot Features states that "[h]istoric
landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to
the landscape should be compatible with the historic context of the district or landmark
property." As mentioned above, the opening ofthe alley is not compatible with the
historic residential context of this property, and moreover, the historic landscape will be
,-.
significantly impacted by the addition of 105 feet of paved alleyway running between the
yards of two historic homes.
This portion of North Monarch St. is one of the few areas throughout the West End and
moreover the city that has not seen dramatic development. With the exception of2l8 N.
Monarch St. that was remodeled, these three houses on Monarch and wrapping around to
the Pace residence on Hallam St, represent an uninterrupted slice of Aspen's Victorian
period. The opening of the alley would drastically alter this historic presentation.
Commercial Traffic Concerns:
I would like to mention the conflicts of bringing potential commercial traffic through this
section of the West End. If a mixed use building is constructed with its only access point
from North Monarch St., a number of heavy vehicles and trucks, such as delivery trucks,
maintenance workers, garbage service, etcetera, will be coming through the residential
street. This does not support the Aspen Area Community Plan under the philosophy of
the Transportation section which asserts "[ f]ewer trucks and other heavy vehicles should
traverse the city's streets" and "...more and better bikeways and walkways should
increase. The volume of traffic on streets and highways in the Aspen area should not be
allowed to grow, and ideally should decline."
Routing commercial traffic through a residential neighborhood does not make sense
when the city is currently working with projects and ideas to limit or stop commercial
traffic from using the West End neighborhood streets to access Highway 82. Moreover,
this section of Monarch St. is a pedestrian corridor and will be heavily impacted by this
potential increase in traffic flow. This corridor is the beginning of the "Walk Experience"
in the summer time, and temporary barricades are placed at the intersection of Monarch
and Bleeker to invite pedestrian traffic and deter non-residential vehicular traflic.
Throughout the entire year, this area is used heavily by pedestrian and bicycle traffic to
access the shopping area around Clark's Market and the post oflice. Most significant to
note is the use of the alley on the opposite side of North Monarch St., (the alley behind
the Community Church that enters Aspen 8t.) by large groups of children from the Red
and Yellow Brick Schools. Hence, the opening of the alley will clearly bring increased
traffic hazards, parking problems, and present safety concerns for this area that has
developed naturally as a pedestrian and bicycle corridor.
Alternative Access Points:
In conclusion, I would like to suggest two alternatives to the alley as the proposed access
point for the property. I believe access from Bleeker 8t. is a very simple solution. Bleeker
St. is zoned for commercial traffic and runs adjacent to both the R-6 and MU lots
(Monarch only runs adjacent to the R-6 lots). There is already a curb cut accessing the
historic parking area off of Bleeker St. that could easily be used to access a driveway that
would access both the R-6 lots and MU lots. This would keep commercial traffic out of
the residential area and allow the alley to remain open space, thus adding to the overall
streetscape. This driveway off of Bleeker St. would also be a shorter distance than the
proposed access via the alley, and it would not disrupt the historic content of the block, as
it would be placed behind the historic Victorian on the property. Moreover, it makes
more sense to use a private drive off of Sleeker St. to access private units rather than
using a public alley for private use, (because the western portion of the alley dead ends
into a hillside, there is no further public use obtained by opening this alley). In regard to
loss of on-street parking spaces, closing the Sleeker curb cut will create an additional
space; however, the opening of the alley will ultimately displace to cars that currently
park in the driveway located in the alley. These two vehicles have residential parking
permits and will be forced to on-street parking. Therefore, the City will see a net loss of I
parking space by closing the Sleeker curb cut and opening the alley.
Another option to eliminate commercial traffic from entering the residential area is to
provide access from Mill St., where the Slock 78 alley is platted through. To open this
end of the alley would only require the relocation of utility boxes. If this section of the
alley were opened, the curb cub on Mill St. accessing the KSPN parking lot could be
eliminated because the alley runs adjacent to the parking lot would be the new access
point. In speculating the applicant's future use of the MU lots, an underground parking
structure could be installed with access via an elevator or stairs. This would effectively
keep commercial traffic away from Monarch St. and maintain the buffer between the
commercial and residential areas.
I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of the public to not open the alley for
private use and instead maintain the open space and historical continuity of the area.
There are clear alternatives to the applicant's request that are more in line with the AACP
and HPC guidelines than the current proposal. While the future development of this
property will inevitably make a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood, I
believe keeping the alley closed is a crucial step in maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhood as well as the character of Aspen.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Wyley Hodgson
To: James Lindt, Community Development Dept
From: Mr. and Mrs. Joshua and Christiana Gallup
Re: Plans for access off of Bleeker, Mill, etc.
Date: 217106
Mr.Lindt,
I have been traveling to your beautiful city for over 20 years, visiting family and friends,
and enjoying the lovely people-friendly atmosphere that Aspen shares with all its guests.
More recently, my wife has been joining me on these stays in the West End of your city.
We continue to find exciting and new places each time we visit, and love to take in all
that the Aspen community has to offer.
This past week, I was made aware of potential plans that may take away from one of the
best assets that Aspen has to offer its local citizens and many guests from around the
country and world. I do realize that in order for Aspen to grow and prosper, development
is needed. However, my wife and I feel that the proposed plans (see below) will be
detrimental to the pedestrian atmosphere that we have grown so fondly accustomed to
while on vacation. The last thing that we would want is to have anything take away from
the wonderful memories and experiences we have had in Aspen. We both feel that these
plans threaten to do just that for us and our families, and may in fact deter us from future
trips to your city.
Please take the time to review these proposals, and see that these plans will only cheapen
the experiences that Aspen has to offer. You know that in the end these plans will only
benefit a select few, but will hinder many of your local citizens and guests. We thank
you for taking the time to review our concerns, and we look forward to our upcoming
travels to Aspen.
Sincerely,
Joshua and Christiana Gallup
Here are highlights that were shared with me:
Here is what Tim Semrau is proposing in the current application:
. Sub-divide the 5 lot property (15,000 s.f.) into two parcels.
One parcel containing 3 R-6 (residential) lots and the blue Victorian
house, the other containing the two assumed MU (mixed-use) lots (the
lots run parallel to Monarch St.)
. Open and pave 105 ft. of Alley Block 78 at the Monarch side,
Which is platted but has never been opened. The purpose of opening the
alley is to access the private residence and nthe future mixed use
development" on the MU lots, if the subdivision is approved.
Additionally, the current curb cut on Bleeker St. that is used for
residential parking for the blue Victorian house will be removed if
the alley is opened.
. A sidewalk will be installed on Bleeker St. and will wrap around
and down Monarch St.
Page I of I
James Lindt
From: ianmeloy@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday. February 07, 2006 9:43 AM
To: James Lindt
Subject: Monarch Alley
February 7, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the opening of the alley along N. Monarch St. I have lived
in Aspen my entire life and am very displeased with the increasingly unfriendly attitude toward
pedestrians and bicyclists in town. Because I live in town, I consistently walk or ride my bike
everywhere. It is always a relief to cross Main St. and head down Monarch on my way to Clark's or the
post office because the traffic dissipates and I am no longer confined to the sidewalks. I especially enjoy
the West End as it is one of the few places left in town where traffic is still minimal, and where I can
feel safe walking in the street. I oppose any proposal of opening the alley, as this would clearly mean
more cars and traffic and the possible addition of sidewalks. I feel this would open the floodgates to
eroding what remains of the town's dominant pedestrian and bicycle area.
Also, for the 24 years I have lived here, this street has seemed to never change despite all the nonstop
development happening throughout Aspen. While we can't always stop developers from heavily
developing their own property, we can certainly keep an un-opened public alley closed. I would much
rather see another car parked on the street than see open yard and trees replaced by asphalt. I could not
find any additional information regarding the developer's plans for the property, but I am sure an
alternate solution to access the property could be found that would not jeopardize the character of this
area as significantly as what is currently proposed. I hope you will consider this matter very carefully
and the long-term effects it could have.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Ian Meloy, CPhT
Mobile Phone # 970/948-4254
mailto:imuneloy(a?gmlliLcom
21712006
Feb 07 06 ll,53a
Fishe~~ ~ Wildlife Soi.
(505) 646-1281
p.2
,James Lindt, Community Development Deparlment
c/o Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611
Fax: (970) 920-5439
Email: james1(iI)cLaspen.co.us
February 6, 2006
Dear Mr. Lindt:
These comments are in reference to the proposal by Tim Semrau to open alley
block 78 and subdivide the lots at 202 N. Monarch St. I am very concerned about
the integrity of this proposal and ask that my commcnts be heard by Aspen City
Council. The proposal has bccn presentcd piecemeal as evidenced by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Quotes from their December hearing stated, "1
don't know what the entire projcct is because it is so blind. 1 don't know what the
impacts are so I can't support opening up the alley." Further justification by P &
Z to deny the request to open the alley included, "This is a parcel that is vcry
significant to visitors becausc it is the cntrance to the whole west end tour. There
sccms to be unanimity among the committee that the mix of pedestrian and
commercial uses is inappropriate. I would be reluctant to say that yes we
approve thc subdivision but with an access off of Bleeker St. to be detcrmined."
The approval of commcrcial development in an already commercially zoned parccl
is logical versus cutting through a quiet and highly valued rcsidential area used
by pedestrians. I do not support opening an alley for a single private enterprise
when the unopened alley is currently providing acsthetic value enjoyed by
tourists and cit~-ens.
I hope City Council will concur with the P & Z's decision to keep the allcy closed
as its been for over 100 years. It is often challenging to resist developmcnt plans,
but the Aspen ^rea Community Plan was developed wisely to proceed with urban
expansion with caution; thus, to maintain the architecture which lends historical
sophistication to the town's image.
Sincerely,
Andrea Ernst
2535 Hagerty Rd.
Las Cruces, NM 8800 I
Feb 07 06 11:53a
Fishe~~ ~ WildliFe Sei.
(505) 646-1281
p.3
James Lindt
Aspen City Hall
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena SI.
3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
February 5, 2006
Dual' Mr. Lindt:
In Decumbcr, Tim Semrau's proposal was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. I was
pleased lhat thc Planning & Zoning CommiSSion agrecd that this is not a good idea for the city or
Aspen's citizens and tourists. This decision was unanimous among the committec. I Support this
decision and feel it reflects closely the Aspen Area Community Plan.
My specific reasons lor disapproving of opening Alley Block 78 refer to tllC recreation and
pedestrian friendly nature oj' Aspen. Few towns offer the sense of community and openness to walk
a dog, ride a bikc. or just chat without the obstacle of traffic rushing through the West end oJ'Aspen.
The "Mall" Was once adeptly set aside for loot traffic and is tourist friendly. The West end is
another community use arca which has historically been respcctflllly rcservud lor foot traffic.
Opening (ramc to the well knowll entrance to thc West end would be likc allowing commercial
vehicles in the Mall for private Use. I do not think either would be a wise move lor Aspen.
Tim Scmrau likely has altemativcs which he can consider to pursue his commercial devclopment
scparatc from the quict, Vict(lrian nature ofN. Monarch SI. I don't think paving a dead end alIcy
which has ncver been opened is the best answer for the public Or thc Aspcn Area Community Plan,
which cmphases historic featurcs ofthc community and environment. Please refer thesc comments
to City Council for their review.
Thank you,
--=S;~4;/~
Scott Schradcr
2535 Hagerty Rd.
Las Croces, NM 8800 I
-------
Lisa Markalunas
15 Williams Ranch Court
P.O. Box 8253
Aspen, CO 81612
(970) 925-8623
February 2, 2006
City Council
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Proposed Opening of Alley, Block 78
202 N. Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The proposal before you to open the alley through Block 78 off of North Monarch between 202 N.
Monarch and 212 N. Monarch will have a significant negative impacts on the historic properties in this
neighborhood. The clustering of numerous historic homes in this particular section of the West End will
suffer from the addition of motorized traffic and a degradation of the historic setting of all of these homes.
For well over a hundred years this historic block has been unaltered and the addition of the proposed alley
has not been necessary. The applicant has sufficient access both from street frontage on Monarch Street
and via an existing street cut on Bleeker Street. To add additional motorized access to the parcel will only
serve to degrade the historic integrity of the neighborhood. Pedestrian safety in this heavily utilized area
will also be adversely affected.
In addition. overdevelopment of the parcel with multiple lot splits will destroy the setting and the new
development will undoubtedly overshadow both the historic home on the parcel as well as the neighboring
historic structures. I encourage you to support the findings of the City Planning and Zoning Commission
and oppose any proposal to open the alleyway and to protect the integrity of some of the few remaining
historic structures Aspen has left. They are after all a finite commodity.
Sincerely,
Lisa Markalunas
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
V'l'd
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner~
Holiday House Affordable Housing Project - Plan neb Unit Development
(PUD) Amendment - Conceptual Review, Resolution No.--/-, Series of2006
MEETING
DATE:
February 13,2006
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Skiing Company
REPRESENT A TlVE:
Phillip Ring & David Bellack
Aspen Skiing Company
LOCATION:
125 & 127 Hyman Avenue. Lots C, D, E,
F, G and the east 7.5' of Lot B, Blk. 60,
City and Townsite of Aspen, CO.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) Zone
District with a PUD overlay, the property
currently contains 35 multi-family
residential units within two structures.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Multi-family residential building with 25
units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with
conditions.
demolish the existing thirty-five unit multi-family
structures and replace them with a new multi-
family structure that contains twenty-five
affordable housing units.
L
PHOTO: Existing structures along W. Hopkins
:--
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision and PHOTO: Existing structures from the alley.
associated land use approvals to
Page I of9
LAND USE REQUESTS:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site:
. PUD Amendment to establish allowable floor area and the parking requirement pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (Council will be considering
Conceptual PUD approval).
. Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.480, Subdivision (action is taken at Final PUD Review).
. A GMQS approval for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.470.040 C.7., Affordable Housing. The applicant is also requesting a credit for
any excess housing built (action is taken at Final PUD Review).
. Variances from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.410.020 D., Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from L.U.C. Section
26.410.040 0.1., Street oriented entrance and principal window, and L.U.C. Section
26.410.0400.2, First story elements (action is taken at Final PUD Review).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant has requested approval to demolish the existing thirty-five (35) unit multi-family
affordable housing buildings located at 125 and 127 W. Hopkins Avenue and would like to
replace the two buildings with one new building containing twenty-five (25) deed restricted
affordable units. The property, located in a Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district,
allows multi-family dwellings as a permitted use. The property also has a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) overlay upon it. The Applicant is requesting that the PUD overlay be
amended to allow for a larger Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than what is allowed by the underlying
zone district by an increase of 1,165 square feet and to allow for a reduction in the minimum
number of off-street parking spaces required from twenty-five (25) to nineteen (19).
Table I: EXISTING UNITS
Floor Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom Total
Basement 7 1
First Floor 7 3
Second Floor 5 3
Annex - First Floor 4
Annex - Second Floor 5
Unit Total 19 15 1 35
Bedroom Total 19 15 2 36
As noted in the application there are currently 64 beds at the Holiday House. Many units
are dormitory style with bunk beds.
Page 2 of9
Table 2: PROPOSED UNITS
Floor Studio 1 2 3 4 S Total
Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
Lower Level 1 I I
First Level 1 2 I 2
Second level I 1 5 I
Third Level I 4 2 I
Unit Total 1 2 8 3 9 2 2S
Bedroom Total 1 2 16 9 36 10 74
In summary, the project would change as follows:
. The units would decrease, from 35 to 25.
. The bedrooms would increase from 36 to 74.
. The beds would increase from 64 to 74.
In conjunction with the anticipated development, the Applicant has designed a total of nineteen
(19) on-site parking spaces. The underlying zoning requires one off-street parking space per
dwelling unit or a total of twenty- five (25) off-street parking spaces for the proposal. All of the
proposed parking spaces are surface parking accessed from the alley.
The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional
requirements of the Residential Multi-Family Zone District. The shaded blocks indicate a
difference from the underlying zone district and where the PUD would allow deviation, if
approved:
Table 3: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Dimensional Requirement Proposed Underlying Residential
Dimensional Multi-Family Zone District
Requirements Requirements
Minimwn Lot Size 15,750 SF Existing 6,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 157.5 Feet 60 Feet
Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 630 SF:I No Requirement
Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 Feet 5 Feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet (building) 5 Feet
Five Feet (dumpster
enclosure)
Maximum Height Up to 32 Feet 32 Feet (for parcel density 2-
one unit per 1,500 SF of lot
area)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.57:1 or 24,790 s.f. 1.5:1 or 23,625 s.f. (for
parcel density 2- one unit per
750 s.f. oflot area)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 19 Spaces One per unit or twenty-five
Page 301'9
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Council will only be considering the PUD Amendment, however, analysis is provided on the
other land use requests. Comments from Stafffollow in a separate italic paragraph.
PUD Amendment
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a process in which a site specific development plan is
created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes
objectives outlined in the Land Use Code (LUe) and goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP) by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's dimensional requirements.
The parcel currently exists with a PUD overlay, however, based upon the new development
proposal the PUD must be amended and dimensional requirements established.
The applicant is requesting that the allowable floor area and minimum off-street parking be
varied. Off-street parking requirements can be varied through the Special Review process (LUC
Section 26.430) or through the PUD process. Staff is recommending that the parking requirement
be finalized as part of the development plan of the PUD, but that the Special Review criteria also
used in evaluating the parking.
Allowable Floor Area: With the current size of the parcel and density proposed on the parcel, the
Applicant is allowed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5:1 or an allowable floor area of 23,625
square feet. The Applicant is requesting a FAR allowance of approximately 1.57:1 or an
allowable floor area of 24,790 square feet. This represents an increase in the allowable floor area
of five (5) percent or 1,165 square feet. Through a number of design iterations, the Applicant has
progressively reduced the floor area of the building. Included in Table 4 are some examples of
F ARs of other projects within the Aspen Infill Area.
Table 4: FLOOR AREA RATIOS
Development Lot Size Density FAR
Aspen Townhouses 12,000 SF I unit per 1,333 SF of 7,708 SF*
lot area
Cottonwoods 15,000 SF I unit per 833 SF of 19,815 SF*
lot area
Little Ajax 26,596 SF I unit per 1,899 SF of .82: I or 21,808 SF
lot area
Seventh and Main 9,000 SF I unit per 750 SF of .96:1 or 8,640 SF
lot area
Draco 6,000 SF I unit per 857 SF of 1.04:1 or 6,250 SF**
lot area
Holiday House 15,750 SF 1 unit per 630 SF of 1.57:1 or 24,790 SF
(Current Proposal) lot area
Holiday House 15,750 SF I unit per 508 SF of 1:87:1 or 29,521 SF
(Previous Submittal) lot area
Notes: * Data was gathered from Pitkin County Assessor website and is gross square footage.
**The FAR shown is the allowance for the residential component. The entire lot, which
includes a commercial component, was allowed a maximum of 1.64: I
Page 4 of9
The Applicant is requesting afive (5) percent increase in the allowable Floor Area. This number
has decreased over time as the Applicant has evaluated different design scenarios. Staff believes
a five (5) percent increase in the floor area is a nominal increase for the development of
affordable housing. However, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 3,
2006, the Commission requested the Applicant further reduce and meet the underlying zone
district requirementfor allowable floor area.
Off-Street Parking: In previous submittals the Applicant had proposed to provide a combination
of underground parking accessed via Hopkins Avenue and surface parking from the alley. Due to
concerns with regard to vehicular access from Hopkins which is also a pedestrian/bicycle
corridor, the Applicant is currently proposing to provide surface parking that is accessed from
the alley. The Applicant is requesting a reduction in the off-street parking due to the limited
number of employees that will have vehicles and for removing the vehicular access point from
Hopkins Avenue. The request is to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from
twenty-five (25) to nineteen (19).
The Applicant has provided parking ratios of other SkiCo housing developments. Included in the
table below are additional ratios from other affordable and multi-family projects within the
Aspen Infil1 Area.
Table 5: PARKING RATIOS OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Development Parking Dwelling Space to Bedrooms Space to
Spaces Units UnifRllno Bedroom
Ratio
Snoweagle* 8 8 l:l 26 .31:1
Divide* 10 6 1.67:1 8 1.25: 1
Club Commons* 60 60 l:l 152 .39:1
Heatherbed * 13 21 .62:1 30 .62:1
Existing Holiday 12 35 .34:1 36 .33:1 ,*
House'
Proposed HH* 19 25 .76:1 74 .25:1
Little Ajax 14 14 1:1 41 .34:1
Seventh and Main 12 12 1:1 13 .92:1
(9 on-site. 3 remote)
Draco 7 6 .85:1 10 .7:1
(0 on-site. 7 remote)
Juan Street 12 6 2:1 17 .7:1
Notes:
* SkiCo developments
*' As submitted by the Applicant, the existing Holiday House currently has 64 beds providing a
.18:1 space to bed ratio.
The proposed development is within close proximity to the commercial core and bus service is a
few blocks away. With the location within close walking distance to goods and services and
transportation the project can accommodate a reduction in the parking requirement. Staff
supports the reduction in parking spaces. At the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
Page 5 of9
(January 3, 2006) the Commission supported the reduction in parking with the caveat that no on-
street residential parking permits be available to the residents of Holiday House. Staff does not
support prohibiting residents of the Holiday House from receiving residential parking permits, as
the restriction is punitive to a specific segment of the community.
Below, are a number of options that Council may want to consider as part of the parking
discussion that are not as restrictive as prohibiting Holiday House residents from applying for
residential parking permits. These options were discussed with Tim Ware, Director of Parking:
. Provide remote parking for Holidav House. COUl1cil could require the Applicant to
provide six remote parking spaces so that the Applicant meets the off-street parking
standard. One drawback to remote parking is that residents often do not use the spaces
since they are not close to the residences.
. Limit the number of residential parking permits available to Holidav House residents.
Council could limit the number of parking permits available to residents of the Holiday
House. Tracking of these agreements by the Parking Department is somewhat onerous
and difficult to administer. If Council is interested in this option, Staff would recommend
that the permits be applied for by a SkiCo representative once a year and it would be
SkiCo's responsibility to distribute the permits.
. Contribute to car share. Since SkiCo hires staff from around the world, and many do not
bring their vehicles with them, SkiCo could contribute financially to the car share
program. Ideally, a car share vehicle could be located on the block of Holiday House.
The development is within close proximity to the commercial core and bus service is afew blocks
away and can accommodate a reduction in the parking requirement. The proposed Holiday
House parking ratio is close to some other ratios as outlined in Table 5. With the close proximity
of transit and ea,\y walking distance to downtown, the requested reduction in parking can be
supported by Staff Staff would also suggest that in lieu of providing the off-street parking
"paces, the Applicant support the car share program with afinancial contribution.
Subdivision:
The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi-family
dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the
City's Land Use Code (LUC).
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets
the applicable subdivision review standards established In Land Use Code Section 26.480.050,
Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal Is consistent with the Infill development goals
established In the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).
GMQS Approval for Development of Affordable Housing:
Affordable Housing approval is being requested for the development of twenty-five (25)
affordable housing units. The review criteria, as outlined in Exhibit A, for the development of
affordable housing are met. Currently, thirty-four (34) of the thirty-five (35) existing units have
Page 6 of9
been deed restricted at the Holiday House. It appears that one unit has been deed restricted
twice. As the Applicant is proposing to deed restrict the entire project, the twice restricted unit
can be subtracted from the one unit that is currently not deed restricted.
The Applicant is requesting a credit for the affordable housing that is being created in excess of
what currently exists. The request for the credit has been recommended for approval by the
Housing Board, final approval is within the authority of City Council. To develop a comparison
between what exists and what is proposed the applicant determined and Staff verified how many
employees were housed based upon the type of unit. The numbers used in the calculation are
from LUC Section 26.470.050 A.2., Employees Housed, which is outlined below.
Table 6: CURRENT AND PROPOSED UNITS
Studio 1 2 3 4 5
Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
Existing 19 15 1 0 0 0
Proposed 1 2 8 3 9 2
Table 7: Credit Calculation
Studio 1 2 3 4 5 Totals
1.25 Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
Employees 1.75 2.25 3.00 3.5 4.00
Housed Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees
Housed Housed Housed Housed Housed
Existing 23.75 26.25 2.25 0 0 0 52.25
Proposed 1.25 3.5 18 9 31.5 8 71.25
Difference 19
Stafffinds that there continues to be a needfor the development of additional affordable units in
that the AACP's goallor the development ol1,300 additional affordable housing units has not
been met. The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed
allordable housing units meet the Employee Housing Guidelines requirements.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES:
All new structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards or
obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use. Code Section 26.410, Residential
Design Standards. The proposal has been designed to meet the majority of the design standards.
The three (3) design standards that are not met by the proposal are: 1.) the requirement for a
certain number of street oriented entrances, 2.) the requirement for a minimum size of a covered
entry porch, and 3.) First-story element. The Applicant has agreed to meet the minimum size
required for the covered entry porch.
With regard to the building elements, for everv four units the Applicant is required to provide
one street oriented entrance. For the current proposal, the requirement would be six (6)
entrances. The Applicant is proposing two (2). Additionally, the Applicant is required to provide
a first story street-facing element(s) that comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's
Page 70f9
overall width. Currently the first story elements proposed do not meet the twenty (20) percent
minimum.
The Applicant has made an attempt to provide additional entrances to the garden level
apartments, but those do not count toward meeting the criteria. With the dormitory type of
facility being proposed, the additional entrances become non-functional. The entry standard is
geared towards a townhome development pattern and does not lend itself to the type of building
proposed. The Applicant has also proposed a covered ramped entryway to the garden level that
looks like but does not function as a first story element. It does add additional pedestrian
elements and scale to the building. Staffrecommends that the two variances be approved.
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE:
Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code
Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for
school function or pay a cash-in-Iieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu
payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630.
Staff will include a condition of approval in the future ordinance requiring that the Applicant
pay the School Lands Dedicationsfee prior to issuance ofa building permit.
P ARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE:
The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms
added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee.
Stalf will include a condition of approval in the future ordinance requiring that a Park
Development Impact Fee be paid at prior to building permit issuance.
REFERRAL AGENCY ISSlJES:
The proposed application was referred to the City Engineering Department, Parks Department,
Water Department, Electric Department, Environmental Health Department, Building
Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and Aspen Fire Protection District for
comments on technical issues.
Comments .trom the referral agencies will be incorporated into the conditions of approval of the
ordinance as appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of
the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City's Land Use Code. As was
previously stated, StatT also feels that there is certainly a need for additional affordable housing
development, which is located near the Commercial Core and close to mass transportation
options. The proposal would vastly improve the living conditions of residents living at Holiday
House.
Page 8 of9
Staff recommends conceptually supporting the F.A.R. increase and off-street parking reduction
with a contribution to car share, based on previously stated staff findings. The resolution includes
approval for the. floor area increase, a reduction in parking, and a required contribution to car
share.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITlVE):
"J move to approve Resolution No. ?!, Series of 2006, approve with conditions, the Holiday
House Conceptual PUD to construct a twenty-five unit (25) affordable housing multi-family
structure on the property known as, Lots C, D, E, F, G, and the east 7.5' of Lot B, Block 60, City
and Townsite of Aspen as the request meets the review standards of the Land Use Code."
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Aerial Photo of Holiday House
Exhibit C: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from January 3, 2006, October 4,2006,
and August 16, 2005
Exhibit D: Correspondence from Judy Pool to Jennifer Phelan, dated February 4,2006 and
correspondence from Rhonda Bazil to City Council, dated February 8, 2006
Exhibit E: Parking Design Alternatives
Exhibit F: Application
Page 9 of9
RESOLUTION NO. ~
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS THE HOLIDAY HOUSE CONCEPTUAL PUD AMENDMENT TO
CONSTRUCT A MUTI-F AMIL Y BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWENTY-FIVE DEED-
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 125
AND 127 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2735-/24-59-702
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Aspen Skiing Company, represented by Phillip Ring, requesting a combined review and approval
of Subdivision, consolidated PUD Amendment, GMQS approval for the development of
affordable housing, and certain variances from the Residential Design Standards to construct a
multi-family building consisting of twenty-five deed-restricted affordable housing units located
on the property known asl25 and 127 W. Hopkins Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) with a PUD
overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed
subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the
application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests but
that the PUD Amendment should not be reviewed as a consolidated review but as a four-step
review; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 16, 2005, the Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed the application, took public comment, and continued discussion on
the application until October 4, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
application, took public comment, and again continued discussion on the application until
November I, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, to further review the suggestions raised by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at the October 4th hearing, the Applicant requested, and the Commission granted a
continuance of the Application until January 3, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
Resolution No. I, Series of 2006, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council
approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision, conceptual PUD Amendment, GMQS approval
for the development of affordable housing, and certain variances from the Residential Design
Standards to construct a multi-family building consisting twenty-five deed-restricted affordable
housing units located on the property known as 125 and 127 W. Hopkins Avenue; and,
Page I of3
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the conceptual Planned
Unit Development proposal during a duly noticed public hearing under the applicable provisions of
the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets many of the
applicable development standards and where the standards are varied, that the approval of the
conceptual Planned Unit Development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves with conditions the Holiday House conceptual PUD
Amendment in order to construct a multi-family building consisting of twenty-five deed-
restricted aflordable housing units located on the property known as 125 and 127 W. Hopkins.
Section 2: Dimensional Requirements
The conceptual development proposal as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the
Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional
requirements shall be set as follows and the final PUD application shall be in substantial
compliance with the following dimensional requirements:
PUD Dimensional Requirements
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet
Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling No Requirement
Minimum Front Yard Setback 5 Feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 Feet
Maximum Height Up to 32 Feet as allowed in the
underlying zone district
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.57:1, not to exceed 24,790 SF
Section 3: Off- Street Parkine: Requirements
As part of the conceptual PUD Amendment the parking requirement shall be set at nineteen (19)
off-street parking spaces and the final PUD application shall be in substantial compliance with
this requirement. As an auto disincentive, and as part of the final PUD application, a contribution
to car share shall be suggested by the Applicant. Additionally, the final PUD application shall
Page 2 of3
demonstrate that the parking shall be adequately screened on the side property lines by a fence or
other method.
Section 4:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 13th day of February, 2006.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY COUNCIL:
City Attorney
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA AND
STAFF FINDINGS
In accordance with Section 26.445.030(2) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited
extent of the issues involved, the Applicant has requested a consolidated conceptual/final
PUD. This two-step process consolidates the conceptual and final development plan
reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public
hearings occurring at both. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Conceptual, Final,
Consolidated, and Minor PUD outlines that a development application shall comply with
the following review standards
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Findinz
Staff' believes that the proposal is consistent with objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The Applicants have proposed to develop affordable housing in close
proximity to the Commercial Core of the City as is consistent with the housing policies
that are set forth in the AACP. In addition. the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan
states that citizen housing should be provided within the metro area and in close
proximity to public mass transit as is the proposed development. Stafffinds this criterion
to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
StaffFindinz
Currently, there is a mix of lodging, multi-family residential buildings, and some single-
family residences in the immediate area Staff believes that the proposed development is
consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity in that the
uses in the immediate vicinity are diverse. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
StaffFindinz
Staff does not believe that the proposed expansion will adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area in any manner. Thus, Staff find~ this criterion to be
met by the proposal.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
- 1 -
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
StaffFindinJ!
The Applicant's project, as proposed, does not require additional allotments.
Replacement units shall not he deducted from the respective Annual Development
Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels. This criterion is met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone
district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD.
During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with
surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff Findinz
With the current size of the parcel and density proposed on the parcel, the Applicant is
allowed a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 15:1 or 23,625 square feet. The Applicant is
requesting a F.A.R. allowance of approximately 1.57: I or 24.790 square feet which is a
jive percent increase fi'om the underlying zone district allowance. All other dimensional
requirements are met. Providing affordable housing is a goal outlined in the AACP.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and
quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the
character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Findinz
Statfbelieves the massing and scale of the proposal have been modified a numher of
times to create a scale and massing more appropriate to the neighborhood. The mass ()f
the building has been lowered closer to Hopkins to create a more pedestrian scale.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
- 2 -
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Additionally, the application will be reviewed under the Special Review Standards
(LUe Section 26.515.040)
A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking
requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on
conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the
project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the
projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities,
expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street
parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents,
guest and employees.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or
results in an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the
needs of the development, including the availability of street parking.
StatIFinding
The development is within close proximity to the commercial core and bus service is a
few blocks away. Moreover, Stafffeels that proposed parking ratio is consistent with that
of several other affordahle housing developments that have been constructed within the
City of Aspen. For comparison purposes, the 7th & Main Street. DRACO, and Music
Associates of A,lpen Affordable Housing Projects each had parking ratios at or helow
one parking ,Ipace per unit. Stafffindl' this criterion to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a pun may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
pun may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Findini!
Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the
proposed development The adjacent public right-ol-way on West Hopkins is a seventy-
.five (75) foot wide right-of way and is already sufficient to accommodate the required
fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenancefor the proposed development. The
City of Aspen Fire Marshal, Streets Director, and a representative from the Ai>pen
- 3 -
Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed
conditions of approval to mitigate for any insufficiencies. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
StaffPindinz
Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not
applicable to the subject application.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Findinz
The Applicant is not requesting an increase in allowable density. Staff believes that
the site is suitable fiJr development and that this criterion is not applicable to the
subject application.
B. Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
-4-
1. Existing natnral or man-made features of the site which are uniqne, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findinz
Staff believes that the intill parcel does not have any existing natural or man-made
features of the site that are unique. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Findinz
There is only one building proposed for the site. Therefore, this criterion is not
applicable.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Findinz
Staflfeels that the proposal is appropriately oriented towards W Hopkins Avenue. The
Applicant has reduced some of the massing of the building towards Hopkins and included
elements that act as first story elements to create visual interest.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Staff Findinf!
Staff believes that the proposal is appropriately arranged in a manner that al/ows for
emergency vehicles to easily access the site. The site is served by a 75 foot wide public
right-or way that provides sufficient emergency access to the site Stafffinds this criterion
to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has proposed to provide units that meet the building department's
accessibility requirements. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Findinz
- 5-
The Applicant will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a
licensed engineer. The proposed development shall not increase historic flows of the
property. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate auy programmatic functions associated with the use.
StaffFindinf!
The Applicant is not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site.
Stafffinds this criterion not to be applicable.
C. Landscape Plan:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape
with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
StaffFindinf!
The Applicant is proposing to maintain the significant cottonwoods that exist on the
property. The Applicant shall submit a right-or-way landscaping plan for review by the
Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permitfor the project. Stafffinds this
criterion 10 he met.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
Staff Findinf!
Staff believes that the proposal is preserving the natural features of the site. Please see
Staffs response to PUD Review Standard B(l) above. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicants have proposed and are required to provide tree protection fencing around
the drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on-site. Additionally, no construction
activity or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip line of any
trees to be preserved on the site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural eharacter is based upon
the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the
- 6 -
building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and
other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly
represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as
part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which
adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed
architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
StaffFindinf!
Staff believes that the proposed architecture will provide visual interest and has been
revised to create a more pedestrian scale along W Hopkins. The scale and massing is
compatihle with the building across the alley. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of
non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant has stated that less intensive heating and cooling systems will he used
where reasonahly possihle. Stafffinds this criterion to be met to the extent possihle.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
Staff will require a snow storage plan which is included in the resolution as a condition
of approval Staflfinds this criterion to be met.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features,
structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
StaffFindinf!
The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the
Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of
huilding permit suhmittal. Staflfinds this criterion to be met.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final pun documents.
- 7 -
Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call
inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Findini!
The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the
Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of
building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
If the proposed development inclndes a common park, open space, or recreation
area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed pun, the following
criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space,
or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of
the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available
to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the pun.
Staff Findinz
The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area.
Therefore, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicable.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the pun or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
StaffFindinz
The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area.
Therefore, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicable.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial,
or industrial development.
Staff Findini!
The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area.
TherefiJre, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicable
H. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not
incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities
associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
- 8 -
StaffFindinz
Stafr believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Findinz
The afrected utility agencies have reviewed the proposed plans and the concerns have
been addressed as conditions or approval in the attached resolution. Stafrfinds this
criterion to he met.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the .developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Findinz
The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is
not anticipated that the Applicant will be required by the City to provide oversized
utilities. Stafr does notfind this criterion to be applicable to this application.
I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications):
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does
not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian
and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The
proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to
a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
StaffFindinz
The proposed development has adequate access from W Hopkins Ave. Stafrfinds this
criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular aecess points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
StaffFindinz
StaU. believes that the vehicular access points proposed off the alley as part of the
development is an appropriate for access. Staffjinds this criterion to be met
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create
an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts
of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan
- 9 -
is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final pun development plan.
The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-Iieu,
construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the pun,
. construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures
are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the
phase.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant is not currently proposing to phase the construction. Therefore, Stafffinds
this criterion not to be applicable.
- 10-
~...,.....",......:'~-
, /
. ..-
,
- ~BI1r B
*
~
~f)\\C
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Meetin!!: Minutes - January 03, 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in Council
Chambers at 4:30 pm with members Steve Skadron, Brandon Marion, John
Rowland, Dylan John, Ruth Kruger, Mary Liz Wilson and Jasmine Tygre present.
Joyce Allgaier introduced the new Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Mary Liz
Wilson.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger noted the MotherLode was being advertised at 10,700 square foot
penthouse and she was quite certain that was not what was approved. Kruger
asked for suggestions. Joyce Allgaier responded that she did not know the realtors
protocol. Kruger said that it would be a problem if they built something that was
not approved.
Joyce Allgaier noted a Planning Commission and City Council meeting on January
loth to discuss planning commission issues. Allgaier said that there was a Planning
Commission training meeting on March 28th for the analysis of the Grand Hyatt
with a site visit.
Allgaier stated that Dylan and Steve were the P&Z commissioners serving on the
Fire Station COWOP.
The minutes were postponed to the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger had a conflict with the Long Family LLP.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LONG FAMILY LLP, 802 WEST MAIN STREET REZONING FROM RotS
TO MIXED USE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Long Family Rezoning. Proof of
notice was provided.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearingfor the Long
Family LLP, 802 West Main Street Rezoning to February 7'h; seconded by Dylan
Johns. All infavor, motion carried.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/01/05):
HOLIDAY HOUSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Holiday House PUD.
Jennifer Phelan stated the last time P&Z spent time on this application was October
4th. Phelan stated the proposal was to demolish the existing SkiCo Employee
I
J)MfT
Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Meetinl! Minutes - January 03, 2006
Housing Units, which would be rebuilt with 25 units and 74 bedrooms. Phelan
said this was the 3rd iteration on the proposal.
Phelan said the Planning Commission issues were parking access and the number
of spaces. The current proposal was for 19 at grade parking spaces accessed from
the alley; with no access off of Hopkins. Parking ratios for other developments in
town could be found in Table I on page 2 of the staff memo, which provides some
SkiCo housing development and what was infill in town. Phelan said there were
34 existing deed restrictions on 35 existing units; one deed restriction was deed
restricted twice, which will be taken care of with the existing units in place.
Phelan said the floor area ratios were provided in Table 2 on page 3 of the staff
memo.
Phelan stated the applicant was requesting Subdivision Approval for the
construction of multiple dwelling units; a PUD Amendment to establish the
allowable floor area for the project; which was 5% over what the current zoning
would allow; also through PUD to establish off street parking requirement variance
at 19 spaces; a Growth Management credit for excess housing built and approval
for 2 variances from the Residential Design Standards (the number of street
orientated entrances and the first story element variance).
Phelan said the project has changed to 25 deed-restricted units with 74 beds; over
time the number of units has decreased and the number of bed increased by 10.
The parking was supposed to be 25 spaces, which now was 19 spaces; the parking
was within the same scope as some ofthe other affordable housing projects. The
project was close to the commercial core and mass transit therefore staff supports
the off-street parking. Phelan said there was a condition of the resolution
regarding the snow storage.
Phelan said there was a 5% increase in FAR of what was allowed in the underlying
zoning even though it was a past reduction from previous designs. The last design
included 29,521 square feet and now was at 24,790 square feet. The setbacks and
height will be met. The applicant provided 2 entrances off of Hopkins and the
code required 6 entrances. The first story element was not met because of the
depth. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision, the 2 variances and the
growth management standards with the conditions listed in the resolution.
Phelan noted the applicant requested a consolidated review to go to Council
instead of the 4 step process.
2
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Meetin!!: Minutes - January 03, 2006
Brandon Marion asked if the beds were single beds or double beds. Philip Ring
replied that the beds were single with the exception of 2 queen beds in the one-
bedroom units.
Steve Skadron asked if in determining these ratios was there a difference between
bed and bedroom. Phelan answered in the existing she did 35 dwelling units and
36 bedrooms but did not take into account the number of beds in a bedroom.
Phil Ring, SkiCo, said the FAR was reduced by 16%, the variance by 80% and the
access from Hopkins was eliminated. Ring utilized drawings exploring different
ways in getting down to the parking lot and the carved out portions of the building
for surface parking spaces accessed off the alley side. Ring said this was a mixed
use neighborhood with Paepcke Park, the Ice Garden and proximity to mass transit.
Ring said a year ago it was determined the building was no longer inhabitable.
Ring commented that ideally they want to get more people in the redeveloped
building. Ring spoke of the 3 variances requested of the 5% increase in the FAR,
reduction in the parking to 19 spaces and the residential design standards.
Marion asked why not work with the residential design standards to soften the
building or to have a more integrated feel. Ring responded they have put a lot of
time and effort trying to work into this; there was a lot of discussion with staff to
have a multifamily building like this that has the residential design guidelines
applicable; it was difficult to make a building this size look like a small Victorian
residence. Ring said they have tried really hard to get as close as they possibly can
to the residential design guidelines and in order to make the changes that they
would have to make they would lose a lot of efficiency in the building to put 6
doors on the front of the building with each requiring a 60 square foot entry.
David Corbin said that functionally they couldn't have 6 entrances on that front
fayade without critically disturbing what you could or could not do with those
units; there would be penetrations into the 1 st floor units that simply wouldn't
work. Corbin said they tried to meet the spirit and intent of those design guidelines
and aesthetically it would be the wrong way to go.
Marion asked ifthere was any logic to restricting cars or an internal policy for
where a person works if they live in town. Corbin responded there was difficulty
meeting the parking requirements physically given the geometry ofthe site and the
fact that they had strong objections from the neighborhood physically entering
below grade parking under the building. Corbin stated that they took those
comments to heart and felt mandated to a creative solution looking at the alley
issue in entering a below grade garage but not a feasible solution for functional
below grade parking. Corbin said there was not enough footprint in the lot to meet
3
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - January 03, 2006
a one to one ratio in the parking; this was probably the best compromise to make.
Corbin said this was primarily seasonal housing and the employees do not have to
have cars within walking distance to the Nell, base of the mountain or to
transportation.
Marion asked if there was any follow up on the auto disincentive concept; was
there ever a follow up survey. Ring said that the SkiCo does track auto
disincentives for the employees of the Ski Co.
Skadron asked what another 5% reduction would have on this project. Ring
replied it was 1100 to 1200 square feet (a 4 bedroom unit) and there was a way to
change the basement mechanical to more of a crawl space but would prefer to keep
it as is for mechanical and storage. Skadron asked for clarification on the 1 st story
element. Ring utilized the model to show the point of access for a ramp to the
garden level for ADA access, storage and mechanical.
Skadron asked when the special review process was desirable over the PUD
process. Allgaier responded that in a sense they were almost the same; all
affordable housing parking was set by special review.
John Rowland asked how or what will determine which 19 people will be able to
park and what will prohibit the other people from parking on the streets. Corbin
replied that they were not seeking any other parking rights or privileges. Rowland
asked if the front fayade was built out to the setback. Ring replied that they had 5
more feet to the setback; the building was 10 feet from the setback.
Jasmine Tygre asked ifthe two 5 bedroom units worked as the 4 bedroom units
with a central living area with the bedrooms off of it. Ring replied yes. Tygre
asked if there was a shift from the more year round workers to seasonal workers
being housed in this building. Ring replied it depended on the workers that needed
to be housed; it was up to operations. Ring said they had to move away from more
ofthe 1 bedroom units for efficiency purposes. Tygre asked if there were parking
ratios for similar multifamily buildings in the area. Phelan replied that the only
way to do that would be to pull the building permits.
Public Comments:
1. Letter from Judy Pool and Family, 108 West Hopkins was read into the
record.
2. Rhonda Bazil stated that she represents Phyllis Bronson and Jessie Boyce
and the Cottonwood Townhomes. Bazil said the concerns were specifically with
4
Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Meetinl! Minutes - January 03. 2006
the density and parking; the only thing that changed since the last application were
the beds were reduced by 4 and the number of parking spaces were reduced by 10.
Bazil said that the goals were reducing the density of the building and the off-street
parking requirement.
3. Phyllis Bronson stated the project was still too big and voiced concern for
having 70 transient kids living in the neighborhood. Bronson said it was not the
neighborhoods fault for the Ski Company's housing crisis.
4. Jane Urban stated that she was a Cottonwood resident for 28 years; she said
this project will change the character of the neighborhood.
5. Barret Siever said that he lived at the Cottonwoods and the biggest issue was
parking; it was difficult to park in that neighborhood now.
6. Marilyn Harper said that she lived in the Cottonwoods and her biggest
concern was the amount of additional people in the neighborhood and the parking.
7. Steve Johnson lived at 201 South Garmisch; he asked if the alley was going
to be paved. Phelan replied that was not expected. Johnson suggested the alley be
paved.
Tygre summed up the public comments to the major issues still remain the size of
the building, the number of people housed in the building and the parking.
Brandon Marion wanted to hear the compelling reason for the number of people
housed on the site. Corbin responded that it wasn't a compelling business reason
in the sense of the economics. Corbin stated they were a major employer and there
was a need for affordable beds in town and this was one of the only shots they had
given the constraints in Aspen for employee housing. Corbin stated that the
employee from Auckland would not bring a car and they could steer employees
from sources or locations that would not have a car.
Skadron stated that he could support the project if it was 5% smaller. Skadron said
that if there were no FAR variances he could go with the condensed process.
John Rowland said what ifthe project provided no parking. Rowland asked what
was the benefit of the parking and the competitiveness for the parking. Rowland
favored the traditional 4 step process. Rowland said there was a lot of opportunity
for the I story element and would rather see a variance for penetrating into that
5
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Meetin!!: Minutes - January 03. 2006
setback to break down the mass in lieu of a variance for the 1 story element.
Rowland would also like to see a reduction in the number of occupants.
Ruth Kruger said that under parking more would be a huge mistake. Kruger said
the gesture of moving the parking to the alley, which was not an issue for her to
have the parking entrance in the alley and was not her preference but applauded
that action as a concession to the neighbors. Kruger would like to see a reduction
in the number of bedrooms to be sensitive to the neighbors. Kruger said that she
would like to see the process honed down and would be okay with the combined
process.
Dylan Johns stated the new parking was a good one and incorporating the
restriction for not having cars was good. Johns said that 5% could be taken out of
the building without affecting the dynamics of how the building operates and
functions; there was a significant need for housing with a better and more
structured management system in place to be more effective. The entrance did not
concern him because it would just chop up the building and would not be good for
the overall architecture of the building. Johns said the height is within the
guidelines. Johns said it has come a long way since the initial application and the 2
step process was okay.
Brandon Marion said that improving the housing in the neighborhood was a good
thing and redeveloping the site was the right thing to do; the design variance was
okay. Marion said he would like the statistical data on parking and not just site
specific; everyone agrees there is a problem with parking in town but there is
nothing specific to isolate where it is coming from. Marion said what he was
hearing from the public was a little more parking and shrink the building. Marion
said the one or two step process did not matter.
Steve Skadron said that he would support a condition that limits residents of this
project to get parking permits and the reduction in the 5% variance. Marion agreed
with Skadron if that could be done.
Mary Liz Wilson commented that she would like to see the FAR reduced by 5%
and a stipulation about having cars without the ability to have street parking
permits.
Brain Speck stated that he could support the project with a reduction in the FAR to
code; the parking was an issue so there needed to be something that could be
tracked. Speck said the two step process was okay.
6
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Meetin!!: Minutes - January 03, 2006
Jasmine Tygre stated that she stood up to the four step process. Tygre said the
commission may not all agree on the direction of further tweaking and whatever
was approved at conceptual really reflects the consensus of the commission. Tygre
said that all agreed that this was a valuable project to house employees in town and
the concern was to make sure this project was as good a neighbor as can possibly
be for the surrounding properties. Tygre said that part of the parking problem was
caused by some of the surrounding existing properties, which were under parked
due to the age of the buildings. Tygre objected to the fact that people in employee
housing should not be allowed to park on the street and was repugnant but she
would have to go along with it in this particular instance because of the
representation from the applicant that it was not necessarily a hardship for the
employees housed by this project. Tygre said that there were also seasonal
employees from the United States and people from the Untied States don't get out
of their cars all that easily. Tygre wanted to see the reduction of the FAR so that it
was actually in the guidelines established in the code. Tygre also like to see the 5
bedroom units go, which should be part of the applicant's desire to provide a better
environment for your employees and better livability purposes. Tygre said that
was why she wanted this to come back so they knew what they were approving and
sending to Council.
Kruger said they may come back maybe one or two times more so that the
commission can really scrutinize this project now and then send it onto Council.
Kruger said the employer can scrutinize and place employees that do not have cars
in this project to be able to make that exception about parking.
Joyce Allgaier recapped the commissioners' requests for a 5% floor area reduction
and the parking mitigation measures. Augie Reno, architect for the applicant,
stated concern for the commission's case load. Kruger asked Reno ifhe wanted to
come back to P&Z again and then go to Council and back to P&Z or simplify and
just come back to P&Z. Allgaier asked if the parking condition could be worked
on by staff and brought back to P&Z.
Kruger said that her understanding of the parking was that they would only have
the 19 spaces and no on street parking. Tygre asked how the parking permits
would be worked out.
David Corbin stated there were 3 issues that seem to be the crux of the problem; to
constrain the number of cars parked on the street and they were willing to limit the
number of on street parking and will accept as a condition. Corbin said the
residential character had many different plane changes and felt it made more sense
to step further away from the street so they don't loom over the pedestrian way.
7
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine:'Meetine: Minutes - January 03, 2006
Corbin said there were at least 3 pedestrian scale elements on the building and the
roof forms have been broken down. Corbin said that he did not think that there
could be consensus from P&Z on the design forms of the building. Corbin said the
last issue was the FAR and the confusion was the floor area ratio, which was a
manner of controlling the size and mass of building in relation to their site. Corbin
said with the issue of density and the equivalent of warm bodies that was not
spelled out in the code. Corbin said that with respect to the FAR they can make
some adjustments ifthat was critical to the P&Z review. Corbin said it took 2
months to figure out how to make the changes that have been made since the last
presentation and could not say if they have a clear answer to the FAR by the I ih.
Corbin said that they can make some adjustments in FAR that would happen sub-
grade in the basement level and they would not be a seen change in the building
envelope of this building. Corbin said they would like to keep the project as is and
land use code 26.445.050B6 would support the project because it was for the
public benefit to accept the variance.
Tygre asked if they wanted P&Z to vote tonight. Corbin replied that they did.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting to 7: I 5 pm; seconded by
Brian Speck. All in favor, motion carried.
Kruger said that if they choose to vote on this tonight she would like to see the
project again and this will be a conceptual vote for her. Johns said if 5% was the
number to bring the project down to threshold then that is what P&Z should say.
Johns said there was a wide range of what P&Z wants to see.
The commission wanted to pass on something that Council will approve. Allgaier
summed up the commissioners concerns as the 5% reduction and the parking.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #1, series 2006
recommending City Council approve with conditions the Holiday House PUD and
associated land use requests to construct a twenty-five (25) unit affordable housing
multi-family structure on the property known as Lots C, D, E, F, and G and east
7.5' of Lot B Block 60 City and Townsite of Aspen as the request meets the review
standards of the Land Use Code with the additional conditions that the FAR of the
project be reduced by 5% to fall within the guidelines, the residents not be allowed
to apply for on-street parking permits as offered by the applicant and not a
consolidated review but a conceptual approval. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll
call vote: Speck, yes; Marion, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes;
Skadron, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
8
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Meetin!!: Minutes - January 03, 2006
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/13/05):
575 Sneaky Lane, Special Review, Stream Mar!!:in and Residential Desi!!:n
Standards Variance
Long Family LLLP, 802 West Main Street Rezoning from R-15 to Mixed Use,
Joyce Allgaier (open and continue)
9
*-
~
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04. 2005
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
HOLIDAY HOUSE CONCEPTUAL PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing from September 20th for the
Holiday House Conceptual PUD.
Jennifer Phelan provided a brief summary of changes in the application and staff
recommendations with a reduction in the proposed number of units from 33 to 31
as of today; now there were 78 bedrooms (from 84 originally proposed). The
height floor to floor was reduced and complied with the 32 foot height limit. FAR
was reduced by 500 square feet but the project still exceeded the FAR allowance
by 5,896 square feet and density included in the reduction of bedrooms. Staff
recommended an additional reduction in the FAR and massing required.
Phelan said the parking issue was resolved and exceeded the parking requirement
by 3 spaces.
Phelan said the purpose of the design standards was to enhance the streetscape,
pedestrian attraction, incorporate design elements important to neighborhood and
due consideration should be given to these basic character elements.
The garage access issue on West Hopkins could negatively impact pedestrians and
cyclists and staff feels at this conceptual level alley access can be accommodated.
There was a memo from the Community Development Engineer that states alley
access would be possible but may necessitate design changes to the project. The
requirement was 8 entries and the applicant provided 3; staff felt that additional
entries could help break up of the facade. The front half of the fa'Yade adjacent to
the historic building to the west was reduced by one story so there was a two to
two and half story building in the front and a three story building in the back in an
attempt to be more considerate to the existing historic structure.
Stafffeels that this is a good project with transportation available to the site but
staff feels with additional reduction in the FAR and massing and explore the alley
access for the garage and incorporate more residential design features into the
project.
Phillip Ring and David Corbin represented the Aspen Skiing Company. Ring
stated that this location was ideal for employee housing and especially this density.
Ring said this existing site has been employee housing for over 20 years; the
Holiday House itself has been deed restricted for seasonal or low income
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04. 2005
employees. The 9 one-bedrooms were managerial level. The Holiday House has
been unoccupied for the last year because it was substandard and general
maintenance could no longer keep the building hospitable. The employees that
lived in the Holiday House were just blocks from their employment and the Skiing
Company felt it important to provide housing for seasonal employees. Ring said
the goal was to house more employees and provide a new building for these
seasonal and managerial level employees. Ring said that they have met with
neighbors since the last meeting.
Ring said there were 34 off-street parking spaces and 21 spaces in the garage; there
were 78 bedrooms (9 one-bedrooms, 9 two-bedrooms, I three-bedroom, 12 four-
bedrooms). Ring noted they comply with the height restriction and the FAR was
now at I to 1.87.
Ring explained the one story element was for a pedestrian feel and look; the
parking access was still in the front because of physical constraints. One unit
remained in the lower floor with an exterior access. The first and second floors
were generally 4-bedrooms, where the seasonal employees will be and the top floor
will be I and 2 bedroom units for managerial type employees.
Ring said that they felt pretty strongly that they met all 13 criteria. The architect
and builder for the project specialize in high quality residential design. Ring said
the employees were really important to the company and community.
David Corbin stated that he replaced Bill Kane at the Aspen Skiing Company.
Corbin said the applicant was ready, willing and able to contribute to the
community providing employee housing in a mixed use neighborhood. Corbin
said there was something to be weighed here in balance and he hoped and
suggested the commission take into account the slight variation from the
technical/precise FAR requirements would be weighed against and off-set by the
public policy need to meet this kind of residential use. Corbin questioned the alley
access because of the logistics of dropping a driveway at a reasonable functional
grade down into a narrow footprint ofa building, in spite of the engineer's letter, to
ramp down into this garage space taking head lights into consideration. Corbin
asked with the limited number of parking spaces in this building and the
availability of public transportation how many instances of real conflict between
cars entering a garage off the street and the pedestrian and bicycle usage on that
road will really be encountered by approving the project as drawn.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04. 2005
Corbin reiterated that they have met with the neighborhood and tried within the
physical and economical viability of that project to make changes in the exterior
fa<;ade so that the residential character was enhanced. Corbin said it was difficult
to show, look and appear like single family residences. Corbin noted there was a
double loaded corridor, which was a sensible plan to get people in and out of this
building and doesn't make practical sense to add many more exterior entrance so
that it would look, feel or show that they were individual residences in this mass
and form in part because it would disrupt the interior units use and function.
Ruth Kruger asked about studies for the amount of parking the staff members may
require. Ring replied that staff was provided with comparable parking at those
locations. Pam Willis responded that there was a memo (dated September 8th)
outlining the ratio of beds and units to cars, which was basically a 1 to 1 ratio.
Kruger asked if the foreign employees usually bring cars that were seasonal.
Willis replied very few bring cars. Kruger stated that she was pretty much in
support of the proj ect and asked why they have been unresponsive to the staff
request for a reduction in density and size. Ring responded that they were in
disagreement with staff and said that staff did not look at the FAR to hold more
density on this site and read from the code to exceed the underlying FAR through a
PUD. Kruger asked the applicant to make a strong case to her to go against the
staff recommendation. David Corbin responded that it was crucial for the Ski
Company and the community at large to invest in this kind of housing asset; land
was scarce and this was their plan to optimize the site's potential and this was the
best use. Kruger asked what was done with the units in the summer and off
season. Corbin responded they had to try to find ways to fill them through summer
employees or make them available to other parties and would not want to see the
units not utilized. Kruger asked the rental rates of the units. Ring replied they
were regulated by the Housing Authority. Willis stated that in other project they
make available to the community any excess beds they have between Snowmass
and Aspen.
John Rowland asked if any parking requirements have been waived in the past.
Phelan replied that the parking ratios were 1 to 1 and some were .8 to 1. Ring
answered there were a few projects like Marolt and Burlingame based on seasonal
housing that were designed with fewer parking spaces. Lindt responded that the
location of the property was important and other means of transportation; other AH
projects with lower parking standards were Little Ajax, ih and Main and Draco.
Rowland asked if there was a study on the number of houses or multifamily units
that accessed the street with a curb cut. Phelan replied that on the Holiday House
side of Hopkins there were no curb cuts on that block and there might be one
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04, 2005
across the street. Ring said the Townhouses West (behind the Holiday House)
have curb cuts on Aspen Street and Hyman; the Cottonwood provides 12 spots on
the alley.
Rowland asked if there was a minimum standard for the livable area in these units.
Phelan replied the standard was with the Housing Authority for the Category ofthe
units; due to the small size of some of the units they would be counted at studio
units on the 3'd floor with different deed-restrictions.
Dylan Johns asked if the land carried a deed-restriction. Ring responded the
Holiday House building and annex have gone through a series of deed-restrictions
over the past 20 years to meet the employee mitigation for the Little Nell and
Aspen Mountain. Corbin stated if the deed-restriction was not on the land they
would be willing to burden the land with a deed-restriction. Johns asked if the
driving force for the housing was credits or bed count. Ring replied bodies.
Jasmine Tygre asked what was meant by managerial type of employee. Ring
answered there were 9 units in the current annex occupied by the director ofPR;
one of the X-Games coordinator; another Events Department and others who work
out at the corporate office at the AABC. Tygre asked what other housing was used
for full time workers. Willis replied there were 2 buildings, the Club Commons at
Snowmass for winter seasonal with an option for summer leases. Ring said that
the employee housing was for seasonal employees rather than full time employees.
Tygre asked how many of those units were for other Ski Co mitigation. Phelan
replied that she was not provided information on the deed-restrictions; she said
they were interested in a credit for units they were creating for this project. Tygre
asked what project were these units being used to mitigate. Tygre said that there
were instances in the past where units were supposed to be used for mitigation and
have been used over and over again for mitigation; she felt this was relevant to this
application as well. Tygre asked the percentage of full time year round "Iocal-
type" employees in general. Willis responded about 800 including both lodging
properties.
Tygre asked if there was a comparison of the density ofthis project to other
multifamily projects on the lot area. Phelan answered staff could bring back some
figures. Bendon replied that the 7'h and Main project was about one unit per 750
square feet oflot area; the free market multi-residential units were about 1,000
square feet oflot area.
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04. 2005
Public Comments:
Phelan noted correspondences on the Holiday House from Dennis Seider, Phyllis
Bronson, Joanna Schafner, Lynn Wong, R. Hart Beaver, Jane Erb, Judy Pool,
Rhonda Bazil, David Coles, Ray Koenig and Sue and Don Crowley.
Marilyn Harper, Cottonwoods resident, stated concern for the density and parking.
Sasha Haas stated that she believed this community needed housing and welcomed
this addition to the community; she purchased a car when she moved down valley.
Haas said this was a unique thing to offer employees a place to live in the city
without the need to have a car.
Tom Pool said that he lived across the alley on Hyman in Townhouses West and
voiced concern over the density without making this housing available for anyone
other than Ski Co employees and not the community at large. Pool hoped the
commission would deny the increase in FAR. Pool spoke of private business
having the ability to build structures and exceed the FAR.
Rhonda Bazil stated that she was an attorney for Jesse Boyce and Phyllis Bronson
who saw problems with the existing density and the increase in density was of
great concern. Bazil said that she reviewed the deed restrictions and they were in
place for 49 people for low and moderate income. Bazil said the density issue
drove the parking issue and voiced concern about the parking garage access from
the pedestrian corridor and requested a condition of approval be that no resident
parking passes (for on-street parking) be issued for this project. Bazil stated they
would like to see more permanent residents placed in these units.
Phyllis Bronson said that she contacted Pat O'Donnell from the Ski Company and
he met with her. Bronson said that she was all for quality employee housing but
not at the expense of professionals and other types of workers who have paid
enormous amounts of money and time and professional expertise to this
community to buy homes; they havc worked hard to be in this community and shc
felt steamrolled by the Ski Company.
Jesse Boyce thanked the Ski Co for meeting with them but they don't feel that they
have come very far with them. Boyce said the Holiday House was over-crowded
already; the density needed to be decreased.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04. 2005
Martha Madsen stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for over 46 years.
Madsen stated the numbers of pedestrians that use Hopkins in the summer
becomes greater every year and becomes more dangerous with cars coming and
gomg.
Judy Pool lived at 108 West Hyman across the alley from the Holiday House stated
that she agreed with a lot of what has already been said and she felt the FAR
should not exceed the code. Pool said the building was too massive and the design
should better fit into Aspen.
Barat Seert lived at the Cottonwoods said that density was the problem and
everything follows from there.
Dan Lacarty lived on Hopkins stated it would be disastrous to bring an entrance
onto Hopkins Street from this project. Lacarty said this was not the place for the
Ski Co employee mitigation.
Tita Kaspar lived on Hopkins agreed with the density being too high; the entrance
onto the pedestrian way disturbed her. Kaspar said that the Ski Co has not been a
good neighbor because the property has not been taken care of. Kaspar said the
project was not appropriate for the site.
Brian Merkle said the deed restrictions need to be reviewed.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to extend to the meeting to 7: 15 p.m. Seconded by
Brian Speck. All infavor, motion approved.
Johns said that he still had an issue with entering on Hopkins; this building had
concentrated car traffic and wanted to see more study on the entrance on the alley.
Johns said this site met the criteria for affordable housing but he questioned how
this project fit into the neighborhood.
Rowland said that in concept he supported the project; he was pleased with the
height reduction but the FAR and density will overwhelm the block, which was not
responsible for the city or Ski Co to do that. Rowland said that he could not rally
behind this project the way it was currently designed.
Speck said he would not be able to support the project especially after hearing
from the neighbors on the entrance onto Hopkins and the FAR; if there were
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes October 04. 2005
adjustments on those issues he said that he could support the project because he
liked to see employees housed downtown and support the Ski Co in their efforts.
Kruger said that she was in support of the project even though the rest of the
neighborhood wasn't like this, it was affordable housing and should remain
affordable housing and she wanted to see the Ski Co develop this project. Kruger
said that the applicant needed to be a little more sensitive to the neighbors and
encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighbors and work out some of their
Issues.
Tygre agreed with the commissioners about the size and density of the project; this
was difficult for her because she believed in employee housing in town, near
transit fulfilling the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and keeping this a
community where people who work can live and be part ofthe community. Tygre
said this was an ideal place for employee housing but what troubled her was that
projects like this make people not want to have employee housing in their
neighborhoods. Tygre said it was too big and too dense; the density was more than
doubled and exceeded the underlying zone district requirements. Tygre said that
the desire to get as many people as possible housed was commendable but the site
was overloaded so it would not be a pleasant place for people to live there let alone
what was being done to the neighborhood. Tygre said that she was excited and
horrified at the same time about this project. Tygre requested that staff check into
the previous deed-restrictions as mitigation for other projects.
David Corbin said they would try to figure out how to amend the application and
revisit the project; he said he did not know how to address the garage entrance with
the site constraints. Corbin said they would revisit the density question and run the
concepts by the neighborhood before coming back to this body.
The commission requested the results of the Little Ajax parking mitigation;
surrounding multifamily properties FAR and density and look at the seasonal
versus year round employees.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Holiday
House Conceptual PUD to November 1"; seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor
motion approved 5-0.
II
*-
~
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes AUl!ustl6. 2005
9,000 square foot parcel to be only used for the TDRs and not be developed with
an additional structure.
Tanya Stevens, Stan Clauson Associates, introduced Georgia Hanson the executive
director of the Aspen Historical Society. Stevens utilized a site plan to locate the
Wheeler/Stallard House for the commission and audience. Stevens stated there
were 2 structures on the property built in 1888 by Jerome B. Wheeler and bought
by the Aspen Historical Society in 1959. The proposal was to split off Lots K, L,
M (9,000 square feet to produce 16 TDRs). Stevens said selling the TDRs would
benefit the museum to create an endowment to ensure financial viability and would
benefit the community because it would ensure that the property would not be
developed in the future. Stevens said it would be insured in 3 ways (1) the Charter
makes sure that there will not be additional structures on the property (2) the
Conditional Use takes the property to the current FAR at 5,790 square feet and (3)
Sterilizes the parcel.
John Rowland asked if the museum was responsible for taking care of the property.
Stevens replied that was correct.
Ruth Kruger asked how 16 TDRs were created. Lindt responded that it was based
on the lot area of 9,000 square feet and each TDR was 250 square feet each. Lindt
stated the Historic TDR Program would allow the TDR to land in certain
residential zone districts that they are non-historic and need additional FAR. Lindt
said when the TDR is established you get a bearer's certificate.
No public comments.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #27, series 2005,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions, a conditional use to
establish the allowable FARfor a museum use on reconfigured Wheeler/Stallard
property of 44,400 square feet as the FAR of the existing'site-specific development
plan, consisting of 5,793 square feet of FAR, 620 West Bleeker, City and Townsite
of Aspen. Seconded by Steve Skadron. Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes;
Skadron, yes; Tygre, yes; all in favor, APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HOLIDAY HOUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Holiday House Affordable
Housing PUD. Joyce Allgaier provided proof of notice from the newspaper,
posting and mailing.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes AUl!:ust 16. 2005
Jennifer Phelan stated the application was submitted by the Aspen Skiing
Company to demolish the existing structures at 125 and 127 West Hopkins and
replace those structures with a new multi-family structure to provide affordable
employee housing. Phelan said that there were 35 existing multi-family units
down to 33 units and from 64 existing beds to 84 beds and from 36 bedrooms to 84
bedrooms. The property was zoned Residential Multifamily with a PUD overlay;
the applicant was requesting Subdivision for the development of multi-family
housing, Planned Unit Development for a height variation from 32 feet to 37 feet,
an increase in the floor area ratio from 23,625 square feet to 36, 602 square feet
and a reduction in parking from 33 spaces to 29 spaces. They also requested
growth management quota system approval for the development of affordable
housing and variances from the residential design standards to allow garage access
from the street rather than the alley and not to provide the number of required
entrances, which would be 8 on Hopkins and not being required to meet the 1 st
story element. Phelan stated the applicant wanted a combined review of the
approval requests, which Council would have the final decision because of the
consolidated conceptual and final. Staff recommended the applicant revise the
plans to reduce the height, remove garage access from Hopkins, add more
entrances, meet the I story element of the residential design guidelines and provide
better substantiation of parking.
Bill Kane introduced himself as the vice president of planning for the Aspen Skiing
Company; he was joined by Phil Ring, project manager and Augie Reno heading
the design team. Kane said the current buildings were antiquated and have been
adapted for seasonal employee housing since 1985; the proposal was to demolish
the 2 buildings and replace them with an attractive modern building. The livability
of the building will be greatly enhanced as a result ofthis project; the lower levels
were seasonal housing and the top level was long term rentals. Kane said there
would be an on-site manager to help with problems that may have occurred in the
past.
Kane said there was a height issue because ofthe subsurface parking in the
building, which could add to the livability of the building as well as getting cars off
the street. Kane said this was a splendid site for affordable housing within walking
distance to the community public services.
Steven Dunn, architect with Gibson Reno, explained there was a 7 foot grade
difference between Hopkins and the alley; that was the main reason for bringing
the entrance to the parking garage onto Hopkins. Dunn stated the height limit
issues came from taking the grade down instead of light wells for the 2 units in the
basement. Dunn said the entrance was in the center of the building setback from
the street with a I story element; there were 3 entrances. Dunn said the building
4
ASPEN PLANNING & WNING COMMISSION - Minutes AUl!ust 16. 2005
would utilize green building materials. There was barrel vault at the end of the
building. There were no common areas next to the Victorian.
Jennifer Phelan distributed a sheet of photos of the neighborhood.
The commission agreed that this was a good site for employee housing,
Dylan Johns asked what the floor to ceiling heights were and where balconies were
located. Dunn replied the floor to ceiIinl heights were at 8 feet; there were 2 decks
on the east end of the building on the 2" and 3rd floors and the top floor had 4
decks. Ring said the decks were small and were not designed for public relaxation
spaces. Kane stated the decks were not meant for storage either because there was
storage provided in the basement.
John Rowland asked for building sections and asked why the one story elements
were not provided.
Ruth Kruger asked if there was a landscape plan. Kane replied the plan was not
completed but they were working with the parks department; the major part of the
landscape plan was what to do with existing trees.
Jasmine Tygre asked the categories for the units. Phelan responded housing set the
categories with the top story 1 bedroom units (considered studios by the housing
board due to their small size) were category 1 studio; category 2 for the 2 bedroom
units and category 3 for the 3 and 4 bedroom units. Kane responded this was an
attempt to replace the donnitory housing with one person per bedroom.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Phelan entered letters from Phyllis Bronson, Nancy Tipton, Steve and
Teresa Johnson, Jane Erb, Patricia Lampton, Martin Warshaw, Judy Pool, Lynn
Wong and Brett Lewis into the public record. Aspen Townhomes West had every
intention of being in attendance but they were stuck on 170 in traffic.
1. Ray Koenig, 2F Cottonwood owner, said that after the Cottonwoods were
built they had to go back and cut 1 foot off of each floor to comply with the height
regulations. Koenig said since the Ski Corp owned the Holiday House their record
is that of a slum lord; there have been continual problems with garbage using the
Cottonwoods garbage cans. Koenig said this project doesn't blend into the
neighborhood because of the noise, it depreciates the property around it and losing
the views of Red Mountain; he moved to the East End although he still owns his
Cottonwood Unit. Koenig suggested removing the top floor and he said he would
prefer knocking down the buildings and replacing them with townhomes.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes AU2ust 16. 2005
2. Gretchen Greenwood stated she represented Mr. John Keith who was
distressed about the size of the project; she said the R6 neighborhood had a 24 foot
height limit and this RMF was in an R6 neighborhood. Greenwood said that they
were complying with the zoning upon redevelopment ofthe property by accessing
from the alley; there was no pedestrian feeling from this project. Greenwood said
the architect put the very highest portion of the building next to the smallest
residential development on this street; she said they have a great opportunity to
meet the residential design standards with the redevelopment.
3. Carol Blomquist stated that she owned the Chalet Lisl, which housed
seasonal workers from time to time. Blomquist said the Holiday House was
exceeding code by almost 12,000 square feet and exceeding bedrooms; the Holiday
House was above capacity for the neighborhood. Blomquist said they respected
their neighborhood and would like the developers to respect the neighborhood.
4. Jane Erb said that she was the president of the Cottonwoods and she
represented Mr. and Mrs. Pool. Erb stated concern for the Victorian on the comer
and the Townhouses West; there will be tremendous impacts from the size of this
building. Erb begged that a different plan be made.
5. Jessie Boyce stated that he lived across the street at 134Y:z Hopkins; he
objected to the consolidated process. Boyce said there would be a 35% increase
floor area, 30% increase in occupancy and 37% increase in units. Boyce said the
parking access would be a problem from the street since Hopkins was a busy
walkway.
6. Phyllis Bronson stated that she and her husband Jesse owned the Victorian
across from the Holiday House and felt disappointed by the developer showing
little regard for the people in the neighborhood. Bronson said City Council fought
hard to make Hopkins a pedestrian way; the parking garage entrance could not be
located on that street. Bronson stated concern for the magnitude and density of the
project; she suggested talking to the neighbors.
7. John Kelly stated he represented Howard and Heidi Long who owned a pan
abode at 211 West Hopkins. Kelly asked if the density was appropriate for the
neighborhood; it concerned him. Kelly noted the traffic and parking were a
nightmare this summer; he said the parking for this project should be 100%
mitigated.
8. Rita Rasmussen stated that she lives in the neighborhood; this was
distressing to her and the project will destroy the neighborhood.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes AUl!ust 16. 2005
9. Brian Merkle stated that he represented the Cottonwood Association.
Merkle said I. parking was inadequate for the 84 units; 2. the plan does not follow
the review standards of PUD and dimensions were incompatible with the existing
land uses in the surrounding area; 3. the height should not exceed the underlying
zoning and 4. the FAR (floor area ratio) was not compatible with the density of the
area. Merkle said this should go through the full review process.
10. Richard Mueller stated that he lived on Hopkins; the Holiday House had
trash in the front lawn and this year they finally mowed the lawn. Mueller voiced
concern for the parking and said the project should be downsized.
I I. Henry Hite said that he and Angela owned 122 and 122Y2 West Hopkins,
which was across from the Holiday House with one house being 1500 square feet
and the other 600 square feet. Hite said that parking was a major issue and this
was a pedestrian area. Hite stated the parking garage entrance should be from the
alley; the garage should be used for cars instead of people and eliminate any
parking permits on the street. Hite agreed that the process should not be shortened
and said the height was an issue and unacceptable.
Allgaier summarized staff recommendations I. the applicant rework the height to
what is permitted in the zone district; 2. change the point of access to the alley; 3.
residential design standards to establish more of a pedestrian scale along Hopkins
to implement the single story fayade and the number of entrance ways to simulate
the highly used roadway for the pedestrian experience; 4. minimize the amount of
parking by implementing other strategies to be utilized. Allgaier said that the Ski
Company needed more substantiation for the number of cars for this residential
building and type of use.
Chris Bendon explained the consolidated process was not going through a
conceptual review but still go through the P&Z review and then onto City Council.
Bendon said the consolidated review process was when the property was not
bifurcated; there was no new subdivision or lot lines being moved around, the
access points were not a question, the use itself or major threshold question were in
need of answers before getting to the details of the application.
Kruger said that she liked the streamline process but this application was not
detailed enough for final and conceptual. Skadron stated that he was not
comfortable with the combined process and they need every opportunity should be
provided. Johns said the underlying zoning was a big issue and the density has not
been studied and needed to be brought down. Johns said that he did not want to
see the consolidated review for this project. Rowland stated he was not in favor of
the consolidated for this project; this project had too many variances to not go
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes AUl!ust 16. 2005
through the standard process. Tygre stated there were certain threshold issues that
were addressed more appropriately at conceptual; the height and density were
major concerns.
The commissioners agreed that this was a good site for affordable housing.
Kane said they would be willing to look at the 4 points with staff Kane stated they
felt a social responsibility to improve the property and apologized for any
problems with any employees degrading the neighborhood; the project will have an
on-site manager. Kane recognized the parking issue and said they wanted to get
cars off of the street to the subsurface parking and they can deal with the
minimization of cars. Kane said the motivation was to square up to the Ski
Company employee mitigation and replace the buildings on this site; he said it was
an expensive project to build and there were limitations on what rents could be
charged. Kane said the obligation of the property was to house people who staff
this community.
Tygre stated that the commission wanted to figure out a process that would give
guidance to create a project that would be appropriate for the neighborhood with
the important threshold issues (4 from Joyce Allgaier). Tygre noted the
commission has recently dealt with employee housing project and the neighbors;
she said this was an important project and should not be rushed.
Skadron voiced concern for the height, density, and to increase the number of
street orientated entrances, redirect the parking and meet the RMF Zoning
requirements.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meetingfor 15 minutes; seconded by
John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED.
Kruger stated that she did not have a problem with the height and density but it
would be wise of the applicant to take another look at the height and density before
it goes onto City Council. Kruger said that she was always concerned for under
parking a project; she said that streets were built for cars and did not understand
why that street had the privilege of not having a thoroughfare for cars. Kruger said
the entrance to the parking garage made more sense structurally to be on Hopkins.
Kruger agreed that there should be more parking in the basement and take out the
living spaces.
Johns said his concern was a planning issue in how this project relates to the
neighborhood. Johns stated there should be other options for the garage entrance.
Johns stated that he did not have concern with 3 entrances or the I story element
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes AUI!:Ust 16. 2005
but had concern that this building does fit into the neighborhood. Johns also
wanted site sections for how the building fit into the neighborhood.
Tygre stated the PUD should try to stay as close as possible to the underlying zone
district requirements. Tygre stated that if the number of beds were reduced then
variances would not be needed; the number of entrances was not the concern but
the functionality of the building in the neighborhood was.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue the public hearingfor the Holiday
House Affordable Housing PUD to September 2dh; seconded by Steve Skadron.
All infavor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.rn.
9
E~nj)
Judy Pool and Family
108 W. Hyman Ave. #5
Aspen, CO 81611
T APJFMP(c/J,AOL.com
February 4,2006
To: Jennifer Phelan, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
For the Record to be presented to Aspen City Council for
Hearing Scheduled for February 13,2006
Re: Holiday House Conceptual PUD
Aspen Skiing Corporation, Applicant
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We respectfully request Aspen City Council reiect approval of the Aspen Skiing
Corporation's application to replace the existing Holiday House structure with the
structure they currently propose. We object to the proposed size of the building, its'
appearance and aesthetics, the number of persons to be housed, and the requested
exceptions to current zoning codes. We believe the new building, as proposed, does not
fit with the character of our neighborhood nor the City.
We would have favored the more traditional 4 step process ofP&Z review, before
presentation of this application to City Council, to enable more interaction of effected
neighbors in the design process, and we request it be sent back to P&Z for that purpose.
Specifically:
1. We believe the plans reduction of street oriented entrances off of Hopkins, from the
required 6 to 2, could create hazards for the residents in the event of fire, medical
response, or evacuation. Presumably these regulations were not arbitrary when written,
and have been enforced and adhered to by all other recently constructed buildings.
2. The proposed exception to reduce the requisite off street parking from 25 to 19 will
cause "bandit" vehicles to be parked throughout the neighborhood.
3_ Permitting the FAR to be exceeded will cause overcrowding and reduce quality of life
in our neighborhood.
We believe that strict adherence to the existing building codes, in all areas, may
itself resolve the scale and density questions. The massive, dormitory like appearance of
the building could be greatly improved by having two structures, together with other
architectural changes made to break up the roofline, resulting in a building which would
better fit the character of the neighborhood.
Please deny the Application of the Skiing Corporation, and remand it to P&Z,
where it was approved, "not as a consolidated review but a conceptual approval" for
further review and modification.
Respectfully,
Judy Pool
RBONDAJ. BAZlL, P.c.
A~^TLA\\'
632 EA$Tlf_A\'Elo'tJE
A$-'~3J('11
~J. iW:n.
msAZlL~Ncr
T~(1l7llJ92S'1l71
FACS!!oIll1t (l'70)92~
2006
"4.spen City CAJuncil
Rc:
Coo.~-n
Bronson
the
Of gr<.:;t,o,t con= to the ncighhol'S is the proposed density of the projett The
.e<'lIL"lg an :i11a:ease:i11 the occupancy of the building from llle ""i$Ung capacil)' of 64
~dsj ~""'['loye<.'S to 74 beds! employ",,", The _"u!pen Skiing Company {"ASC"} has agu<:.-d
comes from Jj'ing in nicer housing, but milking the !JeW facility too dense def",,~
F'"'POSe of h:avi,ng a new.~ No one \"',mb; ro !We :i11 housing that is ovc:r,,xowded. The
Stltted 8m,1 of trying to "ctf!m in" ... many employees as ther ""'''l, does not indica:!:<: a
the neig!lbt>rhood or their employees.
The densitj- of 1'hi.s project ~!SO bds m concerns. There are too f<::w "ff-street
porlcing spa=: only 19spa= fa;; 14 crnpioyee.<. both Ul'lll..,llil<!ic _ in dn;"';ng that $""''''''''.J
emplO'f15eS do not h:avc vel1iclell - .no ~ils.m meet de :requirement {or 24"P= The one
COl.~n rnencighl:>oJ:s b,m, ,.ec6:ved 11-0... rtweASC, is an ~t to prohibit OlHtteet
fesddenritd plWclng pa:m:its fot ""y of tIre l:emwm. If this ~e"r i. included M a condition
approval.and is enfOrceable, r.: wi1lilt least seduce the imp:act on an .heady over-crowded SlreeZ- .
This is especially imporomt "ince pittki08 on }I.~ 3_ ,,":ill be pmhibi!:<:d in the near ~..l=e.
The ASC WllJll:s ~$ ror nddltiorlal FAR ll!:ld !educed plIli:i:ng by tl.l:gUing that it is
pttrl"iiliog a commnnity beneiit by pnwidiog addiriooa.! "",,':>10)'"'' j,ou..'\ing. But the faCt
...nlrs jL"(; being dt.'vclopea mainly for seasonal housing is <::QIln:aty to the findings and policies of the
Aspen ,,,= CQll:lIl:11mity Phn (' MC!"'). Ooe of the polici.esJs to "develop sma]! sca.le resident
hoosing ~--ich filS thc cl1arn<:ter of the c~ llUd is int""'~ wifu free .o:=ket hommg
. throughout thc Area , . ," AACP, HiW..ti'l;~ P"",, Pau }f), .
i:<:
om" at me HoI.idav H~ i:<:
~cebetwceti pemumen, and
signJfiantll' while peuna.ncm
PRJ! fO. Bcause .\5C 1> "'I"'
2' Yt.
m
$h~t.tkt
z.~