HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20070312
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 12,2007
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards
b) Proclamation - Shining Stars
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) Council member Comments
c) City Manager Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #15,2007 - Y:z Cent Transit Sales and use Tax Budget
b) Resolution #16,2007 - Fee for Services Agreement with Lockton, Health Care
Services .
c) Resolution #17,2007 - Smuggler Park Water System Acquisition and Acceptance
d) Resolution #19, 2007 - Joint Planning Agreement - Zupancis Property
e) Minutes - February 26,28,2007
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #6,2007 - Change in Use - Isis GMQS P.H. 3/26
b) Ordinance #7,2007 - Urban Wildfire Code Amendment P.H. 3/26
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #45,2006 - Historic Designation 312 West Hyman
b) Ordinance #5,2007 - Lodge at Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision
IX. Action Items
a) Resolution #18,2007 - Ballot Language - Bus Lanes Between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout
X. Executive Session
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting March 26, 2007
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
'I' a...
.
THE CiTY OF ASPEN
March 12, 2007
OFFICE OF THE CITY MA)\;AGER
Paul Menter
Finance Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Paul:
Congratulations! This is to let your know that your nomination for an Outstanding
Employee Bonus Award has been approved, and you will receive this award at
the March 12, 2007 City Council meeting. Please plan to attend.
Your work on the Isis Memorandum of Understanding is to be commended. The
countless hours spent working with Filmfest, Isis LLC group, representatives of
the financial markets and other City staff paid off with an agreement that would
preserve Aspen's only movie theatre.
You spent hours, days, even weeks preparing financial analysis and in meetings
and often spent weekends and evenings talking with the parties, listening to their
concerns and negotiating solutions. I don't think a day went by without you
taking to one or more of the parties involved.
Through all of the long meetings, negotiations, tense moments, and frayed
nerves, you were professional and calm. You are truly an asset to the City of
Aspen and deserve to be recognized for your diligence and dedication in
assuring Aspen will continue to have a movie theatre for years to come.
il/fJ
Stephen Barwick
City Manager
Aspen, Colorado
130 SoUTH GALE:'>JA STREET . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHom 970.920.5212 . FAX 970.920.5119
Printed on Re.:ycled Paper
MEMORANDUM
V\L
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THROUGH:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
FROM:
John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
DATE OF MEMO: March 5, 2007
MEETING DATE: March 12,2007
RE:
Supplemental EOTC 2007 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget
SUMMARY: Attached for your review and approval is a resolution and budget which, if approved,
would authorize the following supplemental 2007 EOTC 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax budget:
Buttermilk to Roundabout Bus Lanes, fmal design $500,000
RFTA BRT Implementation Plan, matching funds up to $200,000
*See attached 2007 budget and multi-year plan
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
This resolution and the corresponding supplemental budget reflect the decisions made by the Elected .
Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) at its February 15, 2007 meeting. City Council as a member
of the EOTC approves the EOTC annual budget each year and any additional funding requests as they are
presented. Council also, previously directed City Staff to proceed with this funding request at a January
30, 2007 work session.
DISCUSSION:
The EOTC at its February IS, 2007 meeting approved the funding request in the amount of $500,000 for
the design of the 1.2 mile section of roadway with bus lanes from Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek
Roundabout. The EOTC also approved the RFTA matching fund request up to $200,000 for the BRT
Implementation Plan start up.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve the Supplemental Budget by
resolution. Each other member of the EOTC is also required to approve the Supplemental Budget by
resolution or ordinance before the budget can be considered adopted.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications to the City as these are EOTC 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax funds
and not City funds.
1
C:\Docu1l1cnts and Settings\johnk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\07EOTC Aspen sup bdgt (2).doc
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to approve the supplemental 2007 EOTC
1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council can decide not to approve the supplemental 2007 EOTC Budget and send it back to the EOTC for
further discussion and approval.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution # J 0 to approve the supplemental 2007 EOTC Budget."
CITY MANAG~MMENTS:
. < -c-7,u, n.. Q. ("l5~
2
C:\DocuI11cnls and Settings\johnk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\07EOTC Aspen sup bdgt (2).doc
RESOLUTION NO. 15
SERIES OF 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
A SUPPLEMENTAL 2007 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 regnlar 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 15, 2007, the Parties considered and approved
the following supplemental budget requests for the year 2007 for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit
sales and llse tax:
a. $500,000 for final design and construction drawings for bus lanes between Bnttermilk and
the Aspen roundabout;
b. Up to $200,000 to match dollar for dollar other contributions to RFTA to complete the Bus
Rapid Transit Implementation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approval given at the February 15th meeting
by adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that
the following supplemental 2007 one-half cent transit sales and nse tax expenditure budgets are hereby
approved:
Buttermilk to Roundabout Bus Lanes, final design
RFT A BRT Implementation Plan, matching funds up to
$500,000
$200,000
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 2007, 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 March 12,2007.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
C:\[)ocuments and Settings\johnk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\07EOTC Aspen sup bdgt (2).doc
.....
Q)
OJ
-0
::J
CD
r---
o
o
N
....
o
o
N
.
f/l
'"
-
o
Z
CD
o
o
N
Cl
l:
"C
l:
::l
LL.
...
(J
Ql
.....
e
...
0..
...
rJ)
l:
CO
...
~
U
~
o
w
0000
0000
0000
r---.~ 0 cri cD
NN<O......
O~ l..{) <.0 N_
..,. '"
OOv"d'"
OOCOCO
00 M M
mOMN
;m......com
t I,{)_ L[) l..{) CO_
'" ..,.
Id 'H
ao":ITN N E en
t/t_ - 0 Q.)
w,............ u ~
u'c~.S ::J
0::; c c..... 0
,:::)i::l :J C (j)
0'* 0 0 Q)
'c.QlU U.s.!:
;Ir., C C (j)"'C
C)i:52 ~ Q.) c
Z\~ ~ E:::J
0\ a. a. - ::
z; co
:::)"; -- --- -- 0
LL:;i'i C'C ..c U I-
JM0ii1
COtOOO
,......-.:;tOO
,..........00
air-:<!io
M.q-......1!)
o
o
CO
o
N
o
o
'"
<Xi
~
~
~o
COO
..,.0
MO
CD N
N..,.
ri
"0
~
III
i:
$!
c:-
~
III
()
"0
~
III
i:
$!
c:-
~
III
()
"0
~
III
i:
$!
c:-
~
III
()
......OOQ.q-coooo
CO('l')OOQ)l,{)OO('f)
OCDOOOmOO<D
NMLn-OT"'"-Ociocri'
MC\I......LnCOMC\lO......
......N C"')Q)
N- N
000
000
000
caria
OCDO
~ ~ N
J!3 ~
V> .(3
o III
() U.
Ol
C Q)
~ U
=~ X ~
Q) c (/) en
oi:Sg- ~ -EW ~
Q) "'ffi l/') Q.) C .- LL (/)
:::J lJJ:Je""ffi ome 0
.~ ctI C Q) en :o:::;:::E Q) C U-
"T .r=.cE Cl:looQ.Q)
.S C'J a.. CO ?F. -g:J CJ) C. en
Q) cl ~~ :Jco<(~m
"0 .ceca...... OcO....o
.5-c Q)oo.....c.-IDu.Q.)-Q)ou
E .0 Q) .- "00 0 (/J C. ..... <(
-g~ .~~ffi.E~E.Q.g:~~oij
~~_ >-c c.c.~-.::to"Om.......:= 5 Q)
(/)'"V(/):QQ)~~c: 'l...'t:::~ct:::c:
1il-E~2:~ Q) C'JC'J~o:;.g,8.LLW'E~
8 a.::JC>cc.....-J::VJe:::Q)W.....
C'J E (J) :'2 .- .- Q) C C "- J:: L... '00
CE L...-c:-t::cno"l:t coo"'" Oc:
o _":;:' 7.i5 III ro ro co .- l... L... - - - ro
t5 c t" c: .:::t. a. a.:= "5 .E I- a. 0 lZ .....
~ 0)_ co Q)~.:::t.>:9..c: ~~ C 0)1-
o "w rn .:= ~ Q) Q) en .:= 0 :J 0 .2 0 W
~~ 0. UJQ) 0 ~ ~ ~ erne om e ~
x 0 cuuE8EQ).c.:!C.-
co Ut) E OJ::J:: =:,...........0 '-Q) III ()CIl
"'Q.) coo(/)(/):>.......c >==c
<D'O' (/) <.9 :;. :J :J 0 I- co ;:: ;:: Q.)..o ';:;:0
(/) '- :J I 'U '- '- C ~ '- Q.) Q.) Q.) :J 'U
:Ja.lDX:2lDlDCIlo::e>ZCIlo::a.:2
;:-NM::;;:-U1CCj:2roo)O;:-NM~U1
~,....,....,.... ,....,....
00'"
000
00....
O'O'LO
00....
"'N<D
.f
"0
~
III
i:
$!
c:-
~
III
()
o
o
o
<Xi
~
'"
o
-
Q.
c '"
Cllll
.- 'tl
III C
'" '"
"0...
ia
c c
l;::::E
0,2
'" co
iij E
...Ie:
III co
"'-"-
OJ
_ c
'" 0
wo+::
-,cco
f/l co-
'" 'tl C
'" c '"
C"",E
'" 0 '"
ll::ll::a.
ia 0 E
- --
;~I-
~ 'E g;
'Q.;<(/)
Q. :s:: I- Q)
:::::I :::::I LL. (/)
lIlOJll:::J
I9
CD,..... 0
..........1-
'"
Ol
"'-
N
'"
'"
cD
'"
Ol
N
o
..,.
'"
'"
....
....
N
CD
Ol
~
~
0;-
o
0_
o
~-
o
co
..,.
N
N
..,.-
~
~
~
~
E
u
u:
w
e.
-
CIl
::J
...I
a.
0::
::J
CIl
...I
<{
:J
Z
Z
<{
U
l-
e
w
l-
t)
u:
W
D
en
:J
...I
a.
0::
:J
CIl
W
>
j::
:::s
:J
:2
::J
U
U
I-
o
w
f/l
X
c5,
.c
c.
::J
f/l
U
f-
o
W
....
o
....
o
o
N
.9
"E
III
i:
$!
"0
Q)
'C
~
III
()
Q)
.c
=
.:;:
<D
o
o
N
E
e
...
ID
Ol
"0
::J
.c
C
Q)
c.
<Jl
C
::J
>,
C
III
Cii
f;
f/l
C
III
Q)
E
'E
III
i:
$!
f/l
.sl c:-
o ro
~ :0
....
o
o
N
;;::
M
c
C1l
Cl..
'-
C1l
(J)
>-
I
:.::;
~
::2:
"
.!!!
e..
0000
0000
0_0_0_0_
...-MMt'---
t.(')(,Q~LO
0'>_lC) t--- N_
"" CD
"
'"
c::
0000
0000
0_ 0_ 0_ O~
N N 1'-......
OL()L()'I""""
f'-._ L[) CD 0)_
"" '"
" a>
.!!! 0
e.. ~
0000
0000
0_0_0_0_
L{)......cnlO
<0 '<::t 0...-
..;;t"_LO t-- 1'-_
"" '"
0000
0000
0000
0- ci u1 u1
"<;f"MO'l(o
Nl()c.Q'V
.q- u1
"
'"
c::
-
.... Q)
o OJ
O'tl
'" "
m
0000
0000
0000
"':o~a)cD
NNCDT""
OL()U)N
~ U;
CD
o
o
'"
OO'<:t":t
000000
O_O_C"'1_C"'1
mOMN
O)T'""COO'>
L() LO t.(') <0_
C"J ""
Cl
t:
"t:l
t:
::l
LL
-
(.)
(J)
....
o
...
a..
x
1ll x
oo.!!!
.!!! 0>
'" 00
00 "
?f.cf?-
VJi~ ~
W~~
u>.>.
"f'C C
:;:)i::J ::J
0" 0 0
(/),0 0
,,",.S .~
Z1E :2
CiiD.. 0..
Z
:J.
u.
-
tIl
t:
CO
...
I-
U
l-
e
w
u
00
'E
o<:S
0>
E 00
o 0>
U l::!
.S ::J
o
cUJ
0> Cl
E .!:
Ul"O
0> "
> =>
"u.
ro
ro-:OoO
I--
C"J 0
C"J 0)
C"'1_ N_
"" '"
'" ~
0_
""
....o~
0) 0 0
C"JO'"
""roo
"''''~
o)exl
N M~
.... 0 CD
O)OC"J
,,"0,,"
NOcO
"''''~
.... CD
NM
",OCD
"'00)
CD 0 0
~N<6
"'~'"
"'''"
M
"CO"CT""O
<<;o;c:oo
,. "'0. ,. '<t 0
c C;MO
.2N.2~~
~ ~M
.. ..
'" '"
u u
exlO
"'0
0)_ o~
~ 0 0
CD"''''
~ '"
N
000
000
000
ci If)-O
OCDO
~ ~ '"
'tl
..
'"
~
.2
~
..
'"
u
O'tl
o ..
'" '"
cO~
::,2
~
..
'"
u
00
0'"
OCD
oeD
o ~
"'''l.
'"
~
0>
.;:
~
E
.g fn ~
~ U}
co 8:5 ~
::J ~~ Q)
2 +: E c..l
co =~t.(')x as
.9 Q) u::i co c: CI) V)
06 a..~... sw- ~
t:) 0_00 c: ::J
::JQ) Q.)C6~~ c,rnu. en
.!!2:g ~~~m ~:2:a5c:i3
~~ cnCL ffi~?f. "0 ~~~(J)
Q)""""C' >~ SCC <(oo::!
",o1.Cc:CO...- OeD CJ
.~ ~ g ~ .~ .~ Q.E 0 ffi ~ ~ ; .s ~
"CcoNCec ~::JO(/)gQ)06
(IJ u-"a,m co::o ..o+:;<( co u
_ >.C o.x Q..-"':::t"0'tl "'<(-= 5 Q)
ilo<:Soo3;2Ql x~ "....'t::L-""t::'C
cn"';-">(/)Q)Q)Q) .......oo.-w-ca
o E~..c ~O'lC>~o;) >.a.LL. wC..J
U .....::J.....'cc--.r::.cnll:::Q)...
C'lEVJ:2,-'-a>c c'-J::.....V,j
C E.-.__);;-c-c Olo-.:t co o-s C
.Q :>.. ~ co co co.- L... L... '+"- '+- CI:I
13 c.... ~ ~ c. c.::= '5 0 I- c. 0 (/) L...
a.> O'l~ CI:I Q).;:t;.;:t;>:e~ ~~ Co 001--
~u "~ rn ~ ~ Q) Q) (/) ~ 0 ~ 0 "- ~ -
~ c.~O ~ ~ (/) crne orn e m
X13.9 E gOO E 8 E Q)J::.2 c.i;5
~Q)oorooJ::J::::<(_oQ;~g
Q) "0 00(9 L... ~ ~ ot:- ~ 3: 3: Q)..co~
00, ~ ro L... L... C ~ L... Q) 0> 0> => w
:Jli:ii5x::!;mmUJo::e>zUJO::e..::!;
~NM:;;:-LOU)r:::-OOo)O~NM:;;:-LO
T""" T""" T""" T""""'" T"""
00'"
000
00....
oollf
00....
"''''CD
.f
o
o
o
00
~
'"
o
-
C ::J
OJ..
Ow -g
-8~
c;;
C C
~:c
ui'~
Q) '"
:ii E
..J c:
.. '"
::J-
me..
_ C
::J 0
cno;
u;.cJ9
., '" C
::J'tl Q)
<TcE
Q) ::J Q)
~~c.
'" 0 E
---
C""I-
Q)-~
E'- ~
.,Em
c.t<( 00
0.:1:1-0>
~ ::::J u.. 00
(/)mD:::J
ro
iDt--o
~~I--
o
C"J
'"
.n
'"
~
.f
C"J
""
C"J
00
C"J
0),
CD
'"
exl
"'-
~
'"
~
CD
0)
'"
C"J_
CD
'"
~
.f
'"
0)
C"J
N
'"
'"
00
o
....
....-
""
'"
"<-
CD
CD
"'-
""
~
00
x
-S,
.0
0.
=>
00
o
I-
o
W
....
o
~
o
~
'"
M
'<t
'"
.n
'"
0,
~
~
~
....-
0)
C"J
'<t_
~
~
N
exl
C"J
00
C"J
~
'<t
'"
o
.n
CD
'<t
N
~
~
CD
co
cO
'"
"'-
~
CD
C"J
'<t,
~
o
"'-
C"J
~
'"
a>
'"
o
'<t
'"
'"
....
....
N
CD
"'.
~
~
m
o
~
o
'<t
exl_
o
exl
'<t_
'"
'"
""-
~
~
s
E
u
u::
w
g
-
UJ
::>
-'
c-
o::
::>
UJ
..J
<(
:J
Z
Z
<(
o
I--
o
W
t:
u
u::
w
Cl
(jj
:J
-'
c-
D::
::>
UJ
w
>
f=
<l:
-'
::>
::!;
::>
o
u
I--
o
W
....
o
o
'"
;;::
-
'"
MEMORANDUM
Vlb
TO:
Mayor and Council
Alissa Farrell, Human Resource specialistp
FROM:
THRU:
Rebecca Doane, Human Resource Director
DATE OF MEMO: March 1,2007
MEETING DATE: March 12,2007
RE: 2007 Health and Welfare ConsnItant Fee for Service Agreement
SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Human Resource Department is requesting approval of the Fee
for Services Agreement with Denver Series of Lockton Companies, LLC (herein after referred to
as 'Lockton'). Annually, Lockton services cost $42,000. See attachment A "Fee for Services
Agreement City of Aspen and Denver Series of Lock ton Companies, LLC."
For 2007, the City of Aspen city wide insurance fund has allocated $42,000 in appropriations for
a Health and Welfare Consultant.
The Human Resources Department is requesting approval of the Lockton Agreement as a sole
source acquisition based on section 4.12.050 item 2, of the City of Aspen's Municipal Code:
although there exists more than 1 responsible source, a competitive process cannot reasonably
be used or, if used, will result in substantially higher cost to the city, will otherwise injure the
city's financial interests, or will substantially impede the city's administrative functions or the
delivery of services to the public. Our request for sole source designation is outlined in
attachment B, in an email to John Worcester, City Attorney, and dated November 21, 2006. John
Worcester approves the request to sole source this item for professional services.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None
BACKGROUND: The human resources department initiated a request for proposal in 2006 to
obtain a qualified health and welfare consultant. Lockton was chosen for 2006 and assisted the
human resources department with the administration of City's health plans in the following
manner:
. Conformance with all relevant laws and regulations
. Maximum financial efficiency through a comprehensive plan and funding analysis
. Assurance of vendors providing benefits services that meet city's performance standards
. Innovative and strategic plan analysis and design
1
. Assistance in timely and qnality transition plans with new vendors for 2007
This 2007 fee agreement is an extension of the results from the 2006 Health and Welfare Request
for Proposal. In support of the city preserving a quality and financially stable health plan, it is
necessary to continue Lockton' s services for expansive work from 2006 and for 2007 customized
services.
DISCUSSION: In order for the City to maintain a comprehensive and successful benefits plan, it
is necessary to continue services with Lockton. Lockton has assisted the City in the mitigation of
costs and risks and has helped to provide a smooth benefits transition for 2007.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: For 2007, Lockton's professional services cost $42,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Lockton would provide recommendations to
continue to reduce the usage of paper options thus providing energy efficient alternatives. For
example, Lockton uses technology enhancements snch as optional on-line open enrollment for
the city's health plan therefore expediting plan administration while decreasing paper nsage.
RECOMMENDATION: The Human Resources staff recommends approving the 2007
Lockton Health and Welfare Agreement.
AL TERNA TIVES: The alternative for the City of Aspen would be to function without a Health
and Welfare consultant. After careful analysis this is not recommended for a number of reasons,
one of which is the inability for the human resources department to provide a financial analysis
through actuarial services. The Lockton actuary is able to provide assistance in establishing the
health plan's budget, monitoring financial performance, and developing premiums and reserve
fund recommendations. Fnrthermore, the Lockton Agreement would secure assurance that
benefits offered are in compliance with regard to federal and state requirements, and are
competitive and cost effective through appropriate plan design.
An additional option would be to initiate another request for proposal for 2007 health and
welfare services. Since Lockton provided exceptional services in 2006, has already received
2006 and 2007 health plan data and has reviewed all of the health plan documents, the
recommended option is to move forward with Lockton for 2007.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # 10., outlining fee service agreement
for $42,000."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~L" "~ ~
Notes:
2
RESOLUTION NO.! r;,
Series of 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A FEE FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A HEALTH AND
WELFARE CONSULTANT, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND DENVER
SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a fee for Services
Agreement for a Health and Welfare Consultant, between the City of Aspen and Denver
Series of Lockton Companies, LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Service
Agreement for a Health and Welfare Consultant, between the City of Aspen and Series of
Lockton Companies, LLC, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the _ day of
,2007.
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 on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
G:\tara\RESOS\hr .consultant.doc
Attachment A
Fee for Services Agreement
City of Aspen
and
Denver Series of Lockton Companies, LLC
This Agreement made and entered into effective as of this 1st day of January, 2007, by
and between City of Aspen having offices at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611'
(hereinafter referred to as Client) and Denver Series of Lock ton Companies, LLC, having offices
at 8110 East Union Avenue, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80237 (hereinafter referred to as
Lockton).
Client wishes to procure certain services that can be performed by Lockton; and Lockton
can provide and desires to render to Client such services; and
The parties agree that it would be to their mutual advantage to execute this Agreement
and thereby define the terms and conditions that shall control the rendering of services provided
to Client by Lockton.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual promises contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
I. Service Period
A. This Agreement will be in effect for a period of one (1) year from the date hereof
unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provision of the Agreement.
This Agreement will automatically renew annually unless terminated with thirty
(30) days written notice by either party.
B. If this Agreement is terminated, either prior to or at the expiration of the term,
and the parties fail to execute a new Agreement, all services will be discontinued
as of the date of such termination, provided, however, Lockton shall use its best
efforts to complete all services commenced prior to such termination and shall
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\Benefits\2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agreel206.doc
December 28, 2006 . I
bill Client for the completion of such services, on a pro rata basis, in accordance
with the fees set forth in this Agreement.
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\BenefitsI2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agreel206.doc
December 28, 2006 . 2
II. Service Fee
A. All consulting and/or risk management/insurance services provided by Lockton
as set forth in Addendum A will be performed for an annual fee of $42,000.
Client acknowledges that this fee may be in addition to certain incentive
compensation including contingency payments and bonuses which Lockton may
receive as a result of being Client's insurance broker as well as commissions
from insurance companies, other intermediaries or other third parties
(collectively, "Additional Compensation"). Client consents and agrees to
Lockton's ability to receive such Additional Compensation under all
circnmstances. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the
contrary, Lockton agrees that it will seek to have all placements made on a net
basis. In the event a carrier will not comply with this request or it is not in
Client's best interest, any such commissions will be disclosed to Client and
either deducted from the preminm billed to the Client, in the case of agency
billed placements, or, in the case of direct billed placements, returned to the
carrier with the request that the carrier either credit the commission amount
towards Client's preminm obligation or return it directly to Client. If any carrier
refuses to credit or return commission on a direct billed placement to Client,
Lockton will return the commission directly to the Client. In addition, although
Lockton does not receive any Additional Compensation from any carriers on
Client's program as of the effective date of this Agreement, in the event Lockton
may receive any other Additional Compensation from a carrier on Client's future
program, Lockton agrees that it will request that the carrier remove Client's
placements from the calculation of any such Additional Compensation. In the
event any carrier will not comply with this request, Lockton agrees to disclose to
Client the terms of any agreement by which Lockton may receive Additional
Compensation. In addition, in the event Lockton indeed receives any Additional
Compensation attributable to Client's placements, Lockton will attempt to return
any such compensation to the carrier with the request that the carrier either credit
the commission amount towards Client's premium obligation or return it directly
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\Benefits\2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agree1206.doc
December 28, 2006-3
to Client. If any carrier refuses to credit or return the Additional Compensation
to Client, Lockton will return the Additional Compensation directly to the
Client. Client acknowledges and agrees that any contemplated commission
deduction, premium credit request or retnrn of commission or Additional
Compensation to a carrier or to Client will be done to accomplish and maintain
the total agreed-upon compensation to Lockton and is not an indncement to
purchase or renew coverage through Lockton.
B. The fee will be paid based on the following payment terms:
$3,500 to be billed and paid monthly with payment due within thirty (30) days
of receipt of Lock ton's billing.
C. Payment of all invoices submitted under this Agreement will be made within
thirty (30) days.
D. If the term of this Agreement or the extension of services is for more than one
(1) year, the annual service fee will be adjusted for each subsequent annual
service period based upon corresponding increases in the Consumer Price Index.
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\Benefits\2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agreel206.doc
December28,2006-4
III. Services
A. It is hereby understood and agreed that in consideration of a fee in an amount set
forth above that Lockton will provide consulting and/or risk
management/insurance services which are outlined in Addendum A, which is
attached to and made part of this Agreement.
S. It is further agreed that other risk management services may be undertaken that
are outside the foregoing scope of services by mutual consent, which consent
may be verbal provided that it is subsequently acknowledged in writing by either
or both of the parties. Amendments may be made to this Agreement as deemed
appropriate by both parties.
C. When, in Lockton' s professional judgment, it is necessary or appropriate,
Lockton may utilize the services of other intermediaries or other appropriate
outside vendors to assist in the servicing and marketing of Client's
insurance/risk management programs. However, this may only be done after
consultation with and prior approval by Client.
IV. Termination of Services
A. Should Client designate a broker other than Lockton as its broker of record at
any time subsequent to the date of this Agreement, all efforts by Lockton shall
cease and no further payments shall be due to Lockton by Client. Furthermore,
should the Client determine that Lockton has not fulfilled its obligations under
the terms of this Agreement, Lockton's most immediate prior monthly payment
shall be forfeitable.
V. Additional Obligations of Client/Confidentiality
A. Client shall provide Lockton with reasonable cooperation and assistance
necessary for Lockton to fulfill its responsibilities to Client pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement, including, without limitations, copies of all documents
reasonably requested by Lockton and the cooperation of and access to certain of
Client's personnel.
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of AspenlBenefits\2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agree1206.doc
December 28, 2006 . 5
B. Lockton acknowledges that the nature of its relationship with Client is one in
which Client shall entrust Lockton as the custodian of certain of Client's
information, some of which may be of a confidential or proprietary nature.
Lockton shall undertake all reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity of all of
Client's information, whether or not such information is confidential or
proprietary .
VI. General Conditions
A. Neither party shall assign the rights nor duties herein set forth without the prior
written consent of the other party.
B. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the previously executed
Business Associate Agreement, shall constitute the entire Agreement between
the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Subject to the provisions of
Section III. B, this Agreement shall not be amended except by a written
amendment signed by both parties, and no promises, agreement, or
representations not herein set forth shall be of any force or effect between them.
This Agreement shall serve to terminate and supersede all agreements and
undertakings heretofore entered into between the parties on subjects covered by
this Agreement.
C. Lockton and Client shall indemnifY, defend, and hold one another, their
directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives harmless from and
against any and all claims, damages, losses, or expenses (inclnding such parties'
reasonable attorney, accountant, and expert witness fees and costs) incnrred by
one party as the result of (i) a material breach by the other party of any of its
obligations under this Agreement or (ii) any willful or negligent conduct of the
other party.
D. Any communication or notice required or which may be given hereunder shall
be addressed to Client and to Lockton at their addresses set forth in the preamble
hereof.
E. This Agreement shall be governed for all purposes by the laws of the state of
Colorado.
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\BenefitsI2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agreel206.doc
December 28. 2006 . 6
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement in duplicate intending each
copy to serve as an original as of the day and year first written above.
DENVER SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC
BY:
DATE:
Mark A. Bundy, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
CITY OF ASPEN
BY:
DATE:
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\Benefits\2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agree1206.doc
December 28, 2006-7
Addendum A - Services
Employee Benefit Consulting and Brokerage
1. Managing the Third party Administrator
. Ensuring that run-out claims that are to be paid by Mountain States Administrators
(MSA) are handled in a cost efficient, accurate and timely manner;
. Coordinating the set-up with Regional Care Inc. (RCI) so that new benefit claims will
be adjudicated accurately and all clean claims paid within fifteen days of receipt;
. Assisting the HR department and city of Aspen employees in the resolntion of claim
questions or problems;
. Ensuring that monthly claim reports are accurate from MSA and RCI and during the
run out period and that these reports are received within thirty days of the close of the
prior month.
. Providing claims process reviews as deemed appropriate by the city of Aspen.
II. Plan Maintenance. Design. and Compliance
. Oversight of the revisions to the City's Health Plan document to ensure that all
required changes are made, and that the resulting document is up to date with regard
to federal requirements (HIPAA, COBRA, Medicare Part D, etc.);
. Providing compliance reviews as necessary;
. Communicating information regarding relevant legislation and regulations, and trends
that may affect cost and coverage and provide immediate plan recommendations.
. Assisting the Human Resources Department to ensure that all necessary HIP AA
safeguards are in-place, as required by federal law;
. Reviewing the revised plan documents and providing Human Resources with
suggestions for changes, and improvement, which will ensure that the benefits being
provided are both competitive and cost effective;
. Suggesting additional plan revisions that may be appropriate to enable the City's
benefit plans to be in-line with advances in medical science.
. Assisting with open enrollment presentations at the same level of qnality and
productivity the city of Aspen received in 2006.
. Offering at least one member of Lockton's consulting team to respond to any call or
inquiry, from the HR team or from any member of the City's senior management
within 24 hours.
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of AspenIBenefitsI2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agreel206.doc
December 28, 2006 . 8
III. Local Contracting
. Assist the City in evaluating the opportunities for local contracting with physicians,
optometrists, dentists, etc. so that the plan's panel of participating providers will be
adequate and appropriate to serve the needs of those covered;
. Provide the City with input on the various local contracting options and their financial
value to the plan.
IV. Plan Operations
. Assist the City in setting fully insured equivalent rates for the purposes of developing
employee contribution levels, cost differentials between plans, and COBRA
continuation rates;
. Provide actuarial assistance and guidance where necessary in setting and negotiating
rates;
. Provide benefit and cost benchmarking reports so that Human Resources can evaluate
the level and type of benefits being provided vs. other, similar public entities in
Colorado;
. Assist the City in renewal negotiations with stop-loss vendors, obtaining alternative
competitive bids, and recommending appropriate renewal strategies;
. Assist the City in the renewal negotiations with all plan vendors to ensure that such
rates or fees are appropriate and competitive (e.g., provider network; Third Party
Administrator; Flex-Benefit Plan Administrator, etc.).
V. Reporting
. Work with the City's Director of Finance to develop a reporting format and schedule
so that appropriate financial reports are available to assist in the management of the
plan;
. Assist the City's Director of Finance to develop a monthly budget for the health and
welfare plans so that monthly expenditures can be monitored against this standard;
. Prepare monthly Aggregate Accounting Reports to track claims, identify large claims,
and to monitor plan expenditures to budget;
. Research and review reported large claims and report these emerging costs to the
Director of Finance, and Human Resources;
. Prepare a full plan review once prior to the plan's renewal, mid-year and again at
year-end so that claims costs can be monitored, large claims tracked, and plan costs
can be compared to those in prior years.
. Identify trends through claims analysis and provide cost containment
recommendations.
VI. Special Proiects
. Investigate creative opportunities for enriching plan benefits through unique and
innovative cost management and plan design strategies.
18458: S:\Active Accts\City of Aspen\Benefits\2007\Contracts\Fee Agree\Fee Agree 1206.doc
December 28, 2006 - 9
Attachment B
From: John Worcester
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:32 PM
To: Alissa Farrell
Subject: RE: Status of Contract for 2007
You may sole source this item as it is for professional services and you state good reasons for
doing so. Thanks for asking. Keep a copy of this e-mail for your records.
From: Alissa Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3: 14 PM
To: John Worcester
Cc: Rebecca Doane; Paul Menter
SUbject: FW: Status of Contract for 2007
John,
Tried to stop in your office and kept missing you, so I thought I would send you an email instead:
Over the summer of 2006, the HR dept. initiated an RFP for a Health & Welfare broker to assist
us in completing a comprehensive health Insurance analysis for 2006. This did not include
services for 2007. Now that we have Lockton's (the broker that won the RFP) assistance we are
realizing the extensive additional services that we need Lockton to continue in 2007 as the city's
Health & Welfare broker but want to make sure we follow the city's procurement code.
Now the code does allow for a contract to be awarded for service without competition (which
we've already done anyways in 2006) when the procurement officer deems in writing if 1 or more
of the following conditions exist:
(2) Although there exists more than 1 responsible source, a competitive process cannot
reasonable be used or, if used, will result in substantially higher cost to the city, will otherwise
injure the city's financial interests, or will substantially impede the city's administrative functions or
the delivery of services to the public or to provide uniform and economical repair and maintance;
(3) A particular supply or service is required in order to standardize or maintain standardization
for the purpose of reducing financial investment or simplifying adminstration of; (Per Code
412.050)
I believe it wouid impede the city wide administrative functions and services delivered in regards
to the city-wide insurance funds and programs for our employees if execute another RFP for
similar Health & Welfare broker services for 2007 and request your approval to move forward with
a contract with Lockton to continue their services already initiated from the 2006 RFP. See below
for additional examples provided by Lockton on how services will suffer.
Please let me know if you'd like to schedule a mtg. to discuss further.
Thanks for your assistance,
Alissa
X5743
From: Lindsay, Bill [mailto:BiII,Lindsay@lockton.comj
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:01 AM
To: Alissa Farrell
Cc: Calderone, Jay
Subject: RE: Status of Contract for 2007
I understand the procurement issue and know that is an area we have to be very careful and
appropriate. However, I thought that the agreement going forward (2007) was going to be an
extension of the results of the last RFP. If we actually have to do a new RFP it will be difficultfor
us to provide services you may need in January, etc. (completing the implementation, assisting
with claim or eligibility issues, etc.) since we won't be able to be paid for those services.
The City is an important client for us and we too enjoy the relationship. Hopefully we can work
through this quickly.
Bill
William N. Lindsay III, CLU, CESS, RPA
President, Benefits Group
Lockton Companies of Colorado, Inc.
8110 E. Union Ave. #700
Denver, CO 80237
(303) 414-6131
(303) 865-6131 fax
bill.lindsay@lockton.com
Securities offered through AIG Financial Advisors, Inc. a registered broker-dea/er and member NASD, SJPC. Advisory SelVices
offered through AIG Financial Advisors, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor. This message and any attachments contain
information, which may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended for use only by the addressee(s). If you are nof the
intended recipient, any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately and (ii) destroy all copies of this message.
This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient (or not authorized to act on behalf of the intended recipient) of this message, please do not disclose,
forward, distribute, copy, or use this message or its contents. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message from your e-mail system.
MEMORANDUM
Vir
TO:
Mayor and Council
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
FROM:
Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director
CC:
John Worcester, City Attorney
DATE:
March 5, 2007
RE:
Acceptance and Acquisition of Smuggler Mobile Home Park Water
System Improvements
SUMMARY: Acceptance and acquisition of the water system improvements at the
Smuggler Mobile Home Park would be implemented through a bill of sale and general
warranty deed that describe the improvements made by the homeowners. The water
system improvements resulted in replacement of a private system with approximately
2224 feet of 8 inch water line that now complies with Aspen Water Department
standards. These improvements benefit the owners of individual homes within the park
because of improved fire protection and by facilitating replacement of some of the aging
mobile homes with conventional construction. The improvements benefit the City
because it eliminated a sub-standard system common metering of over 80 homes to a
modem system with individual metering of water use for each residence. The City's
negotiated purchase price ofthe improvements is $50,000.
BACKGROUND: The Smuggler Mobile Home Park (SMHP) water system did not
comply with Aspen Water Department standards prior to a substantial improvement
program. The original system did not provide adequate fire protection. The main water
lines were located under individual trailers, effectively precluding rebuilding. Rather
than utilizing individual meters there were three common meters that frequently failed to
function properly because they were located in vanlts that were subjected to freezing,
cansing extensive leakage and water loss. During 2002, SMHP approached the city
regarding its desire to rebuild the system to remedy the above problems. SMHP's
original request was that the City utilize it's preferred bonding rates to lower the effective
cost of the system improvements to individual customers. Paul Mentor recommended an
alternate approach of "buying down" the cost of the system through an up front
acquisition fee. The City negotiated the acquisition cost as the net present value in the
different interest rates over the economic life of the improvements. This value was
1
estimated at $50,000 based on the cost of the improvements and the interest rate available
with City financing versus private financing.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has taken formal action on this project in
the past. Past discussions with City Council are summarized under "background".
DISCUSSION: The water system improvements were completed in 2004, and the City
has determined the system now meets its standards. However, preparation of as-built
drawings and finalizing the easement documents has taken more time than expected. The
water system improvements are operating effectively and have resolved a number of long
standing problems that customers in this area experienced with the old private system.
New homes are being built to replace some of the older homes in the area without the
need to relocate the water system one unit at a time. The City has also benefited from
this financially through the receipt oftap fees that may not have other wise been received.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommended purchase price is $50,000. IfCity
Council approves staff's recommendation, a budget adjustment in that amount will be
required and will be included in the Spring 2007 Supplemental request.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution # I 7 , approving the
acceptance of a Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale for the water system improvements.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~ ~ ')
"fto ~tUU ~~/ ~~02- 0; ~ ~
1l>>J,- ~ ~--vw- t (j)/..Y). (f~W<Q.vJ ~ '-r-ii :rd~, J(Jc) ~6-'f,;,;;t-~
~~u,r r-r:;. ~~ .
2
RESOLUTION # lfh-
(Series of 20~
A RESOLUTION EXECUTING A BILL OF SALE AND A GENRAL WARRANTY DEED
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND SMUGGLER MOBILE HOME
PARK, SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING ACQUISITION
AND ACCEPTANCE OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Bill of Sale and General Warranty
Deed between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Smuggler Mobile Home Park, Inc., copies of
which agreements are annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Bill of Sale and General
Warranty Deed between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Smuggler Mobile Home Park, copies
of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager
ofthe City of Aspen to execute said documents on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
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
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
BILL OF SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Smuggler Mobile Home Park
(address), Pitkin County, Colorado ("Seller"), for and in consideration ofTEN DOLLARS
($10.00) and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, hereby sells, transfers, grants and conveys to THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO ("Buyer"), it successors and assigns forever, the following property, goods and
chattels, to wit:
The domestic treated water system infrastructure in place which provides water service to
the Smuggler Mobile Home Park, as more particularly shown in the as-built drawings attached as
Exhibit A hereto, including:
2224 feet of 8- inch DIP installed in 2004
58 feet of 6-inch DIP installed in 2004
Five (5) Fire Hydrants
Two (2) 12" gate valves
Thirteen (13) 8" gate valves
Miscellaneous valve and hydrant keys, tools and equipment,
all of which is herein referred to as the Smuggler Water System Infrastructure, together with as-
built drawings showing the locations of the Smuggler Water System Infrastructure,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto said Buyer, its successors and assigns forever,
and Seller, for itself, its successors and assigns, covenants and agrees with Buyer that it owns the
foregoing Smuggler Water System Infrastructure above-described, with the appurtenances and
privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, has good, sure, perfect,
absolute and indefeasible title thereto, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to
grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in the manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are
free and clear from all former and other grants sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and
restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever.
The Seller shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained
Smuggler Water System Infrastructure above described, with the appurtenances and privileges
thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining against all and every person or persons
whomever,
AND SELLER FURTHER WARRANTS to Buyer that the Smuggler Water System
Infrastructure has been constructed and installed in a workmanlike manner, in accordance with
the design drawings for the Smuggler Water System Infrastructure, and in accordance with
..
Buyer's standards and specifications for such infrastructure. Seller further warrants to Buyer that
the Smuggler Water System Infrastructure is and will be free and clear of defects, is and will be
fully operational for the purpose of providing a treated water supply and fire protection via the
fire hydrants to residents ofthe Smuggler Mobile Home Park for a period of two years from the
date of this Bill of Sale and Warranty.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seller has caused this Bill of Sale and Warranty to be
executed the day and year first above written.
Seller: Smuggler Mobile Home Park
By:
Title:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
, whose title is
day of
, 2006 by
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My commission expires
C:\Documents and SettingslafenirlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK5E\bill of sale (2).wpd
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Smuggler Mobile Home Park
(address), Pitkin County, Colorado ("Seller"), for and in consideration ofPIFTY FNE
THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($55,000.00) and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby sells,
transfers, grants and conveys to THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ("Buyer"), it successors
and assigns forever, the following property, goods and chattels, to wit:
1. The domestic treated water system infrastructure in place which provides water
service to the Smuggler Mobile Home Park, as more particularly described in the as-built
drawings attached as Exhibit A hereto, including:
2224 feet of 8- inch DIP installed in 2004
58 feet of 6-inch DIP installed in 2004
Five (5) Fire Hydrants
Two (2) 12" gate valves
Thirteen (13) 8" gate valves
all of which is herein referred to as the Smuggler Water System Infrastrncture; and
2. Non-exclusive easements for the Smuggler Water System Infrastrncture as shown
and described on Exhibits B and C, being twenty-five feet in width, as therein described,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said Smuggler Water System Infrastrncture and easements,
with the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining,
unto the Buyer, its successors and assigns forever. And the Seller, for itself, its successors and
assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the Buyer, its successors and
assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, Seller is well seized of
the Smuggler Water System Infrastructure and easements above conveyed and described, with
the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, has
good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has
good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in the
manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants,
bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or
nature soever.
The Seller shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained
Smuggler Water System Infrastrncture and easements above described, with the appurtenances
and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, in the quiet and
peaceable possession ofthe Buyer, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or
persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seller has caused this General Warranty Deed to be
executed the day and year first above written.
Seller: Smuggler Mobile Home Park
By:
Title:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
, whose title is
day of
, 2006 by
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My commission expires
C:\Documents and Settings\afenir\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK5E\deed.wpd
EXHIBIT B
Water Line Easement for Smuggler Trailer Park Home Owners Association
Legal Descriotion
An easement over, under, and across a parcel ofland, for the access, maintenance, and
utilization of an existing underglOund water line; situated in Smuggler Park Subdivision
as described in Book 55 at Page 54, and in Smuggler Run Subdivision, as shown in Book
14 at Page 27; also being in the E Y, SW 1/4 and the W Y, SE V. of Section 7,
Township 7 South, Range 84 West of the 6th PM, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State
of Colorado; and being more particularly described as follows:
A strip of land, 25 feet in width, along an existing water line (the Southeast Pipeline as
shown on the Exhibit Map), as built and in place, and extending 12 5 feet to each side of
the following described centerline:
Beginning at a point on said existing water line, from whence Comer #10 ofthe
East Aspen Townsite Addition bears S43032'02"E 715 64 feet;
Thence along the centerline of said water line for the following] 6 courses:
N76033'05"E 1424 feet;
Thence N3J051' 10"E 1809 feet;
ThenceN81039'31"E 123 96 feet;
Thence S45022'56"E 12.95 feet to Reference Point A;
Thence S45022'56"E 19633 feet;
Thence S2603 0' 46"E 47 64 feet;
Thence S44024'50"E 232 14 feet;
Thence S49006'29"E 19 89 feet;
Thence N82034'27"E 2532 feet;
Thence N29046'00"E 70 05 feet to Reference Point B;
Thence N2T24'27" 64 44 feet;
Thence N17018'I7"W 4905 feet;
Thence N44012'38" 48 00 feet;
Thence N0405T 15"E 20 12 feet;
Thence N43049'40"W 171 29 feet;
Thence N45005'34" W 195 66 feet to Reference Point C;
Thence N45005'34" W 74.21 feet to the Point of Terminus, from whence said
Corner #10 bears 820009'33"E 77092 feet
Together with a strip ofland, 25 feet in width, along an existing water line (the Northeast
Pipeline as shown on said Exhibit Map) as built and in place, extending 12.5 feet to each
side of the following described centerline:
Beginning at a point on said existing water line, from whence said Comer # 10
bear's S03015'02"E 758.03 feet;
Thence along the centerline of said water line for the following 12 courses:
S65013'09"E 7 71 feet;
Thence S20057' 17"E 40 27 feet to Reference Point D;
Thence 84801 O'18"E 200 33 feet;
Thence S40045'31"E 6219 feet;
Thence SIT56'46"E 13 96 feet;
Thence S43019'50"E 11025 feet;
Thence S5J005'56"E 16 76 feet;
Thence N83017'31"E 19 92 feet;
Thence N37024'59"E 35 35 feet to Reference Point E;
Thence N3 5040' 22 "E 127 94 feet;
Thence N23030'11"E 21 03 feet;
Thence N17027'44"W 31 86 feet to the Point of Terminus, from whence said
Comer #10 bears S31 o26'22"W 72281
Together with a strip ofland, 25 feet in width, along an existing water line as built and in
place, and containing an existing fIre hydrant as built and in place, extending 12 5 feet to
each side of the following centerline:
Beginning at Reference Point A, flOm whence said Comer #10 bears
S31 o42'56"E 64230 feet;
Thence N4JOO7'34"E 20 02 feet to the Point of Terminus
Together with a strip of land, 25 feet in width, along an existing waterline as built and in
place, and containing an existing fIre hydrant as built and in place, extending 12 5 feet to
each side of the following centerline:
Beginning at Reference Point B, from whence said Corner #10 bears
S13035'56"W 25834 feet;
Thence N62004'12"W 19.71 feet to the Point of Terminus
Together with a strip of land, 25 feet in width, along an existing water line as built and in
place, and containing an existing fire hydrant as built and in place, extending 12 5 feet to
each side of the following centerline:
Beginning at Reference Point C, from whence said Comer #10 bears
S 17036' 47"E 704 31 feet;
Thence N43018'02"E 20 00 feet to the Point of Terminus
Together with a strip ofland, 25 feet in width, along an existing waterline as built and in
place, and containing an existing fire hydrant as built and in place, extending 125 feet to
each side of the following centerline:
Beginning at Reference Point D, flOm whence said Corner #10 oems
SOlo43'35"E 716 30 feet;
Thence N36022'29"E 16 66 feet to the Point of Terminus
Together with a strip of land, 25 feet in width, along an existing water line as built and in
place, and containing an existing fire hydrant as built and in place, extending 12 5 feet to
each side of the following centerline:
Beginning at Reference Point E, from whence said Corner #10 bears
S33014'49"W 553.73 feet;
Thence S53026'41"E 1838 feet to the Point of Terminus
Sidelines of easements to be lengthened or shortened as necessary to terminate on the
boundary of existing water line easements
EXHIBIT C
Water Line Easement for Smuggler Trailer Park Horne Owners Association
Legal Description
An easement over, under, and across a parcel of land, for the access, maintenance, and
utilization of an existing underground water line; situated in Smuggler Run Mobile Home
Park Subdivision as shown in Book 14 Page 27, Smuggler Racquet Club as described in
Book 466 at Page 302, and in Centennial Condominium Subdivision as shown in Book
17 at Page 7; also being in the SE V. of Section 7, Township 7 South, Range 84 West of
the 6th PM, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and being more
particularly described as follows:
A strip ofland, 25 feet in width, along an existing water line as built and in place, ]25
feet on each side of the following centerline:
Beginning at a point from whence Comer #5 of Tract A, Aspen Townsite Addition bears
S3300T04"W 69084 feet, also being a point on an existing water line as built and in
place;
Thence along the centerline of said waterline the following five courses:
S74019'12"E ]200 feet;
Thence N60040' 48"E 23 97 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said Smuggler
Racquet Club, more or less;
Thence N60040'48"E 4901 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said Smuggler
Racquet Club, also being a point on the southwesterly line of said Centennial
Condominium Subdivision, more or less;
Thence N60040' 48"E 2 02 feet;
Thence N71 055"48"E 39.60 feet to the point of terminus, also being a point on the
southwesterly line of an eXisting 60 foot public road dedication shown in Book I 7 at
Page 7, from whence said Corner #5 bears S38014'24"W 79495 feet;
Sidelines being lengthened or shortened as necessary to begin on an existing water line,
and to terminate on said public road dedication
MEMORANDUM
"'d
TO:
Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Commissioners
FROM:
Zupancis-Galena Master Plan City-County Staff Team
RE:
Agreement to Initiate Joint Planning
DATE:
March 6, 2007
SUMMARY:
This memo suggests a method of moving forward on a planning effort for the area
between the Zupancis property and Mill Street. The intent is to jump-start the planning
process and establish some forward momentnm by adopting an Agreement to Initiate
Joint Planning.
Because this planning effort is higWy complex, including a number of players, a wide
array of variables, and a number of possible outcomes, staff believes that trying to adopt
an Agreement that defines the entire scope of this planning process at this time places an
impossible burden on elected officials, and other parties. Rather than try to negotiate an
Agreement that governs the entire scope of this planning process, with attendant financial
implications, cost-sharing and/or cost reconciliation at this time, staffis suggesting that
all parties agree to jointly fund a two-day charette that will take place on or about March
22-23. The charette process will include representatives of all parties, neighbors and
members of the public who would like to participate. Staff has determined that RNL
Design can meet this deadline for the charette and has provided a fixed-fee estimate,
which is referenced in the attached Agreement.
Staff s expectation is that a two-day charrette will generate interest and excitement, will
create forward momentum among the parties, and will also act as a trust-building exercise
that will strengthen relationships. At the same time, staff is cognizant that the entire
Master Plan process needs some definition, scoping and a timeline. The attached
Agreement to Initiate Joint Planning identifies subsequent steps in the process, and
Exhibit A provides a flow chart and timeline that recommends and further defines
subsequent steps after the initial charette.
Because this planning area is governed by the Civic Master Plan, which was adopted in
December 2006 as a regulatory document by City Council, and because the Civic Master
Plan identifies a number of parties with a future interest in this planning area - the
Agreement to Initiate Joint Planning includes the City, County, Aspen Art Museum,
ACRA and the Pitkin County Library as parties to the Agreement. The applicable Civic
Master Plan language will be attached as Exhibit B of the Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. tq
Series of 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO INITIATE A JOINT PLANNING PROCESS FOR
PHASE I ZUPANCIS GALENA BLOCK MASTER PLAN, BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, ASPEN ART
MUSEUM, ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION AND PITKIN COUNTY
LIBRARY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement to initiate a joint
planning process known as Phase I: Zupancis/Galena Master Plan with the intent to generate plan
scenarios for the publicly-owned properties, between the City of Aspen, Board of County
Commissioners, Aspen Art Museum, Aspen Chamber Resort Association, and the Pitkin County
Library, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement for a joint
planning process for Phase I: Zupancis Galena Black Master Plan of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the _ day of
,2007.
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 on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
G :\tara\RESOS\charette.doc
AGREEMENT TO INITIATE JOINT PLANNING
CITY OF ASPEN - PITKIN COUNTY - ASPEN ART MUSEUM - ACRA-
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY
PHASE I - ZUP ANCIS GALENA BLOCK MASTER PLAN
THIS AGREEMENT was made and entered into this _ day of
2007, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City"); the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of
Pitkin County, Colorado, a body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as
"County"); the ASPEN ART MUSEUM, of Aspen, Colorado, a c(3) non-profit
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Museum"); the ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT
ASSOCIATION, of Aspen, Colorado, a c(3)non-profit organization (hereinafter referred
to as "ACRA"); and the PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY, a body corporate and politic
(hereinafter referred to as "Library").
WITNE S SETH:
WHEREAS, the parties are each authorized to enter into this Agreement to
contract with each other; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to cooperate for the purpose of initiating a joint
planning process known as Phase I: Zupancis / Galena Master Plan (the "ZG-Phase J").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived
hereby, the parties enter into this Agreement to cooperatively share the costs associated
with ZG-Phase I as follows:
1. The parties shall work together to establish the scope of ZG-Phase I, with the
general intent of holding a two-day charette on or about March 22-23, 2007, to generate
two or more physical plan scenarios for the publicly-owned properties bounded on the
east by the Zupancis property, on the west by Mill Street, on the north by Rio Grande
Place, and on the south by Main Street. The two-day charette may also include a
recommendation for the method and/or scope of the subsequent planning process.
2. The initial cost to be shared among the parties will be $25,500. The cost to the
City will be 35% ($8,925); the cost to the County will be 35% ($8,925); the cost to the
Museum will be 20% ($5,100); the cost to ACRA will be 8% ($2,040); and the cost to the
Library will be 2% ($510). The City shall waive any planning fees associated with Phase
I. Any additional costs of ZG-Phase I, consisting of the two-day charette, will be shared
at the same ratio.
3. All cost sharing related to subsequent phases of the Master Plan process,
including the contributions for ZG-Phase I, shall be reconciled at a later time and defined
in a subsequent Agreement. Please see Exhibit A for estimated scope of work and
timeline.
4. The parties hereto understand that ZG-Phase I requires cooperation between the
parties in: a) securing the consulting services of RNL Design for the initial two-day
charette, and, b) the general scope of the charette, and, c) the general scope of the
subsequent public process, which may be further defmed among the parties as part of the
charette exercise.
5. The parties hereto understand that part of the purpose of this Phase I charette is to
serve as a trust-building exercise, and as a method to build stronger relationships between
the various parties, considering the substantial future programming space that is the
subject of the Zupancis / Galena Master Plan, the inherent complexity of physical
planning at this extensive site, and the multiple ownership at this site.
6. This Agreement shall govern ZG-Phase I, for the purpose of generating two or
more physical planning scenarios and to further define the subsequent public process.
Upon conclusion of ZG-Phase I, two or more physical planning scenarios and a proposal
for subsequent public process shall be presented at a special joint meeting of the City of
Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Commissioners, to also be attended by
representatives of the Museum, ACRA and the Library, for the purpose of obtaining an
Agreement governing one or more subsequent phase(s) of the Zupancis / Galena Master
Plan. Please see Exhibit A for estimated scope of work and timeline.
7. Parties hereto understand that subsequent Agreements will include and not be
limited to: a definition of organizational locations; square footage apportionment;
construction phasing and construction management; terms of reconciliation regarding
costs of additional public process, land use review and applications, development and
construction; and long-term leases, property ownership changes and/or condominium
agreements for developed properties. Please see Exhibit A for estimated scope of work
and timeline.
8. Parties agree that the following properties/parcels shall be included m the
analysis:
a. Zupancis parcel;
b. Publicly owned vacant/parking areas adjacent to the Zupancis parcel;
c. Rio Grande building (former Youth Center), and building directly
adjacent and north of Rio Grande Parking Garage (Visitor Center, ACRA
etc.), and parking areas south of Rio Grande Place;
d. Pitkin County Plaza building parcel and associated parking areas.
e. Pitkin County Library parcel dedicated for facility expansion.
,
f. Pitkin County Jail and immediate area surrounding facility.
g. Portions of Galena Plaza recommended for potential future
development in Civic Center Master Plan;
9. Parties agree that the following properties/parcels shall be excluded from the
planning process:
a. Pitkin County Courthouse and parcel perimeter.
b. Veteran's Memorial Park.
10. Parties hereto understand that any future land use application must demonstrate
consistency with the findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan (please see
Exhibit B.) This document will be utilized as part of Phase I, and subsequent phases of
planning.
11. The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date hereof to the point at
which a subsequent Agreement is executed. Any party thereto may petition to terminate
this Agreement for any reason upon ninety (90) days' written notice. All parties must
agree to terminate this Agreement, provided, however, that this Agreement may not be
terminated or rescinded so long as the Project has outstanding obligations, unless
provision for full payment of such obligations, by escrow or otherwise, has been made
pursuant to the terms of such obligations.
12. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment approved by joint assent
of all parties.
13. Any formal notice, demand or request provided for in this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be deemed properly given if deposited in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid to:
City of Aspen, Colorado
c/o City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Board of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County, Colorado
c/o County Manager
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen Art Mu~eurn
c/o Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson
590 N. Mill St.
t
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Chamber Resort Association
c/o Deb Braun
425 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin County Library
c/o Board of Trustees
120 N. Mill St
Aspen, CO 81611
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST:
CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Clerk and Recorder
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Clerk and Recorder
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
ATTEST:
ASPEN ART MUSEUM
Executive Director
ATTEST:
Executive Director
ATTEST:
Director
Board Chair
ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION
Board Chair
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY
Board Chair
LAND
Zupancis
Plaza One
Old Youth Center
ACRA offices
Vacant lands
Parking areas
Jail
6-Mar-07
Apr-07
May-07
Jun-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
F eb-08
Apr -08
PARTIES
Pitkin County
City of Aspen
Aspen Art Museum
ACRA
Pitkin County Library
PHASE I AGREEMENT
Initial cost sharing of 2-day charrette
Deliverables:
Agreement on land included in study
Agreement on land not included in study
Two or more physical planning scenarios
Proposal for subsequent public process
JOINT MEETING OF PARTIES
Review and adopt method of public process
Review physical planning scenarios
Direct staff re: parameters of Phase II Agreen ment to include:
Development of Preferred Alternative
JOINT MEETING OF PARTIES
Review and adopt Phase II Agreel ment, to include:
Consulting services estimate
Phase II cost-sharing
CHARRETTE
Review options for fitting program on site considering constraints
Refine facilities' design, iocation, and function
Identify 2-3 physical planning scenarios to be further explored, i.e. fUl
JOINT MEETING OF PARTIES
Identify Preferred Alternative
Direct staff re: Phase 1111 Agreement, to include:
Cost-sharing reconciliation
Long-term leases, land costs/trades, condominium agreements etc.
Shared use agreements
Timing of development
Temporary moves
JOINT MEETING OF PARTIES
Review and adopt Phase III Agreement
Program phasing
Land Use Application process
LAND USE APPLICATIONS
FINAL APPROVAL
Vila-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
FROM:
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director of Community Development
THRU:
Chris Bendon, Director
RE:
406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater- Growth Management Review for Essential
Public Facility and Enlargement of a Historic Landmark, 1st Reading of Ordinance
No.b_, Series of 2007, Public Hearing date is March 26, 2007
DATE:
March 12, 2007
SUMMARY: The Isis Theater is being acquired in a private/public partnership between the City
of Aspen, the Isis Property Group, LLC, and Aspen FilmFest. This transaction will allow for the
continuation of the use of the Isis Theatre as a movie theatre; film, performance and public
presentation venue; and for other cultural, educational and entertainment uses. While the
primary use will be as a theatre, some physical changes will be made to the building that will
allow for the conversion of one of the upper floor theaters to become retail space, including
interior tenant finishing, reconfiguration of entry points into the building, and window changes.
(Although there have been discussions related to constructing an addition that would fill in the
courtyard "notch" that currently exists at the southeast corner of the property, that is currently off
the table.) Staff's Exhibit A evaluates the application, makes findings in favor of the
proposal and therefore, Staff recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Isis Property Group, LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning: Klein, Cote, and
Edwards; and Charles Cunniffe Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-006, -011 and -012.
ADDRESS: 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
PROCESS: The application before the Council requests Growth Management approvals to
allow the space conversion and change in use for a Historic Landmark and an Essential Public
Facility. A public hearing is to be conducted by the P&Z and a resolution adopted that forwards
their recommendation to the City Council. (As of this writing the P&Z had not made their
determination but will be forwarded to Council at the first reading meeting.) Finally City
Council will conduct a public hearing and make a final decision.
Because of its City of Aspen Historic Landmark status, the Historic Preservation Commission is
responsible for reviewing the development proposal.
1
Historic Preservation Commission Review Summary:
The HPC granted final approval to the project with conditions, primarily focusing their
review on the physical and detailed architectural changes to the building. The HPC also
granted a waiver of parking finding that the additional parking requirement associated with
the conversion of a portion of the theatre to retail can not be met on site without detriment
to the historic integrity ofthe building. Additionally, the HPC found that the development is
in compliance with the City's Commercial Design Review Guidelines.
The HPC's recommendation strives to bring certain elements of the "old Isis" back to its historic
Victorian store front design. This photo above is post-1920's when the Isis first became a movie
theatre, after having been retail and residential. The application (Exhibit B) shows clear
renderings as to how the existing Isis frontage will be changed to the proposed elevations to
accommodate a partial change in its use.
BACKGROUND: The City Council has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
to solidify its goals and conditions of the new use with the other parties to the Isis Theatre
project. The key points of the MOU are included in the application on page 7. Of particular note
are those provisions which deal with maintaining at least four theatres; allowing only one theatre
to be converted to retail; future use for movies, film events, performances, speeches and other
community educational/cultural opportunities; and the limitation on restaurant use.
The Isis Theatre has had numerous land use reviews and approvals over the years that bring it to
where it is today. This history is nicely outlined in the Application on pages 4-8, and
substantiates the various uses, previous parking waivers, employee mitigation and speaks to the
current undertaking through the MOU to deed restrict the Isis as a theatre. The subject property
is 9,027 square feet in size and the current Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.8:1. The FAR is not
proposed to change with this application in that the proposed space changes are to internal "net
leaasble" space already contained within the outside walls of the structure.
2
The existing three story Isis Theater building includes roughly 770 seats among five movie
theaters. The standing approvals allow for approximately 16,420 square feet of floor area, of
which some 15,670 square feet is allowed for net leasable area. As built, the main/ground level
includes a two-story volume housing two movie theaters with stadium seating as well as stairs to
the level below, a lobby, a ticket sales area, a concession stand, fire exits, and an entryway with
stairs and an elevator providing access to all floors of the building. The lower level includes
three movie theaters, restrooms, lobby and concession stand. In addition, both levels have
mezzanine spaces used as projection rooms and mechanical and storage rooms. The third floor
includes one free market residence and two deed restricted three-bedroom units. These
residential units are not proposed for change with this application.
STAFF INFORMATION: Please see Exhibit A for discussion and findings. With the HPC's &
P&Z's review and approvals completed for the current application, the focus' is now on Growth
Management by City Council. The request for Council will focus on the proposal for 1.861
square feet of additional net leasable area pursuant to the review criteria outlined and addressed
by Staff in Exhibit A.
The preferred tenant finish and interior layout has not been solidified by the Applicant (no tenant
is yet chosen), so the application uses, at Staffs suggestion, the largest floor area called the
"Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Floor" in the area of the western-most theatre. This is the
only area allowed in the MOU for conversion to retail. While the eventual development may
involve one of the other, lesser scenarios in the application, the "Single Tenant Scenario with a
2nd Floor" is used in response to the growth management standards to ensure that mitigation and
allotment requirements will be appropriately handled. The application goes through a lengthy
narrative of the calculation of the gross area and net leasable and rather than reiterate that
information, Staff confirms that the application appears to be accurate, with the exception of the
final fee amount in the application. The amount of the exact fee for employee mitigation is
determined at the time of building permit application using the fee schedule in place at that time.
The actual fee would be $195,951.00 if assessed today.
Staff has included conditions of approval in the resolution that are key to ensuring that the
application meets the Growth Management standards. One condition is the inclusion of a
requirement to pay a fee in lieu for the mitigation of employees generated. Another is the
limitation on the property that a restaurant use is not allowed unless a new application were
submitted in order to review and evaluate the use under the Growth Management provisions.
(Restaurants have a greater employee generation than retail, requiring increased mitigation.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.be, Series of 2007, approving
the Growth Management requests for an Essential Public Facility and Enlargement of a Historic
Landmark for Commercial Use and allowing an additional 1,861 of net leasable area for the Isis
Theatre Remodel."
Exhibits:
A. Staff Review & Proposed Findings
B. Application-2 parts
3
ORDINANCE NO.tL, SERIES OF 2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.470.040 (C)(I) & (0)(3), ENLARGEMENT
OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND FOR AN
EXPANSION AND CHANGE IN USE, ALLOWING RETAIL, FOR A PORTION OF
THE ISIS THEATER, 406 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS L, M, AND N, BLOCK 87,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-006, -011 and -012
WHEREAS, the applicant, Isis Property Group, LLC, represented by Haas Land
Planning, Klein, Cote, and Edwards; and Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested approval for
Growth Management in order to enlarge, partially remodel and change the use of a portion of The
Isis Theater, 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to the Community Development
Department for a Minor Historic Preservation Development, Commercial Design Review and
Parking Waiver specifically from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and Growth
Management Review for an Enlargement of a Historic Landmark and Essential Public Facility
specifically from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z); and both of these boards have
reviewed and handled the applications in accordance with their purview; and
WHEREAS, the HPC, through its Resolution No.2, Series of2007, granted approval for
a Minor Development Application for changes primarily to the doors and windows of the Isis
Theatre building, approved a waiver of the parking requirements and fees associated with the
additional commercial area, and approved the Commercial Design Review; and
WHEREAS, the P&Z, through its Resolution No.5, Series of 2007, recommended that
the City Council approve the Growth Management allotments for an Enlargement of a Historic
Landmark and Essential Public Facility Minor Development Application allowing 1,861 sq. ft. of
net leasable area; and
WHEREAS, the application has identified that, due to the fact that no specific tenant has
been identified and that tenants will change, the proposed space configuration within the building
is not set but will change over time within the old "Theatre One" area (the western-most ground
floor theatre); however the, application proposes to establish a total of 1,861 additional square
feet of new net leasable area, for a total gross retail area of 5,725 sq. ft., with 5,226 sq. ft.
allowable as net leasable area; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has found and decided in his letter
of December 22, 2006, that the Isis Theatre qualifies as an Essential Public Facility, because of
its ownership by a public entity with a future transfer to a non-profit corporation serving a public
Isis Growth Management Ordinance No._, Series of 2007
Page I of4
interest, perpetual deed restriction for a theatre or public use, and undivided public ownership
interest in the affordable housing units and a perpetual restriction limiting additional
development on upper levels of the building, all of which serve a public interest and the needs of
the community; and
WHEREAS, the application is considered exempt from Ordinance No. 19, Series of
2006 and Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, otherwise known as the "Moratorium Ordinances",
because the project is considered an Essential Public Facility; and
WHEREAS, the Isis has a long history of land use approvals that have allowed for
various approvals, uses and dimensions for the building including the following:
1) Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 36-95;
2) City Council Ordinance No. 58-95;
3) City Council Ordinance No 59-95;
4) A March 19, 1996 amendment to Resolution No. 36-95 was granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission without formal adoption of a resolution;
5) City Council authorized use of the Special Review process to consider the amortization of
open space payments via adoption of Ordinance No. 45-96;
6) Final approval by the HPC on March 12, 1997;
7) Council adoption of Resolution No.18-98 approving the deferral of payments in-lieu of
open space for a five year period (such payment has been made);
8) A pair of minor HPC amendments to the final approval were approved on March 10, 1999
and September 8, 1999;
9) Growth Management Commission Resolution No. 2-01, approving a re-evaluation and
exemption from the scoring and competition procedures ofthe GMQS for the conversion of
the ground floor of the Isis building to retail use; and
10) MOU executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99, Series of2006.
WHEREAS, the City Council, according to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code,
must review the Growth Management application, a staff analysis report and the evidence
presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the applicable criteria and the
City Council may recommend approval, disapproval, or approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, pursuant to his authority under
Section 26.304.060(B)(l), finds that the Growth Management reviews for Enlargement of a
Historic Landmark for Commercial Use and for an Essential Public Facility should be combined
finding that the combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time,
expense and clarity; and final approval rests with the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The Council finds that the applicable development review standards are
met by the proposal, provided that the conditions established herein are complied with.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Isis Growth Management Ordinance No._, Series of 2007
Page 2 of4
Section 1: EnIarl!:ement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial Use and Essential Public
Facility Growth Manal!:ement Allotments
The City Council grants a Growth Management Allotment for an Enlargement to a Historic
Landmark and for an Essential Public Facility finding that the project meets the applicable
criteria. The Growth Management approval allows for an area of new gross leasable of 1,861 sq.
ft. and a gross retail area of 5,725 sq. ft., with 5,226 of that area allowable as net leasable area, as
such term is defined in the Land Use Code.
Section 2: Limitation for Restaurant Use
A restaurant use is not permitted as part of this approval as a use in the "retail area"; however, any
future proposed conversion to a restaurant use shall be reviewed in accordance with the Land Use
Code in place at the time of application, especially with regard to employee generation and
mitigation.
Section 3: Affordable Housinl!: Mitil!:ation
A fee-in-lieu for affordable housing mitigation shall be paid at the time of building permit
application for based upon the amount of net leasable area proposed in the building permit and in
accordance with the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit application.
Section 4: Buildinl!: Permit ADDlication
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. Documentation of applicable approvals and permits for changes to the water and
sanitation services (if any) due to the remodel.
4. A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements of the Community
Development Department.
5. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
Section 5: Exterior Lililitinl!:
Lighting shall be pursuant to the Historic Preservation Minor Development approval pursuant to
Resolution No. 20, Series of2007.
Section 6:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Isis Growth Management Ordinance No._, Series of 2007
Page 3 of 4
Section 7:
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 8:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 9:
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 10:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of March, 2007, 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 12th day of March, 2007.
Helen Kalin KJanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on this 12th day of March, 2007.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Isis Growth Management Ordinance No.~, Series of2007
Page 4 of4
Exhibit A- Findings
Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facility
And
Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial Use
~
The development of an Essential Public Facility, Section 26.040(D)(3) upon a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved
with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use
and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. (See defmition.)
Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project.
Staff Finding: In his letter dated December 22, 2006, (attached), Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director finds that the Isis Theatre qualifies as an
essential public facility considering the ownership of the property being public
and then transferring to a non-profit organization; the purpose and use of the
property; and the restriction to additional development on the upper levels of the
building in order to preserve the historic resource. Staff finds that this criterion is
met.
Definition: Essential public facility. A facility which serves an essential
public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public
and serves the needs of the community.
b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate
the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels
and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
Staff Finding: The Isis Theatre will utilize 1,861 square feet of available net
leasable area in accordance with the annual development commercial allotments.
A majority of the area being converted to retail will come from previously
allocated commercial area from the growth management "buckets". Staff finds
that this criterion is met.
c) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding: The application before the Planning and Zoning Commission stems
from the coalescing of several community goals in one project confirmed by the
City Council through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with two other
parties, the Isis Property Group and the Aspen FilmFest. The MOU allows for the
Isis Theatre to be deed restricted for theatre and other film, performance, public
presentations, artistic, educational, nonprofit and other community purposes. A
portion of the theatre is converted to retail space that would be "mid-level" retail
space. With the loss of Stage III Movie Theatre to a changed use, the community
leaders took the opportunity to keep Aspen's only other theatre in operation with
a creative partnership with the Aspen FilmFest, who was seeking a home and a
Exhibit A, Isis Growth Management, Page I of 4
continued venue. The Isis has long been a social center of movies for all ages,
film events, comedy events, speeches and other public presentations. This project
is an effort to keep the Isis central to the accessibility by our residents and visitors
to these types of community amenities. In the Arts, Culture and Education
section, the AACP policies state, "Support the continued vibrancy of the arts in
our community", and "Support activities and education for youth". A goal in this
section leads to the public sector involvement, by stating, "Ensure the provision of
public facilities and services to sustain arts, cultures and education in the
community." This project brings the community closer to these goals and policies
through a partnership for a well-known historic building to keep its stature and
position as a community place for various types of entertainment and public
education.
A number of other goals are attained through the project in the areas of Historic
Preservation and Economic Sustainability.
d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the
project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or
cash-in-Iieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The
Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each
operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City
Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation
requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of
promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals.
Staff Finding: The Isis Theatre is expected to gain 1.55 FTEs by virtue of the
expansion of the internal building area being converted to retail area from theatre
related uses. The employee generation rate for retail is 2.6 FTEs 11000 sq. ft. of
Net Leasable (NLA). The final calculated employee generation number for the
project is higher than what would normally be generated based upon the language
of the Land Use Code that allows the applicant to take a 25% reduction in
employee generation on upper floors. The applicants are not taking this reduction.
Based on 2007 employee mitigation fees the fee due at the time of building permit
would be $195,951. (With the second floor discount the fee would be $77,975.)
It is important to note that the applicants are willing to be restricted to commercial
uses without the allowance to use the space for a restaurant. Restaurants have a
much higher generation rate at 4.1 FTEs 11000 NLA, requiring a higher fee in
lieu. A condition in the resolution notes that, if, in the future a conversion of space
to restaurant use is proposed, the project would need to gain Growth Management
approvals pursuant to the code in place at that time.
The Employee Generation and Fees are as follows:
Total Employee Generation:
. 1st floor retail conversion 00,325 sfwill result in 2,826 sf ofNLA (at 85% of
the commercial space will be NLA after netting out areas for storage,
circulation, bathrooms, etc.); @2.6 FTE Il,OOOsf ofNLA = 2.6 x 2.826 =
7.348 FTE
Exhibit A, Isis Growth Management, Page 2 of 4
. 2,400 sf of second level NLA @ 2.6 FTE / 1 OOOsf ofNLA = 2.6 x 2.4 = 6.24
FTE
. Total Generation = 7.348 + 6.24 = 13.588 employees generated
Total Mitigation Requirement: per section 26. 470.040(C)(1)
. First 4 FTE = 0 employee mitigation;
. Next 4 FTE is mitigated at 30% = (4 x .3) = 1.2 FTE to be mitigated;
. Remaining 5.588 FTE mitigated at 60% = 3.353 FTE to be mitigated;
. Total FTE to be mitigated = 1.2 + 3.35 = 4.55 FTE to be mitigated;
. Apply credit for 3 extra FTE already provided with housing = 4.55 - 3 = 1.55
. Category 4 housing in-lieu fee =
$124,307/ FTE = 1.55 x $126,420 = $195,951.00
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
e) Free-Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by
affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.C.6, unless
otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive,
partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed
appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and
in consideration of broader community goals.
Staff Finding: No additional free-market housing (one exists in the building
today) is being proposed as part of this project, therefore, no mitigation is
necessary.
t) The project represents minimal additional demand on public
infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through
improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure
includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection,
solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
Staff Finding: The Isis Theatre relies on adequate infrastructure currently serving
the uses contained with the site. Any changes to utilities serving the site, such as
additional water fixtures, etc. would need to pay appropriate fees for additional
services in accordance with the regulations governing such services.
~
Enlargement of a Historic Landmark (Section 26.470.040 (C) (1). The enlargement of
a historic landmark building for commercial, lodge, or mixed use development shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria. Some ofthe criteria are the same as those under Essential
Public Facilities and staff discussions are not repeated.
a. Sufficient Growth Management - See b, above.
b. Consistency with the AACP - See c, above.
c. Employee Mitigation - See d, above.
Exhibit A, Isis Growth Management, Page 3 of 4
d. Free Market Residence - See e, above.
e. All necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415,
Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
Staff Finding: On January 16, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
granted Minor Historic Preservation approval to the Isis Remodel application
through Resolution No.2, Series of 2007, finding that it meets the Historic
Preservation Guidelines. Through this resolution the HPC also granted a waiver of
parking and finding of compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines for a
commercial building.
d. Demand on Infrastructure - See f, above.
Exhibit A, Isis Growth Management, Page 4 of 4
HAAS LAND PLANNING. LLC
201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108 - ASPEN, CO 81 61 1 - (970) 925-781 9 - MHAAS@SOPRIS.NET
To: The City of Aspen Tbru: The Aspen Community Date: December 26, 2006
Develooment Deoartment
Subject: Isis Theater Remodel, 406/408 East Hopkins Avenue
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
Aspen has a long-standing tradition in the arts and, more specifically, in film. It has long
been a town that prides itself in its film festivals, Oscar screenings, shorts festivals and comfortable
venues in which to enjoy these events. However, the City of Aspen is at a crossroads with regard to
the ability to maintain and operate a full time movie theater. The Stage Three Theater has recently
closed, and the difficulties in keeping the Isis operating as solely a movie theater have been well
publicized. Although movies are sometimes shown at the Wheeler Opera House, and Harris Concert
Hall, there exists the real possibility that the City of Aspen could be without any true movie theaters
in the foreseeable future.
A team of local residents and businessmen have come together with the City of Aspen in an
effort to maintain and sustain theater operations at the Isis, resulting in a Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOD) executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99, Series of 2006. This
land use application for: "minor development," commercial design review, and parking waivers from
the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC); and, growth management approvals from the City
(:Olll1cij ~fter receiving a rel'ommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), has
been prepared in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions ofthc MOU.
The Isis Property Group, LLC (the applicant) seeks the aforementioned approvals to allow
conversion of the west theater (Theater #1) on the ground level of the Isis building into retail space
for either one or two tenants. A stadium-seating theater on street level and the three movie theaters
below will be maintained, keeping four full-time movie theaters in operation in downtown Aspen.
The plan sets accompanying this application explain the proposal and its various options graphically
and are organized as follows:
o Existing South (Hopkins Avenue) Elevation;
o Existing Floor Plan, Ground Floor;
o Sheet 1: Proposed South Elevation for the Single Tenant Scenario;
o Sheet lA: Proposed Floor Plan, Single Tenant Scenario without a 2nd Level;
o Sheet IB: Proposed Floor Plan, Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Level;
o Sheet 2: Proposed South Elevation for the Two Tenant Scenario;
o Sheet 2A: Proposed Floor Plan, Two Tenant Scenario without a 2nd Level;
and,
o Sheet 2B: Proposed Floor Plan, Two Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Level.
1
This application is submitted pursuant to Chapters 26.415, 26.412, and 26.470 of the Aspen
Land Use Code (the Code) by the Isis Property Group, LLC (the applicant). Since the City of Aspen
Community Development Director has determined the primary use and structure to be an "Essential
Public Facility," this application and any associated, subsequent building permit applications are
exempt from the current moratoria (see Exhibit 1, letter from Chris Hendon, Community
Development Director). The Land Use Application Forms and Pre-Application Conference
Summary are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. Permission for Haas Land Planning,
LLC, Planning Consultants, Charles Cunniffe Architects, and Klein Cote Edwards, LLC, legal
counsel, to represent the applicant is attached as Exhibit 4. A list of property owners located within
three-hundred feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as
Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively.
The application is divided into five sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the
application, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site. Section III delivers
an overview of the previous approvals associated with the Isis property and the MOU pursuant to
which this application has been prepared. Section IV outlines the applicant's proposed development,
and Section V addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria
of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the
project are provided in the various exhibits attached at the end ofthe application.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and provide
sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which
require further information and/or clarification. Such additional information required in the course
of the application's review will be provided upon request.
2
.
SECTION II: EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Isis Theater resides one lot in from the northeast comer of East Hopkins Avenue and
South Mill Street, next to the station of the Aspen Fire Protection District. The street address is 408
East Hopkins Avenue although it is also referred to as 406 East Hopkins Avenue. The 9,027 square
foot property is generally described as Lots L, M and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, and
the Parcel Identification Number is 2737-073-30-006. The site is within the Commercial Core (CC)
Zone District, and is a designated historic landmark within a Historic Overlay District. The Vicinity
Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area.
Vicinity Map - Isis Theater
The existing three story Isis Theater building (alk/a the H. Webber building) includcs roughly
770 seats among five movie theaters. The standing land use approvals (described in Section III,
below) allow for approximately 16,420 square feet of Floor Area, of which some 15,670 square feet
can be net leasable area. As built, the main/ground level includes a two-story volume housing two
movie theaters with stadium seating as well as stairs to the level below, a lobby, a ticket sales area, a
concession stand, fire exits, and an entryway with stairs and an elevator providing access to all floors
of the building. The lower level includes three movie theaters, fire exits, restrooms, a lobby, and a
concession stand. In addition, both levels have mezzanine spaces used as projection rooms at the
south end and mechanical and storage rooms at the north end. The third floor includes one free
market residence and two deed restricted three-bedroom units.
The neighboring properties include the fire station (to the east), Le Chefs of Aspen and Wells
Fargo Bank to the west; Fox Photo, Baccarat and other boutiques to the south (across Hopkins
Avenue); and, the Cantina to the north (across the alley).
3
.
SECTION III: PREVIOUS APPROVALS & THE MOD
The approvals for the Isis renovation/expansion were granted and memorialized over eight
separate steps (numbers 1-8, below). Item number 9, below, is an approval that was granted but
never acted upon. Item number 10 is the MOU executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
99, Series of2006. The highlights of each ofthese approvals is summarized and discussed below.
1) Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 36-95;
2) City Council Ordinance Number 58-95;
3) City Council Ordinance Number 59-95;
4) A March 19, 1996 amendment to Resolution 36-95 was granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission without formal adoption of a resolution;
5) City Council authorized use of the Special Review process to consider the amortization of
open space payments via adoption of Ordinance 45-96;
6) Final approval by the HPC on March 12, 1997;
7) Council adoption of Resolution 98-18 approving the deferral of payments in-lieu of open
space for a ten year period;
8) A pair of HPC amendments to their final approval were approved on March 10, 1999 and
September 8, 1999; And,
9) Growth Management Commission Resolution No.2, Series of 2001, approving a re-
evaluation and exemption from the scoring and competition procedures of the GMQS for the
conversion of the ground floor of the Isis building to retail use.
10) MOU executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99, Series of2006.
1. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 36-95
This resolution granted a GMQS exemption for the expansion of the Isis Theatre building
and Special Review approval to: a) exceed the property's allowable floor area, b) reduce the
minimum required dimensions of the building's trash and utility area, and c) reduce the minimum
open space requirement. These approvals were granted subject to a list often (10) conditions.
The GMQS exemptions were for the enlargement of an historic landmark structure that
added both floor area and net leasable space. In addition, GMQS exemptions were granted for the
reconstruction of one demolished free market dwelling unit and the addition of two deed restricted
affordable housing units.
The allowable floor area ratio (floor area-to-lot area ratio, a/kJa FAR) of the underlying zone
district at the time of the approval was 1.5:1, which could be increased up to 2:1 by Special Review
provided at least 60% of the additional floor area beyond that allowed as of right is used for
residential purposes deed restricted in accordance with the affordable housing guidelines (the current
FAR limit is 3: 1 overall, with a limit of 1: 1 for free market residential use). The approval granted by
the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) allowed for 16,303 square feet of floor area, or an FAR
of 1.81:1. With this increase, at least 1,657 square feet of the total area was required to be included
within dccd rcstricted atlbrdable housing ([16,303 13,541] x 60%). The proposal provided 2,610
square feet of deed restricted affordable housing and, therefore, exceeded the requirement by 953
square feet.
Bascd on the amount of net leasable area (11,216 square feet) within thc then proposed
structure, a trash and utility area measuring 24' x 10' would have been required pursuant to the
4
dimensional requirements of the CC zone district. The Special Review approval allowed the trash
and utility area to be reduced to 20' x 10', a four foot reduction in the otherwise required length.
The Commercial Core zone district required that 25% of a site be maintained in a condition
that complies with the City's definition of "open space" then in effect. Thus, approximately 2,257
square feet (9,027 x 25%) of the property would have been required to be left more or less
undeveloped. The approval allowed this requirement to be reduced to just 540 square feet of open
space, or just less than 6%. A $250,000 payment of cash-in-lieu of the open space was required and
has since been paid.
The ten adopted conditions do not detail the terms of the approvals as done above but,
instead, refer to the application as being approved as proposed. One specific condition (#8) is of
particular concern for the current proposal. Specifically, condition number 8 states, in relevant part,
that:
...the approved employee calculation of five (5) employees is only applicable to the Isis
project, and any future uses will require a re-evaluation for mitigation purposes.
In other words, the approvals for employee generation and the level of mitigation (affordable
housing) required were limited to the Isis Theater project only. It was intended that any expansion
or change-in-use would require additional analysis to ensure that employee housing needs would be
reassessed. City staff explained in their memo of January 8, 1995 to City Council that, "due to the
unusually low ratio of employees per square foot for theater uses, any change in use would require
significant mitigation, either in the form of cash-in-lieu or off-site buy-down of existing units. It is
unlikely that HPC [Historic Preservation Commission] or staff would support additional units on the
roof-top, which would effectively restrict additional on-site housing to the interior of the structure."
As part of the GMQS exemption requests, recommendations were required from the Growth
Management Commission (GMC; a board no longer in existence but then consisting of the City of
Aspen and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissions, jointly). The GMC and the Aspen
P&Z were both required to consider parking demands and mitigation of these demands as part of
their approval. However, the parking standard applicable to the particular GMQS exemption used
stated that, "Parking shall be provided accordin{: to the standards of Article 5, Division 2 and
Division 3 [since amended to Chapter 26.515], if lIPC determines that it can be provided on the
site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6 [since amended to
Chapter 26.415]. Any parking which cannot be located on-site and which would therefore be
required to be provided via cash-in-/ieu payment shall be waived." As a result, no parking was
provided on-site, and no payment-in-lieu was required.
2. City Council Ordinance Number 58-95
This ordinance gmnted historic landmark designation for the Isis properly. The designation
was requil'ec.lto pruvic.ll: digibilily for the GMQS exemptions used (as described above).
3. City Council Ordinance Number 59-95
This ordinance approved the on-site affordable housing units that have since been built.
5
,
4. Amendment of Resolution 36-95
As mentioned above, at their March 19, 1996 meeting, the P&z approved a request to amend
their previous approval, such that an additional theater (5 instead of the previously approved 4) could
be included within the structure. The approved revisions effectively increased the allowable Floor
Area (FAR) and net leasable space. The approved Floor Area was increased from 16,303 square feet
to 16,416 square feet (an increase of 113 square feet), bringing the allowable FAR from 1.81:1 to
1.82:1. The approved net leasable area was increased from 1l,216 square feet to 15,671 square feet
(an increase of 4,455 square feet). No changes to the employee housing requirements, open space
approval, or trash and utility area were required in connection with the approved revisions. In effect,
the approvals allowed for the following:
FLOOR ORIGINAL APPROVALS 1996 AMENDMENTS
LEVEL FAR N.L.A. SEATS FAR N.L.A. SEATS
LOWER --- 4,133 320 --- 4,133 320
GROUND 10,623 7,083 560 10,736 11,538 560
SECOND 5,680 --- --- 5,680 --- ---
TOTAL 16,303 11,216 880 16,416 15.671 880
N.L.A. represents Net Leasable Area in square feet, and FAR represents Floor Area in square feet
5. City Council Ordinance 45-96
This ordinance provided for a code amendment permitting the P&Z, as part of the Special
Review Process, to "allow the required payment-in-lieu [of open space] to be amortized in equal
payments over [sic] period of up to five years, without interest."
6. Final HPC Approval
On March 12, 1997, the HPC granted final approval to the proposed redevelopment of the
Isis Theater by a 4-1 vote. This included approval of the architecture and site plan.
7. City Council Resolution 98-18
In March of 1998 the Isis applicants came before City Council seeking an additional five-
year deferral before the required payments-in-lieu of open space begin. Resolution 98-18 granted
the deferral with two conditions. The first condition established that the five $50,000 per year
payments, without interest, will begin on the fifth anniversary after the date of issuance of the
building permit rather than in year one. The second condition stipulated that, if the property is not
redeveloped according to the site specific development plan for the renovation of the building as
theaters, the payment schedule will be considered null and void. The $250,000 cash-in-lieu fee has
si11ce been paid in full.
8. HPC Amendments to Final Approl'al
On March 10, 1999 the HPC approved an amendment to the Isis Final Approval allowing
modifications to the design and materials used on the exterior of the free markel unit to be
CUllSllucll:u UIl lup uf lht: lht:alt:r. On Stlplemher R, 1999, the HPC approved another amendment
relating to the free market residential unit.
6
,
9. GMC Resolution No.2, Series of2001
On July 17, 2001 the GMC approved a re-evaluation and exemption from the scoring and
competition procedures of the GMQS for the conversion of the ground floor of the Isis building to
retail use. At the time of the approval, the Code provided a range of employee generation per 1000
square feet of net leasable area (as opposed to the specifically established employee generation rate
in today's Code). The applicant and the GMC did not know what type of commercial use would
occupy the ground floor and, therefore, could not determine with enough confidence where in the
range of employee generation the actual use would fall. Consequently, it was required that the
employee housing mitigation would need to be determined by the GMC in a subsequent review to be
carried out prior to the issuance of a building permit for thc Isis retail conversion.
All previous approvals accepted an employee generation of five FTE for the five-screen
theater operation and required housing mitigation for only 60%, or three (3), of those FTE. The built
project includes housing for six (6) FTE. Accordingly, GMC Resolution 2-01 states that, "A
mitigation credit of three employees shall be applied to the new retail use."
GMC Resolution 2-01 is consistent with the January 8, 1995 staff memo to City Council
which stated that, "due to the unusually low ratio of employees per square foot for theater uses, any
change in use would require significant mitigation, either in the form of cash-in-lieu or off-site buy-
down of existing units. /t is unlikely that HPC [Historic Preservation Commission] or staff would
support additional units on the roof-top, which would effectively restrict additional on-site housing
to the interior of the structure." For instance, GMC Resolution 2-01 provides that new mitigation
would be provided by off-site housing units, cash-in-lieu payment, or a combination thercof.
GMC Resolution 2-01 remains valid but is no longer vested. As such, the terms of the
Resolution remain in full force and effect to the extent that subsequent Code amendments havc not
altered or otherwise adversely affected said terms.
9. The MOU executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99, Series of 2006
In its elevcntll recital (note that Article 13 of the MOU states that, "the recitals at the
beginning of this Agreement shall be deemed included as terms and conditions of this Agreement"),
the MOU provides that the "Commercial Unit" would be re-condominiumizcd so that thc wcsterly
theater on the main level ("West Main Thcater") would become a separate condominium unit. Said
recital further explains that the City will "approve and permit through its usual land use approval
process the conversion of the West Main Theater to retail use, [and] the Lobby reconfiguration...as
setforth herein."
As required by the MOD, the applicant has begun the process of re-condominiumizing the
Isis property in the manner required by Article 3 and its sub-parts. The applicant hereby further
commits to completing the re-condominiumization in the manner required to create the West Main
Theater and a portion of the existing Lobby space to become Commercial Unit I. Also, the
applicant hereby further commits to the following requirements of the MOU relevant to the land use
approvals:
o Articles 4./.5 and 5./: Commercial Unit 1 will be deed restricted to retail uses, and to
prohibit restaurant uses unless appropriate mitigation is paid to the City pursuant to the City
7
.
Land Use Code in effect at the time of the requested conversion to restaurant use; and,
provided further, that the City Council, in its sole discretion approves such a change in use.
o Article 4.1.8: The Isis Property Group, LLC shall use commercially reasonable efforts to
sublease Commercial Unit 1 to one or more tenants that are deemed "mid-level" retail uses.
The City and the applicant shall include as part of the applicant's sublease, a reasonable
definition of "mid-level retail tenant" for this purpose.
o Articles 4.2.7 and 4.2.8: Commercial Units 2 and 3 shall be used on a reasonably
continuous basis and only for the purpose of operating movie theaters subject to the
occasional uses allowed in the MOU.
o Article 5.2: Commercial Units 2 and 3 shall be deed restricted to those uses identified in
Section 4.2.7; subject, however, to other uses which may be necessary or appropriate in the
event of technological, sociological or economic changes rendering theater use obsolete or
impracticable.
o Article 5.5: Any further development of the building's roof (residential level) shall be
prohibited through a recorded deed restriction, unless the consent of the City is obtained.
o Article 6.1: The applicant shall pay to the City a monetary sum in full satisfaction of the
City's employee housing mitigation requirements, determined in accordance with the City's
land use code, in connection with the conversion of the West Main Theater to retail uses.
Such cost shall be paid in full when the applicant obtains its building permit for such
conversIOn.
o Article 7: The City agrees that all plans and submissions of the applicant shall be given first
priority for consideration by the City's Community Development Office and for approvals
and issuance of building permits, and that no such submissions shall be subject to the
customary rule of "first in time".
8
SECTION IV: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The applicant is requesting approvals to renovate a historic landmark. All applications for
approval to renovate a historic landmark must receive a determination of consistency with the City
of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines") to be approved by
the HPC. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for Commercial Design Review and a
parking waiver from the HPC. Growth management approval pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040(D)(3), Essential Public Facilities, is requested of the City Council upon receipt of a
recommendation from the P&Z.
The HPC is asked to grant commercial design review approval, a parking waiver, and minor
development approval for the changes proposed for the exterior of the Isis structure. The historically
significant portions of the building will be left in their current and historic condition. The only
exterior changes contemplated in this proposal involve non-historic portions of the building, as
follows: the windows on the first floor of the westernmost portion of the building, and the existing
doors, will be removed, and replaced with new storefront windows, and one or two sets of recessed
doors. An additional door will be created to allow entry into the theaters' ticket lobby. The building
forms and masonry work around the existing fenestration will not be altered. Originally, the H.
Webber Building had three sets of doors. This proposed design will actually bring the look of the
building closer to its historic, original design.
The exterior changes contemplated herein are minimal, and consistent with the Guidelines.
Please refer to the accompanying plan sets for clear details with respect to the design and program of
the proposed development. The plan sets are organized as follows:
o Existing South (Hopkins Avenue) Elevation;
o Existing Floor Plan, Ground Floor;
o Sheet 1: Proposed South Elevation for the Single Tenant Scenario;
o Sheet IA: Proposed Floor Plan, Single Tenant Scenario without a 2nd Level;
o Sheet 1 B: Proposed Floor Plan, Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Level;
o Sheet 2: Proposed South Elevation for the Two Tenant Scenario;
o Sheet 2A: Proposed Floor Plan, Two Tenant Scenario without a 2nd Level;
and,
o Sheet 2B: Proposed Floor Plan, Two Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Level.
9
SECTION V: REVIEW REOUlREMENTS
HPC Reviews:
Minor Development. Since the Isis is a Historic Landmark, the applicant must first receive
conceptual approval of the proposed development from HPC, pursuant to Chapter 26.415 of the City
of Aspen Land Use Code. The Guidelines state the HPC must find that a "sufficient number of the
relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal." Chapters 3,
4, and 13 of the Guidelines provide the "relevant" guidelines, and the following demonstrates that a
sufficient number of these have been adequately met. Individual guidelines are provided in
italicized print, followed by a narrative about applicability and/or demonstrating consistency
therewith.
Treatment of Windows
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
None of the windows that are being replaced are historic windows. The new windows will be
storefront display windows in keeping with the traditional design.
Replacement Windows
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of
the original window.
As noted above, none of the windows that are being replaced are historic.
Energy Conservation
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation, rather than to rp.plar.e a
historic window.
Again, no historic windows are being replaced.
Treatment of Existing Doors
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door.
None of the doors that are being replaced are historic.
Replacement Door
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the house.
10
The new doors will have recessed entries, providing a shaded area that helps to define the
dOOlway, and give pedestrians shelter. These doorways will be more similar in form to the
original building.
Energy Conservation
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door
instead of replacing a historic entry door.
As noted above, no historic doors are being replaced
Relationship to the Town Grid
13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects.
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional
building orientations.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
The exterior of the building will retain its current form, with only the ground floor windows
and doors being altered. Therefore, the established town grid will continue to be respected. All of the
primary entrances will be oriented toward the street.
Alleys
13.4
13.5
Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
Retain the character of the alley as a part of the original town grid.
The proposal does not change anything with regard to the alley.
Building Setbacks
13.8 Maintain the alignment offacades at the sidewalk's edge.
As noted above, the only changes to the exterior of the building will be to the ground floor
windows and doors. The current fa9ade's alignment will be maintained.
Mass and Scale
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale oftwo-stO/y buildings at the sidewalk.
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
The proposed changes with additional display windows and one or two additional sets of
doors will not alter the perceived scale of the building.
Building Form
13.12 Rec:tangular forms should be dominant 011 COlllme/"cial Co/"e facades.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley
is encouraged.
There are no changes proposed to the building form, the roof, or the rear facade.
11
Storefront Character
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
The new ground floor windows and doors will encourage more pedestrian actIVIty and
interest. There will be storefront display windows, and new, inviting recessed entries. The primary
building entrances are all at street level. The current distinction between the street level and the
upper floors will be maintained.
Repetition of Far;ade Elements
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a
block.
The new ground floor doors and windows will help to revive a pattern of recessed entryways
that the subject building historically provided along the street.
Detail Alignment
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on buildingfronts should be
maintained.
13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered.
Section 13.21 does not apply. With regard to Section 13.20, the existing and historic
alignment of horizontal features on the building front will be maintained.
The guidelines of Chapter 14 will be addressed in detail during Final HPC review.
Parking Waiver. According to Section 26.415.110 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code,
"The City of Aspen is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to
maintain, preserve and rmhanr.e their histe>ric pre>perties. Recognizing that these properties are
valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and
programs for designated historic properties and districts. "
One of the special programs available to historic properties is the ability to obtain parking
waivers from the HPC. That is, Section 26.415.l10(C), Parking, provides that "Parking reductions
are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site
parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may
receive waivers of payment- in-lieu fees for parking reductions."
Accordingly, the applicant requests that HPC grant a parking waiver for the Historic Isis
Building. With the proposed change of one of the theaters to retail usage, additional parking would
be requircd. Of all thc potcntial cunvcrsiun scenarios, the greatest amOutlt of "new" net leasable area
(NLA) that would be created is approximately 4,870 square feet. Pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of
the Code, the increase in NLA would generate a requirement for 4.87 off-street parking spaces. The
subject property is unable to contain any, let alone five, on-site parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning.
12
Commercial Design Review. The applicant is seeking Commercial Design Review
approvals from the HPC. According to Section 26.412.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, an
application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied
by the HPC based on conformance with Section 26.412.050, Review Criteria. Said Section, at sub-
section I, explains that the HPC may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal so long
as, "The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design
Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular
standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the Standards. "
In the current case, the existing landmark building is merely being renovated. The
renovations are consistent with the Commercial Design Standards (hereinafter "CDS"), but those
existing features that are already inconsistent with any elements of the CDS will not be altered to be
brought into compliance. The HPC is empowered to allow such deviations from the CDS given the
fact that the building is a landmark designated structure and its existing features provide a "more-
appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed," its
status provides a "unique site constraint" that justifies deviation from the Standards.
The first section of the CDS, regarding the building's relationship to the primary street, does
not apply to this design review, since the only parts of the building that are being renovated are the
windows and doors. Nevertheless, the building fa~ade is parallel to Hopkins Avenue, and the setback
is consistent with the requirements of the CC zone district as well as those found elsewhere on the
block. The first and second floors maintain a consistent building setback from the primary street,
and the first floor is at the level of the adjoining sidewalk without any grade changes or "moats."
The second section of the CDS relates to pedestrian amenity space. Pedestrian Amenity
Space requirements are associated with redevelopments, not renovations that have no affect on site
plans or existing pedestrian amenity spaces. This renovation is exempt from the creation of
additional pedestrian amenity space pursuant to Section 26.575.030 of the Code, as there will be no
change to the building's footprint.
The third and most relevant portion of the CDS for the proposed development is that which
addresses the street-level building elements. In the current proposal, there will be no blank walls
created, and all walls at the street level will maintain fenestration and fa~ade articulations. The street
level wall facing Hopkins Avenue will exceed the requirement for a 60% fencstration ratio. The
building entr<)I1ces are well-defmed and apparent, and temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of
the building will be unnecessary.
Section D of the CDS addresses the accommodation of parking. As previously requested of
the HPC, the applicant seeks a parking waiver for the historic Isis Building. There is no on-site
parking currently and the building covers virtually the entire property. Accommodation of parking
on the subject site would result in a less-appealing pattern of development considering the context in
which the renovation is proposed. The property's existing conditions and landmark status provide a
"unique site constraint" tllat justifies deviation fWllltht: parking stamIarus.
The currently existing utility, trash, recycle service area and delivery area will be maintained
on the alley, and was specifically approved via Special Review when the building was converted into
a multiplex with roof-top residences. No changes to the existing utility, trash, recycle service area
and delivery area are contemplated.
13
City Council! P&Z Review:
Growth management approval pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(D)(3),
Essential Public Facilities, is requested. Pursuant to said Section, the development of an Essential
Public Facility, upon a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or
structure to be an Essential Public Facility. (See definition.) Accessory uses may
also be part of an Essential Public Facility project.
Please refer to Exhibit 1, a letter from Chris Bendon, Community Development Director,
determining the primary use and structure to be an "Essential Public Facility."
b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section
26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
Of the proposed development scenarios, the one with the greatest amount of Net Leasable
Area (NLA), is the Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Floor. While the eventual development may
involve one of the other, lesser scenarios, the Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Floor is used in
response to this and all other growth management related standards so as to ensure that mitigation
and allotment requirements will not exceed those contemplated herein.
In order to determine the amount of net leasable area (NLA) needed to be allotted, it is
necessary to first determine the existing NLA for the portion of the building that will be converted to
retail use. The existing theater space to be converted does not maintain any "back-of-house"
functions such as private office, common circulations areas, bathrooms, etc. uses solely by tenants
on the site. As such, on the ground level, the entire area to be remodeled is currently occupied by
the theater use and concessions, all of which is NLA. Therefore, the existing NLA on the ground
level for the area in question is 3,325 square feet. Of the existing mezzanine level, only the space
occupied by the projection room for theater number one counts as NLA. Some portion of the
projection room will be maintained to serve the remaining ground level movie theater, making this a
more difficult calculation than meets the eye. Nevertheless, it has bccn conscrvatively estimated that
340 square feet of existing theater number one NLA in the projection room will be converted to
retail usc with tlle remutld. Tlu::rdun::, lht:: lulal t::xisling NLA for the portion of the building that
will be l'unverled 10 rclail use is 3,665 square feet (3,325 + 340),
It is conservatively assumed that 85% of the total area between the interior walls on the
ground level will end up as NLA since tenant [mishes will use at least 15% of their total space for
circulation, storage, bathrooms and other uses not included in the City's mcasurcmcnt of "nct
leasable area." On the second level, in an effurl tu bt:: highly cunsc::rvaliw ami make up for any
potential shortfall on the ground level, the entire second level is being considered NLA.
Accordingly, under the single tenant scenario with a second level, the applicant proposes the creation
of 5,226 square feet ofNLA ([3,325sfx 85%] + 2,400sf).
Given the existing NLA of 3,365 square feet, and the proposed creation of 5,226 square feet
ofNLA, the total net increase equates to 1,861 square feet ofNLA (5,226 minus 3,365). Therefore,
14
the applicant is requesting an allotment of 1,861 square feet ofNLA, which is believed to fall within
the established applicable development ceiling levels and the available annual development
allotments.
c) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The proposal contained herein has been prepared in a manner consistent with the terms,
provisions and conditions of the MOU executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99, Series
of2006. Article 13 of the MOU, states that, "the recitals at the beginning of this Agreement shall be
deemed included as terms and conditions of this Agreement"). The recitals of the MOU, in turn,
provide that:
. AspenFilm is a nonprofit organization which has operated in Aspen for nearly thirty (30)
years and which brings artistic, educational and performance programs to the Roaring Fork
Valley; and
. AspenFilm, the applicant, and the City of Aspen believe that the theaters, which are the sole
remaining commercial theaters in the City of Aspen, are a vital public amenity, and
AspenFilm, the applicant, and the City of Aspen are interested in assuring the continued
operation of at least some of the theaters; and
. In addition to its educational seminars and programs in area schools, AspenFilm presents
four main film programs each year, including Aspen Filmfest, Aspen Shortsfest, Academy
Screenings and Summerfilms; and
. AspenFilm is in need for a permanent home for its presentations; and,
. The City Council of the City of Aspen has determined that it is in the best interests of the
citizens and guests of Aspen to participate in the public/private collaboration set forth in the
MOU.
Given the commitments being made herein and pursuant to the MOU (see pages 7-8 above),
the public interest and needs of the community expressed in the MOU recitals will be preserved and
forwarded. For instance: the property will be publicly owncd (though a non-profit corporation);
owncrship ofthc theaters will eventually be transferred to Independent Films Inc. (alk/a Aspen Film
Fest), which is recognized as a non-profit corporation serving a public interest; there will be a
perpetual deed restriction assuring theater or public use of the four remaining theater units within the
building; an undivided ownership interest in the affordable housing units within the project will he
conveyed to the City of Aspen or the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA); a perpetual
deed restriction will be filed prohibiting additional development on the residential level of the
building; and, affordable housing cash-in-lieu fees will be paid to the APCHA.
Accordingly, it is with the utmost confidence that the appliclUlI stales, lhe prupusal is fully
consistent with all elements of the AACP, including its community vision, and growth,
transportation, hosing, economic sustainability, historic preservation, design quality, and arts, culture
and education philosophies. Indeed, it may very well be the first project to come through the land
use approval process since adoption of the 2000 AACP update to forward the goals of the Arts,
Culture and Education section of the AACP.
15
d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project
are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof
in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may
be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique
employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable
housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the
purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community
goals.
As suggested by staff in the attached Pre-Application Conference Summary (see Exhibit 3),
the provisions for expanding a historic landmark structure - Section 26.470.040(C)(1) of the Code-
should be used as a guide in determining employee generation and mitigation requirements. Further,
staff suggests that, due to the unique operating characteristics of the project, the applicant rely on
Section 26.470.050(A)(I) of the Code, which allows for specific operating conditions to be factored
into the calculation of employee generation. As such, the following calculation of employee
generation and mitigation requirements is based directly on the suggested Code provisions.
Based on the use of existing Code provisions, the following calculations are believed to be
fair and conservative with respect to the employee generation and mitigation requirements. Further,
and as explained earlier, of the various proposed development scenarios, the one with the greatest
amount of Net Leasable Area (NLA) is the Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Floor (Sheet IB in the
accompanying plan set). While the eventual development may involve one of the other, lesser
scenarios, the Single Tenant Scenario with a 2nd Floor is used in response to this and all other
growth management related standards so as to ensure that mitigation requirements will not prove to
exceed those contemplated herein.
Before getting to the numbers, some notes should be made about the assumptions implicit to
the calculations. First, all previous approvals associated with the Isis Theater accepted an employee
generation of five FTE for the five-screen theater operation and required housing mitigation for only
60%, or three (3), of those FTE. The built project includes housing for six (6) FTE. Accordingly,
Growth Management Commission (GMC) Resolution 2-01 states that, "A mitigation credit of three
employees shall be applied to the new retail use." A credit for housing of three employees is,
therefore, factored into the mitigation calculations below.
Next, GMC Resolution 2-01 is consistent with the January 8, 1995 staff memo to City
Council which stated that, "due to the unusually low ratio of employees per square foot for theater
uses, any change in use would require significant mitigation, either in the form of cash-in-lieu or off-
site buy-down of existing units. It is unlikely that HPC [Historic Preservation Commission] or staff
would support additional units on the roof-top, which would effectively restrict additional on-site
housing to the interior of the structure." For instance, GMC Resolution 2-01 provides that new
mitigation would be provided by off-site housing units, cash-in-lieu payment, or a combination
thereo( Over the years, therefore, it has been repeatedly accepted that additional on-site employee
housing is undcsirable. Consistent with this history, Article 6.1 of the MOD provides that, "Till! Isis
Group shall pay to the City...a monetary sum in full satisfaction of the City's employee housing
mitigation requirements, determined in accordance with the City's land use code, in connection with
the conversion of the West Main Theater to retail uses. Such cost shall be paid in full when Isis
Group obtains its building permit for such conversion."
16
Additionally, in an effort to provide a conservative approach to the calculations, it has been
assumed that the same five (5) FTE needed to operate the five-screen theater will continue to be
needed to operate the four-screen theater. This application does not contemplate lowering the
employee generation of the theater operation even though the number of screens will decrease by
20%. As such, all employee mitigation will be attributable only to the new retail space.
Finally, Section 26.470.050(A)(I) of the Code allows applicants to request an employee
generation review with the P&Z in an effort to establish actual employee generation for a business as
opposed to simply relying on the prescribed generation rates of the Code. The applicant is willing to
restrict the converted commercial space to exclude restaurant uses, which generate far more
employees per square foot of NLA than all other types of commercial uses (office use is already
precluded on ground floors by zoning). The 2002 City of Aspen Employment Generation Study
found that, when restaurants are excluded, all retail uses generate an average of 2.6 Full-Time
Equivalents (FTE) per 1,000 square feet of NLA, whereas when restaurants are allowed the Code
prescribes a generation factor of 4.1 FTE per one-thousand square feet of NLA. Rather that an
outright prohibition against restaurant use in the remodeled building, the applicant simply asks that
any approvals granted for the current conversion state that, should a restaurant use ever be proposed
in the future, additional review for employee generation and mitigation needs would be required.
In an effort to be conservative and since this application uses a lower employment generation
factor than prescribed by the Code, the applicant has NOT taken the 25% reduction granted by the
Code for employee generation on upper floors. Rather, the calculations provided below continue to
use a generation factor of 2.6FTE/I,000sf of NLA on all building levels (not 1.95 FTE/I,OOOsf of
NLA for second level space). Also, it is conservatively assumed that 85% of the total area between
the ground level interior walls will end up as NLA since tenant finishes will use at least 15% of the
space for circulation, storage, bathrooms and other uses not included in the City's measurement of
"net leasable area." On the second level, in an effort to be highly conservative and make up for any
potential shortfall on the ground level, the entire second level is being considered NLA.
Given the explanations and assumptions provided both immediately above and in response to
standard "b" above, and based on the recommendations of staff, the following calculations represent
thc cmployee generation and mitigation requirements associated with this application.
TOTAL EMPLOYEE GENERATION =
. 1st Floor Retail Conversion of3,325sfwill result in 2,826sf ofNct Leasable Area (NLA) (it's
conservatively estimated that 85% of the commercial space will be NLA after netting out
areas for storage, circulation, bathrooms, ctc. that will rcsult from tenant finishes); @ 2.6
FTE per 1,000sfofNLA = 2.6 x 2.826 = 7.348 FTE
. 2,400sf of Second Level NLA @ 2.6 FTE/I OOOsf ofNLA = 2.6 x 2.4 = 6.24 FTE
. Total Generation = 7.348 + 6.24 = 13.588 FTE
TOTAL MITIGATION REQUIREMENT, PER SECTION 26.470.040(C){l) =
First 4 FTE = 0 employee mitigation;
Next 4 FTE mitigatcd at 10% = (4 x .1) = 1.2 FTE to be mitigated;
Remaining 5.588 FTE mitigated at 60% = 3.353 FTE to be mitigated;
Total FTE to be mitigated = 1.2 + 3.35 = 4.55 FTE to be mitigated;
Apply credit for 3 extra FTE already provided with housing = 4.55 - 3 = 1.55 FTE to be
mitigated...
Category 4 housing in-lieu fee = $ 124,307/FTE = 1.55 x $124.307 = $192.675.85
17
Accordingly, the applicant shall pay the cash-in-lieu of housing mitigation fee of
$192,675.85 to the City of AspenlAPCHA at the time of building permit issuance for the conversion.
If the actual development proves to be either of the two tenant scenarios or scenario of a single
tenant without second floor space, the calculations and fee provided for above will be in excess of
the requirement.
e) Free-Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable
housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470. 040. C. 6, unless otherwise
restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or
establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the
purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community
goals.
The proposed contemplated herein does not result in any new free market residential floor
area on the parcel. Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or
such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of
the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply,
sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and
police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
The proposed development represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure.
The existing uses on the property are adequately served with public water, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, and
road and transit services. The proposal will not significantly increase the demand on any such
services or improvements. To the extent that any additional demands on public infrastructure
require mitigation, the applicant will provide for such needs.
With respect to parking, the applicant has requested n porking waiver from the HPC in
accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Code. It is believed that such parking waiver is
necessitated merely as a technicality of the Code but that theater use actually generates a grenter
need for parking than does retail use. The parking needs of the project will effectively decrease.
18
EXHIBITS
December 22, 2006
Mitch Haas
Haas Land Planning
Jerome Professional Building
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO "81611
.
Mroi/PrrKIN
C0MMtJNID DwntlPMFNT Ofl'A!U'MENT
Re:,Isls Redevelopment
Dear Mitch;
Pursuant to our ongoing discussions and the Memorandum of Understanding concerning
the redevelopment of the lsis Theater intI) a four-tlwaIer 'Operation to be .owned by a
public agency and deed restricted in perpetuity as a theater or similar publicly accessible
use, it is the Community Developm.entDepartm.etlt's oplnion,lIlld my opinion as the
Director, that the proj ect contemplated 1n the MOU qualifies as a Essential Public
Facility, as the term is defined in tlle City's Land Use CQde. independent {lfw)1ethlllt the
"notch," <as the term i.s used in the. MOt:[, is pl!rt oftbe development appliestion. All sucb.
all elements of the ptpjcct, includingthetetaiI pOrtion of the project, shall be processed as
an Essential Public Facility.
We have come to thi's conclusion after reviewing the definition of Essential Public
Facility in the Land Use Cod!}, the review criteria applicable to sueh facilities, and
considering, the provisions of the MOU which contemplate publie ownersmp (through a
non-profit corporation), the future transfer of ownerShip of the theaters to Aspen Film
Fest - a nonprofit corporation serving a public interest, perpetual deed restriction for
theater or pubHc use of the four remaining theater units within the building, an un:divided
public OWnership interest in thc affordable housing units within tlie pro,ieot. and a
perpelul1l Tll$triction ngninataddltwnal devclopment on upper levels of the building, all of
which ~erve II p\lblic interest and the needs ofthe community.
Please contact me if you any questions regarding the Essential Public Facility status of
this project.
~ill
Chris B!:ndoll, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130S6::ltr GA;-fM ST!<tilrl . Mm'!C(lI.bii:'\0\')81611~1975 . rtjONif97U~9205090 -I'A\ 9-70~92(t5419
!'JitJlN<.>f'lW<rcw",,",,""
""
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Name:
Location:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
PROJECT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
D Conditional Use D Conceptual Pun D Conceptual Historic Devt.
D Special Review 0 Final Pun (& Pun Amendment) i Final Historic Development
~ Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA Minor Historic Devt.
GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) D Historic Demolition
D GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision D Historic Designation
D ESA - 8040 GreenJine, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion!
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane ~
D Lot Split 0 Temporary Use Other: =~ lleSl$J
Lot Liue Au' ustmenl 0 Text/Ma Amendment ~Iewj&- IA6WI\I'Je~
EXISTING CONDITIONS: descri tion of existin buildin
,~ Af-PUCA 1i~ '1t>JCT J.. Plbl 5eT
~e you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ~O~.
~.Pre-Application Conference Summary
~ Attaclunent #1, Signed Fee Agreement
iiY.Re~VUIl~e to Allachmtmlll-3, DimtmHional Requirements Form
~ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plan. that ar.larg.r than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy diJk with an electronic copy ofall writton lod (Microsoft
Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
EXisting:~15.b1t~ Proposed:jJe:r 1~;~4
Ex~sting: ,-; Proposed: ~ 0 :
EXisting: 8 Proposed: _ __
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): <:. ~O%
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
DIMENSIONS: ~
Floor Area: EXisting:~llowable:JJ,rtlJ+ Proposed: <It,cw
Principal bldg. height: Existing:~ Allowable:!lz...=-!l~_froposed:~
Access. bldg. height: Existing: t>l//Ir Allowable: ~/A Proposed: MIA
On-Site parking: Existing: () Required: b Proposed: b
% Site coverage: EXisting:~equired: N/A: Proposed:JJo OII\I'lGe
% Open Space: EXisting:~ Required: 7.1),% Proposed:.w atmlGe
Front Setback: Existing: () , Required: 0 ' Proposed: 0 '
Rear Setback: Existing: () I Required: 0 I Proposed: () ,
Combined FIR: Existing: 0' Required: r-I/" Proposed: 0'
Side Setback: Existing: 0' Required: 0 ' Proposed: 0 '
Side Setback: Existing: 0' Required: 0' Proposed: 0'
Combined Sides: Existing: (')' Required: ~ fA Proposed: 0 t
.
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: ~O!>\~
Variations requested: Ni').Ie - PAt.t<ule; wAt~ flZbM tIfC
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER:
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Chris Bendon, 429.2765 DATE: 12.22.06
Isis Theater Retail Conversion
Isis Property Group LLC, Mitch Haas 925.7819
CC Aspen, LLC, and Arizona Limited Liability Company
Historic Preservation - One Step. Historic Preservation Commission
Planning - Two Step. Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
DESCRIPTION:
The contract purchaser of the Isis theater, the Isis Group, LLC, wants to convert
the westernmost ground floor theater to retail use with a new street entrance to
the retail space and a relocated entrance to the remaining theater use. In the
future, there may also be proposed construction of a two-stOlY "notch" on the
southeast corner of the properly. The entire project, with or without the notch
construction, is an essential public facility due to the public ownership (through
a non-profit corporation), the future transfer of ownership to Aspen Film Fest-
a non profit corporation serving a public purpose, perpetual deed restriction for
theater or public use of the four remaining theater units within the building, an
undivided public ownership interest in the affordable housing units within the
project, and a perpetual restriction against additional development on upper
levels of the building, all as outline in the Memorandum of Understanding
signed by the City of Aspen, Aspen Film Fest, and the Isis Group.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Process
26.415.070.C HPC Certificate of Minor Development (does not include the "notch")
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.430 Special Review for Parking (See 26.515.040 for criteria)
26.470.040.D.3 Growth Management Essential Public Facility
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission.
Yes, HPC, P&Z, and Council
APCHA, Building, Fire, Water/Electric, Sanitation
Planning Deposit, Major ($2,700 for 12 hours of staff time, additional hours are billed
at a rat~ of $225/hour)
ArCIIA $376.
$ 3,076 (additIOnal hours over 12 will be bill~d at a rat~ of $225/hour)
Rcfcrral Agcncy Fees:
Total Dcposit:
To apply, submit the following information (applies only to Lot Split application):
I. Signed fee agreement.
2. ^pplicont'~ nome, oddl"'.. and telephone, nUlllbl.:r ill 1I1~,ller sil!Tled by the applicant which ~tate~ the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
3. Total deposit for review of the application
4. 30 Copies of the complete application packet.
5. Additional materials as required by the specific review.
6. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed amendment complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.
Please include existing conditions as well as proposed.
Notes:
I. The GMQS section for essential public facilities requires that the Land Use Code be used as a guide
when determining employee generation and mitigation requirements. Staff suggests the provisions for
expanding a historic landmark structure be used as this guideline - Section 26.470.040.C.1. Due to
the unique operating characteristics of the project, staff also suggests the applicant rely on
26.470.050.A.l which allows for specific operating conditions to be factored into the calculation of
employee generation.
2. Staff recommends the Commercial Design Review be combined with the HPC Minor Review. Staff
also recommends the Special Review for parking be combined with the HPC Minor Review.
3. The contract purchaser will need authorization from the current owner to submit the application and
represent the owner. Upon transfer of the property and assignment to the City of Aspen or a non-
profit corporation associated with the CoA, the Isis Group, and representatives thereof, will need to
obtain authorization from the new owner to proceed with the application.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current
zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The
sunnnary does not create a legal or vested right.
December 22, 2006
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611-1975
Re: Isis Theater Remodel Application
To whom it may concern:
Isis Property Group, LLC is under contract to purchase the Isis
Theater. As contract purchasers, the Isis Property Group, LLC has been
authorized by the current ownership group to seek land use entitlements
from the City of Aspen. Isis Property Group, LLC, in turn, hereby
authorizes Haas Land Planning, LLC, Charles Cunniffe Architects, and
Klein Cote Edwards, LLC, to submit and process an application for Historic
Preservation Commission minor development, Commercial Design Review,
Parking Waiver, Growth Management allotments and any incidental or
associated approvals necessitated by the proposed Isis Theater remodel
project at 406/408 East Hopkins A venue.
Should you have any need to contact Isis Property Group, LLC during
the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC,
whose address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address are provided
in the application.
Sincerely,
Isis Property Group, LLC
Address: P.O. Box 7955
Aspen, CO 81612
Phone: (248) 709-6009
AU3l\V-09-008-l
wOO'/UilAe'MMM
UOIPIl.QSU!,P
alllm'j el zl>>lnsuo)
316 EAST HOPKINS LP
RYANCO INC
5525 E CALLE VENTURA
PHOENIX, AZ 85018
ALLEN LEONARD A III
PO BOX 8316
ASPEN, CO 81612
BALDWIN HARLEY A II
205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M
PO BOX 1365
ASPEN, CO 81612
BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224
210 S GALENAST#21
ASPEN, CO 81611
CALDWELL CHARLES G & DEBRA H
3401 LEE PKWY#1504
DALLAS, TX 75219
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
D1=NSON JAMES 0
PO BOX 1614
TUBAG, A7 85646
EASTHOPE THOMAS J
3375 CRYSTAL CT
COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133
GALENA PLAZA LLC 30.3845777%
COI RONALD GARFIELD ESO
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
T at09lS(jj)AH:lAV\'t\
~uawa6Jelp ap sues
T
AEP FAMILY LLL 3.9389931%
C/O ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD &
HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER
SAINT MARYS
1300 S STEELE ST
DENVER, CO 80210
BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP
1616 ORCHARD AVE
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
BLAU JEFF T
181 E 65TH ST
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BRAND BUILDING LLC
205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
CENTRE OF ASPEN LLC 54.6248989%
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
COLORADO CABLE CO .167%
C/O SUZETTE GOODMA
500 E MARKHAM STE 305
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
DOLE MARGARET M
C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
CEDARIDGE
PO BOX 8455
ASPEN, CO 01612
ELKS LODGE 224
210 S GALENA ST STE 21
ASPEN, CO 81611
GILBERT LEONE 2.7624071%
COI RONALD GARFIELD ESO
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
~ T a.m~ea~ lead .ue3 JOj _
~ 'l.aauc: unn",n.nC:lu A.C' _
ALH HOLD IN
435 E MAIN S
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
420 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER
PO BOX 10370
ASPEN, CO 81612
BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST
6435 ZUMEREZ DR #20
MALlBU, CA 90265-4060
BULLOCK WILLIAM G FAMILY TRUST
.333%
PO BOX 282
GLENWooD SPRINGS, CO 81602
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVID DOGWOOD LLC 13.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 01612
DUVIKE INC
PO BOX 2238
ASPEN, CO 81612
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC
240 S MILL ST STE 201
ASPEN, CO 81611
GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC
435 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
Jaded_paa~ T, r.\7Fl e09lSllVldWll ~8^V esn
~ slaGe1laa.... M:R::I
'AII.i^",-o9-008-l
WO)'AJaAe'MMM
UO!pI1J~U!,P
all!nal el za~lnsuo)
~uaWa6Jelp ap suas
T
e09lS eAl/3^'" ~!Jeqe6 al ZaS!l!l
Jalad l? salpel SaWlnb(
GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC
ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART DBA
213 S MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN
150 METRO PK #2
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
HALL CHARLES L
PO BOX 1819
ASPEN, CO 81612
HANSEN CANTINA LLC 15.72%
PO BOX 9343
ASPEN, CO 81612
HANSEN STEVE 11.8169824%
COI RONALD GARFIELD ESO
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
HASENAUER C BRUCE & SHERYL R
9397 S SHADOW HILL CIR
LONE TREE, CO 80124
HASENAUER COREY B
ECKENROTH KYLlE R
0637 CHADSWORTH LN
LITTLETON, CO 80129
HENDERSON JAMES C
KUCK KATHERINE M
4880 HARLEM RD
GALENA, OH 43021
HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC
170 E GORE CRK
VAIL, CO 81657
HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST
PO BOX 1576
MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040
HOTEL JEROME INC
ClO EVEREST CHRISTY G
9000 N BROADWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73114
HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS
LLC
290 HEATHER LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
JACKSON DONNA M .0208% INT
1730 RIDGE DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
JW VENTURES LLC
PO BOX 8769
ASPEN, CO 81612
KANDYCOMINC
766 SINGING WOOD DR
ARCADIA, CA 91006
KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY
TRUST #1
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
KOCHEVAR JANET BULLOCK .0556%
PO BOX 282
GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81602
LESTER JIM
11 WAVERLY PL - UPPER
NEW YORK, NY 10003-6722
LEVY LAWRENCE F & CAROL
980 N MICHIGAN AVE #400
CHICAGO,IL 60611
LOMA AL TA CORPORATION
1"0 BOX 086
LANCASTER, TX 75146-0886
MAIN & MILLLLC 34.28%
CIO I. OWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
MCNULTY KATHLEEN A .0208% INT
12342 WINDWARD WAY
ANACORTES, WA 98221
MCNULTY NELSON E .0208% INT
2490 DEPEW
EDGEWATER, CO 80214
MCNULTY RONALD J .0208% INT
380 POINT WINDERMERE PL
OCEANSIDE, CA 92057-3420
MILL & MAIN LLC
2900 OCEAN BLVD
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 1/2625
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC
ClO M & W PROPERTIES
205 S MILL ST STe 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
MOTHER LODE INVESTORS LLC
620 E HYMAN AVE #lE
ASPEN, CO 81611
MTN ENTERPRISES 80B
CIO HILLIS OF SNOW MASS
170 GARE CRK DR
VAIL, CO 81657
RUHNAU DAVID F & SHARON ENGEL
PO BOX 7209
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
SILVER SlAM COMMERCIALLLC
ClO NELSON LINDEN
2100 E MAPLE RD #200
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
r e09LS4DAH5II\V~\
~ T~~~J~~:IJOI - Jadl!dPH:It ~ e09LSnYl~~3:':eNaA"'_llSn
A1I3N,f"O!>-OOB-l
wo:nUa^e"MMM
uop:mJ~U!,p
amnaj e) zaJlnsuoJ
SMITH ASPEN OEM LLC 23%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
THE ISIS BUILDING LLC
205 S MILL ST # 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
WALL JANET & RICHARD A
205 S GALENA ST#13
ASPEN, CO 81611
WELLS FARGO BANK
C/O DELOITTE TAX LLP
PO BOX 2609
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
WILLIAMS DEXTER M
82 W LUPINE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
T e09~S~AH5lAV~\
~uawa6Jelp ap suas
...
SOUTHDALE ANESTHESIOLOGY PROFIT
SHARING TRUST FBO ROY G BRYAN
5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD
EDINA, MN 55439
US BANK NA & MCNULTY ZELPHA MARJE
.083%
422 WHITE AVE, PO BOX 608
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
WALLJANET L
9762 BURNLEY PL
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
WENDELlN ASSOC
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
WOODS FAMILY LP
PO BOX 11468
ASPEN, CO 81612
Ql)09lS ~1I3No' ~!Jeqel5 ai zas!l~
Jalad I(! salpej sllWlnbl
STANTON LAVONE KAY TRUSTEE FBe
LYON HARRY .167%
500 E MARKHAM STE 305
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
VAIL FINE ART GALLERY INC
PO BOX 1953
EDWARDS, CO 81632
WARREN DOGWOOD LLC 13.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O
1001 CHERRY ST STE 308
COLUMBIA, MO 65201
~ t~~J~~JOj - Jadedpa9;jt ~ e09~S3.1V1dW31eNa^1f.asn
".
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Al!reement for Pavment of Citv of Asoen Deve.Domen. Aoolication Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Isis Prooertv GrouD, LLC
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS,
I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
..Minor" Historic Develooment: Commercial Desie.n Review: Parkine. Waiver. and Growth Manae:ement
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application compJeteness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings andlor
approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Conunission and/or City Council to enable the
Planning Commission andlor City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration,
unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a detennination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial
deposit in the amount of$ 3.076.00. which is for twelve (l2l hours of Community Development staff
time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly
billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review at a rate of 5225.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments
shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued cost, shall b. grounds for suspension of processing. and in no case will building permits be issued
until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
APPLICANT:
ISisprope~
B)':~
urtney Lord, Manager
Date: ( vlv(,l.Jl..
By:
g:\suppurllformslagrpayas.doc
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
Reauired
P.O. Box 7955
Asoen. CO 81612
(248) 709-6009
. = $2700 for 12 hrs of planning staff time; and, 5376 for APCHA referral fee.
MEMORANDUM
Yllb
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
DATE:
Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official ^ I..
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director \:.>>IWI
Urban Wildfire Building Code Hegulations
- First Reading of Ordinance #1-= Series of 2007
March 12,2007
FROM:
THROUGH:
RE:
Backl!round:
Council held a work session in May 2006 to discuss the need for building regulations regarding
wood shake and shingle roof coverings and certain elements of fire resistive construction. As a
City surrounded by public lands and varying degrees of vulnerability with regard to wildfires,
Aspen has the ability to take proactive measures to mitigate the loss of life and property for its
residents by reducing its risk to wildfires. Council decided it is the City's responsibility to reduce
its exposure to wildfire damage.
Throughout the West, communities such as Snowmass Village, Eagle County, Vail, Breckenridge,
Sun Valley and statewide in California are adopting standards in order to mitigate the loss of life
and property in the event of a wildfire. Standards focus on the use of flame resistant material roof
coverings and screens to prevent burning embers projected by a vegetation fire from entering
building vents.
Community Development staff continues to work with the Aspen Fire District to ensure that the
proposed recommendations are acceptable to the District. The District agrees with all of staffs
recommendations except for the allowance of fire resistant impregnated wood shake shingles. This
divergence in philosophy is understandable when considering the mission of both the Fire District
and the City. At its core, the sole mission of the District is to protect life and property from fire
damage.
The City also is concerned about protecting the safety of its citizenry against the impacts of fire,
but it also has a broader mission. The City must consider promoting an interesting and viable
community in which architecture, aesthetics, and building materials play an important role. As a
result, the staff recommendation is to allow for these fire resistant impregnated wood shake
shingles as a means of achieving fire protection.
Direction was given to staff to continue researching the need for minimum construction standards
to provide built-in fire protection in areas that are at risk to wildfires, prepare an ordinance and
create a Wildfire Hazard Assessment Map to evaluate areas within the city limits. Staff has also
written a policy to clarify the application and administration of the new Ordinance.
Summary:
Aspen has developed adjacent to national forested lands that are often prime wildfire areas and it
is the City's responsibility to reduce its exposure to wildfire damage. The Wildfire Hazard Map
determined that most of the City is either a Low or Moderate Hazard but certain areas within the
city limit are High Hazard zones. Often, communities do not require construction mitigation in
these low hazard areas; however, staff is recommending that all structures in the Low and
Moderate meet the roof and venting requirements of moderate hazard areas. These standards
include banning Class C roof coverings such as untreated wood shakes, requiring emergency
equipment access standards when development occurs and minimum fire resistant construction
standards for roofing and venting. Class B roofing will be required in Low and Moderate Hazard
areas and only Class A or non-combustible roof coverings will be allowed in High Hazard areas. It
should be noted that most of the High Hazard areas are un-buildable with the exception of about
30 sites on McSkimming Lane.
Pressure treated fire retardant rated shakes are recognized and provided for in the International
Building Code, the International Wildland Urban Interface Code, and NFPA 1144 Standard for
Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire.
Staff spoke with six large roofing contractors and learned that the Class B wood shake is readily
available and costs about 20% more than the untreated product. A Class A wood shake is
produced and is 80% more than the untreated shake but rarely used. The roofers also mentioned
that several Class A synthetic shake looking products are on the market and they have had good
results using them. These materials can address the needs of both the City's and fire district's
mission of protecting life and property from the impacts of fire. It also aids the City in maintaining
a level of aesthetic quality that is compatible to this community's history and setting. Other
communities have adopted these materials as allowed roofing materials.
Without adoption of these minimum standards, which focus on the use fire retardant wood shakes
and shingles and screening to prevent burning embers from entering vents and soffits, the
community's residents increase their risk ofloss oflife and property in the event of a wildfire.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #l"Series of 2007, on first reading.
Attachments:
. Wildfire Hazard Assessment Map
ORDINANCE NO..r
(SERIES OF 20017
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO TO AMEND THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND
THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE ESTABLISHED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 59, SERIES OF 2003
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2003, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 59, Series of
2003, adopting the 2003 editions of certain International Building Codes, amending
requirements, procedures and criteria for construction contractor testing and licensing;
and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance No 59, Series of 2003, allows structures within the City of
Aspen to utilize Class C roof coverings or Class C roof assemblies; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen has prepared a Wild Fire Hazard Assessment Map
which identifies areas oflow, moderate, and high wildfire hazard; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen City Council considers it in the best interest of the
public health, safety, and welfare to adopt Ordinance _, Series of2007; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. That Section 8.20 of the Municipal Code ofthe City of Aspen, Colorado
adopting the 1997 editions of the Uniform Building Code Volumes I, II and III be and is
hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
Section 1 of Ordinance No. 53, Series of2003 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Delete Section 1203.2.1 and replace with "Attic ventilation openings, soffit vents and
vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches each. Such vents shall be covered
with noncombustible corrosion-resistant mesh with openings not to exceed Y. inch."
(b) Delete Section 1203.3.1 #6 and replace with "Noncombustible corrosion-resistant
mesh with openings not to exceed 118 inch."
(c) Section 1505.1 delete the last sentence and replace with "The mlmmum roof
coverings installed shall be Class B and Class A in the HIGH areas identified by the City
of Aspen Wildfire Hazard Assessment Map."
(d) Table 1505.1, delete all C Classifications and replace with B Classification.
(e) Table 1501.1, delete footnote (a) and replace with "Unless otherwise required to be
Class A covering due to location in High Hazard Area as indicated by the City of Aspen
Wildfire Hazard Assessment Map."
Section 2:
That Section 8.16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado adopting
the 2003 edition of the International Residential Code is enacted to read as follows:
Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Section R317.2.2 is amended by changing the reference to minimum roof covering
required in the exception from Class C to Class A.
(b) Delete section R408.2 #6 and replace with "Noncombustible corrosion-resistant mesh
with openings not to exceed 1/8 inch."
(c) Section R806.1 is amended by changing the second sentence to read as follows: "Attic
ventilation openings, soffit vents, and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square
inches each. Such vents shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion-resistant mesh
with openings not to exceed Yo inch."
(d) Section R902.1 is amended by changing the second sentence to read as follows: "The
minimum roof coverings installed shall be Class B and Class A in the HIGH areas
identified by the City of Aspen Wildfire Hazard Assessment Map."
Section 3 - Administration of Ordinance:
The requirements described herein shall apply to all new construction, re-roofing of an
existing building affecting fifty (50) percent or more of the total roofing area, and the
addition to a building which adds Floor Area as defined in the Building Code. Re-
roofing of a building in phases shall require compliance with the provisions herein if the
sum of the phases shall affect fifty (50) percent or more of the total roofing area.
Construction activities limited to repair and maintenance of roofs, interior conversions
and exterior remodels that do not include roofing or an increase in Floor Area shall be
exempt from these provisions.
Section 4:
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 offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of March 2007, at a
meeting of the Aspen City council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, ten 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 12th day of March, 2007.
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of March, 2007.
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
JoIm P. Worcester, City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
V'I'~
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
312 W. Hyman A venue- Landmark Designation, Second Reading of Ordinance
#45, Series of2006, continued from November 27,2006.
DATE:
March 12, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot. It is developed with a Chalet style
home that was built in 1954 by Herman Birlauf and his daughter Genevieve.
312 W. Hyman Avenue was considered for landmark designation during the 2000 inventory
review. That process began with hearings before HPC, at which time the board determined that a
number of sites, including this one, did not have sufficient historic significance. Shortly after
that, pursuit of all designations were put aside while the City revamped the preservation
ordinance, therefore HPC's recommendations were not forwarded to City Council, and there was
never any final action taken. At Council's direction, staff began an on-going effort to work with
the owners of post-war properties of historical interest to see if additional landmarks could be
preserved cooperatively, however owner consent for designation was never required.
On August 30, 2006, staff informed HPC of our concern that 312 W. Hyman Avenue, the subject
of this review, was planned for demolition. HPC directed staff to initiate the landmark process
over the owner's objection, an action which is within their purview. At their November 8th
meeting,S ofthe 6 HPC members felt that the property has historic significance; however several
expressed concern over the physical integrity of the structure. Some members wished to have
more information and a closer inspection of the building, but the owner requested an immediate
decision. The final vote was 3 to 2, recommending that Conncil not designate 312 W. Hyman.
Subsequently, staff recommended that the City acquire the property for affordable housing, and
presented a scenario for how that might be achieved within the parameters of the existing zoning.
City Council voted in favor of the purchase and the closing date is set for March 13, 2007, the
day after this public hearing. Due to the large number of items on upcoming Council agendas,
staff decided to go forward with this public hearing, conditioning landmark designation on the
closing of the sale. Landmark designation is necessary if Council wishes to consider to potential
sale of TDR's from this site, and, given the need to retain the placement of the Chalet as well as
up to six large trees, HPC setback variances will be needed to accommodate an appropriate
project.
Following is an analysis of 312 W. Hyman Avenue's compliance with the criteria for listing on
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historical records, photographs,
and other supporting documents are attached. Landmark designation requires a recommendation
from HPC, and a final determination by Council.
1
Staff finds that 312 W. Hyman Avenue meets the criteria for inclusion on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and structures and recommends approval.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen is the applicant and will be the property owner as of March
13, 2007. Until that time, the property is owned by Jordan (Jordie) Gerberg. Mr. Gerberg has
been represented by Peter Thomas, attorney.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-64-006.
ADDRESS: 312 W. Hyman Avenue, Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
The significance of the property located at 312 W. Hyman Avenue will be evaluated
according to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Response: Construction of the house at 312 W. Hyman began in 1954 and was completed
in 1956, according to records of the City of Aspen Building Department, the Pitkin County
Assessor's Office and the original owner, Genevieve Leininger. Following is a history of how
the house came to be built, according to Ms. Leininger.
The 312 West Hvman Street Storv
by
Genevieve Birlauf Leininger
(Submitted by letter to the Aspen Community Development Department, October 2006.)
2
The house at 312 West Hyman was built by my father and me in 1956. The following is some
background on my father and our family and how the house came to be built.
Julius Herman Birlauf was born March 15, 1890 in the city of Basel, Switzerland which is
located on the Rhine River where the three countries of Switzerland, France and Germany meet.
The house that he was born in was built in about 1325 A.D.
In 1912 my father decided he would go to America and join his relatives in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Meanwhile, my mother and her sister had made plans to leave their home in Babenhausen,
Bavaria, and join their brothers who were in Chicago, Illinois. Both my father and mother sailed
on the SS Pennsylvania from Hamburg, Germany, and arrived in New York on July 1st. They
met during the voyage and, although they parted, each to their destination in the States, they kept
in touch and eventually married in Ft. Wayne, Indiana - and it's there that I was born. This was
one shipboard romance that turned out just fine!
It was about this time that my father learned to be a tool-and-die maker. He became sick, at one
point, and was advised by his doctor to give up this line of work; (it was thought that the metal
filings were damaging his lungs). He was advised by his doctor to move to Colorado where the
air and climate, in general, would be better for his health. My mother's brothers, by this time,
were in Estes Park, so my younger brother and I were settled with our parents near our uncles.
Since my uncles worked as waiters in the Lodge, and, since there was no need for tool-and-die
makers in Estes Park, my father applied for a position at the same lodge. When he told the
interviewer that he was Swiss, it was assumed that he must be a cook, so, they gave him a big
chefs knife and put him to work cutting up the chickens. (Anyway this is the way the story was
told to us.) Since the work was seasonal, and jobs were scarce, my father and the rest of us
(including my mother's brothers) eventually moved back to Chicago.
My father had natural-born talent for anything mechanical or for anything that could be made
with his own two hands. He was also an expert photographer who developed and processed all
his own photographs. My brother and I, by age 12, were in the darkroom learning to process and
print our own photographs 1. During his stints at various upscale hotels and restaurants in and
around Chicago (initially as a waiter, and then maitre 'd), he built (including the cabinets) 8-tube
heterodynes and l6-tube superheterodynes (powerful, top-of-the-line types ofradios, at the time)
which he sold to well-to-do residents living along Lake Michigan, north of Chicago.
In 1937, on the 25th anniversary of my parents' arrival in this country they, my brother and I,
went to Europe to visit grandparents and other family members. At a stop in Otto beuren, in
south Bavaria were relatives who had three daughters. Of course, the girls wanted me to stay,
and I wanted to stay. My parents (thinking I would get bored very soon) made me promise that I
would stay at least six months. I kept that promise, and, in fact, I stayed and returned in 1940
after having lived in the Black Forest, Basel, ZUrich and Paris. Only WWII convinced me it was
I My brother, Hermi, in fact, went on to become a professional photographer and, after the war, until his death in
1986, he and his partner had a commercial photo studio in Denver, Colorado, which was the largest of it's kind
between Chicago and San Francisco.
3
time to leave - that and the fact that the last passenger ship to leave Europe for the U.S. was
leaving on February 14,1940, from Genoa, Italy.
After a short stint as a a member of the aerial photography branch ofthe U.S. Air Force at Canute
Field in Champaign-Urbana, Illiniois, during the beginning of WWII, my brother, Hermi, signed
up for Officers Training School in Denver. My parents, wanting to be near him, sold their house
in Wilmette, Illinois, and settled in Evergreen, Colorado. Well, as happened to others, he was
moved around quite a bit and was finally shipped to the Pacific theater of action. But my parents
did not leave Evergreen.
Meanwhile, after the war, I went to work for the goverrunent with U.N.R.R.A. (United Nations
Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) and sailed to Germany, again, in 1945. While over
there, I eventually ended up working for the OMGB (Office of Military Goverrunent for
Bavaria).
After having read an article about Aspen in Time magazine, in the summer of 1947, while on
leave, I traveled to Aspen and bought the west Hyman lot from a Jim (can't remember his last
name) who was one of those people who bought up lots at that time just by paying the back taxes
due. I paid $500 for my lot, and, when I went back to my job in Bavaria, I tried to convince all
my ski-loving friends to buy in Aspen. Apparently, none of them saw it as a place to live or even
to invest in. I was vindicated however when, later on, and it was too late, they admitted that I
had been the smart one.
Even my parents didn't think I was too smart. When my father first saw Aspen he was definitely
not impressed. We walked into the lobby of the Hotel Jerome for a look-around. Hanging down
from the ceiling on a very long cord was a bare light bulb above the reception desk. That was
all the light there was. The only place to eat was the White Kitchen or the Red Onion. I
remember my father saying he wouldn't want to be "caught dead in such a place." Well, all that
changed by the time I came home from Germany in 1954.
After my return to the U.S., I came to Colorado and settled in with my parents in Evergreen.
Some time later, I started working through Manpower as temporary office help. It was great for
me because I could work a week, then take a week off for skiing in Aspen, then go back and
renew the procedure. It worked out fine for me and, for a while, I became what was known as a
"ski burn."
Then, one day while I was pausing on the ski slope, a tall body whizzed by me and with that
shape, all in black, I knew it had to be Pat (Costello) Moore. I caught up with her and we got
reacquainted. We ,had met in Munich where we both worked in Military Goverrunent for
Bavaria (General George Patton's 3rd Army Headquarters.) She told me that Sara and Army
Armstrong (whom we both knew from Germany) had a restaurant called the Copper Kettle on
West Hopkins Street in a little Victorian house; (at the time, they could seat about 20 people (if
that many) downstairs and maybe 12 or 15 upstairs). And that's the way the Copper Kettle got
started. Pat told me to bring my dirndl (a dress and apron native to Bavaria) and she would putame to work with her - waitressing.
4
During my travels to Europe before the after the war, I had been inspired by the chalet-style
houses I had seen during my travels in Bavaria, the Black Forest in Germany, in Austria (the
Tyrol), in northern Italy and Switzerland. Each had its own style depending upon in which
country or state it was built in.
With regard to the west Hyman lot, I had thought, initially, about building, a small Bavarian-style
hotel for skiers. I don't remember when I dropped that idea in favor of a single house. In any
event, my father and I began building my house in the chalet-style in the summer of 1954.
This worked out just fine for me because the Copper Kettle was open only for dinner. I could
report for duty as "salad preparer" in the afternoon and could work on the house with my father
in the mornings and on Mondays when the Kettle was closed. We got a lot done on the house that
first summer.
There were no architectural drawings for the house. Once we had the foundation poured, we just
"put it together" as it came along. I knew what I wanted and that's what we accomplished. We
built to fit the space (as it were). Whatever creative work I did I could not have done without my
father and what he taught me. I think we were a good team. Needless to say, after having done
extensive remodeling on our house in Wilmette, Illinois, and the house in Evergreen (as well as
building a small chalet), by himself, there wasn't anything my father couldn't accomplish
building-wise. After he completed all the plumbing and electrical work, the house was finished
in 1956.
Having met my husband during the previous ski season, we married on Christmas Eve, 1956, and
moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he had been attending the Harvard Law School.
My parents had moved into the Aspen house in 1955 as soon as there was a viable roof on the
first floor. After the house was completed, they moved upstairs and the downstairs apartment
was rented out, over the years, to various renters, some of whom are still living in Aspen
(including Gerhard Mayritsch and his wife Elsbeth who rented the downstairs apartment when
they first came to Aspen).
From that point on, as residents of Aspen, my parents became an integral part of the community
of "old-timers" (those who had come to Aspen just after the war) and came to be known, around
town, as "Ma and Pa B." Since my father had retired, at this point, he did odd jobs around town
for people such as Pat Moore and others who required his carpentry and mechanical talents.
One of the things my mother became known for was her Gugelhupjs (a German coffee-cake
baked in a Bundt pan). Since she had asked the workers at the post office to save new blocks of
stamps for her (which she would send to me for my collection), she wonld bake two Gugelhupjs
every week, one for her and my father and one of which she would take down to the post office
for the personnel, there, as thanks. Needless to say, she never had many problems with her mail.
Friends I had known during my government work in Germany as well as friends from back east
would always come around as much as for mother's cooking as for my father's advice on
anything that they were doing or having done with regard to carpentry or building work. Such
people included: Sarah and Army Armstrong (who started the Copper Kettle), Gerhard Mayritsch
5
(who, with his business-partner, Helmut, started the Wienerstube), Pat Moore, of course, (who
had her gallery downtown), Michael Behrendt (who bought and ran the St. Moritz Lodge for a
long time), Kurt and Lottie Bresnitz (who owned a jewelry store downtown for many years), and
Walter and Herta Mueller, who they knew from Chicago, many years ago, when Walter first
came to America.
Father was also an avid fisherman, and, whenever we would come out to visit during summer
vacations, we were always taking trips out to Maroon and Castle Creek to fish for trout. He kept
a worm-farm in an old metal cooler on the ground at the back of the house from which we always
dutifully filled up our bait-holders. There was nothing quite like fresh trout cooked in butter with
a little lemon squeezed on top to make it all worth while.
In December of 1972, my mother, while taking a walk, slipped on the ice, fell and broke her hip.
Her hip had to be replaced, and, with the need for extensive rehabilitation, I moved my parents
from Aspen to our house in Stanford, California. This, unfortunately, ended their residence of 17
years in Aspen. We lost my father in August of 197 4 (at the age of 84), and my mother in 1979
(at the age of 87). Condolences were received from our friends in Aspen who fondly
remembered them for their many years there. In 1980, I returned to Aspen and hired a small
plane from which I spread some of their ashes over Aspen mountain.
Staff finds that this story, and its connection to the Aspen Community Development
Department's paper on the history of Chalet architecture in Aspen (attached), qualifies the
property for historic designation under criterion A; relationship to an event, pattern, or
trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history.
Genevieve Birlauf Leininger was drawn to Aspen because of the international buzz that was
being generated as early as the late 1940's. She came for the skiing and found a community that
was highly influenced by European, particularly the Germanic culture that was familiar to her
family. Ms. Leininger has reported that she was well aware of the other Chalet style buildings
that were going up in Aspen at the time her house was built, which would have included The
Prospector Lodge, Norway Lodge, Skiers Chalet, Holland House, Guido's, and other private
homes.
The Prospector Lodge, built in 1947
Guido's Swiss Inn, built in 1951
6
Along with constructing a Chalet style home in Aspen, Ms.
Leininger participated in the culture of the time by waitressing at
the Cooper Kettle, where the staff wore traditional German
clothing. This expression of Aspen as an international resort with
a European flavor was also present at Guido's Restaurant, and
continues today at The Wienerstube, which opened in 1965. The
Birlauf family had many local friends who had immigrated from
Europe, and while living in Aspen they continued to celebrate
their heritage as seen below.
Waitress at Guido's
· iJ r-!l~ ~ :;
. .'w'.",
""'-'". .'
.+~'.'~".'
+'~~ ..
" .....-
.
..I
Birlauf wedding anniversary, 1966
Although compliance with landmark criteria A, as noted above, is enough to qualify the
property for designation, 312 W. Hyman also meets criterion C, in that it represents a
physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized
designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. The Birlauf home was
built right at the foot of the ski slope, with the gateway onto the mountain at the time being
blocks away, at the top of Aspen Street. It was built on an angle to face the mountain. Historic
pictures of the surrounding neighborhood show a pattern of Chalet structures being integrated
into the Victorian fabric. Approximately two years after 312 W. Hyman was completed, the St.
Moritz Lodge was built next door. This style of architecture exemplifies the social and
architectural history of Aspen as it began developing as a ski resort.
~
.~':
Historic view from 312 W. Hyman
property towards Aspen Mountain
7
View from deck (before railings were built), of
Chalet and Victorian buildings in neighborhood.
312 W. Hyman was truly "hand-built" in a way that no longer happens today. All woodwork was
created on site and power tools would have been extremely limited. Ms. Leininger reports that
the building materials for the cinderblock and stucco ground floor were new, but the materials for
the second story were purchased from a salvager in town who demolished older buildings and
sold the wood. The Birlaufs received a City building permit, but did not draw plans, instead
working from a common vision they had for a mountain home.
The fireplace inside the home was built by current Aspen resident Sepp Kessler, an Austrian born
ski instructor and mountain guide who moved to Aspen after World War II. At the time he
referred to the building as "a real schmuckkastchen," which means jewel box.
Genevieve Birlauf describes her father as a wonderful craftsman who could do it all. He was 22
when he came to US and had no prior building experience, but did have carpentry experience
including clock-making in Switzerland. There was an obvious pride in the workmanship of this
house. The current owner once showed HPC staff a matchbook left on the site that was signed
by Herman Birlauf, noting his birthplace of Basel, Switzerland. Ms. Birlauf has indicated that
there is a note in the cornerstone ofthe foundation that says "This house was hand-built by Julius
Herman Birlauf." The family had first hand knowledge of authentic Chalet buildings, and had the
technical ability to construct such a home.
Attached to this memo is a paper authored by the Community Development, providing some of
the history of chalet architecture in Aspen. Community Development's chalet architecture
research paper states:
To be eligible for historic designation, a chalet style building in Aspen should exhibit the
following distinctive characteristics:
. A large singular roof form, generally low in slope, with the ridge running along the short
dimension of the structure. This roof usually covers the entire structure without interrnption.
The eave of the roof usually comes down to a low plate height at the upper level of the
structure. In some residential structures, the upper level only exists under the roof structure
with no side walls.
. Deep overhangs with the structure of the roof expressed on the underside, eaves and rakes
decorated with cutouts and fretwork barge boards. The peak is generally highlighted by a
larger decorative element hanging downward.
. The footprint of the building is usually rectangular with few deviations from that
geometry as the structures go up.
. Continuous porches running the circumference of the structure, or at least the length of
the primary side.
. Decorative elements, usually two dimensional, such as balustrades of vertical boards
spaced apart having cutouts providing both a positive and negative shape. Shapes are
generally hearts, edelweiss, snowflakes, or other decorative themes from nature.
8
. The structures usually sit on a white stucco base, up to the second floor. This base may
have vertical or battered walls. Openings in this area are generally minimal, with wood
lintels.
. Above the stucco base, vertical siding extends to the roof line. The edge of the siding
against the stucco base is usually decorative as well. Vertically staggering the siding creates
a scalloped edge. At times, the floor structure extends through the wall with decorative ends
engaging the stucco.
. Windows are generally horizontally proportioned and are used sparingly. They are sliders
or casements, with a center mullion. Shutters and flower boxes are used to decorate the
window openings. These elements have similar detailing to the balustrades.
. Colors are restricted to the white of the stucco base, the dark brown of the wood walls,
eaves, balustrades, etc. Bright colors are used sparingly to accent the eaves and balustrades
and other decorative elements. Murals and painted decorative details are sometimes found on
the stucco surface.
Staff finds that these architectural characteristics are present at 312 W. Hyman. In addition, the
building was built during the "period of historic significance" (a term used to define the time
span during which the style gained architectural, historical, or geographical importance,) which,
through research of other similar buildings, has been established locally as approximately 1946 to
the mid 1960's. Although this style was at one time more common in Aspen, there are only
approximately 12 buildings left in town that might be considered important within the Chalet
style. They include residences, lodges and commercial structures. Only two have landmark
protection in place.
312 W. Hyman meets two of the three designation criteria, which leaves the question of integrity
to be evaluated. Integrity can be measured through the scoring system that HPC has developed.
312 W. Hyman is well preserved in overall form and design intent. Some trim elements have
been removed, however, staff was recently informed by Mr. Gerberg that he has retained those
items in storage, therefore they can be put back in place. Staffs integrity assessment is that the
property warrants 89 out of 100 points, which is above the 75 point minimum requirement. This
building has a high degree of architectural integrity and is one of the best remaining examples of
Aspen's Chalet history, in staffs opinion.
The groundwork for recognizing examples of Aspen's rich post-war history has been laid for
many years, at least as early as the designation of Lift 1 in 1974. The 1986 Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan stated the designation of significant modem buildings as a priority. The
existing HPC design guidelines, written in 2000, include a number of modem styles, such as
Chalet, as architectural styles of significance to Aspen. There is no reason to believe that the
Victorian era is the only part of our history that produced buildings worth saving.
Staff supports landmark designation for this property finding that the review criteria are met.
Council may approve or disapprove of the landmark request, or a continuance for additional
information necessary to make a decision. Council may choose to accept the integrity analysis
provided by staff or formulate its own rating for the property.
9
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council support adoption of Ordinance #45, Series
of 2006, landmark designation of 312 W. Hyman Avenue, Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #45, Series of2006.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance #45, Series of2006
A. Photographs of312 W. Hyman Avenue taken in September 2006.
B. Photographs of312 W. Hyman Avenue from the 1950's and 1960's.
C. Time Magazine article from 1947; the inspiration for Genevieve BirlauPs arrival in Aspen.
D. Original building permit for 312 W. Hyman.
E. Property survey.
F. Aspen's 20th Century Architecture: Chalet Style- a paper written by the Community
Development Department.
G. Architectural Inventory Form, 312 W. Hyman A venue- completed by the Community
Development Department.
H. Integrity Assessment, 312 W. Hyman Avenue- completed by the Community Development
Department.
10
ORDINANCE NO. 45
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 312 WEST HYMAN
AVENUE, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 46, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO TO THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK
SITES AND STRUCTURES
Parcel ID #: 2735-124-64-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Aspen, pursuant to Section 26.4l5.030.C, has
initiated Historic Landmark review to add the property located at 312 W. Hyman Avenue,
Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado to the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The property is owned by Jordan Gerberg, but is
under contract to be purchased by the City; and
WHEREAS, 312 W. Hyman Avenue was previously nominated by the City for inclusion
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in 2000, but the designation
process was never concluded and City Council, who has the final determination on this
issue, neither approved nor denied the designation; and
WHEREAS, the City has completed all necessary public hearing requirements as of
October 22, 2006 for this application and the owner has been provided proper notice of
all hearing dates; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process
for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a
recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets
the criteria; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her HPC staff report dated November 8, 2006, performed
an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had
been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 8, 2006, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the
review standards and recommended denial of the application by a vote of3 to 2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meets or exceeds all applicable
standards and that the addition of 312 West Hyman Avenue as a historic landmark to the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The City Council finds that the application is complete and sufficient to afford review and
evaluation for approval; and
Section 2
The City Council does hereby approve designation of the property located at 312 W.
Hyman Avenue, Lots P and Q, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado to the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, subject to the City closing on
its purchase of the property.
Section 3:
312 W. Hyman Avenue will be released from the temporary stay of demolition for
properties under consideration for Designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures after the effective.date of this Ordinance, thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 4:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jnrisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 12'h day of March, 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
Section 7:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of November, 2006.
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of March, 2007.
Helen Kalin KJanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
E3'fJ1llo I t A
"~
, .
~~-
-
INTER~
~\~I\D
...
,
.~""
~ .
,"
'"
,
- ..
.
..M..
. "
-:~
~,
. ~
JULY 1957
.',.
TIME. com Print Page: TIME Magazine -- Ghost on Skis
~tA\~I.\-
C
Page 1 of2
TIME
FROM THE MAGAZINE
Monday, Jan" 20,1947
Ghost on Skis
Just before it became a ghost in 1894, .the crowded, rough mining town of
Aspen, Colo, had a last burst of excitement. From Smuggler Mine on a
nearby sJope, prospectors took out a nugget of almost pure silver weighing
2,060 pounds.
Last week, after years of deathlike quiet, the boarded-up ghost town had
stirred in its creaking coffm-and emerged into a new life. In a three-day-
long celebration, Aspen (pop. 1,500) marked its rebi..~w.1. as a skiin.g center.
Colorado's Governor Lee Knous gave Edith Robinson, daughter of Aspenjs
mayor, a push off to open the is,OOO-ft. ski tow, longest in the world (see
cut). With six l4,000-foot peaks near by, plenty of dry, powdery snow, and
multi-million-dollar backing, Aspen was out to become the top winter-sport
playground in the U.S.
The prospector who mined this lode was eupeptic Walter P. Paepcke
(pronounced pepkey), founder and board chairman of Container Corp. of
America. He fIrst saw Aspen about a year and a half ago, on a skiing
expedition from his Colorado dude ranch. The dilapidated houses, barns
and chicken coops-remains of a town that once had 16 hotels, an opera
house and three theaters-were depressing. But the breathtaking scenery
made Mr. Paepcke, a deep-breathing man of many ideas, take a deep
breath.
Before he went home to Chicago,
Paepcke bought one of the old houses, soon returned to buy or lease most
of the other buildings. He thought of rebuilding the whole town. But the
more he looked at the buildings, the more their quaint, ghostly flavor got
him. Result: when he hired Designer Herbert Bayer as architect, Mr.
Paepcke (who is the principal backer of Chicago's arty Institute of Design)
" gave orders that Aspen's once-Gay Nineties atmosphere was to be
preserved to the last piece of gingerbread.
Bayer, who bought an Aspen house himself and promptly settled in it,
followed orders. In refurbishing the Jerome Hotel, he kept the water-
powered elevator, run by ropes pulled by the passengers. While blonde &
beautiful Mrs. Paepcke hunted Victorian furniture in Chicago, dormitories,
l-.++....../I~TT'n,..n'+;__ _____/...~ __ _ f
TIME. com Print Page: TIME Magazine -- Ghost on Skis
Page 2 of2
20 guest houses and a sundeck were built, the ski slopes were cleared, a
movie house, roller rink and art gallery were constructed. Paepcke imported
a chef from Switzerland, a wine expert from Chicago. Ski instructors,
plumbers and mechanics trooped in. Overnight, the moribund little town
became the liveliest spot in Colorado.
Keep in Balance. Paepcke invited such friends as United Air Lines's
William A. Patterson, Hilton Hotels' Connie Hilton, Palmer House
Manager Joseph Binns to invest in the project, up to $5,000. But most of
the bills, more than $1,000,000 so far, were paid by Paepcke. During the
fIrst week of business, the gross return on this investment was about $2,500
a day (hotel rates ran from $4 to $14 without meals). With 25 lakes and
1,000 miles of trout strearns within a 20-mile radius, Aspen should do
equally well during the summer.
But Paepcke is not overly concerned about fIgures. He believes that
Americans are too extreme both at work and at play. At Aspen he would
like to create a symbol of balance. To do so he plans to promote industries
in Aspen that will make woodwork out of native aspen, jewelry out of
native silver, clothes out of mountain sheep's wool, cheese from the milk of
local cattle. It will be no accident, however, ifPaepcke, whose Container
Corp. does some $75,000,000 ,vort..l-} of business a year, also tt1rns A..spen
into a tidy profit.
eopyright (0 2006 Time Inc. AU rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Privacy Policy
"hffT'lo//nr<.l.rnr +;..........'" ,...,...,.......1...:__1___ _ __
" .
.".
:...
t;~ 3 td-. .
.~. '--. ~.
APP LrCATION E'()R
w-
l~c7 -
BUILDING ;PERMIT
~~,lo\~
"'b
-,~
. ''-ii.;, _:",/;.}:.::\:[-:;.~:
TO THE CITl:. OF asPEN
Aspen, ColOrado
- . ,
The undersigned hereby requests permi,ssion to perform and do the
work,rep~irs, construction, alteratiOIl or ~development hereimifier,
described and":further agrees to do said work in accordance with this. .' .
apP1-ication and in accordance with the plans and specificati611~ supmitted
herewith.. This application is made with th'e specific understalldingthat
it ,is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to compiy with the .
" tehnsQ!'C::onditions upon Wl1ich i,t is approved.
j~;
);
Location: Lot ~ ;. ,='il! Q
BlockV!5
. ~ .
i '. . ~..aj1)J,;ti .4..,'~'~ .'. '< }
De~GripHonof Structure: (Spedfywidth, length, square feet, type.of; '.
"'~"'. .........,.~'L',,~i,'j,'20IlStr~Stion. typ~of roof, etc. )"';!i'X_'4ii:t...~~ '~~,f3~d ,~..;:
:,~~~~"'~~~r~ . . "',.~~l~";;:~~~ci~(:
.' 'Intel1ded Use and PUrpose: .;-;".jl~~ifi ~~"."f${" ~ . '" ~ '.>' '> .f;"Z;':'
:--' '''., -, "T>'. :!'t - '; ~'.'--I' .
i..",
.,.'<-'--.....
Estimated C6$t of Con~truction: .<!!''''='''"",,,",''
. . ,....'"'''''''.,.........,.'':'l,....'q\l!l; ,...
Distance from lot lines: N..,- ~.; S..,.:~ J!l!fl E__~~$1!' .
. ~ '. . ~
Name of Contractor or Buildet:l~ ~'" ~$.*"F't"'.
. Name. and Address of Owner: "'~""~ '~"'-'...m"""'
-t'lO. .;~~_ "':"~_~', :..,~.
. "c'-
- ;;.,
";">. .-.,,:-':Z-{i;',:; -",-<;,-';~
. "'....,; '.'
W "'".
.--,Q.'"
-'-....;
.","
....J;
. Additional Remarks:
~~~ ~ lic:t4..
_.... "_C'.'
:....,.
,~~ ~:h ...} ~
~'::,:.-...i~.- >__l-r~~if,~"": ,. !1,
;!'>:r:;-,",~-k'~l1'fU:..tvt/f '.
Applicap.t ... 1
By
APPLICATION (Approved) ~~~.'Th.i.s. .$ day.of
subjeCt t.o the following conditions:.. - .
.--.
~
>
195'4"
:;""
"~."
~.~~--
'. . ""~"~;i
"-\' -
.r"~
k'.,: ,~- '+"~-'7
~r:i#~~ ;!~j -~l]~' ---
,~, ,'cjfu U -:. ..~'l:1}, it! " -'" ~
,..., f ,"~', '- ~ri~,--"""-l'\"~~" ""
, City Building Inspector
- - _ _~ _____.."_0 __. _
--._--- -~_.
p
co
o
o
o
~
NEIGHeo. RS TIE. R11:-AINI/'iG
I ....ALL 8ULG(S 0..,. III LUlL
~ IN THIS J.AE4
'" ,
1
!
.1
\J
r.
\
\
'"'
r=(T)
0...
C
...,
o
v
z
5 750"J9' II'" E
l\at+ E-
6000
Q
I
I
o
I
I
I
I
~\
'?o \
~~ \
\\
\.
o
o
o
o
,
I
I
IS\O?-i
st...
. Cl '0
.y,..
3; ~.
~
en .
...
C
'"
0
v
,
.~
/
!~.~~-
,
,
c-
~I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
G'
~
."
L
\
<".
"
\
\
"'"
~
>
L
<"
'"
"
.L
\
\
\
N 75009'11" W
60.00'
~l1lL \+ t=-
ASPEN'S 20th CENTURY ARCHITECTURE:
CHALET STYLE BUILDINGS
When the bottom fell out of the silver mining industry in 1893, Aspenites considered
resuscitating the economy by capitalizing on the town's inherent beauty in an effort to attract
tourists to the valley. However, it was not until almost 40 years later, at a time when skiing as a
recreational sport was beginning to take hold in the United States, that Aspen found its true
calling.
Tom Flynn, Billy Fiske, and Ted Ryan were among the first to acknowledge Aspen's
potential as a premier ski resort and were the principal investors in the Highland Bavarian Lodge,
a Chalet Style structure built in the Castle Creek Valley in 1936. The development of the
Highland Bavarian Lodge was the fIrst attempt to emulate European resorts, a trend that would
continue for over thirty years (well into the 1960's) as the town tried to prove its legitimacy to
tourists, and compete with famous destinations such as St. Mortiz and Chamonix.
The idea of creating a ski area in the United States that mimicked the look and character
of European resorts was being discussed by another town at the time as well. Sun Valley, the
first destination ski resort in North America, was the brainchild of Averell Harriman, who sought
to imitate Swiss and Austrian villages. The Challenger Ski Lodge, built at Sun Valley in 1937,
was also modeled after the European Chalet Style. Architect Gilbert Stanley was asked to design
"something like a Tyrolean village."[ Using the imagery of the Alps was considered by some to
be important to the success of the new resorts, in effect, subtly suggesting that America's slopes
could rival Europe's. Harriman was disappointed with Stanley's initial design, so he then asked
Hollywood art director Ernst Fegte to design a Tyrolean fa9ade. The resulting building was
painted to resemble a cluster of chalets, and was later used as the set for Claudette Colbert's
movie Swiss Ski Adventure.2
Highland Bavarian Lodge, built in 1936
The development of the Highland
Bavarian Lodge in Aspen was not unlike the
example in Sun Valley, albeit on a much
smaller scale, and without the Idaho resort's
immediate success. The earliest tourism
promotions for Aspen appealed to one's sense
of adventure and the ruggedness of the Rocky
Mountains-boasting of hunting, fishing and
seclusion. However, the Lodge's brochure,
penned by humorist Robert Benchley in 1936,
took on more international flair and stated,
"Aspen, Colorado is a place where you can
indulge in winter sports without having to get a
passport, wrestle with the Atlantic, stop in Paris
at the expense of your health, and come all the
I Wendolyn Spence Holland, Sun Valley: An Extraordinary History, 230.
2
Holland, 230.
1
way back again.',3 Benchley's brochure for the lodge went on to say 'loU can have just as good
a time falling down there as you can on any of the European slopes." Benchley also assured
potential clients that the snow in America was as good as any place in Europe. The lodge itself
consisted of a dining room and living room heated by a big fireplace, and two double-decker
bunkrooms that could accommodate sixteen people.5 The building was nestled in a picturesque
setting and designed by architect Gordon Kauffman. Jimmy Bodrero, an artist from the Disney
Studios, created the decorative motif. (Involvement of individuals from the movie industry with
the design elements in both Sun Valley and Aspen suggested the importance, from the outset, of
creating a specific European-like mountain "scene" in these emerging ski towns.)
The effort to create a ski area around the Highland Bavarian drew to Aspen the fIrst of
the European ski specialists who saw striking similarities in terrain to the Alps. Andre Roch, a
Swiss avalanche expert, and Dr. Gunther Langes, an Italian, were hired to spend a year exploring
the Aspen area to determine the best location for skiing. The Highland Bavarian Lodge investors
sought legitimacy for their project by consulting with the well known Europeans. Roch asserted
that the mountains immediately surrounding the town were insufficient, and he and Langes
eventually settled on the upper Castle Creek Valley, where the ghost town of Ashcroft is located,
and Mt. Hayden rises above the valley. Roch envisioned Ashcroft's transformation into a Swiss
village. Historian Anne Gilbert writes, "Andre Roch had found the perfect place to develop a ski
resort. He knew that the Americans in the 1930's were interested in skiing and they would pay
to ski at a resort reminiscent of the Alps.',6
The personal records of Ted Ryan included a plan for a Swiss-style village, and series of
trams to shuttle skiers up to the top of the surrounding mountains. But the dream of the Swiss
village at Ashcroft died with the onset of World War II, and with the death of Billy Fiske, who
was killed in action. It was revived for a short time after the War- the vision changed to a new,
Hollywood inspired "Wild West" village- but plans were eventually scrapped altogether. The
focus of ski resort development in the Roaring Fork Valley shifted, instead, from Castle Creek to
Aspen Mountain, where the fIrst "Boat Tow" had been built in 1937 (modeled after those used at
Kitzbuhl, Austria), and where Roch had laid out Aspen's first ski run.
Europe's stylistic influence on America's destination resorts went beyond physical layout
and design of the buildings, however. Along with technical authorities such as Roch, American
resorts recruited top ski instructors from Europe in the 1930's and 1940's, which, given the
political turmoil of Europe, proved less than diffIcult. In fact, all of Sun Valley's first instructors
were Austrian, and wore Tyrolean uniforms.
th
Many of the same ski instructors later joined the 10 Mountain Division, an elite
mountaineering division of the United States Army, which led to their discovery of Aspen on
weekend leaves from the training base at Camp Hale (near Leadville). After the war, many
veterans returned to the area, among them Friedl Pfeifer, a talented and well-known skier from
3
Robert Benchley, "How to Aspen," 1936~
4
Benchley
5 Anne Gilbert, Re-creation Through Recreation' Aspen Skiingfrom 1870 to 1970, 17~
6 Gilbert, 22.
2
St. Anton, Austria. Pfeifer had run the Tyrolean influenced ski school at Sun Valley prior to the
War, but moved to Aspen at the end of the War to help create a resort in the area that reminded
him most of home. In his memoirs, Nice Goin': Mv Life on Skis, Pfeifer recalls his first
impression of Aspen: "The mountain peaks looming over the town made me feel like I was
returning to St. Anton."?
Elli's of Aspen
The Aspen Skiing Corporation, which
Pfeifer co-founded in 1946 with Walter Paepke,
differed fundamentally in its design philosophy
from Sun Valley, primarily due to the direction of
Chicago industrialist Walter Paepcke, and artist
Herbert Bayer, who was the architect of many of
the first Ski Company's first buildings. The
Bauhaus style favored by these men did not lend
itself to the design of chalets. Nevertheless,
Pfeifer's association with Aspen helped to give it
an international flair, which attracted a number of
Europeans to move here after the war.
Several of these individuals, including
Fred and Elli Iselin, opened small businesses in
town and applied the Chalet influences
reminiscent of their hometowns to their
buildings. Businesses such as Epicure, served
up European pastries. Elli' s of Aspen sold fIne
European ski clothing, located in a Victorian
building across from the Hotel Jerome for four
decades, and quickly established Aspen as a
sophisticated ski town. Elli' s fa9ade was
decorated with ski figures and edelweiss, again
reinforcing the Tyrolean influence in Aspen.
Similarly, according to a 1954 Aspen Times
article, The Little Nell Cafe, a modest log cabin
located slope side on Aspen Mountain, was
decorated with a coat of arms representing the
states of Switzerland.8 The owner, a Swiss
immigrant, was honoring his homeland with the
designs on the exterior fa9ade. Additionally, of course, lodges were the building type that
employed the Chalet style most commonly, and even residents who were not recently
immigrated from Europe incorporated the style into their properties.
The Prospector Lodge, 301 E. Hyman
Avenue, built in 1947,since demolished and
replaced
? Friedl Pfeifer, Mv Life on Skis, Ill.
8 Aspen Times, January 14, 1954, 4.
3
Comparisons to European ski resorts were also
evident in advertising. Sun Valley's brochures boasted of
Austrian ski instructors and appealed to elite visitors who
traveled both by train and plane. The Aspen Chamber of
Commerce's advertising throughout the 1950's and
1960' s had this character as well. In a brochure
promoting lodging and accommodations, the Norway
Lodge notes "the intimacy and charm of an old world inn,
at Aspen's No. 1 chairlift.,,9 In the same brochure the
Skiers Chalet and Steak House and Edelweiss also
emphasize their "chalet" accommodations. In a multi-
page pamphlet, entitled "Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town,"
created
by the
Chamber, there are several passages that
emphasize Aspen as an international resort
with a European flavor. "In fact," the
brochure states on the opening page, "Aspen
knows few rivals. No European resort today
can advertise a larger, more elaborate, more
luxurious ski village right at the foot of the
slopes."lo Several pages later, when
discussing Aspen's nightlife, the brochure
claims, "It has been said that Aspen's
reputation as a ski-and-fun town rivals, indeed
overshadows, that of the most celebrated
European ski resorts."ll
The Norway Lodge, built in 1954
Skier's Chalet, 71 0 S. Aspen Street, built
in 1955
Perhaps "Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town" best summarized Aspen's
1950's international design character: "Modern Aspen is a study in
architectural contrasts, ranging from Swiss baroque to contemporary
American."l2 Promoting Aspen's varied architectural styles further
emphasizes the importance and influence of the Chalet style in our
town's history. Unlike Vail (which created a later Hollywood "scene" as
a Tyrolean village) the early Western American ski resort towns like Sun
Valley and Aspen were an eclectic mix of Chalets, Rustic Style
buildings, and Victorian structures from the 19th and early 20th century
mining and ranching days. Fortunately for Aspen, Chalet Style
buildings from the post-War period still exist today. The lodges,
Mountain Chalet, built in 1958
9"Lodging and Accommodations" brochure, Written Material File: Tourism 1950s and 1960s, HeritageAspen
Archives.
lOAspen, Wonderful Ski Town, Pamphlet, Written Material File: Tourism 1950s and 1960s, HeritageAspen Archives.
llAspen, Wonderful Ski Town, 12
l2Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town, 21
4
many of which still personify European warmth and hospitality, exemplify the social and
architectural history of the community as it began developing into an international ski resort.
Who knew that in 1936, the Highland Bavarian Lodge, the only structure built in Aspen
in the wake of the Silver Crash in 1893, would influence a design period in which an imported
style would take hold? Aspen's post-War Chalet Style
lodges included The Prospector (built in 1947, and
since demolished), the Norway Lodge (1954), Skier's
Chalet (1955), the Holland House (1956), and
Mountain Chalet (1958). Guido's Restaurant (1951)
was the best example of a downtown building in the
Chalet style, but unfortunately, was demolished before
the style could be recognized as an important part of
our heritage. Classic examples of the style built as
residences well into the 1960's, also still remain.
Eligibility Considerations
949 w: Smuggler Street, built in
1946
There are specifIc physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect
the signifIcance of the historic context. The characteristics of the Chalet Style, whose origins in
Europe date from the 1700's, include: moderately shallow roof pitches, horizontal design
elements, prominent wood balconies with cut-out railings, and decorative bargeboard trim.
Delicate painted details are sometimes found on the bargeboards, and on wall surfaces.
Sometimes the buildings will have applied half timbering. The best of Aspen's remaining
examples of this important style exemplify these classic features.
Cresta Haus, East Cooper Avenue, since
altered
Paint color also plays an important role
in this style. Typically, the body of the building
is dark brown, and trim is painted in a light
color, or the reverse; white walls with dark
stained or painted trim. Primary exterior
materials are stucco and wood.
To be eligible for historic designation, a
chalet style building in Aspen should exhibit the
following distinctive characteristics:
. A large singular roof form, generally low in
slope, with the ridge running along the short
dimension of the structure. This roof usually
covers the entire structure without interruption.
The eave of the roof usually comes down to a
low plate height at the upper level of the
5
structure. In some residential structures, the upper level only exists under the roof structure
with no side walls.
. Deep overhangs with the structure of the roof expressed on the underside, eaves and rakes
decorated with cutouts and fretwork bargeboards. The peak is generally highlighted by a
larger decorative element hanging downward.
. The footpriut of the building is usually rectangular with few deviations from that geometry as
the structures go up.
. Continuous porches running the circumference of the structure, or at least the length of the
primary side.
. Decorative elements, usually two dimensional, such as balustrades of vertical boards spaced
apart having cutouts providing both a positive and negative shape. Shapes are generally
hearts, edelweiss, snowflakes, or other decorative themes from nature.
. The structures usually sit on a white stucco base, up to the second floor. This base may have
vertical or battered walls. Openings in this area are generally minimal, with wood lintels.
. Above the stucco base, vertical siding extends to the roof line. The edge of the siding against
the stucco base is usually decorative as well. Vertically staggering the siding creates a
scalloped edge. At times, the floor structure extends through the wall with decorative ends
engaging the stucco.
. Windows are generally horizontally proportioned and are used sparingly. They are sliders or
casements, with a center mullion. Shutters and flower boxes are used to decorate the window
openings. These elements have similar detailing to the balustrades.
. Colors are restricted to the white of the stucco base, the dark brown of the wood walls, eaves,
balustrades, etc. Bright colors are used sparingly to accent the eaves and balustrades and
other decorative elements. Murals and painted decorative details are sometimes found on the
stucco surface.
The period of historic signifIcance for this style, which is a term used to define the time span
during which the style gained architectural, historical, or geographical importance, can be
defIned as approximately 1946 to the mid 1960' s. After that, the connection to the character-
defIning features described seems to break down. The decoration is toned down considerably,
and the upper floors are not clad in wood siding. Similarly, the examples of chalet structures that
have been built recently, which are relatively few in number, employ a more eclectic
combination of details and architectural features inconsistent with the earlier examples discussed
in this paper.
6
Base of Aspen Mountain
~
Guido's Restaurant
7
Guido's- Interior
Mountain Chalet
8
Lift 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aspen Times, January 14, 1954.
"Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town." Pamphlet. Written Material File: Tourism 1950s and 1960s,
HeritageAspen.
Benchley, Robert. "How to Aspen." Pamphlet. Written Material File: Skiing: Aspen, History,
HeritageAspen.
Gilbert, Anne M. Re-Creation Through Recreation: Aspen Skiing From 1870 to 1970.
1995. Aspen Historical Society, Aspen, Colorado.
Holland, Wendolyn Spence. Sun Vallev: An Extraordinarv Historv. San Francisco: Palace Press
International,1998.
"Lodging and Accommodations." Brochure. Written Material File: Tourism 1950s and 1960s,
HeritageAspen.
National Register of Historic Places, Multiple Property Documentation Form, Historic Resources
of Aspen (MRA) (amemdment), "Ski Developmeut Resources of Aspen," Roxanne Eflin,
1989.
Pfeifer, Friedl and Morton Lund. Nice Goin': Mv Life on Skis. Missoula: Pictorial Histories
Publishing Inc., 1993.
9
~~;lo\tG-
OAHP1403
Rev~ 9/98
COLORADO CUL rURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible- N R
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 1 of 4)
I. IDENTIFICATION
1. Resource number:
2. Temporary resource number:
3. County:
4. City:
5. Historic building name:
6. Current building name:
7. Building address:
8. Owner name and address:
5PT.959
312WHY
Pitkin
Asoen
312 West Hvman Ave. Aspen. Colorado 81611
Jordan V. Gerbero
PO Box 907 Laouna Beach. CA 92652
II. Geographic Information
9. P~M. 6 Township 10 South
Range 84 West
NW 14 of SW
10. UTM reference
Zone-L -L; -L ---L --L- -L --L- -LmE --L -L -L --L -L --L- -LmN
14 of SE ',4 of SE
14 of Section 7
11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadranole
Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scaie: 7.5'-2L- 15'_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section~
12. Lot(s): P & Q Block: 46
Addition: Year of Addition:
13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lots P & Q: Block 46 of the City and
Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-64-006
This description was chosen as the most specific and customary description of the "site.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building pian (footprint, shape): Rectanoular
15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width
16. Number of stories: Two StOry
17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Wood Sidino: Stucco
18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable- Roof
19. Primary external roof materiai (enter no more than one): Svnthetic Roof
20. Special features (enter all that appiy):
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT~959
312.wHY
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 2 of 2)
21. General architectural description: A wood frame structure on a full stOry heioht stucco base~ The
structure is oriented at an anole to the street. facino oenerally south. The ridoe of the structure runs the
lenoth of the rectanole exposino the oable end to the street. The stucco base has two oaraoe doors
centered on the facade, and an ooen deck above seryino the second level. The entry door is centered
on the oable end with horizontal windows on either side of the door. The main door. on the second level
is accessed by way of an exterior stair on the side of the buildina~ The stair and deck are sur~ounded by
a semi-solid rail with cut outs creatlna a positive / neaative detail around the oerimeter. the bottom edae
of the deck has a cut-out decorative trim board overhanaina the stucco wall below. The oable and eave
ends have a decorative scallooed fascia board with a droooed finial In the oeak and at the bottom of the
rake boards. The stucco base has battered walls on the south face. which become vertical walls on the
sides. horizontal wood sldino covers the maiority of the frame walls on the uPper level with at field of
vertical sidino. with the typical decorative ends. In the shallow oable end. The oerimeter of the structure
has ~Imila'r horizontal window ooeninos characteristic of this style. both in the stucco wall and the wood
frame wall en the west side a "'air of french doors 0 ens to the "ard with side Ii
...-
Ill~.
22. Architectural style/building type: Modern Movements: Noveltv
23. Landscaping or special setting features: One laroe and one medium soruce bracket the buHdina. other
sianificant trees at the perimeter. lawn infills under the trees.
24. Associated bUildings, features, or objects: none
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate
Actual 1954
Source of information: Asoen/Pitkin Community Develooment Department Files
26. Architect: Unknown
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor:
J. H. Birlauf of Basel Switzerland
Source of information: Asoen/Pitkin Community Develooment Department Files and note found on site
"
28. Original owner: Genevieve Birlauf
Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions):
Garaoe doors other minor alterations dates unknown
30. Original location 2L- Moved
Date of movers):
V. Historical Associations
31. Original users): Domestic
32. Intermediate users):
33. Current users): Domestic
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.959
312.wHY
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 3 of 3)
34. Site type(s):
Residential Neiohborhood
35. Historical background: This structure is reoresentative of Asoen's earlv deveiooment as a ski
resort. The 1932 Winter Olvmoics in Lake Placid. NY soarked an enthusiasm for skiino and Eurooean
sMe in the US. and skiers as well as lodoe owners came to Asoen and brouoht the characteristic
buildino stvle of the Tvrol to the area.
36. Sources of information: Asoen's Architectural Context. Post WWIL Dart of the 2000 Survev of
Historic Sites and Structures.
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: Yes
Designating authority:
38. Applicabie National Register Criteria:
No~
Date of designation:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our
history;
8. Associated 'vvith the lives of peisons significant in our past;
-X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Architp.ctlJrp.
40. Period of significance: Mid 1900's Skiino Develooment
41. Level of significance: National _ State _ Local lL
42. Statement of significance: This structure is sionificant for its oosition in the context of Asoen's
deveiooment as an international skiino resort~ It is indicative of the Eurooeans who came to oarticioate
in the develooment of the ski resort. and brouoht this Eurooean style with them. Durino this time manv
resorts were based on this stvle of blJildino end IJltimatp.lv the soort end the erchitectlJrAl stvle
became synonymous.
43. Assassment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Structure is intact in form. scale and"
oattern~
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible _ Not Eligible X Need Data
Resource Number:
Temporary Resource Number:
5PT.959
312WHY
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes _ No ~
Discuss:
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing
46. if the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contrlbuting_
Noncontributing _
Noncontributing _
VIII, Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: R 15: F32 33 Negatives filed at: Asoen/Pitkin Community Develooment Deot
48. Report title: City of Asoen Uodate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures 2000
49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Reid Architects
52. Address: 412 North Mill Street PO Box 1303 Asoen CO 81612
53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
312 W. Hyman
- ~/! ,.,
,~
'r. " ~
N
~~\l>I'+ M
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- CHALET
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
**** NOTE: THIS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON THE STATE OF 312 WEST
HYMAN WHEN LANDMARK DESIGNATION WAS INITIATED****
. LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5 - The structure is in its original location.
3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
o -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original
site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
. DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
.
space, structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 - The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still
intact.
6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
o - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
Staff response: 10- The original plan form is entirely intact based on historic
photographs attained from the original owners,
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roofform is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
o -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
Staff response: 10- The original roof form remains unaltered.
SCALE
5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact.
3. - The building has been expanded but the scale ofthe original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
1
o - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
Staff response: 5- The original scale and proportions of the building are unaltered.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- The original door and window pattern are intact.
8- Some of the doors and windows are new but the original openings are
intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the
original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
Staff response: 7- Two door openings have been added to the ground leve1- one
replaced a window on the west elevation. The rest of the original windows and
doors openings appear to be intact.
EXTERIOR BALCONIES AND W ALKW A YS
5- The exterior balconies, walkways and their decorative form are intact.
3- The exterior balconies and walkways have been enclosed but maintain an
open character and some original materials.
1- The exterior balconies and walkways have been enclosed or most original
materials are gone.
0- Original exterior balconies and walkways are gone.
Staff response: 5- The exterior balconies and walkways are unaltered.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
5- The form and features that define the Chalet style are intact.
3- There are minor alterations to the form and features that define the Chalet
style.
1- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the
Chalet style.
Staff response: 5- The form and features that defIne the Chalet style are intact.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 42
. SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3- There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building.
2
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 3 The home remains in a residential
context, as originally constructed; however, like all of Aspen, the density of
the neighborhood has increased.
. MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15- The original combination of exterior wall materials and the decorative trim
materials are intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have
been made in a manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
Staff response: 13 - The original exterior wall materials (wood and stucco) and
the chalet detailing and trim (decorative bargeboard, balustrade, balconet) are
mainly intact beneath added wood pieces. The original shutters and window
boxes, currently missing, were on the residence when the application for
designation was initiated, and therefore, are included in the scoring.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- All or most of the original doors and windows units are intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the
new units would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units
that would not meet design guidelines.
Staff response: 10- All of the original windows units appear to match the
historic photographs, but the front door was replaced.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 23
. WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION
15- Original detailing and ornamentation is intact
10- There have been some alterations or loss of the original detailing and
alteration.
3
5-Some detailing is discernible such that it contributes to its understanding
its stylistic category
Staff response: 13- The original balustrade, ba1conet, and bargeboard details
remain obscured by added elements. The original shutters and windowboxes
were intact in September 2006, and are included in this assessment. The wooden
garage doors and the scalloped wood details remain prominent on the fa~ade.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The finishes and color scheme that define the Chalet style are intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the finishes and color scheme that
define the Chalet style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the finishes and color scheme
that define the Chalet style.
Staff response: 3- The white stucco and the green shutters remain consistent with
the original. Some detailing around the windows, roof and porch elements have
been painted green and does not keep with the original. color scheme. The
majority of the wood appears to have been painted brown, rather than keeping
with the original stain; but the same overall feel of the color scheme is still
realized. I
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20)= 16
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
TOTAL NUMBER SCORED FOR 312 WEST HYMAN IS 89 POINTS.
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances
that might be found and a point assignment, However the reviewer may choose
another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific
property,
"
4
VI' \ b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
---Ytl\
Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
Chris Bendon, Director of Community Development ~
THE LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN FINAL PUD, TIMESHARE,
SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, ORDINANCE No.5,
SERIES OF 2007- PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
March 12,2007
Picture of the existing
Mine Dump
Apartments proposed
to be demolished to
make way for the
"Lodge at Aspen
Mountain" (photo
taken from South
Aspen Street). An
existing single-family
residence further down
the hill off of
Garmisch Street is also
proposed to be razed
and would be the
locat~on for the
fractional residence
portion of the project.
PROJECT: THE LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN FINAL pun
REQUEST Approval of a final PUD and timeshare development plan and consideration
SUMMARY: of other land use approvals to demolish the existing Mine Dump Apartments
and one single-family residence in order to redevelop the two properties with
a 118 unit, 175,000 square foot, multi-story structure to consist of 80 hotel
rooms, 21 fractional units, 4 free-market condominium units, 13 affordable
housing units, commercial and ancillary space and 257 parking spaces in two
sub-grade parking garages is requested.
ApPLICANT: Centurion Partners, LLC on behalf of Aspen Land Fund 11, LLC, represented
by Vann Associates.
LEGAL Block 6 of the Eames Addition and Lots 7-20, Block II of the Eames
DESCRIPTION: Addition (and a small triangular shaped lot described by metes and bounds)
STAFF Staff recommends approval of the development with conditions as put forth in
RECOMMENDATION: Ordinance No.5, Series 2007.
-1-
**The Lodge At Aspen Mountain application includes two volumes; one is the Final
PUD Application and the other is the Appendix. This report will refer to various
submittals and exhibits contained within both of these volumes. **
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION:
On February 6, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission took action on this
application and recommended in favor by a unanimous vote of 5-0 to recommend final
approval of the development proposal. The P&Z conducted 3 public hearings to discuss
and deliberate on the final application. There were five key areas of focus and
reevaluation in the final PUD review process for the P&Z, as follows:
. The structural massing, height, and scale changes since conceptual review,
. The site plan changes, including access, street facing walls and setback changes
along South Aspen Street,
. The provisions for making the development exceptionally energy efficient,
. The Construction Management Plan, and
. The public infrastructure and landscaping associated with the project to ensure
that public improvements were comprehensive, created a sense of place, and
complemented the needs of the neighborhood (especially on-street parking,
sidewalk location and design, and landscaping in the public areas).
The P&Z's approval is reflected in the proposed City Council ordinance included in this
report. (Minutes of the P&Z hearings will be provided with the 2nd reading packet.) The
conditions of approval are those which the P&Z adopted in its Resolution No.3, Series of
2007, after its deliberations. Overall, the P&Z felt that the evolution of the project
through conceptual and final has yielded an excellent project for the site. It is a
development that takes advantage of a key site that is highly appropriate for lodging and
tourist and ski area related uses, the development is exceptional in terms of achieving
affordable housing and energy efficiency goals, and the project solves some outstanding
issues of parking and the safety of South Aspen Street.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The Lodge at Aspen Mountain project received conceptual PUD and conceptual
timeshare approval through City Council Resolution No. 69, Series of2005 on November
28, 2005. Conceptual PUD and timeshare approval was granted for a hotel containing
eighty (80) hotel units, twenty-one (21) timeshare units, four (4) free-market residential
units, and sixteen (16) on-site affordable housing units after more than fifteen (15) public
hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that spanned over
approximately two (2) years.
In unanimously granting the conceptual approval, City Council called for work to be done
on the overall scale of the proiect, the interaction of the proiect with South Aspen Street,
and the preservation of views of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street before the
project should be considered for final approval. Staffs evaluation of the Final PUD
application shows that the Applicants have significantly amended the development plan
to address the concerns of Council. Numerous significant changes have been made to the
- 2-
building elevations, massing and height, access points, relationship of the building to the
street and energy efficiency.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The City's land use code establishes that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the
final review authority on several of the Growth Management requests, 8040 Greenline,
and Conditional Use requests. Additionally, the Plarming and Zoning Commission is the
recommending body to City Council on the Final PUD, Final Timeshare, Growth
Management for multi-year allotments and subdivision requests.
ApPLICABLE LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: The following land use approvals are required
in conjunction with this final application and the purview of final approval is also noted.
1) FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): A PUD is requested by the Applicant to
1.) establish the allowable floor area, building height, open space, parking and setback
requirements for the proposed lodge, and 2.) to allow timeshare lodge development.
(Staff has prepared specific findings for the Final PUD in Exhibit "A"). Final Review
Authoritv: City Council.
2) FINAL TIMESHARE: The Applicant proposes to sell 1/8th undivided fractional interests
in the twenty-one (21) fractional units. To qualify as a timeshare, the proposal must
comply with the Review Standards for Timeshare Lodge Development (See Staff
Findings for Final Timeshare contained in Exhibit B) pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.590, Timeshare. Final Review Authoritv: City Council,
3) SUBDIVISION: Subdivision review is required for land which is to be used for
condominiums, apartments, or any other multi-family dwellings and to sell the
lodge's fractional units pursuant to a timeshare use plan. Final Review Authoritv:
City Council.
4) GROwrn MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYS1EM REVIEWS: The following GMQS reviews are
requested:
. Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Tourist Accommodation
Units: The Applicant proposes to use this exemption to convert fifteen (15) of the
nineteen (19) residential reconstruction credits (from the demolition of existing
units at the Mine Dump Apartments and the existing single-family residence) into
forty-five (45) of the eighty (80) proposed hotel units (utilizing a multiplier of 3, as
allowed in the Code - additional explanation on this process is provided later in the
report) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(4), Growth Management
Review: Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Lodging Units. Final
Review Authoritv: Plarming and Zoning Commission Granted by P&Z.
. ExpansionlNew Commercial. Lodge. or Mixed Use Development: In order to
construct the remaining fifty-six (56) hotel/timeshare lodge units that are not
-)-
accounted for by the residential reconstruction credits that are requested above, the
Applicant has requested growth management review for new lodge rooms pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2), Growth Management Review:
Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. Final Review
Authority: Plarming and Zoning Commission. Granted by P&Z.
. Affordable Housing: This review is requested in order to construct the thirteen
(13) proposed affordable housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.04(C)(7), Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing. Final Review
Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission. Granted by P&Z.
. Affordable Housing Outside of Citv Limits: In order to provide affordable
mitigation outside of the city limits as has been proposed in this application, the
proposal must satisfY the review criteria set forth in Land Use Code Section
26.470.040(D)(2), Growth Management Review: Provision of Required Affordable
Housing Units Outside City Limits. Final Review Authority: City Council.
. GMOS-Multi-Year Allotments: The Applicant requires approval of multi-year
allotments for the commercial component of the hotel because the 2006 growth
management allocation for commercial square footage has already been applied for
and assigned to other development applications. The application must meet the
criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(D)(1), Growth
Management Review: Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment.
Final Review Authority: City Council,
. Replacement of Demolished Units through the Resident Multi-Family
Replacement Program: In order to utilize the residential reconstruction credits from
the demolished units of the Mine Dump Apartments, the Applicant must replace
fifty percent of its units and bedrooms as deed-restricted affordable housing on the
site. If the Applicant complies with the applicable criteria, they may receive
approval for this pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530, Resident Multi-family
Replacement Program. Final Review Authority: Community Development
Director,
5) CONDOMINlUMIZATION: Approval of a condominium plat is required in order to sell
the free-market residential units and timeshare estates individually. Final Review
Authority: City Council.
6) CONDmONAL USE REVIEW: A conditional use review is required for the restaurant
that is proposed pursuant to the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.425,
Conditional Uses. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission.
Granted by P&Z.
7) 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: All development within 150' above or below the 8040 foot
elevation above sea level is subject to specific environmental impacts review pursuant
- 4-
to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review. Final Review
Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission. Granted by P&Z,
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The Applicant is proposing hotel/timeshare project containing one hundred and one (101)
hotel and timeshare lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units, thirteen (13)
affordable housing units, a spa, and a restaurant in a building of 175,000 square feet. The
project site consists of two parcels - known for these planning purposes as Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2 (see the application for the boundaries of Parcels 1 and 2). Parcel 1 includes the
lower portion of the site, north of Juan Street and west of South Aspen Street, where a
small existing single-family residence and a vacant field is located. Parcell is proposed
to be the site for the majority of the fractional units, the spa and fitness center, the
affordable housing units, the outdoor pool and terrace, two (2) of the free-market
residential units, and 170 of the 257 parking space s proposed in the project.
Parcel 2 comprises the upper portion of the site, south of Juan Street and west of South
Aspen Street, where the Mine Dumps Apartments and Aspen Skiing Company employee
parking lot are presently located. The uses that were proposed on Parcel 2 in the
application include the majority of the hotel rooms, the remainder of the fractional units,
the other two (2) free market units, the apres ski/dining terrace, ballroom, meeting rooms,
lobby, restaurantlbar, sundries shop, and the other 87 space parking garage.
HOTEL UNITS: Of the 101 proposed units, eighty (80) are to be hotel rooms in five (5)
different room configurations, which are broken down in the table below:
Hotel Units: No, of Units Unit Size Lock-Off Canabilitv
Standard Hotel Rooms 39 370-580 Sq. Ft. No Lock-Off
Executive Rooms 31 590-830 Sq. Ft. No Lock-Off
I-BR Suites 8 930-1,020 Sq: Ft. No Lock-Off
2-BR Suites I I 1,100 Sq. Ft. I No Lock-Off
I 3-BR Presidential Suite II 1 I 1,730 Sq. Ft. No Lock-Off
I Total Hotel Keys II 80 I --------.---------- No Lock-Off
FRACTIONAL UNITS: Twenty-one (21) fractional units of varying size are proposed
(see table below) to be sold in 1/8th interests. These are to be located primarily in the
structure located on the north end of the site on Parcel 1, with (9) of the twenty-one (21)
units located on the third and fourth floors ofthe structure on Parcel 2. Each purchaser of
an interest in the units are to be guaranteed a maximum of four (4) weeks of occupancy
(two (2) weeks in the summer and two (2) weeks in the winter) in a specific unit type,
which accounts to a total of thirty-two (32) weeks a year (4 weeks x 8 shares/unit).
Seventy (70) days per year in each unit are to be considered "float time" which owners
could reserve (at least 30 days in advance and whatever time was left over was to be
available to the public at large to rent on a nightly basis). No lock-off of the fractional
-5-
units is contemplated (for a full review of the proposed timeshare program, see Timeshare
review later in the report).
Fractional Units: I No, of Units I Unit Size Lock-Off Canabilitv
3-BR Units I 7 11,800 - 2,345 SQ. Ft. No Lock-Off
4-BR Units 14 No Lock-Off
2,000- 3,600 SQ. Ft
Total Fractional Units I 21 I -------------------~ --------------------
FREE MARKET CONDOMINIUM UNITS: Four (4) free market condominiums are
proposed to be located on the top of each of the lodge structures. The application
requests that the developer have the option to place these units in the timeshare pool if
they wish to.
Free Market Units: No. of Units Unit Size Lock-Off Canabilitv
4-BR Units 4 4,240- 3,450 SQ. Ft. No Lock-Off
Total Free Market Units 4 -------------------- --------------------
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS: In order to meet a portion of the affordable housing
requirements (those related to the Multi-Family Replacement Program), thirteen (13)
affordable housing units are proposed to be provided on-site, ten (10) of which are
completely above-grade on first level of the structure to be constructed on Parcell. Nine
(9) of these units that are completely above grade have individual entrances that open out
to the north. The other three (3) affordable housing units are partially above-grade and
partially below grade and their entrances are located in a common hallway that runs
adjacent to the spa. In total there are ten (10) studio units, two I-bedroom units, and one
2-bedroom unit proposed on-site. The following table describes the distribution of
affordable housing units proposed on the site:
Affordable Units: No, of Units I Unit Size I
Studio Units 10 I 416- 490 Sq. Ft. I
I-BR Units I 2 I 604- 754 Sq. Ft.
2-BR Unit I 852 Sq. Ft.
Total Affordable Housinl! 13 I --.------------------ I
The affordable housing units being provided on-site satisfy the resident multi-family
replacement program requirements for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. To
satisfy the remainder of the employee housing mitigation requirements for the hotel, the
Applicant has proposed off-site units to be constructed in both the City and in the County
within the Urban Growth Boundary. During the conceptual review of the application, the
Applicant proposed to provide 60% of the employees to be housed within the city limits
and 40% of the employees to be housed in Pitkin County. City Council seemed to believe
-6-
this as an acceptable distribution of the necessary employee mitigation at the time of
conceptual PUD review.
Related to this project, the Applicant has submitted a separate land use application to
construct thirty-two (32) units of affordable housing on the Smuggler Racquet Club
property, which would house 70 of the employees that are required to be mitigated for.
Additionally, the Applicant is currently constructing seventeen (17) units of affordable
housing at the AABC, eight of which they would like to use as employee housing
mitigation for the lodge project. The other nine (9) units are to be used to partially
mitigate the employee housing requirements of the Residences at Little Nell. Please see
Staffs discussion about the proposed employee housing mitigation under "Staff
Comments".
DIMENSIONAL REOUIREMENTS: The following table outlines the proposed dimensions
of the project and compares them to the underlying UTR Zone District regulations that
were in affect at the time the Conceptual PUD application was originally submitted in
October of 2003 (dimensional requirements to be established through the PUD process
are shaded):
Dimensional
Requirement
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Areal
Dwelling
Side Yard Setback
Proposed
Development
39,249 Sq. Ft.*
represents the
smallest of the two
existing parcels
Multi-Family- 1
bedroom per 1,000
square feet of lot area.
Lodge- No
Requirement
Parcel 1- 2,8 to 10,8'
Parcel 2- 5,9 to 58.9'
Parcel 1- East Side
Yard-7.4 to 31.2'
West Side Yard-
106.2'
Parcel 2- North Side
Yard- 0'
South Side Yard- 8 to
33'
Approved
Conceptual
Plan
39,249 Sq. Ft.*
represents the
smallest of the
two existing
arcels
Multi-Family- I
bedroom per
I ,000 square
feet of lot area.
Lodge- No
Re uirement
*Parcell- 4' 4"
Parcel 2- 8'
*Parcel 1- East
Side Yard- 8'
West Side Yard-
115.5'
Parcel 2- North
Side Yard- 5' 2"
South Side
Yard- 5'4"
- 7-
2003 LrrR Zone
District
6,000 Sq. Ft.
Multi-Family- 1
bedroom per 1,000
square feet of lot
area.
Lodge- No
R uirement
5 Feet
Allowable
Hei t
Required Open Space
square
Allowable FAR
square
Off-Street Parking
VEIDCULAR ACCESS: Guests and residents of the facility are to arrive by one of two
entrances off of South Aspen Street, depending on what portion of the structure they want
to access (although all uses in the structure are accessible from inside). It was planned
that those guests/residents that wished to access the majority of the fractional units, the
spa and fitness center, and the affordable housing units on Parcel 1 would enter into the
underground parking garage from the northernmost entryway. Guests/residents desiring
to access the main entry to the hotel, the remainder of the fractional units, the free market
units on Parcel 2, the restaurant and bar, ballroom and the other accessory uses on Parcel
2 were to arrive into the southernmost entrance from South Aspen Street.
OFF-SITE iMPROVEMENTS: Several off-site improvements of note are included in the
proposal. In addition to widening Juan Street to city standards and dedicating additional
right-of-way to accommodate it and installing curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strip and
street trees, the Applicant also proposed to make some significant improvements to the
base of this side of the ski area (in cooperation with the Aspen Skiing Company).
Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to completely reconstruct and snowmelt South
Aspen Street south of Durant A venue in conjunction with the Lift One Lodge project that
is proposed on the east side of South Aspen Street. The reconstruction of the street would
terminate in a cul-de-sac at the southern terminus of the street. Finally, the Applicant
proposes funding the replacement ofthe existing Lift lA with a high speed double lift. It
is proposed that the Applicant would contribute $4 million dollars so that the Aspen
Skiing Company could construct the new lift. The Applicant has provided a letter from
the Aspen Skiing Company that identifies that the new lift would be proposed to be up
and running the first ski season that the Lodge at Aspen Mountain would be operational.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Consistencv with Conceptual Approvals:
As was mentioned at the beginning of the memorandum, the Applicant received
conceptual PUD and timeshare approval for the proposed development on November 28,
2005. The conceptual approvals that were granted by City Council were for a
hotel/timeshare lodge containing eighty (80) lodge units, twenty-one (21) fractional lodge
-8-
units, four (4) free-market residential units, and sixteen (16) affordable housing units.
City Council approved the conceptual proposal with direction to the Applicant to further
scale back the massing of the project. Council also directed the Applicant to enhance the
relationship of the structure with South Aspen Street to provide for a more pedestrian
friendly feel. Finally, Council also discussed that the building should frame the view of
Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street better than was represented in the conceptual
design.
The application indicates that the Applicant has revised the design of the lodge since the
conceptual approvals to try and address the comments that they heard from City Council
during the conceptual review. Staff believes that the overall use program is similar to
what was approved during conceptual with the exception that the Applicant has removed
three (3) of the on-site affordable housing units from the development plans that were
approved during the conceptual review. The timeshare plan that is proposed is also
identical to the conceptual timeshare use plan. The dimensions proposed are also similar
to the dimensions that were approved during the conceptual review as is evident by the
dimensional requirement chart included above. In the following paragraphs, Staff
addresses the direction that Council provided to the Applicant during the conceptual
review and analyzes the Applicant's response.
Scale and Massinf!:
The application explains that the overall height of the structure in most places has been
reduced from the plan that was conceptually approved. The conceptual design contained
ridge heights that were around 60 feet, which have been reduced, with an overall
maximum ridge height on the final PUD plan topping out at 55 feet. Related to the ridge
height reduction, the amount of the roofline that exceeds 42 feet as measured by the land
use code height methodology has been reduced from about 60% of the roof to around
50% of the roof.
Staffs most significant massing concern with the original conceptual design was the
perceived massing of the building module that was proposed directly to the south of Juan
Street that extends to the comer of Juan Street and South Aspen Street. Staff believed
this portion of the building to be the most visible portion of the building from the corner
of South Aspen Street and Durant Avenue, a very public vantage point. Throughout the
conceptual review of the proposal, Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
requested that the Applicant reduce the massing of this element of the building. The
Applicant did so to satisfy Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission's concern over
the massing of this element prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission issuing a
recommendation on the conceptual design.
During City Council's review of the conceptual design, Council appeared to be focused
on the overall massing of the central portion of the building located on Parcel 2. Since
the conceptual review, the Applicant has removed the two (2) significant east to west
running ridges, one each in the narrow parts of the building that were proposed to the
- 9-
north and the south of the main entrance to the lodge on South Aspen Street. The
removal of the ridges can be viewed in the photo below:
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt this central portion of the building
was significant in scale, but chose to focus more on the other portion of the building
described above because it will be more visible outside the immediate neighborhood than
the central portion of the building. Nonetheless, Staff believes that the Applicant has
responded to the concerns expressed by City Council about the central part of the building
by removing the major rooflines. Staff feels that the removal of the significant chimneys
that were illustrated in the conceptual design is also a considerable improvement to the
central massing of the structure.
Relationshiv with South Asven Street:
Council expressed a need for the building to have a stronger relationship with South
Aspen Street than it did during the conceptual review. In response, the Applicant has
made the previously recessed main entrance to the lodge on South Aspen Street a more
prominent feature of the fayade by bringing it closer to the street. The Applicant has also
provided a covered porte-cochere at the lobby entrance to provide more of a presence on
South Aspen Street. Courtyards have also been provided on both sides of the porte-
cochere to provide a space that the pedestrian can use. Staff believes that the design does
now interact better with the streetscape, but Staff does feel that some further
improvement can be made by providing additional benches and other landscaping
features adjacent to the right-of-way to draw the pedestrian's attention to the property.
View of Shadow Mountain from South Asven Street:
There was discussion by City Council about the building framing the view of Shadow
Mountain better from the Dean Street corridor area. The Applicant has provided several
renderings from the perspective of South Aspen Street that are included in the
application. Staff feels that the view of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street
- 10-
would be framed better if the Applicant were to remove the covered walkway over Juan
Street. However, Staff does understand the Applicant's argument for needing the covered
walkway that was made in the conceptual reviews. During the conceptual review, the
Applicant expressed that they needed to maintain the covered walkway in the design for
the purpose of connecting the main hotel with the fractional ownership component so that
the housekeeping staff would not have to exit the structure and cross Juan Street to
service both portions of the lodge. That said, the covered walkway over Juan Street has
been lowered since the conceptual review concluded.
The Applicant did pul1 the northern portion of the structure on Parcell back further to the
south in order to provide a greater view corridor towards Shadow Mountain between the
Lift One Condominiums and the proposed building.
Growth Manaf!ement Ouota Svstem (GMOS):
In order to obtain the development rights to build the majority of the lodge's units,
several different GMQS reviews are requested. Staff has separated each review out
below with a further explanation and staff position on their compliance with the review
criteria:
CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION CREDITS TO LODGING UNITS: The
conversion of residential reconstruction credits derived from the demolition of the Mine
Dump Apartments (eighteen (18) existing units) and the single-family (one unit) into
lodge units requires growth management approval subject to compliance with the review
standards set for in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(4), Conversion of Residential
Reconstruction Credits to Lodging Units. The Applicant proposes to convert fifteen (15)
of the site's nineteen (19) residential reconstruction credits, at a rate of3 lodge units per
residential unit, into forty-five (45) lodge development rights (3 x 15 = 45). The
remaining four (4) residential credits will be used for the project's four (4) free market
residential units. Mitigation for 60% of the employees that would be generated by these
forty-five (45) lodge units is included in the Applicant's overal1 mitigation plan.
REPLACEMENT OF DEMOLISHED UNITS TIIROUGH THE RESIDENT MULTI-FAMILY
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM: Pursuant to the Section 26.530 of the regulations, fifty percent
of the bedrooms and fifty percent of the square footage of any multi-family residential
units must be replaced on-site in the event they are demolished. The reconstruction of
such units is exempt from GMQS if the reconstructed units meet the requirements of the
Housing Replacement Program. According to the Applicant, sixteen (16) of the nineteen
(19) existing units on the site qualify as residential multi-family housing (the Code
defines this as a dwelling unit which has in its history ever housed a working resident and
which is located in a multi-family residential building) and are therefore subject to the
replacement requirements. Building C of the Mine Dump Apartments is considered to be
a duplex for regulatory purposes so, along with the single-family, is exempt from the
requirements of Housing Replacement Program. See the chart below for a breakdown of
the existing units, the replacement requirements per the Code, and the Applicant's
proposal to satisfy the requirements:
-11-
Bedrooms.. ..... .... ..... .....
Net Residential Area (sq. ft.)
PROPOSED LOcATlONOF
~PLA~~MENT
BQ'QSffl~t
13 On-site on Parcell
114 IOn-site on Parcel I
16,050 Sq. Ft.1 On-site on Parcell
Yes
Yes
Yes
MINE DUMP APARTMENTS EXISTING MINIMUM REQUIRED UNITS!
PROPOSED TO BE UNITS! HOUSING SQ,Fr.:
DEMOLISHED: SQFT.: REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS:
Building A
Dwelling Units.............. ... 11........... . No Requirement. . .. . . N/A
Bedrooms.................... ... 16............ 50% of Bedrooms..... 8 (16 x 50% = 8)
Net Residential Area (sq. ft.) 6,009........ 50% of Net Sq. Ft... 3,005 (6,009 x 50%)
Building B
Dwelling Units.... ............ W No Requirement...... N/A
Bedrooms.................... .. 7............. 50% of Bedrooms. .... 4 (7 x 50% = 3.5)
Net Residential Area (sq. ft.) 1,713....... 50% of Net Sq. Ft.... 856 (1,713 x.5 = 856)
Building C None: Duplex's are
Dwelling Units................ 2............. exempt from Housing
Bedrooms....... ............... 3............. Replacement
Net Residential Area (sq. ft.) 1,872..... .. Reauirements
Total Requirement: Units..........,..,.... I i~861 I
Bedrooms..,......,..
Net So, Ft,
GROWTII MANAGEMENT REVIEW-NEW LoDGE UNITS AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT: The third type of growth management approval necessary for the
proposed lodge is a growth management review for the construction of the remaining
fifty-seven (57) lodge/timeshare lodge units that were not included in the lodge units that
are to be derived from the forty-five (45) reconstruction credits as is discussed above.
These fifty-seven (57) lodge units are required to be mitigated for at a rate of 60% of the
employees that are anticipated to be generated by these units. Additionally, the accessory
commercial space in the lodge is also required to be mitigated for at a rate of 60% of the
employees that are anticipated to be generated by the commercial space pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2), Growth Management Review: Expansion/New
- 12-
Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. The mitigation calculations for the new
lodge units and the commercial space are as follows:
Lodge Development- 160 Lodge Bedrooms multiplied by .5 FTEs per
bedroom equals 80 FTEs, 80 FTEs multiplied by 60% mitigation
requirement equals 48 FTEs
Accessory Commercial Space- 20,088 square feet minus 4,540 square
feet located in the basement of the development equals 15,548
square feet on the main level, 15,548 square feet divided by 1,000
square feet equals 15.548, 15.548 multiplied by 4.1 FTEs equals
63.6 total FTEs
4,540 square feet located in the basement divided by 1,000 square
feet equals 4.54, 4.54 multiplied by 3.075 FTEs (4.1 FTE rate
discounted by 25% for basement square footage) equals 13.9 total
FTEs
63.6 FTEs for at grade commercial space plus 13.9 FTEs for below
grade commercial space equals 77.5 FTEs, 77.5 FTEs multiplied by
60% mitigate rate equals 46.5 FTEs to be mitigated.
Therefore, in total the Applicant would be responsible for mitigating for 94,5 FTEs,
but the applicant is exceeding this requirement by housing 115 employees, or 22%
more than required,
PROPOSED MmGATION: As was discussed above, the thirteen (13) on-site
affordable housing units satisfy the multi-family housing replacement program
requirements and will provide employee housing credit for 18.25 FTEs. Additionally,
seventy (70) FTEs are proposed to be housed off-site in a project that is proposed to be
constructed on the Smuggler Racquet Club property, which is within the City limits.
Finally, twenty-seven (27) FTEs are proposed to be housed within nine (9) units that are
to be constructed at the AABC as part of a seventeen (17) unit project that the Applicant
has received approval for from the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed
methods of mitigation are outlined in the following chart:
LoeatlonofMitilration Numher of Units Emlllovees Miti2ated
On-Site 13 Units 18.25 FTEs
10 Cat. 2 Studios 10 x 1.25 FTEs= 12.5 FTEs
2 Cat. 3 I-Bedroom 2 x 1.75 FTEs= 3.5 FTEs
1 Cat. 2 2-Bedroom 1 x 2.25 FTEs= 2.25FTEs
Smuggler Racquet Club 32 Units 70 FTEs
16 I-Bedroom 16 x 1.75 FTEs= 28 FTEs
82-Bedroom 8 x 2.25 FTEs= 18 FTEs
8 3-Bedroom 8 x 3 FTEs= 24 FTEs
AABC 9 Units 27 FTEs
- 13-
9 3-Bedroom 9 x 3 FTEs= 27 FTEs
Total 54 Units 115 FfEs .
The proposed mitigation exceeds the % spelled out in the conceptual approval--requiring
60 percent of the affordable housing mitigation be provided within the City limits and
allowing for 40 percent of the required mitigation to be provided outside of the City but
within the Urban Growth Boundary-by providing 77% of the employee housing within
the city. Staffhas included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance reinforcing
that 60 percent of the mitigation be provided within the City and that all ofthe affordable
housing mitigation shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the
lodge obtaining a certificate of occupancy.
ReQuired Off-Street Parkinf!:
The parking requirement will be established through this PUD. Pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.515, Offstreet Parking. the Lodge zone district requires a certain
amount of parking spaces based on the type of uses requested. In terms of this project,
the required amount of parking is provided for all of the lodge rooms, the fractional units,
affordable housing units (through Special Review), and the condominiums. Additionally,
they are replacing the 30 parking spaces that the Aspen Skiing Company leases out under
an agreement made with a prior owner of the property. Finally, the Applicant is
proposing to sell or lease 139 of the parking spaces to the general public as is discussed
below. The one area where the Applicant proposes to establish a different parking
requirement is with respect to those accessory uses referred to as "other uses" by the Code
(see the table below for different parking requirements):
I Type of Use II Code Requirement I UnitslBR's R uired Proposed
Lod"e Rooms 0.5 spaces/bedroom 80 bedrooms 40 SDaces 40 spaces
Fractional Units 0.5 spaces/unit' 21 units II SDaces II spaces
Other Uses I space/l,OOO sq. ft. of net 20,088 sq. ft. 20 spaces 20 spaces
leasable area of net leasable
area
Residential Units I space/dwelling unit 4 units 4 spaces 4 spaces
Afford. Housing By Special Review' 13 units 13 spaces 13 spaces
Aspen Skiing Co. Ex. spaces to be replaced' N/A 30 spaces 30 spaces
I Pursuant to Section 26.590.070.E.l, parking for timeshare units is based on the total number of proposed
lockout rooms in the development, not the number of bedrooms
, Although the exact requirement is determined through Special Review, the generally held formula for
affordable housing units of this size is 1 space/unit. For more information, see the Special Review section
later in the report.
, The Aspen Skiing Company currently utilizes a portion of Parcel 2 for employee parking purposes, which
is secured by a 99-year lease with the previous owner of the property-which the applicant must maintain
(See Exhibit 6, Appendix B of the Application). The agreement, though, allows for the replacement of the
parking in a sub-grade parking garage subject to the approval of the Skiing Company. Their consent has
been provided (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B).
- 14-
Neighbors/General I No Requirement. IIN/A IN/A 139 spaces
Public
I Total: l -------------------------------- II ------------------- 118 spaces 257 spaces
In reviewing the proposed parking, the project complies with the specific code
requirements for parking for the hotel, fractional, condominium, and affordable
housing units and, consequently, no variations are being requested,
Commercial Parkinf! Facility:
As noted above, the Applicant has proposed to sell or lease 139 of the 257 parking
spaces. Specifically, thirty (30) of these 139 parking spaces are proposed to be sold to the
Lift 1 Condominiums in order to help alleviate their on-site parking deficit. According to
the application, the remaining 109 parking spaces are proposed to be sold or leased to
members of the general public to help defray the costs of the development. In order to
sell or lease parking spaces to the general public with no association to the project, a
conditional use approval is necessary because a commercial parking facility is a
conditional use in the UTR Zone District that was in place when the conceptual PUD
application was originally submitted. Related to providing the commercial parking
facility, the Applicant has proposed to reconstruct South Aspen Street on the south side of
Durant Avenue to be able to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated
by the Commercial Parking portion of the development as is discussed below.
In evaluating whether a commercial parking facility is appropriate in this location, Staff
has considered comments that we have heard from Planning and Zoning Commission
members and residents in the immediate neighborhood. Many of these comments that
were provided to Staff during the conceptual application review expressed that the on-
street parking situation in the neighborhood is very congested since several of the
condominium complexes in the area that were built in the 1970s do not have the
necessary on-site parking to accommodate their needs.
South Aspen Street Reconstruction and Snowmelt:
During the conceptual application review, one of the considerable technical issues that
needed to be addressed was the safety of South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant
A venue. There was concern that the existing road could not handle the increased traffic
that would be generated by the development given the steep grade and the build-up of ice
and snow that is currently typical of the street. At the conclusion of the conceptual
review, it was required in City Council Resolution No. 69, Series of 2005, that the
Applicant would come back as part of the final PUD development review with a plan to
make South Aspen Street safe for the additional traffic anticipated to be generated by the
proposed lodge. This resolution also required the Applicant to consult with other
property owners along South Aspen Street that may be looking to redevelop their
properties in the near future to ensure that any updated road design would safely
accommodate their traffic generation needs as well.
- 15-
In response to these conditions, the application indicates that the Applicant is proposing
to reconstruct South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant Avenue and snowmelt it to
safely accommodate the additional traffic that the would be generated by the proposed
development and the development application for the Lift One Lodge that has been
submitted on the east side of South Aspen Street. According to the application, the idea
is that The Lodge at Aspen Mountain and the developers of the Lift One Lodge would
share the costs of snowmelting and reconstructing the road if they both receive approval
through the formation of a an improvement district. However, the application also
expresses that the Lodge at Aspen is prepared to take on the entire costs of improving
South Aspen Street in this manner in the case that the Lift One Lodge does not move
forward.
The design of the street is proposed such that it would remove the on-street parking that
currently exists to narrow the overall pavement width of the street, providing for less
pavement to heat. At the same time, the loss of the on-street parking would allow for the
actual travel lanes to be widened to fourteen (14) feet each. At the top of South Aspen
Street, a cul-de-sac is proposed for skier drop-off and for fire truck turn around purposes.
The loss of on-street parking is proposed to be mitigated in the Lift One Lodge
development through the construction of a public parking garage under Willoughby Park.
The Applicant has proposed to snowmelt the street by using a traditional snowmelt
system that incorporates gas fired boilers to heat the street and adjacent sidewalks. The
application indicates that the Applicant explored the use of a Ground Source Heat Pump
(GSHP) to heat the road using heat from the earth. However, several consultants
including CORE and RMI recommended that it would be considerably more efficient to
heat and cool the Lodge at Aspen Mountain and the Lift One Lodge by using the GSHP
rather than using it to heat the road itself. Therefore, to conserve energy in order to
mitigate for snowmelting South Aspen Street, the Applicant has proposed to use the
GSHP to reduce the energy usage of the lodge itself.
In analyzing the Applicant's proposed solution to making South Aspen Street safe for the
additional traffic that would be generated by the Lodge Aspen Mountain and the Lift One
Lodge on the east side of South Aspen Street, Staff believes that snowmelting the street is
certainly the safest way to ensure that the street can handle the increased traffic. Staff
does believe that some assurance is necessary that the on-street parking that would be
removed from South Aspen Street in the new design is mitigated for even if the Lift One
Lodge does not pan out. Therefore, Staff has recommended a condition of approval in the
proposed ordinance that would require that fifty (50) of the parking spaces in the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain be available to the general public for short-term parking until such time
as the Lift One Lodge is up and running. Staff feels that a condition of this nature will
ensure that the current fifty (50) on-street parking spaces that would be lost in the
reconstruction of the street will be mitigated for and available to the general public as has
always been the case.
- 16-
In evaluating the energy consumption related to snowmelting South Aspen Street, the
City's global warming expert, Dan Richardson, has recommended that the Applicant be
required to design the Lodge at Aspen Mountain so that it uses 30% less energy than the
average energy use of comparable type properties in Aspen. The methodology is put forth
in Section 14 of the proposed ordinance that will set the base and provide for audit of
such a goal. Dan Richardson worked with Staff to create the energy conservation
conditions of the ordinance and finds them acceptable and outstanding for a project of
this nature, likely the highest level of conservation effort in design and operation
proposed in the city.
Revlacement of Lifi IA:
As was discussed in the conceptual review of the application, the Applicant has proposed
to fund a new lift to replace Lift lA. Specifically, the new lift would be a high speed
double chair that would serve the west side of Aspen Mountain. The Applicant has
proposed to pay $4,000,000 towards the replacement of the ski lift that would open more
of the western portion of Aspen Mountain up to easily accessible skiing. The application
proposes that the new lift would be replaced and up and running prior to the issuance of
certificate of occupancy being issued on the lodge. Staff has reinforced this timing by
providing a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance that would require the lift be
operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any part of the lodge.
Communitv Benefits:
The application argues that the proposal provides numerous community benefits.
Specifically, the Applicant suggests that project would provide a significant number of
new lodge rooms at the base of Aspen Mountain, a place where lodging is supposed to be
located in a ski resort to provide easy access for guests to the ski mountain and the
downtown core. Additionally, the application highlights the improvements to South
Aspen Street as a community benefit and suggests that they will make it safer for all of
the property owners and skiers that use South Aspen Street on a regular basis. Parking is a
substandard situation on South Aspen Street, with ill-defined spaces-some parallel, some
head-in and some morphing between the two types depending on road conditions, in
addition to the steepness of the street that cause safety problems in the winter. The street
is currently not pedestrian friendly, lacking sidewalks and the confusion of parking.
Finally, the application suggests that the new lift will be a community benefit that will
open up the west side of Aspen Mountain and enhance the skiing experience as was
previously discussed above. The additional 22% more employees housed with 77% of the
units being located within the City of Aspen should also be seen as moving the city closer
to its goals and as benefits of the project. Finally, the infrastructure improvements, both
with the ski area lift and the sidewalk, snowmelt, public landscaping and the
enhancements to anchor this area as part of the Dean Street walk way, will all serve to
create a sense of place in this part of Aspen. Staff finds that all of these items mentioned
above are benefits.
Timeshare:
- 17-
Sale of multiple interests in the 21 fractional units is proposed and each purchaser of a
fractional interest in the timeshare lodge will own an undivided 1I8th interest in a specific
unit, which will result in 168 timeshare owners, or estates (21 units x 8 estates/unit=168
estates). None of the rooms are proposed to have lock-off capability. The proposed use
plan will guarantee each timeshare estate owner use of a unit for a maximum of four
weeks a year - two weeks in the winter and two weeks in the summer, with winter being
defined as November 1 - April 30 and summer being May 1 to October 31. The
maximum number of days a unit can be reserved per season by owners is 112 days and, as
each season contains approximately 182 days, a minimum of70 days in each season will
remain and will constitute the float time. The float time will be made available to the
public for nightly rental and to the owners, subject to certain limitations, such as the
owners needing to reserve a unit at least 30 days in advance, only being able to reserve in
increments up to 7 days, and for no more than 30 consecutive calendar days. These
limitations on owners should permit a reasonable amount of available time for the public
to use the units.
A full complement of amenities will be contained within the facility, including an outdoor
pool, spa and fitness center, a business center, ski concierge area, a logo shop, children's
recreation area, and a bar and restaurant. The spa, restaurant, and bar will also be
available to the public. In addition, the lodge will contain a fully staffed, on-site front
desk to provide guest registration and reservation services for the lodge's hotel guests and
the fractional owners, guests, and will include late check in and other off hour owner and
guest needs. Staff has reviewed the timeshare management plan against the review
criteria for timeshare and finds that it complies with all of applicable requirements (see
Exhibit B for full staff findings).
Technical Considerations:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the proposal and provided
comments, which Staff has included as conditions of approval as deemed appropriate.
Some of the specific requirements are discussed in this paragraph. In reviewing the
proposal, the Community Development Engineer has recommended some mitigation
techniques be provided to enhance slope stability above the proposed development since
there would be a significant excavation needed to construct the project.
Specifically, the Community Development Engineer has recommended that the Applicant
be required to install several inclinometers above the development on Aspen Mountain
and provide bimonthly data to the City for one seasonal cycle to identify whether there is
any historic rate of slope movement. If slope movement is identified, the construction
techniques to be used in constructing the project must be designed in a manner that does
not increase the historic slope movement during and after construction. These specific
design techniques have been included in the conditions of approval in the proposed
ordinance.
The Construction Managemj:nt Plan (CMP) takes major steps to ameliorate the impacts
of construction on neighbors, traffic, and environmental impacts. Exhibit D is a summary
- 18-
of the key provIsIOns of the CMP. As of this writing, City Staff (Construction
Management Officer and Com Dev Engineer) are reviewing the CMP so that a fuller
analysis may be provided to the City Council at the time of 2nd reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that this project would provide important lodging at the base of Aspen
Mountain in a location where lodging should be located in our resort community-close to
the mountain, near the retail/restaurant and entertainment core, near transit and within a
cluster of lodging/timeshare and condominium development. Staff also feels that the
lodging proposal would provide significantly more community benefit than the residential
townhome project that has vested rights on the subject property. The project would help
replenish part of the lodging bed base that was lost of the past decade in addition to
providing for a new high speed ski lift in place of the existing Lift lA.
Staff finds that the project represents an exemplary project primarily for its energy
conservation plan, its attainment of over the required employee housing mitigation, its
CMP, and its compatibility with the character of the uses in the area.
The Applicant has also made a considerable plan changes to address the City Council's
concerns that were expressed at the conceptual review of the project related to giving the
project more interaction with the adjacent South Aspen Street by bring a significant
portion of the building east to relate better with the street. In total, Staff believes that the
application satisfies the applicable review standards and recommends that the City
Council approve the attached ordinance.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (All motions are made in the affirmative)
"I move to approve Ordinance No.5, Series of 2007, second reading, "The Lodge at
Aspen Mountain" Final PUD and associated land use actions."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Application (provided @ 151 reading)
Exhibit C: Street Infrastructure/ParkinglLandscaping Plan
Exhibit D: Construction Management Plan Summary
Exhibit E: Exceptional Project Review Criteria Fact Sheet
Exhibit F: P&Z Minutes
Exhibit G: Letter from public
- 19-
ORDINANCE NO,S
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, GMQS APPROVAL
FOR A MUL TI- YEAR ALLOTMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE
THE CITY LIMITS, FINAL TIMESHARE, SUBDIVISION, AND
CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR "THE LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN"
DEVELOPMENT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 6 EAMES ADDITION
AND LOTS 7-20, BLOCK II OF THE EAMES ADDITION AND A SMALL METES
AND BOUNDS TRIANGULARLY SHAPED LOT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO,
ParcellD:
2735-131-23-001 (Mine Dump Apartments)
2735-131-13-001 (Parcel with the Single-Family Residence)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates,
requesting approval of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Planned Unit Development,
Final Timeshare, Subdivision, Growth Management Reviews, Conditional Use, 8040
Greenline Review, and Condominiumization to construct a lodge containing eighty (80)
hotel rooms, twenty-one (21) fractional lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units,
thirteen (13) on-site affordable housing units, and accessory facilities; and,
WHEREAS, City Council granted Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare
approval pursuant to City Council Resolution 69, Series of 2005 on November 28, 2005;
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels subject to the application consist of a total of 104,518
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department solicited and received
referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering,
Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water
Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Board forwarded a
unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed
affordable housing mitigation and replacement units for the project at their meeting held
on November 15, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings that were opened on December
5, 2006,and continued to January 16 and then to February 6, 2007, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve Resolution No. 03, Series
of 2007, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with
conditions, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final PUD, Final Timeshare, Subdivision,
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading
Condominiumization, and Multi-Year & Affordable Housing Outside the City Limits
Growth Management Reviews, and approved the remaining Growth Management
Reviews, Conditional Use, and 8040 Greenline, in order to allow the construction of a
lodge consisting of eighty (80) lodge rooms, twenty-one (21) timeshare lodge rooms, four
(4) free-market residential units, and thirteen (13) on-site affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, The Council finds that the applicable development review standards
are met by the proposal, provided that the conditions established herein are complied
with.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
The City Council hereby approves The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Planned Unit
Development, Final Timeshare, Subdivision, Growth Management Review for
Affordable Housing Outside the City Limits, Growth Management Review for Multi-
Year Allotments, and Condominiumization to construct a lodge containing eight (80)
hotel rooms, twenty-one (21) fractional lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units,
thirteen (13) on-site affordable housing units, and accessory facilities, including 257
parking spaces, with the conditions contained herein.
Section 1: Subdivision Plat. PUD Plans and A2I"eements
The Applicants shall record a Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval.
Additionally, a Final PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval and shall include the following:
a. A final subdivision plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and
showing easements, encroachment agreements, and licenses with the
reception numbers for physical improvements and location of utility
pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
d. A final grading and drainage plan.
e. A final utility and public infrastructure plan, including as-builts of South
Aspen Street.
Section 2: BuUdinl!: Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final recorded City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 2
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. Evidence that a tree removal permit has been attained pursuant to the
requirements of the City Parks Department (and Section 12, below). The
tree removal permit shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan
indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the
site.
e. A drainage plan including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff
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 5-year storm frequency should be used in
designing any drainage improvements.
f. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements
described in Section 4 of this ordinance.
g. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer.
Section 3: Dimensional Requirements
The following table outlines the approved dimensions of this PUD:
Dbn""siClD.aIReiJuirel1lCllt ProDosed.J>evt!loDl1lt!Dt
Minimum Lot Size 39,249 Sq. Ft. represents the
smallest of the two existing
parcels
Minimum Lot Area! Dwelling Multi-Family- 1 bedroom per
1,000 square feet oflot area.
Lodge- No Reauirement
Front Yard Setback Parcel 1- 2.8 to 10.8'
Parcel 2- 5.9 to 58.9'
Side Yard Setback Parcel 1- East Side Yard-7.4 to
31.2'
West Side Yard- 106.2'
Parcel 2- North Side Yard- 0'
South Side Yard- 8 to 33'
Rear Yard Setback Parcel 1- 13.6 to 37.2'
Parcel 2- 1.6 to 48.2'
Allowable Building Height 55' maximum, in accordance with
the Height Plan of the recorded
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 3
Section 4: Construction Manal!.ement Plan
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain Construction Management Plan (CMP), dated February
6, 2007, and prepared by Swinerton Builders shall be included as part of this approval
and shall be implemented by the applicants and carried out throughout the project. The
CMP shall be reviewed by the City's Construction Management Officer and the
Community Development Engineer for completeness and applicability and found to be
acceptable to attain the City's construction management goals. At a minimum, the CMP
shall include the following:
. the requirements of the Construction Management Plan handout of the City of Aspen
Building Department,
. a construction parking plan,
. a construction staging and phasing plan,
. a construction worker transportation plan,
. a fugitive dust control plan found acceptable by the Engineering Department that
includes watering of disturbed areas, including haul routes where necessary,
perimeter silt fencing, as needed, and cleaning of adjacent right of ways,
. a plan for accepting major construction related deliveries with estimated delivery
schedule, including the designation of haul routes, and
. an agreement with the City to participate with other neighboring developments under
construction in order to limit the compounded impacts of construction. This
agreement shall be prepared by the developer and accepted by the Community
Development Director.
As part of the CMP, the developer shall agree to require all dump trucks hauling to and
from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission requirements of the Colorado
Smoking Vehicle Law. Any regulations regarding construction management that may be
adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for this project
shall be applicable.
A temporary encroachment license is required for use of the City right of way for
construction purposes. The Applicant shall not be allowed to close South Aspen Street
during construction except for reconstruction of the street. Street closure of South Aspen
Street concurrent with significant public events like World Cup shall be avoided to the
greatest extent possible.
The Applicant shall provide phone contact information of the on-site project management
to neighboring properties (Lift One Condominiums, the Timber Ridge Condominiums,
the Shadow Mountain Condominiums, and the South Point Condominiums) and post
such information on a sign at the construction site in full public view so that concerns
about the development may be made directly to the construction management personnel.
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 4
Section 5: Pre Construction Meetin2
The Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community
Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application. This meeting shall
include at a minimum the general contractor, the architect of the construction drawings,
the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building
Department, City Construction Management Officer, and the Community Development
Department's case planner.
Section 6: Fire Access and Miti2ation
The bridge over Juan Street shall be at least sixteen and a half feet above Juan Street to
allow for the passage of fire trucks beneath it. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler
system and alarm system within the entire building structure as required by the Fire
Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the
required fire sprinkler system. The Applicant's design team shall meet with the Fire
Marshall to formulate a plan for fighting fires in the below grade parking garage
structures prior to building permit submittal.
Section 7: Water & Electric Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Electric Department Standards and
Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the 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. The Applicant shall also enter into a water service
agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the
residential units. Each residential unit shall have an individual water meter.
Section 8: Storm WaterIDraina2e Plan
The Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Drainage Plan pnor to Building Permit
submittal, that meets with the approval ofthe City Engineer.
Section 9: As en Consolidated Sanitation Di trict Re uirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen C nsolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No "clear water" connections (roo, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. Oil and sand separators eeting the ACSD's requirements shall be
installed in each of the parking garages. The driveway entrance drains shall drain to
drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator. One tap
to the main sanitary line is allowed for each of the buildings within the development. No
soil nails shall be allowed in the public right of way above ACSD main sewer lines. The
Applicants shall enter into a shared service line agreement with ACSD. Glycol and
snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
Section 10: Soil Stabilization
The Applicant shall install inclinometers and conduct bi-monthly monitoring for a minimum
of one seasonal cycle before the issuance of a building permit. The number and location of
the inclinometers shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to installation.
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 5
If any slope movement is identified by the bi-monthly monitoring, the project will not be
allowed to exacerbate the historic rate of slope movement during or after construction. If
the historic rate of movement is exacerbated during the construction process, the City will
stop work on the project and require the Applicant to make such improvements that are
necessary to reduce the slope movement back to historic rates. If the inclinometers
determine that there is a historic rate of slope movement, the design shall exhibit a global
stability meeting the AASHTO requirements, which implies a minimum factor of safety of
1.5.
In preparing soil stability reports for the property, a soil bearing grid with no more than 100
feet between test locations shall be used under the building's footprint. In areas outside of
the building's footprint, test locations shall not 500 feet apart. The depth of soil borings
must exceed the elevation of the lowest footer by twenty (20) feet.
Section 11: Reconstruction of South Aspen Street
The Applicant shall reconstruct and snowmelt South Aspen Street south of Durant Avenue
per the plans included in the final PUD application. The Applicant shall form an
improvements district to fund the reconstruction of the road. In the case that the Lift One
Lodge (proposed on the east side of S. Aspen Street) is approved for construction, the
improvements district will include the owners of the Lift One Lodge and the owners of the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain. If the Lift One Lodge is not approved, the improvement district
shall only include the owners of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The energy to use the
snowmelt system in South Aspen Street and the maintenance of the snowmelt system are the
responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant shall develop a road maintenance alternative
to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall and Streets Department Superintendent in
the instance that the snowmelt system were to break during the winter. The reconstruction
of South Aspen Street shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
on the lodge.
Section 12: Landscapinl!:
The proposed landscaping in the public right of way shall meet the Parks Department
standards for location, spacing, species, planting specifications, irrigation and other
applicable standards. Sidewalks shall be designed and built in a manner that reduces the
impact to existing trees and roots systems. All sidewalks located within the drip line of
trees to be saved shall be built on grade in a manner that allows for the sub-grade prep
and sidewalk to float over the roots preventing any excavation into the soil. All work in
these protection zones is to be accomplished without machines, but by handwork only.
An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or signifIcant property
changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building
permit. Mitigation for tree removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. The applicant
shall consult with the Deputy Director of the Parks Department in order to discuss how
tree mitigation will be handled and coordinated with Lift One, if necessary.
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 6
Section 13: Replacement of Lift lA
The Applicant has represented that they will provide $4 million dollars towards the
replacement of Lift 1 A with a new lift. Such representation is hereby incorporated into this
approval as a condition. The new lift shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy on the Lodge At Aspen Mountain.
Section 14: Enerln' Conservation
The Lodge at Aspen Mountain has made representations committing to the following
energy goals. Such goals are hereby included as conditions of approval.
To use thirty percent less energy than the average measured energy use of comparable
type properties in the area for the base data (See note A).
a) To "true up," on an annual basis (sun setting in 20 years), the actual energy
consumption of the property, and purchase local renewable energy or carbon
offsets as necessary to. cover any shortfall (See note B). LAM proposes a
cap on the shortfall penalty, to be negotiated.
b) If actual energy use in any given year is less than the target, a credit would
accrue to the project, which could be used for sale or trade for other
projects, or carried forward for credit in future years.
c) To offset 100% of C02e emissions from any and all snowmelt installed in
public right of way directly associated to The Lodge. (See note B)
. Note A: All measurements to be combined electric and natural gas consumption,
including snowmelt, pools, spas, and garages. For the purpose of identifying
offsets, energy use shall be converted to pounds of C02e using City of Aspen
conversion factors.
. Note B: Purchase of offsets to be accomplished thru a variety of means, in order
of preference:
Energy or carbon-saving project( s), equal in C02e reductions to the excess
C02e emissions from The Lodge (and verified by CORE), directly funded and
managed by LAM or its agents,
Purchase of local energy or carbon offsets through a local market (CORE or
others, approved by the City of Aspen and verified by CORE, as available),
or, if the first two options are not possible with City of Aspen approval,
Purchase of energy or carbon offsets through a public market, with minimum
criteria for the quality, additionality, and durability of offsets.
Section 15: Off-Street Parkin!!:
The Applicant shall construct a total of 257 parking spaces within the two (2) underground
garages. 118 of the parking spaces are required parking (with 13 spaces designated for the
affordable housing units) and 139 of the parking spaces may be leased or sold to off-site
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 7
tenants. The 50 on-street parking spaces that will be lost in the reconstruction of South
Aspen Street are to be replaced as public parking in a parking garage to be constructed by
the proposed Lift One Lodge owners if their project is approved and built. In the event that
the proposed Lift One Lodge is not approved and built (or is completed later than the Lodge
at Aspen), 50 of the 139 excess parking spaces to be built in the Lodge at Aspen shall be
available for public parking to replace the 50 on-street parking spaces until such time as the
Lift One Lodge's parking garage has obtained a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 16: Emplovee Housinl!: Mitil!:ation
The Applicant shall provide thirteen (13) Category 2 affordable housing units on the site.
These units shall be comprised of ten (10) studios, two I-bedroom units, and one 2-bedroom
unit to satisfY the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program requirements for the
demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments and shall provide housing credit for 18.25 full-
time employee equivalents (FTEs). In total, the proposed development would require 94.5
FTEs of affordable housing mitigation. The 76.25 FTEs that are not mitigated on-site may
be mitigated off-site with up to forty (40) percent of these 76.25 FTEs being allowed to be
mitigated outside of the City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Applicant
shall have constructed, deed-restricted, and received certificates of occupancy on all of the
off-site units being used to satisfY the affordable housing requirements prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy on the lodge. The existing Mine Dumps unit tenants at the time
of the demolition will be provided a right of first refusal for the rental of the new affordable
housing units.
The on-site affordable housing units shall be in compliance with APCHA's Employee
Housing Guidelines. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the
affordable housing units at the time of recordation of the condominium plat and prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, classifying the units as
Category 2 units. Included in the governing documents shall be language reflecting the
potential for the units to become ownership units. If the Applicant chooses to deed
restrict the affordable housing units as rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of
one percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the building.
In the event the affordable housing units are not rented in compliance with the rental
requirements of the Housing Authority's rental requirements, the Aspen/Pitkin Housing
Authority has the right to place tenants in the affordable housing units. The units may be
deed-restricted as rental units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as
the owners would request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental
occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than
year.
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 8
Section 17: Park Development Impact Fees
Park DeveloDment ImDact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fees. The Park
Development Impact Fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using
the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance.
Section 18: School Land Dedication Fees
School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal at the time of building
permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication,
because subdivision approval is required for the development of the multi-family
residential units per the definition of subdivision in the land use code. The school lands
dedication fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee
schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance.
Section 19: Impact Fees
All impact fees in effect at the time of building permit shall be applicable and be paid
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Section 20: Exterior Li2htin2
All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. The Applicant shall submit an exterior
lighting plan as part of the building permit submittal.
Section 21: Food Service Facilities
Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen Environmental Health
Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a
Colorado Food Service License for any of the commercial space that is to be used as
restaurant space. An oil and grease interceptor approved by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District shall be installed in any space that is to be used as a restaurant.
Section 22:
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 development approvals and the same shall be complied with as
if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 23:
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.
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 9
Section 24:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 25:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the l2'h day of March, 2007, 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 26th day of February, 2007.
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on this _ day of _,2007.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P, Worcester, City Attorney
The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 10
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS: PUD
A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and
requirements (staff findings follow each requirement):
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The future land use map in the AACP shows all of Parcel I (the area north of Juan S1.) and the
majority of Parcel 2 (south of Juan SI.) as "Lodging". The northern most part of Parcel 2 is
shown as "Residential" on the map; however, this portion was rezoned by from R-15 to L/TR in
2003 as part of the South Aspen S1. project approval. Therefore, the lodge proposal is clearly in
compliance with the direction of the AACP.
The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP,
such as providing "a compact, mixed use development that enable travel by foot, bicycle, and
public transportation for all types of trips", the provision of on and off-site affordable housing
within the city limits and within the UGB, enhancement of pedestrian corridors, and the
promotion of eclectic design styles within the city in order to maintain and enhance the
character of the community. The AACP also promotes economic sustainability, the
enhancement of "wealth generating capacity", and stemming the loss of the area's bed base by
redeveloping Aspen's ski base area. In addition, the Action Plan of the AACP speaks directly to
the importance of increasing density through infill in Aspen's original town-site, especially for
affordable housin , in order to rotect 0 en s ace surroundin the communit .
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of 1950's era ski lodges, the preserved,
original ski chairlift and ski club building, a modern, second-homeowner oriented
condominium, a small affordable housing development, one older single-family home, several
larger and newer single-family homes, and three 1970's era condominium structures housing a
mix of locals and second homeowners. The subject site contains an eighteen unit apartment
complex that is geared towards local residents, a parking lot, open space and one single-family
home. While there has been some recent new development in the vicinity, the area largely
represents the Aspen of another era of twenty, thirty and even fifty years ago.
In terms of land uses, the proposed lodge conforms well to the character of the surrounding
development. The lodge proposes short term accommodations located towards the ski mountain
side, adjacent to the two lodges across South Aspen Street, and residential-in-character,
fractional units oriented on the lower end of the site adjacent to the residential condominiums
and single familv residences.
- 20-
Staff finds that the revised development plan is generally consistent with the character of the
existing land uses in terms of bulk, mass, and height. Given the relatively large size of the
proposed structure, there will no doubt be a change to the immediate neighborhood, as most of
the existing structures are smaller in size and height comparisons. Most of the surrounding
structures are smaller, however, because they are situated on much smaller lots. The Lodge site
is over 104,000 sq. ft., while the Lift One and ~ Timber Ridge Condominiums sit on
approximately 28,000 and 14,000 sq. ft. lots, respectively.
Although the proposed lodge is large, it essentially consists of two smaller buildings connected
by a bridge, but physically separated by a street. When considering the proposed lodge in
comparison to the other condominium projects to the north, the footprint for the portion of the
structure on Parcel I is not greatly out of character with these structures (the difference in size
between the two is more in terms of height). Furthermore, if you consider the "surrounding
area" to also be the larger base area of the ski mountain in general, the project is generally
consistent in mass, scale, and height with the St. Regis Hotel, the Grand Hyatt, the Residences
at Little Nell that is under construction, and the Little Nell Hotel.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area
and will actually enhance the opportunities for redevelopment by dramatically improving the
appearance and vitalitv of this area of town.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
STAFF FiNDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The majority of the development, including the residential component is to be derived from
using reconstruction credits from the existing Mine Dump apartments that are to be demolished.
Additionally, there is no annual cap on the number of lodge units that can be built. The
Applicant has requested multi-year allotments for the commercial square footage that is
proposed. If all of the requested growth management actions are approved, this criterion would
be met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The 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. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below:
- 21 -
Dimensional Requirements Comparison
(Units measured in feet or square feet)
. mmenSilJnal ,7 .P.roposed A.ppl'oved . ..... ~2003 Ul'rR. ZOne
Re.qulrllllfent Development Coneeptual DilItti~ ..
.... . ...... < Plan ..
Minimum Lot Size 39,249 Sq. Ft.* 39,249 Sq. Ft.* 6,000 Sq. Ft.
represents the represents the
smallest of the two smallest of the
existing parcels two existing
parcels
Minimum Lot Areal Multi-Family- 1 Multi-Family- 1 Multi-Family- 1
Dwelling bedroom per 1,000 bedroom per bedroom per 1,000
square feet oflot area. 1,000 square square feet of lot
Lodge- No feet oflot area. area.
Requirement Lodge- No Lodge- No
Requirement Requirement
Front Yard Setback Parcel 1- 2.8 to 10.8' *Parcell- 4'4" 10 Feet
Parcel 2- 5.9 to 58.9' Parcel 2- 8'
Side Yard Setback Parcel l- East Side *Parcel l- East 5 Feet
Yard-7.4 to 31.2' Side Yard- 8'
West Side Yard- West Side Yard-
106.2' 115.5'
Parcel 2- North Side Parcel 2- North
Yard- 0' Side Yard- 5' 2"
South Side Yard- 8 to South Side
33' Yard- 5'4"
Rear Yard Setback Parcel 1- 13.6 to *Parcell-3'6" 1 0 Feet
37.2' Parcel 2- 2'4"
Parcel 2- 1.6 to 48.2'
Allowable Building 55' 47' as measured 28 Feet
Height by City Code
Required Open Space 14% (14,058 square 14% (14,058 25% (24,555 square
feet) square feet) feet)
Allowable FAR 1.87:1 (174,975 1.87:1 (175,000 1:1 (93,815 square
square feet) square feet) feet)
Off-Street Parking 257 Parking Spaces 231 Parking 118 Parking Spaces
Spaces
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
- 22-
b) Natural or 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 FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Generally, Staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are appropriate for the site for
the above characteristics, as follows:
a.) See discussion from 1.A. above; b.) Assuming precautions recommended by the soils and
structural engineers and the city engineer are adhered to, there will be no natural or man-made
hazards (final details related to this will be determined with the final PUD); c.) Most of the
proposed building pad has already been impacted by existing buildings or parking lots, so Staff
does not find that there will be any additional significant impacts to existing natural
characteristics; d.) Any development on this property would likely increase the above impacts;
however, Staff is comfortable that all of these impacts can be adequately mitigated. Noise is
regulated by city ordinance; traffic may increase, however, most visitors will likely arrive to
town by airplane and be brought to the lodge by shuttle where the convenient location will
allow walking to downtown and to the ski area; if guests do drive, all parking is internal to the
site and underground; regarding impacts to historical resources, the Skiers Chalet across the
street is listed as an historic property - Staff believes that the chances for the preservation of the
Chalet will be enhanced by the development of additional lodging in the vicinity because the
presence of the new lodge will likely create better visibility for the Skiers Chalet's lodge rooms
and oossiblv, result in soill-over business.
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 FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff does believe that the scale and massing of the proposed lodge is generally consistent with
that of the other larger hotels (St. Regis, Grand Hyatt, Little Nell) that are located on the south
side of Durant Avenue. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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.
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.
- 23-
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff finds the proposed parking amount to be adequate to serve the needs of the development.
The proposal satisfies the underlying zone district's parking requirements and actually provides
139 additional parking spaces that are to be for sell or lease to help alleviate some of the
parking problems in the immediate vicinity. Given the proximity of the site to the commercial
core, the ski area and transit connections and considering that the majority of guests of facilities
such as this arrive without a car, Staff believes that the parking will be more than sufficient to
meet the demand.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if:
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 FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in
order to meet the expected demand. While South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with
potential wintertime dangers, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that there
will be adequate access to serve this project and for fire protection if South Aspen Street is
reconstructed and snowmelted. To enhance fire protection, the structure will contain a
complete fire sprinkler system. Staff believes that if the snowmelt plan is proposed by the
A licant for South As en Street is enacted, no densit reductions are necessa .
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 mud flow, 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.
- 24-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes the site is suitable for development. However, Staff does have concerns about the
stability of the hillside above the proposed project related to the significant excavation that
would have to occur to accommodate the development. Staff has required significant soil
stability mitigation measures that include a hillside movement monitoring system. Staff
believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion with the conditions of approval that are
proposed in the attached ordinance.
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 FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
While the Applicant does propose an increase in the allowable floor area, no increase in the
amount of densitv is nronosed.
C. Site Design,
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the
town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
There are no unique natural or man-made features on the site. The site is located at the base of
Shadow Mountain, but is not proposing to impact it in any significant way. There are also
unique old ski lodge buildings across the street that are within the sphere of influence of this
project; however, Staff feels that the redevelopment of the subject site with hotel rooms,
restaurants, bars, and the upgrading of the ski lift and ski base facilities will be an enhancement
to the overall nei hborhood, includin to the business of the existin lod es.
- 25-
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
To the extent possible, the two structures connected by the bridge have been clustered on the
site. ~ Given the large size of the overall project, though, Staff feels that the separation provided
by the Juan Street right-of-way in breaking up the mass into two distinct structures is more
beneficial than clustering the entire mass on one site. If the entire proposed mass were to be
clustered on one site, the resulting height and bulk, while creating additional open space, would
further sil!llificantlv impact vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
The structures are primarily oriented towards South Aspen Street, the main street in the vicinity,
by focusing the main entrance of the hotel towards this street. The building is very urban in
character with its orientation close to the sidewalk and the street providing a nice edge to and
engagement of the street. The Applicant has also included several courtyards in the design to
help blend the private and public realms to create a better pedestrian relationship between the
building and South Aspen Street that was portrayed with the design that was approved at the
conceptual PUD review.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The structure on Parcel I will be accessible by fire truck to almost all of the four sides via city
streets or alleys, while the remainder of the structure on Parcel 2 will have fire truck access on
three sides with fire department connections located on all exteriors. All structures will be fire
sprinkled for further safety. Service vehicles will access the structure from loading dock off of
Juan Street, so that the do not have to ne otiate the stee er art of South As en Street.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
According to the application, the project will comply with all applicable regulatory
requirements related to handicap access. Adequate pedestrian access is being provided with the
addition of detached sidewalks along all streets that the property fronts. This should greatly
increase the safetv of pedestrians in the area who currentlv walk in the street.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
- 26-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPL V? I YES
According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled by
directing drainage into an extension of the existing storm drain facilities located in Durant
A venue. One extension will run on the west side of South Aspen St. to catch drainage from the
eastern portion of the site, while the other will come up Garmisch St. to Dean Avenue to pick
up drainage from the western portion of the site. Such improvements to drainage should be a
vast improvement over the existing conditions. A more detailed drainage plan will be submitted
and reviewed with the building permit application. A condition of approval has been included
that requires that there not be an increase in off-site drainage as a result of the proposed
development.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLv?lYES
The space between the two structures is taken up with a city street, so it is not a good location
for any uses related to the lodge. However, the design does incorporate an outdoor dining/apres
ski terrace on the west side of the building closest to the base of the ski area to take maximum
advantal!e of views and solar access.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES
According to the landscape plan, the proposed lodge will be extensively landscaped with
vegetation appropriate to the climate and several key trees identified by the City Parks
Department will be preserved. Outside of these significant trees, Staff does not believe that
there are an existin uni ue man-made or natural features on-site worth reservin .
E. 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 character is based upon the suitability of a
building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed
- 27-
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
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 of the property, represent a character suitable
for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of
nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non-
or less-intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and
appropriate marmer that does not require significant maintenance.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff finds that the proposed architectural character will be an enhancement to the visual
character of the neighborhood by dramatically updating the design quality and is an appropriate
style given the climate and the resort nature of the community. The design clearly represents
the lodge use. Furthermore, Staff believes that the proposed development has been altered
significantly in the conceptual PUD review process to better mitigate the overall scale of the
development.
According to the Applicant, they will use the Ground Source Heat Pump technology to naturally
heat and cool the lodge. Snow fences will be added to roof areas over pedestrian and
landscaped areas to protect them from snow and ice fall. Snow storage areas will be shown on
the final PUD olano
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted
in an appropriate marmer considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate marmer.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
- 28-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPL V? I YES
The Applicant states that all lighting will be in compliance with the adopted lighting standards
and designed to minimize adverse impacts on neighboring properties and public streets.
Additionally, lighting will not illuminate the structure, only areas of pedestrian and vehicular
access. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant submit a lighting
plan at the time of final POO submittal.
G. Common Park. Open Space. or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria
shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated
with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES
According to the preliminary engineering report supplied by the project engineer, public
infrastructure exists in the area and with improvements made to the infrastructure by the
A licant, ade uate facilities will be available to accommodate the develo men!.
- 29-
I. Access and Circulation.
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 an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Both structures and all of the units and associated uses have access from entry drives off of a
public street.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant had a transportation study completed for this application. The study indicates
that the area's streets and intersections are currently operating below capacity and will continue
to do so even after the lodge has been built and is open for business. All parking will be below
the buildings and there will be two separate vehicular entryways to help lessen any possibility
of vehicles backed-up into the city street. Nonetheless, the Applicant has proposed to
reconstruct and snowmelt South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant Avenue to make it
safer for the increase traffic volumes that would result from the proposed lodge.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
- 30-
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
There are no historic trails through the subject property which would require dedication or
improvement and the AACP does not recommend any additional trails on the property. The
development does not contain any private streets, so no easements are necessary for public
access. No securit ates, ard osts are ro osed.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD
applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do
not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and
impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the
development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD
development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
I. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements
to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any
facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required
affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior
to the respective impacts associated with the phase.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE
No has in of construction is antici ated at this time.
-31-
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS: TIMESHARE LODGE DEVELOPMENT
An applicant for timeshare lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards are in
addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision
applications.
A. Fiscal Impact Analvsis and Mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an existing
lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate that the
proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the City. In order
to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the applicant shall
prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD application. The fiscal
impact study shall contain at least the following comparisons between the existing
lodge operation and the proposed timeshare lodge development:
1. A summary of the sales taxes paid to the City for rental of lodge rooms during the
prior five years of its operation. If the lodge has stopped renting rooms prior to
the time of submission of the application, then the summary shall reflect the final
five years the lodge was in operation. The summary of past taxes paid shall be
compared to a projection of the sales taxes the proposed timeshare lodge
development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. As part
of this projection, the applicant shall specify the number of nights the applicant
anticipates each timeshare lodge unit will be available for daily rental to visitors
(that is, the annual number of nights when the unit will not be occupied by the
owner or the owner's guests), the expected visitor occupancy rate for these units,
the expected average daily cost to rent the unit, and the resulting amount of sales
tax that will be paid to the City.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshare lodge
develonment.
2. An estimation of the real estate transfer taxes that would be paid to the City if the
existing lodge were to be sold. If an actual sale of the property has occurred within
the last 12 months, then the real estate taxes paid for that sale shall be used. This
estimation shall be compared to a projection of the real estate transfer taxes the
proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years
of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected sales
prices for the timeshare estates, and the applicable tax rate that will be applied to
each sale.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshare lodge
development.
- 32-
3. A summary of the City-portion of the property taxes paid for the lodge for the
prior five years of its operation, and a projection of the property taxes the
proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five
years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected
value that will be assigned to the property by the Tax Assessor, and the applicable
tax rate.
The fiscal impact study may also contain such other information that the applicant
believes is relevant to understanding the tax consequences of the proposed
development. For example, the applicant may provide information demonstrating
there will be "secondary", or "indirect" tax benefits to the City from the
occupancy of the timeshare units, in terms of increased retail sales and other
economic activity in the community as compared to the existing lodge
development. The applicant shall be expected to prove definitively why the
timeshare units would cause such economic advantages that would not be
achieved by a traditional lodge development. Any such additional information
provided shall compare the taxes paid during the prior five years of the lodge's
operation to the first five years of the proposed timeshare lodge's operation.
If the fiscal impact study demonstrates there will be an annual tax loss to the City
from the conversion of an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge, then the applicant
shall be required to propose a mitigation program that resolves the problem, to the
satisfaction of the Aspen City Council. The accepted mitigation program shall be
documented in the PUD Agreement for the project that is entered into between the
applicant and the Aspen City Council.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshare lodge
development.
B. Upgrading of Existing Proiects. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to
a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and modernized. The
extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be determined as part of the
PUD review, considering the condition of the existing facilities, with the intent being to
make the development compatible in character with surrounding properties and to
extend the useful life of the building.
1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be
brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a
timeshare lodge development. The new development shall be required to meet the City's
adopted fire, health, and building codes.
-))-
2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a
timeshare lodge develonment.
C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventorv. An express purpose of these regulations is
to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory. Therefore, any proposal to
convert an existing lodge or other property that provides short term accommodations to
a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the existing number of units on the
property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the applicant is unable to replace the
existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge development shall replace the
existing number of bedrooms on the property, or the applicant shall demonstrate how
the proposal complies with the purposes of these regulations, even though the planned
timeshare lodge will not replace either the existing number of units or bedrooms.
STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a
timeshare lodge development. The project does, however, propose to add additional beds and
rooms which will add to the Citv's lodging stock.
D. Affordable Housing ReQuirements.
1. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing,
mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards of the
City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing requirement shall be
calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the
development, and shall also take into account any retail, restaurant, conference, or
other functions proposed in the lodge.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant has proposed to exceed the employee housing mitigation requirements through a
mix of on-site, off-site housing in the City limits, and off-site housing within the UGB. If the
method of miti ation is acce ted b Cit Council, this criterion is met.
2. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of
residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, even when there is
no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant commits to complying with the requirements of Section 26.530. Staff finds that
the Applicant's proposed method of satisfying the Resident Multi-family Replacement Program
is in compliance with the code requirements.
- 34-
E. Parking Reauirements.
1. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by
applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The
parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed
lock out rooms in the development.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The project provides the required amount of parking spaces for the number of lodge units
orooosed (1 soace oer unit).
2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of guest
transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an alternative
to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen.
3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a
parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The PUD Agreement and the timeshare instruments will prohibit the owners from storing
vehicles on site when not in-residence. The PUD Agreement will also require the service of a
shuttle for the benefit of l!Uests and owners.
F. Aoorooriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of timeshare
estates shall be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S.,
as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed marketing entity
shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare development.
1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall not
be permitted:
a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street,
mall, or other public property or facility; and
b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead
potential purchasers.
2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or to
visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the local Aspen
economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen, restaurants
in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are
permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are not
permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted:
a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given;
- 35-
b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser that
the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a condition of
receiving the gifts; and
c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to
attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information on the gift
being offered.
STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant has represented that they will incorporate all of the above requirements into the
PUD al!reement and the timeshare instruments
G. Adeauacv of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide
documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be
appropriately managed and maintained in an manner that will be both stable and
continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will be
provided, and shall also address the following requirements:
1. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve
any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare
development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that
management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately.
2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that
the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its
lifetime.
STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant states in the application that the above requirements (I and 2) will be
incorporated in the PUD Agreement timeshare instruments to be submitted with the Final PUD
application.
H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 12,
Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.;
including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission of a sales
contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow.
STAFF FINDING: 1 DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant states in the application that the above statutory requirements will be
incorporated in the PUD Agreement timeshare instruments to be submitted with the Final PUD
application.
I. Approval Bv Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be
timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the
condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of the
owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development, including
- 36-
any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may propose, that all
mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed timeshare development,
and that all condominium units in the timeshare development will be included in the
same sales and marketing program.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE
This review standard does not apply to the proposed lodge, as the conversion of existing
condominiums to timeshare develo ment is not ro osed.
J. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement contained
in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any of the
following practices:
1. The creation, operation or sale of a right-to-use interest or any other timeshare
concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the requirements
of this section. Right-to-use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease-holds and vacation
clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare approval,
timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement.
3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for
timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another who
may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest.
4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein in
violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant
hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter,
or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant commits to not engaging in any marketing practices which are prohibited above,
or b local or State re lations.
- 37-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: Subdivision
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staffs res onse to PUD Review Standard A I).
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the area.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Please see Staff s res onse to PUD review standard A I .
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
STAFF FINDING: TDOESITCOMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area
and will actually enhance the opportunities for redevelopment by dramatically improving the
aooearance and vitalitv of this area of town.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be m compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff believes that the proposed development is in conformance with all of the provisions of the
land use code if the dimensional requirements are approved through the PUD and the proposed
method of miti atin for affordable housin is acce ted b Cit Council.
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep to]Jography 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.
- 38-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes the site is suitable for development. However, Staff does have concerns about the
stability of the hillside above the proposed project related to the significant excavation that
would have to occur to accommodate the development. Staff has required significant soil
stability mitigation measures that include a hillside movement monitoring system. Staff
believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion with the conditions of approval that are
proposed in the attached ordinance. There is also not a need for premature extension of
utilities.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review
(See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. 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.
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 26.530, 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant has proposed to meet the Resident Multi-family Replacement Program
requirements for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments by providing 13 units of
affordable housing on the site that is comprised of 50 percent of the units, bedrooms, and square
footage that is in the multi-family complex to tom down. Additionally, the Applicant has
requested the necessary growth management allotments to construct the proposed development.
If the method of miti ation is acce ted b Cit Council, this criterion will be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards
set forth at Chapter 26.630.
- 39-
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant shall be required to pay the applicable school land dedication fee for the
residential units within the development. Staff has included a condition of approval that
re uires the school land dedication fees be aid rior to buildin ermit issuance.
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, 9 2)
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant has requested the necessary growth management approvals to construct the
proposed development. If these growth management requests are approved then the subdivision
can be a roved b Cit Council.
- 40-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: GM Review -Conversion of Residential Reconstruction
Credits to Lodging Units
Section 26.470.040(C)(4) of the City Land Use Code provides that development
applications for reconstruction credits must comply with the following standards and
requirements.
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
STAFF FINDING: TDoESITCOMPLV? I YES
The residential units within the development are to be constructed from reconstruction credits
gained from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. Some of the lodge rooms are also
proposed to be developed from reconstruction credits. The development rights for the lodge
units not to be constructed from reconstruction credits shall be obtained pursuant to the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2). There is no cap on lodge allotments
that can be given in anyone year. The commercial allotment being requested requires a multi-
year allotment. The Applicant's compliance with the multi-year allotment standards are
addressed elsewhere in the Staff memorandum. If City Council grants the multi-year
allotments, this criterion is met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES
Please see Staffs res onse to POO review standard A I .
c) Residential dwelling unit construction credits shall be converted to lodge units at a
rate of three (3) lodge units per each one residential unit;
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPL v? I YES
The Applicant is requesting reconstruction credits for fifteen (15) of the residential units to be
demolished in the Mine Dump Apartments. The fifteen (15) residential units translate into
forty-five (45) lodge units when using the ratio of three (3) lodge units per one residential unit
being demolished.
d) Development shall comply with Section 26.470.070, Reconstruction Limitations.
- 41-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposal satisfies the requirements of Section 26.470.070, Reconstruction Limitations, if
the building permit for the lodge is submitted within one year of demolition of the units. The
replacement units are proposed on the same parcel and on non-contiguous parcels within the
same POO as is permitted by Land Use Code Section 26.470.070. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
e) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the lodge units, according Section
26.470.050.A. Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. If the project qualifies as an Incentive
Lodge project, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.3, then thirty (30) percent of the
employees generated by the lodge units shall be mitigated. Affordable housing shall
be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be
restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a
lower Category designation.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant has proposed to mitigate for 60% of the employees generated by lodge rooms
that are to be derived from reconstruction credits. Please see the mitigation section of the staff
memo for an explanation on the employee housing mitigation breakdown. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
f) The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses
in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Please see Staff s res onse to POO review standard A I .
g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
- 42-
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in
order to meet the expected demand. While South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with
potential wintertime dangers, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that there
will be adequate access to serve this project and for fire protection if South Aspen Street is
reconstructed and snowmelted. To enhance fire protection, the structure will contain a
complete fire sprinkler system. Staff believes that if the snowmelt plan is proposed by the
A licant for South As en Street is enacted, no densit reductions are necess
- 43-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: GM Review - Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use
Development.
The expansion of an existing commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building or the
development of a new commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on
the following criteria:
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The residential units within the development are to be constructed from reconstruction credits
gained from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. Some of the lodge rooms are also
proposed to be developed from reconstruction credits. The development rights for the lodge
units not to be constructed from reconstruction credits shall be obtained pursuant to the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2). There is no cap on lodge allotments
that can be given in anyone year. The commercial allotment being requested requires a multi-
year allotment. The Applicant's compliance with the multi-year allotment standards are
addressed elsewhere in the Staff memorandum. If City Council grants the multi-year
allotments, this criterion is met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staffs res onse to PUD review standard A I).
c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge
development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7,
Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen
Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose
to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free-
Market residential units within a mixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section
26.470.040.C.6 - Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project.
STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant has proposed to mitigate for 60% of the employees generated by the lodge rooms
and the commercial space that is proposed. Please see the mitigation section of the staff memo
for an explanation on the employee housing mitigation breakdown. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
- 44-
d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLV? YES
Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in
order to meet the expected demand. While South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with
potential wintertime dangers, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that there
will be adequate access to serve this project and for fire protection if South Aspen Street is
reconstructed and snowmelted. To enhance fire protection, the structure will contain a
complete fire sprinkler system. Staff believes that if the snowmelt plan is proposed by the
A licant for South As en Street is enacted, no densit reductions are necess
- 45-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: GM Review - Affordable Housing.
The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following
criteria:
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new
units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
There is not an annual cap on the number of allotments available for affordable housing units.
Additionally, the number of affordable housing units in the community after the construction of
the affordable housing associated with this development will not come close to exceeding the
overall ceiling for affordable housing units set forth in the growth management section of the
land use code.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staffs res onse to POO review standard A I).
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the AspenlPitkin County
Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
STAFF FINDING: "1 DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
There is not an annual cap on the number of allotments available for affordable housing units.
Additionally, the number of affordable housing units in the community after the construction of
the affordable housing associated with this development will not come close to exceeding the
overall ceiling for affordable housing units set forth in the growth management section of the
land use code.
d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that
the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square
footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units
shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits
may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2.
Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the
discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from
- 46-
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be
provided through a mix of these methods.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
As is described in the mitigation section of the staff memorandum, the Applicant is proposing to
provide the thirteen (13) affordable housing units on the site to satisfy the multi-family
replacement program requirements for demolishing the Mine Dump Apartments. Additionally,
the Applicant has proposed to mitigate for the remainder of the mitigation requirements by
constructing 32 units within the City limits on the Smuggler Racquet Club parcel and nine (9)
units at the AABC. During the conceptual POO review, City Council placed a condition
requiring that 60% of the required mitigation be provided within the City limits and 40% be
allowed to be provided outside the City limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary. The
Housing Board has recommended that the P&Z and City Coucil accept the mitigation plan that
is proposed. Staff believes that the proposed mitigation plan is consistent with the condition of
approval that was requested by City Council at conceptual review and in compliance with this
criterion.
e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified
renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize
affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial
operation to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Units owned by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other
similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this
mandatory "for-sale" provision.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Applicant has proposed to convey an undivided 1/10'h of one percent ownership interest in
the thirteen (13) affordable housing units that are to be built on the site to the Housing
Authority. This method of ensuring that the deed restrictions are enforceable has been accepted
by the City on many occasions and the City Attorney believes that it is an appropriate practice.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
- 47-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: GM Review - AH Outside City Limits
The provlSlon of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth
~ Management, with units to be located outside the City of Aspen boundary, upon a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a) The proposal promotes the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Cormnunity
Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staff s res onse to POO review standard A I .
b) The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The affordable housing units that are proposed outside of the City limits are proposed to be
located at the AABC, which is located within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
c) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as
priority through the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels,
and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The Housing Board has reviewed the proposed development and has indicated that the thirteen
(J 3) affordable housing units that are proposed for the site meet the Housing Guideline
requirements. Additionally, the Housing Board felt that the overall mitigation concept,
including the proposed units on the Smuggler Racquet Club property and the AABC property is
acceptable. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with
jurisdiction of the off-site parcel.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant has applied for the necessary approvals to construct the proposed affordable
housing on the Smuggler Racquet Club property and is currently in the City's review process.
Pitkin County has already granted approval for the units to be constructed at the AABC. Staff
finds this criterion to be met if the Applicant receives approval of the Smuggler Racquet Club
a lication rior to Cit Council review of the lod e a lication.
- 4S-
Note: City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable
housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the city's jurisdictional
limits, including all or none.
- 49-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: GM Review - Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development
Allotment.
The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an exceptional project or a multi-year
development allotment request based on the following criteria:
a) The proposed multi-year or exceptional development is considered "exceptional"
considering the following criteria: (Note - A project need not meet all of the
following criteria, only enough to be sufficiently considered "exceptional.")
1. The proposed project advances the visions, goals or specific action items of
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staffs res onse to PUD review standard AI.
2. The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing required for a
standard project.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed affordable housing in total exceeds the required mitigation as was described in
the mitigation section of the staff memorandum.
3. The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation
accomplishment. A recommendation from the Historic Preservation Officer
shall be considered for this standard.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The project is not proposed on any properties that are designated to the Aspen Inventory of
Historicall Desi ated Sites and Structures.
4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units
established as priority through the current Guidelines of the AspenlPitkin
County Housing Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit
types, economic levels, and lifestyles (e.g. singles, seniors, families, etc.). A
recommendation from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall be
considered for this standard.
- 50-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLV? I YES
The Housing Board has reviewed the proposed development and has indicated that the thirteen
(13) affordable housing units that are proposed for the site meet the Housing Guideline
requirements. Additionally, the Housing Board felt that the overall mitigation concept,
including the proposed units on the Smuggler Racquet Club property and the AABC property is
acceptable. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating
innovative, energy-saving techniques.
I DOES IT COMPL v? I YES, IF GSHP WERE USED ON THE STREET
AS WELL AS THE LODGE.
The Applicant is proposing to use GSHP technology to heat and cool the lodge. The energy to
be saved by heating and cooling the lodge through GSHP technology is proposed to offset the
energy that will be needed to snowmelt the road using traditional boiler technology. The City's
Environmental Health Department would like the Applicant to use GSHP technology to also
snowmelt the street.
STAFF FINDING:
6. The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practicable both
during and after construction.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
The Applicant did not address this criterion in the application, and thus Staff does not have
enou h information to evaluate the a lication's com liance with this standard.
7. The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and mmlmlzes
reliance on the automobile.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The proposed location ofthe lodge is in close proximity to the Commercial Core and the base of
As en Mountain. Additionall , the A licant has ro osed a shuttle for ests.
8. The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code
or for LEEDS certification, as applicable. A recommendation from the
Building Department shall be considered for this standard.
- 51 -
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The Applicant has proposed to use GSHP technology to heat and cool the lodge structure in
order offset the energy requirements for using traditional boilers to operate the snowmelt that is
being proposed in South Aspen Street. The Building Department and Dan Richardson of the
City's Environmental Health Department requested that the Applicant offset all of the C02
emissions from the snowmelt in the construction and design of the lodge's mechanical systems.
Additionally, Dan Richardson suggested that the Applicant design the lodge to exceed the 2006
International Energy Code requirements by 50%. Staff feels that if met, the above
re uirements will ensure that this ro' ect is of exce tional environmental ualit .
9. The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff feels that the project does promote a sustainable local economy adding lodges rooms to
the City's inventory that had been decreasing over the last decade. Additionally, this proposal
refurbishes the area around the west side of the base of Aspen Mountain and functionally
expands the ski able terrain, which willlikelv attract more visitors.
10. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design
solution.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff does believe that the proposal provides for a desirable site plan and architectural design.
The scale and massing of the proposed building has been reduced throughout and the Applicant
has intel!rated the buildinl! into S. Asoen Street's streetscaoe.
11. The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing
land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone
district.
- 52-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of 1950's era ski lodges, the preserved,
original ski chairJift and ski club building, a modern, second-homeowner oriented
condominium, a small affordable housing development, one older single-family horne, several
larger and newer single-family homes, and three 1970's era condominium structures housing a
mix of locals and second homeowners. The subject site contains an eighteen unit apartment
complex that is geared towards local residents, a parking lot, open space and one single-family
home. While there has been some recent new development in the vicinity, the area largely
represents the Aspen of another era of twenty, thirty and even fifty years ago.
In terms of land uses, the proposed lodge conforms well to the character of the surrounding
development. The lodge proposes short term accommodations located towards the ski mountain
side, adjacent to the two lodges across South Aspen Street, and residential-in-character,
fractional units oriented on the lower end of the site adjacent to the residential condominiums
and single family residences.
Staff finds that the revised development plan is generally consistent with the character of the
existing land uses in terms of bulk, mass, and height. Given the relatively large size of the
proposed structure, there will no doubt be a change to the immediate neighborhood, as most of
the existing structures are smaller in size and height comparisons. Most of the surrounding
structures are smaller, however, because they are situated on much smaller lots. The Lodge site
is over 104,000 sq. ft., while the Lift One and Timber Ridge Condominiums sit on
approximately 28,000 and 14,000 sq. ft. lots, respectively.
Although the proposed lodge is large, it essentially consists of two smaller buildings connected
by a bridge, but physically separated by a street. When considering the proposed lodge in
comparison to the other condominium projects to the north, the footprint for the portion of the
structure on Parcel I is not greatly out of character with these structures (the difference in size
between the two is more in terms of height). Furthermore, if you consider the "surrounding
area" to also be the larger base area of the ski mountain in general, the project is generally
consistent in mass, scale, and height with the St. Regis Hotel, the Grand Hyatt, the Residences
at Little Nell that is under construction, and the Little Nell Hotel.
12. The project complies with all other provisions of the Land Use Code and has
obtained all necessary approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission,
the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council, as applicable.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
If City Council approves the dimensional requirements being proposed in the PUD and accepts
the proposed mitigation plan, the development is compliant with the provisions of the land use
code and will have obtained all necessary actions from the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Citv Council.
- 53-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: Replacement of
Demolished Units through MF Replacement Program
The replacement of demolished multi-family residential units shall be exempt from the
provisions of this Growth Management Section if the requirements of the Multi-Family
Housing Replacement Program are met. (See Chapter 26.530 - Multi-Family Housing
Replacement Program.) Replacement units shall not be deducted from the respective
Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to
Section 26.470.030. The development of additional residential units, beyond those
merely being replaced, shall be subject to this Chapter. Also see Reconstruction
Limitations, Section 26.470.070.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
As was discussed in the staff memorandum, the Applicant has proposed to meet the resident
multi-family replacement program requirements on the site by constructing the thirteen (13)
affordable housing units. The Applicant is not proposing to develop more free market
residential units in the hotel than the are demolishin in the Mine Dum A artments.
- 54-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: Conditional Use for Restaurant and Commercial Parking Facility
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as
applicable.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone
district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other
applicable requirements of this title; and
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES.
Staff does believe that it is appropriate to have a restaurant use an accessory use in a lodge that
is to be located within the lodging zone district. Moreover, there has been a restaurant at the
top of South Aspen Street for quite some time in the Skier's Chalet (recently closed). Staff
feels that allowing for a restaurant to be accessory to the hotel use on the site will enhance the
apres ski options for visitors and locals alike.
In evaluating the request to lease parking spaces to the general public and to neighbors of the
project, Staff feels that the commercial parking use will alleviate some of the on-street parking
pressure in the area that has been building over the years due to the lack of on-site parking that
has been rovided in man of the older condo develo ments in the vicinit .
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding
land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLV? YES.
Once again, Staff does believe that it is appropriate to have a restaurant use an accessory use in
a lodge that is to be located within the lodging zone district. There has been a restaurant at the
top of South Aspen Street for quite some time in the Skier's Chalet (recently closed). Staff
feels that allowing for a restaurant to be accessory to the hotel use on the site will enhance the
apres ski options for visitors and locals alike and compliment the hotel use.
In evaluating the request to lease parking spaces to the general public and to neighbors of the
project, Staff feels that the commercial parking use will alleviate some of the on-street parking
pressure in the area that has been building over the years due to the lack of on-site parking that
has been rovided in man of the older condo develo ments in the vicinit .
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts
on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
- 55-
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff feels that the proposed development has plenty of parking, trash, and delivery service to
accommodate the accessory restaurant use without providing a visual or circulation impact.
Additionally, Staff believes that the commercial parking that is proposed within the parking
garage will not be visible or impact the circulation in the immediate area if South Aspen Street
is allowed to be snowmelted.
D, There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks,
police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools; and
STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff feels that there are sufficient public facilities to accommodate the proposed restaurant and
commercial narkinl! uses within the lodge.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental
need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
If City Council accepts the Applicant's proposed employee housing mitigation plan, this
criterion is met.
- 56-
Exhibit "A"
Staff Findings: 8040 Greenline Review
No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the
8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that
the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If
the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize
and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the
site to a location acceptable to the city.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes the site is suitable for development. However, Staff does have concerns about the
stability of the hillside above the proposed project related to the significant excavation that
would have to occur to accommodate the development. Staff has required significant soil
stability mitigation measures that include a hillside movement monitoring system. Staff
believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion with the conditions of approval that are
proposed in the attached ordinance.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the
natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects oh
water pollution.
STAFF FINDING: I DOESITCOMPLV? I YES
Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring that a drainage plan be provided as part of
the building permit application that demonstrates that the project will not increase the historic
rate of drainage off the site.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the city.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES
Staff has required that the Applicant be required to pay the applicable air quality fee that was
recentl ado ted to ensure miti ation for the increased vehicle tri s enerated b the lod e.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible
with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES
The proposed redevelopment and associated reconstruction of S. Aspen Street respects the
existing topography of the site and does not try to flatten it. Staff feels that the proposal
a ro riatel ste s down the hill with the to 0 a h .
- 57-
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant has proposed extensive landscaping to mitigate for the regrading and loss of
landscaping that will occur on the site. The loss of vegetation will be mitigated by the planting
of street trees and rovidin extensive landsca in throu hout the site.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit
cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic
resource.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Staff feels that the development will be tucked away and will not be significantly visible
from outside of the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the Applicant's design allows for
views of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street at certain vantage points. The proposal
also contains a significant amount of open space between the Juan Street affordable housing
com lex and the ro osed develo ment for a buffer.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
As was discussed in the previous response, Staff feels that the proposed lodge would be tucked
away and not very visible outside of the immediate neighborhood. Significant massing changes
were required during the conceptual review that reduced the lodge's visibility from the public
realm north of Durant Avenue.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
All necessary utilities can serve the proposed development. The City utility agencies were
consulted and recommended necessary improvements for the lodge to be served with all the
necessarv utilities.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads
can be properly maintained.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The Applicant has proposed to reconstruct and snowmelt South Aspen Street to make it safe to
accommodated the ro osed develo ment.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
- 58-
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL V? YES
The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposal and indicated that they have adequate ingress and
egress to serve the property. Additionally, the lodge is to contain sprinkler systems meeting the
Fire Marshall's requirements and standpipes. Finally, the Applicant is required to put together
a Ian to be reviewed and a roved b the Fire Marshall for fi htin fires in the arkin ara e.
11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the
greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55-2000, S 7)
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? NOT APPLICABLE
The ParksIRecreation/Trails Plan in the AACP does not speak to this property. Therefore, this
criterion is not a licable to this a lication.
- 59-
v
v
I-
,Ii
~-
;.. "
'\
-I
~
~
,
;;
~
~
~
,
;
~
~
.~
a~
~=
=~
.~
.~
!=
~~
.:a:;:!
.;
::::!
s~
o~
c_
aa
~~
-c
a~
.~
~..
*a
.0
~.
o.
:i!(
~E
o.
c,
~~
*~
..
~~
,0
~a
*=
~-
~c
==
~~
~~
5
,.
[
. ..
.
1
Ll"c:
*J
l;ll "..
'"..
:;;..
~~
;:1
:;l~
~;:
.
~j~l ~
II
Memorandrnn
To: John Sarpa
cc: Jeff Hanson, Krystal England
From: Mark 1 Hughes
Date: 1/29/2007
Re: The Lodge at Aspen Mountain: Construction Management Plan Review
Below are bullet points reflecting items that are "Over and Above" the standard
requirements of the City of Aspen Construction Management Plan.
The Project, as a whole, shall aim to exceed standard industry performance by actively
endorsing the following project initiatives:
o Planning & Scheduling
o The Schedule for the Proj ect has been 'broken down into eleven key
Phases, each with a distinct Staging and Logistics Plan graphic included
in the Construction Management Plan.
o The Contractor shall update and publish modifications to the
Construction Management Plan with input from the City of Aspen,
Neighborhood groups, and Schedule alterations.
o Communication - sharing of information.
o The Contractor shall publish periodic updates in The Aspen Times and
The Aspen Daily News to notify & inform the public on construction
issues.
o A designated contact person shall be appointed for liaison with the
Public. Contact information shall be published.
o The Contractor shall provide a regularly updated Project Website with
posted information and status photographs.
o The Contractor shall hold bi-monthly meetings with the Juan Street,
Garmisch Street, and South Aspen Street neighborhood groups
regarding construction status and concerns.
o Safety - Protection of Public Health and Welfare
Swinerton Builders, Denver Division - 6890 West 52"<1 Ave., Suite 100 -Arvada, CO 80002-390]
Phone: 303-413-9242 Fax: 303-423-0632
Page 1 of3
-E,c.ki~i+ t)
II
o The Contractor shall initiate and publish a comprehensive
Environmental Health and Safety Plan to identify potential
environmental hazards and means and methods in which to deal with
them.
o The Contractor shall hold monthly coordination meetings with The City
of Aspen regarding Traffic Control.
o A specific Traffic Control Coordinator shall be designated for the
Project.
o Peak Skier traffic hours will be avoided for major deliveries.
o Minimize Construction Impact on Neighborhood and Adjacent Properties.
o The Contractor shall take additional measures to protect the adjacent
Juan Street properties from construction noise. The Contractor shall
install noise abatement measures including; placing storage trailers
adjacent to the project limits to buffer sound and installing fencing to
protect the residences from visual disturbance.
o Vehicle engine Pre-Heaters will be required to reduce warm up times
and vehicle start up idling time.
o With the City of Aspen's permission, a portion of Juan Street will be
closed and gated to segregate the Juan and Garmisch Street properties
from the Construction Site.
o All vehicle access and staging will occur behind barriers along South
Aspen Street adjacent to the Project Site ~ no staging on public streets
will be allowed.
o The Parking Management Plan proposes offsite parking at the remote
RFTA Brush Creek Park and Ride.
o The Contractor has contacted RFT A to determine the feasibility of
dedicated busses operating between Glenwood Springs and the Project
Site, morning and evening.
o Sustainability - provide Environmental Stewardship.
o The Contractor shall endorse and actively pUrsue its corporate
environmental sustainability policy for this project. For specifics on this
please visit - http://www.swinertongreen.com/
o Construction waste management and wildlife protection utilizing;
Source segregate debris on site, Pre-qualifY debris box haulers, Start a
recycling program at the beginning of a project, Provide a jobsite free of
food waste, and Provide animal proof receptacles.
o The landscape architect and the City of Aspen Parks Department shall
approve the means and methods of protection for all designated tree and
native vegetation areas to be preserved.
SwinertoD Builders, Denver Division - 6890 West 52n<1 Ave., Suite 100 - Arvada, CO 80002-3901
Phone: 303-423-9242 Fax: 303-423-0632
""....1
"
+..e-liNJe.:z,
. . t ~ 'tq
,
t
Page 2 of3
lI'I"I., .
1.. .....-.
,
---."
d4JZ-
Mark 1 Hughes
Pre-Construction Manager, Architect
Swinerton Builders, Denver Division - 6890 West 52nd Ave., Suite 100 - Arvada, CO 80002-3901
Phone: 303-423-9142 Fax: 303-423~0632
Page 3 of3
~
EXCEPTIONAL PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA
The Lodge at Aspen Mountain
2/6/07
1. The proposed project advances the visions, goals or specific action items of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
. AACP "Action Plan" Sustainable Economic Development task force creation
. Number one issued identified by task force was deteriorating condition of
City's lodging and tourist facilities and the outright loss of tourist beds
. Task force recommendation that the City actively support the development of
new lodging
. The project provides 80 new Lodge beds and 21 fractional ownership units
available for nightly rental by the public
2. The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing required for a standard
project.
. 94.5 employees required to be housed to mitigate hotel units, fractionalowner-
ship units and commercial uses
. 115.25 employees to be housed, 22 percent more than required
. 60 percent of employees required to be housed within the Aspen City Limits
. 77 percent of employees to be housed will be housed within the City Limits,
28 percent more than required
3. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as
priority through the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authori-
ty, and provides a desirable mix of affordable housing unit types, economic levels,
and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors, families, etc.).
. Affordable housing mitigation program approved by APCHA
. Mitigation program includes studio, I-bedroom, 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom
units
. Mitigation program includes both rental and sales units
. Income categories to be determined by APCHA and will include a variety of
rental and sales prices
I
EKki Ioi-t E
,
4. The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative,
energy-saving techniques.
· Project will utilize an innovative system of ground source heat pumps and
other conservation measures to offset energy required to snowmelt South
Aspen Street and to reduce the energy consumption of the project by 30
percent as compared to the average of other Aspen hotels (e.g., The Little
Nell, the S1. Regis, the Hotel Jerome, etc.)
· The City's Canary Initiative group and the Building Department consider the
project's energy savings approach to be exceptional
5. The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practicable both during and
after construction.
· Construction management plan exceeds City requirements
6. The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the
automobile.
· Extensive hotel van service to be provided
· Extensive improvements to South Aspen Street will facilitate future transit use
and significant improve pedestrian circulation in the immediate site area
· Construction worker intercept
7. The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code or for
LEEDS certification, as applicable.
· Project's energy savings commitment exceeds minimum requirements
. Canary Initiative group and Building Department concur
8. The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy.
. The project adds a significant number of new lodge beds to City inventory
thereby enhancing economic sustainability
9. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution.
. Project design extensively reworked to accommodate concerns of the neighbors
. Project design has achieved almost unanimous support of the neighbors
2
.
10. The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses
in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district.
· The project site is depicted as appropriate for lodging use in the AACP and is
zoned "L", Lodging on the City's zoning map
· With the exception of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums, both sides of
South Aspen Street south of Durant A venue are presently earmarked for
lodging and tourist oriented redevelopment
C: \oldc\bus\notes\nts44802. pz2
3
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 6, 2007
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB ............................................................................. 2
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN FINAL PUD .................................................... 2
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE SUBSTANTIAL PUD...................................... 6
I
6chil.i... F-
Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - February 6. 2007
Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting at 4:35 pm in the Sister Cities meeting
room. Members John Rowland, Brian Speck, Steve Skadron and Ruth Kruger
were present. Dylan Johns was excused from the Lodge. Staff in attendance were
Joyce Allgaier and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger stated that the lights on the Sardy House tree were an outstanding
addition and she asked if a letter could be written to Mr. DeVaney from the
Planning Commission. Joyce Allgaier stated that she would draft a letter from
P&Z.
MINUTES
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from January 2nd and
January J 6th; seconded by John Rowland. All in favor, APPROVED.
DECLARA nONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns stated a conflict on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB
Ruth opened the continued public hearing on the Smuggler Racquet Club.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the hearing on the Smuggler
Racquet Club to February 20th, seconded by John Rowland, All in favor,
APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN FINAL PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain
final PUD. Notice was provided at the previous meetings. Joyce Allgaier
summarized the project and tonight the applicant would address the street parking
in the neighborhood, detailed landscape plan, energy conservation plan,
exceptional project status recommendation for GMQS Multi-year and construction
management plan summary. Allgaier said that in section 14 of the revised
resolution was included a condition that pulled together the Canary Initiative and
was a step above what has been seen for energy conservation. There was a
summary of the construction management plan included in the packet as Exhibit D.
Allgaier said that staffrecommended approval because it took in a good use of the
base of the mountain and a use that benefits the city and implements the AACP.
2
Asoen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - February 6. 2007
John Sarpa said that they were excited to break new ground with this application
with the staff from the Canary Initiative (Dan Richardson) and the building
department (Stephen Kanipe). Sarpa said there was a good reason that not that
many neighbors were attending this meeting because the notice was given and
many of the neighbor's issues were addressed.
Sarpa stated that the no parking on Juan and Garmisch was a result of the space
required. Sarpa presented the drawing, which was included in the packet that
showed 2 new on-street parking spaces and retained the sidewalk on Juan Street;
on the Garmisch side the sidewalks were moved but retained and added back 3
spaces. Sarpa said that did not solve all the parking problems but gave some relief
because Juan Street and Trainer had parking on site. Sarpa said that there was
inefficient parking around Koch Park and their construction management plan
would not allow their trucks to park around Koch Park.
Steve Skadron asked if the 2 Juan Street parking spaces were restricted. Sunny
Vann replied the spaces were "sticker B". Vann added that the new city engineer
was more flexible and there were items such as tree preservation, planning strips
and emergency vehicle access.
Sarpa said they asked themselves how they could generally be above the cut in the
energy plan and they agreed to obtain real data from big hotels finding out how
they were managing these areas of data and do better than they were doing in those
areas of energy consumption. Sarpa committed to 30% above the average energy
conservation; this was a real number based upon the data collected. Sarpa said if
the threshold was missed they would buy the energy credits through CORE; they
will measure their numbers over the next 20 years. If they go above the 30% they
would be able to apply the credits to the next year or sell the energy credits; there
would be some kind of cap on the amount that would have to be paid in any given
year. Allgaier said there would be an annual energy audit. Vann noted that the
energy conservation also takes into account the energy used by the street related
issues as well.
Skadron said the energy audit will be in place for 20 years; he asked once the
project was completed and the flag is in place what management procedures will
ensure that actually happens. Vann replied when the project was completed they
would adopt a PUD Agreement, which would set forth specific procedures on
which the audit would be implemented; they would be required to be in
compliance with, all of the requirements under the PUD Agreement. Vann stated
that the conditions of approval run with the land, whoever owns the property even
into the future would be encumbered by the conditions of approval.
3
Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - Februarv 6. 2007
Sarpa said that construction management plan was worked out very well with a
new set of criteria (Swinerton Construction Management Plan) was included in the
summary sheet Exhibit D. Sarpa commented traffic was a big part ofthe problem
and they have said that their workers will have to stop at Brush Creek and be
bussed by the project's own buses or through RFTA buses; there would be a
system in place with a huge impact on traffic to bus the workers and their
equipment to the project, which would save a lot of traffic and was not required.
Sarpa stated that they would have regularly scheduled meetings with the
neighborhood to talk about what was happening and what was about to happen; so
that the neighbors could give input. Sarpa said the meetings would be twice a
month (not required anywhere) but this was an input and communication issue that
they were addressing.
Sarpa said the staging of the trucks was a big issue and the trucks would be
instructed not to go to Koch Park and there would not be any deliveries; the actual
staging area would be located on South Aspen Street. Vann said that the
construction management plan was being reviewed by the building department and
those recommendations would be binding under the terms of the PUD Agreement.
Ruth Kruger asked what happens if a worker misses the bus and how the
enforcement of workers riding the bus would happen. Mark Hughes, Swinerton,
stated that he has had conversations with RFT A and they have a pending meeting
to discuss RFT A; because RFT A was a federally funded public transport they can't
designate a specific bus for their workers but they will increase route service from
Brush Creek into town. Hughes said if a worker misses that first bus they would
have to wait for the next bus. Vann said the manager of the project would have
someone on staff to maintain this plan. Hughes said there would be a traffic
coordinator to work directly with the police and engineering departments to
enforce the requirement in place. Hughes said there were other projects that these
restrictions on workers were in place with lock boxes for the workers tools to
remain on the job. Allgaier suggested a percentage of employees that would
actually use public transportation or a shuttle; she said this was an incredible effort
and goal to attain. Skadron asked if the self imposition was a product of the
project size. Sarpa replied that one of the biggest problems in town was traffic and
if they can reduce some of the traffic would be useful and they have to be an
exceptional project. Kruger said that she was glad that they were making the
process exceptional.
Kruger asked how they were going to have a project free offood waste. Hughes
said it takes one guy at 3 o'clock and all he does is gather the food waste and puts
it in the bear-proof containers every day; the police department will fine them for
any food scrape found.
4
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 6. 2007
Sarpa stated that landscaping was wanted in detail; he presented a landscape plan
and drawing. Sarpa said the trees proposed now were lower than the original for
Mary Barbee's perspective. Dave Carpenter from DHM Landscape Architects said
they have been in contact with the Parks Department to make sure the landscape
fits within its context.
Sarpa stated that 2 of the criteria were in the energy area. Kruger noted that the
commission was not that impressed with the exceptional criteria. Sarpa answered
that was why they were going over and above the criteria. Vann said be that as it
may those were the only criteria that they have and it requires a recommendation
from the Planning Commission to City Council to make the final decision. Vann
said there was an insufficient amount of growth management quota for accessory
commercial uses in this building from the 2006 quota; they need to apply for an
unknown number for accessory commercial uses from growth management.
Vann said that one of the conditions in the AACP was a task force for the
deteriorating lodge facilities and the out right loss of tourists beds in the
community; the task force recommendation was that the city adopts regulations
that would facilitate the approval of new lodging facilities. Vann said the city
eliminated the annual quota on lodging. Sarpa said that this was the first new pure
hotel in 20 years. Vann said they were adding 80 new lodge rooms and 21
fractional ownership units, which were also available for nightly rental. Vann said
they were putting this building in the appropriate place for lodging. Vann said they
were proposing housing for lIS, which was 22% more than what was required.
Vann said that APCHA approved the housing plan with a variety of housing units
from studios to 3 bedroom units with rental and for sale units. Vann said that they
would accept as a condition that the residents of the Mine Dump Apartments
would have the right of first refusal and they will incorporate that into the PUD
Agreement as well.
Skadron asked how they collected the energy data from similar properties to set the
benchmark. Sarpa replied that he contacted the general manager of each of the
hotels for the information on gas and electric for spas and garages over a 2 year
period. Allgaier stated that Dan Richardson worked closely with the applicants on
energy.
Public Comments:
I. Mary Barbee asked if the resolution included the little house on the corner.
Sarpa responded that the right included anyone living on the property.
2. Alex Biel stated that he lived at 809 South Aspen Street; he said that he
heard a lot about traffic on Juan and Garmisch and what he heard about South
5
Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - Februarv 6. 2007
Aspen Street was not very encouraging with regards to traffic. Hughes responded
that this project would be in a 3 year period with 6 month phases of construction;
there will be access to South Aspen Street. Hughes said there would be a
significant amount of utility work with only 3 intersection closures at 3
independent times during the summer period and the road will be open at all times
while they worked in the right-of-way or during the structural phases. Hughes said
when they do the road itself they have a plan to keep half of the road open with
traffic control, which was contained in the construction management plan.
Skadron said that exceeding the exceptional review criteria was a considerable
attempt to pioneer new approaches to problems in projects like this and will result
in a good project and more importantly for projects coming in behind this one.
Skadron supported this project and appreciative of all of the efforts.
Kruger reinforced what Steve said and she was delighted to see the last stage of the
final approval; this was the most important location in town because it was the
original lift and gateway to the mountain. Kruger was pleased that they were going
above and beyond in the construction management plan, above and beyond in the
housing requirements and in the environmental requirements.
Rowland said that the points that his fellow commissioners hit on for the
exceptional project was great on a challenging site with a charming building.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the Resolution #003, series of 2007,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain Final PUD and associated land use actions, seconded by John Rowland.
Roll call: Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE SUBSTANTIAL PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for the Aspen Highlands Village
PUD. Jessica Garrow said this was the public hearing for the conversion in use for
a condo space and commercial space to a free market unit in Highlands PUD.
Garrow said the applicant proposed changing the condo space to a commercial
space and the commission asked for staff and the applicant to return with more
information. Garrow said unfortunately there were no growth management
allotments left for the commercial space from the 2006 growth management year.
Garrow said now we were back to the original request to convert the condo space
and commercial space to a free market unit. Staff still recommended against this
conversion in use because it does not meet the Aspen Area Community Plan, does
not meet the intent of the base village and the conversion to a free market unit has
6
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 6, 2007
a long term negative impact on the vitality of this area; it does not meet the PUD
review criteria.
Garrow explained the resolution was to deny this project.
Dylan Johns asked why they need the growth allotments because these were not
new spaces. Garrow replied that the condo space was not net leaseable space so
the allotment was needed. Allgaier clarified that the year starts out with a certain
allocation, which gets whittled away by various applications that were pending but
by the time this project would be allocated there would not be any square feet left
in that allocation. The Commissioners agreed that this was not growth because the
space already existed. Bob Daniel stated the space was built over four years ago
and was fully mitigated for as was the balance of Aspen Highlands as it related to
the principal matrix, which was affordable housing in the community. Daniel said
an audit showed they were in excess of mitigation for the number of employees.
Daniel understood that they were caught in a rule situation but to pay for another
process would not be right. Glen Horn stated there was a flaw in the exemption in
change in use and minor additions to a commercial building that should never be
deduced from the quota because the basis for those exemptions was that there was
no impact on the community.
Johns said that the project before P&Z was not what he expected to see; he thought
that there would be some conversion to some free market residential and still have
a commercial component to it.
Garrow said that the best solution for the applicant would be to continue this
hearing to March 6th. Garrow said that the applicant could amend the application
on March I st requesting the number of square feet to be converted into the
commercial space and on March 6th hold the public hearing. Johns asked ifP&Z
could approve pending allotments opening up. Garrow replied they were in a
current growth management allotment year and they would have to qualify as an
exceptional project to be eligible for those allotments.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #34, series of 2006, to deny
a substantial PUD amendment for the conversion of commercial/condominium
meeting space in Building 2 to one (1) free market residential unit at 133
Prospector Road. The resolution further recommends to the City Council the
denial of the requested subdivision associated with the conversion of office/retail
space to free market residential. Steve Skadron seconded. Roll call: Rowland, no;
Speck, no; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, no. DENIED 3-2.
7
Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission Meetine - Minutes - February 6. 2007
Discussion of first motion: Kruger said that she was still very much in favor of
this conversion to residential space because there was no parking and to her it was
the only logical use was for residential.
Garrow requested a motion to reconsider the motion so that a yes would approve
the request and a no would mean to deny the request.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to reconsider the motion just taken; seconded by
John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED.
MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #34, series of2006, to
approve a substantial PUD amendment for the conversion of commercial
/condominium meeting space in Building 2 to one (1) free market residential unit
at 133 Prospector Road. The resolution further recommends to the City Council
the approval of the requested subdivision associated with the conversion of
officelretail space to free market residential unit. Steve Skadron seconded. Roll
call: Johns, no; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, no; Kruger, yes. APPROVED
3-2.
Meeting adjourned at 7 pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8
March 5, 2007
Dear Mayor Klanderud and Council Members,
You've heard from me before, but 1 would like to remain on record as opposed to the Lodge
at Aspen Mountain development on South Aspen Street in its present form. My major
objection to the structure is its size; I feel it is totally beyond the scale of what is appropriate
to the ambience of the town.
If there has to be a hotel on this site, why can't it be smaller and within Aspen's established
zoning guidelines? Further, doesn't it make sense to at least wait until there is an overall
plan for that part of the west side of town, given that other developers are corning before you
with plans for yet more large structures. Rather than piecemeal approvals, wouldn't it be
better to understand and weigh all of the proposals now in the pipeline.
As a long-time owner of a Shadow Mountain unit, 1 am also extremely worried about the
possibility of surface movement if major digging takes place below us. We know that the
soil on which Shadow Mountain Townhomes sits is not totally stabilized; 1 wonder if the
town feels any sense of responsibility in granting a permit for such a major construction
project knowing this.
Soil movement aside, the overarching issue to my mind is the girdling of this beautiful
mountain by a ring of massive hotels which I believe will forever damage the look and feel of
this town.
1 hope the Town will think deeply about this.
Sincerely,
Donald C. Gilbert
Shadow Mountain #10
Aspen, CO
F".'" Fr
'~L
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
Randy Ready, AS~ Manager
FROM:
DATE:
March 5, 2007
RE:
Ballot Question for Bus Lanes Between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout
SUMMARY:
This item is on your March 12 agenda as an action item to request approval of ballot language for
the May 8 municipal election to allow construction of two general traffic lanes and two exclusive
bus lanes (the Preferred Alternative) on the 1.2-mile long segment of the Entrance to Aspen
between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout. The requested ballot question follows
discussion with City Council at a January 30 work session and EOTC approval of bus lane design
funding at the February 14 EOTC meeting. Moving ahead with this section of the Entrance to
Aspen would not predetermine or preclude any option on the more controversial portion of the
corridor between the Roundabout and Main Street.
Construction of the Preferred Alternative with bus lanes between Buttermilk and the Roundabout
could be done with available Yz cent transit tax funds and would take advantage of a narrow
window of opportunity (now that the Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation is completed and the Maroon
Creek Bridge replacement is underway) to construct the new bridge with bus lanes and then open
the bus lanes for the entire segment in late 2008 or early 2009.
Timely bus lane construction would avoid approximately $500,000 in bridge construction and
retrofit costs. It would also allow every bus trip in the corridor to benefit from 10-15 minutes in
travel time savings during peak hours that often extend throughout the day in this heavily congested
section of State Highway 82. Decreases in transit travel time equate to lower operating costs,
improved service reliability, and superior passenger convenience that would allow transit to better
compete with private automobiles.
The municipal ballot question would allow only a change in use to construct and operate bus lanes
in the easement that the City granted to CDOT in 2002. The ballot question would only affect the
section of SH82 between Buttermilk and the Roundabout. This is admittedly not a total solution to
upper valley traffic congestion, but it is a reasonable approach that can be accomplished with
available funds in the near term. Meanwhile, the City and the EOTC can continue to honor the
public process dealing with the diverse, heart-felt community sentiments regarding what, ifany,
transportation improvements should be implemented between the Roundabout and Main Street.
1
The attached January 25 memorandum to City Council (Attachment 1) goes into detail about the
background of this issue, results of previous ballot questions, the specific open space parcels in
question, bus lane cost and benefit estimates, and the rationale for proceeding with improvements
on this particular segment of the corridor in the near future.
The May open space use election is necessary because CDOT currently has an easement to use City
open space along the Entrance to Aspen corridor "to construct, operate and maintain a two lane
parkway and a corridor for a light rail transit system (to be constructed when the financing is
available), but for no other purpose or purposes." Without voter approval and funding to construct
bus lanes, the new Maroon Creek Bridge will open as a two-lane replacement facility with a
concrete median and wide shoulders.
The 2006 Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation has upheld the Preferred Alternative, including the
ability to build two general-purpose lanes and either a corridor for light rail or two exclusive bus
lanes from Buttermilk into Aspen. Since the Reevaluation is complete and construction is
underway on the new bridge, there is an immediate opportunity to construct the new bridge with
two general traffic lanes and two bus lanes, and then to open the bus lanes from Buttermilk to the
Roundabout in late 2008 or early 2009 if City voters approve a change in the use of the open space
and if construction funding is approved.
The cost to complete the two general traffic lanes and two bus lanes between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout is estimated to be $7.9 million in 2007 dollars. Among the assumptions that went
into development of that cost estimate is that, wherever possible, construction of the bus lanes
should preserve the LR T platform on the south side of the easement to allow the bus lanes to
continue in operation throughout construction of the LRT system at some point in the future.
The other assumptions affecting the cost estimate are in the attached memorandum.
The attached memorandum also discusses the opportunity to avoid about $500,000 in Maroon
Creek Bridge construction and retrofitting costs associated with construction and demolition of
the concrete median and short bridge approaches if CDOT receives timely direction to proceed
with bus lanes on the new bridge.
Staffrecommends City Council approval of the attached resolution to place the following
question on the May ballot:
CITY OF ASPEN - ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Shall the City Council be authorized to amend the Right-of-Way Easement that was
conveyed in 2002 by the City of Aspen to the State of Colorado, Department of
Transportation, for additional uses on the rights of way across City owned property along
State Highway 82 between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout to allow
construction, operation and maintenance of a two lane parkway and two exclusive bus
lanes, in addition to the already-permitted use for a two lane parkway and a corridor for a
light rail transit system?
2
RESOLUTION NO. ~
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
SUBMIITING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN
BALLOT QUESTION (RELATING TO THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN) AT THE MAY
8,2007, MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
WHEREAS, Section 13.4 of the City of Aspen City Charter requires voter approval
before the City Council may sell, exchange, or dispose of public real property, including real
property acquired for open space purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to exchange, or otherwise encumber City
owned parcels of property, including property acquired for open space purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to obtain voter approval for the additional
encumbrance of said properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
The following question shall be placed on the ballot at the May 8, 2007, municipal
election;
CITY OF ASPEN - ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Shall the City Council be authorized to amend the Right-of-Way Easement that was
conveyed in 2002 by the City of Aspen to the State of Colorado, Department of
Transportation, for additional uses on the rights of way across City owned property along
State Highway 82 between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout to allow
construction, operation and maintenance of a two lane parkway and two exclusive bus
lanes, in addition to the already-permitted use for a two lane parkway and a corridor for a
light rail transit system?
Yes
No
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen
on the _ day of ,2007.
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 on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW- saved: 3/512007-327-G:\john\word\resos\ballot07-May-Entrance.doc
Atia. d, n1 ~.<.( .:t..
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
Cc:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Re:
Recommendation for Open Space Use Ballot Question-Buttermilk to
Roundabout Segment of the Entrance to Aspen
Date:
January 25, 2007
For Discussion at the January 30 Work Session
Summary:
This memorandum recommends that City Council take action to place a measure on the May
2007 municipal ballot to allow construction of two general traffic lanes and two exclusive
bus lanes (the Preferred Alternative) on the 1.2 mile long segment of the Entrance to Aspen
between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout. Moving ahead with this section of
the Entrance to Aspen would not predetermine or preclude any option on the more
controversial portion of the corridor between the Roundabout and Main Street.
Construction of the Preferred Alternative with bus lanes between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout could be done with available Yz cent transit tax funds and would take advantage
of a narrow window of opportunity (now that the Reevaluation is completed and the Maroon
Creek Bridge replacement is underway) to construct the new bridge with bus lanes and then
finish the bus lanes for the entire segment in late 2008 or early 2009. Doing so would avoid
approximately $500,000 in bridge construction and retrofit costs. It would also allow every
bus trip in the corridor to benefit from 10-15 minutes in travel time savings during peak
hours that often extend throughout the day in this heavily congested section of State Highway
82. Decreases in transit travel time equate to lower operating costs, improved service
reliability, and superior passenger convenience that would allow transit to better compete
with private automobiles.
Staff recommends a ballot question to allow only a change in use to construct and operate
bus lanes in the easement that has already been granted to CDOT between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout. This is admittedly not a total solution to upper valley traffic congestion, but it
is a reasonable approach that can be accomplished with available funds in the near term.
Meanwhile, the City can continue to honor the public process dealing with the diverse, heart-
felt community sentiments regarding what, if any, transportation improvements should be
implemented between the Roundabout and Main Street.
Previous Council Action and Backl!round:
In November 1996 City Council placed a ballot question before Aspen voters that asked, "Shall
the City Council be authorized to use or convey to the State of Colorado, Department of
Transportation, necessary rights of way across City owned property, including the Marolt
Property, acquired for open space purposes, and the Thomas Property, acquired for
transportation purposes, for a two lane parkway and a corridor for a light rail transit system to be
constructed when the financing is available?"
That ballot question passed with the approval of 59% of City voters, and was followed by
completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement in 1997 and the Record of Decision
with the following Preferred Alternative in 1998:
A combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system, and an
incremental transportation management (TM) program. The highway component will
consist of a two-lane parkway that generally follows the existing alignment, except at
the Maroon Creek crossing across the Marolt-Thomas Property. The highway alignment
at Maroon Creek will be north of the existing crossing with the light rail transit (LR T)
alignment on the existing bridge. The Modified Direct Aliinment is across the Marolt-
Thomas Property. A connection to Main Street occurs at 7 Street. The transit
component includes an LRT system that, iflocal support and/or funding are not
available, will be developed initially as exclusive bus lanes.
In August 2002 City Council followed through with conveyance ofthe Right-of-Way
easement to CDOT for the City open space along the Entrance to Aspen corridor "to
construct, operate and maintain a two lane parkway and a corridor for a light rail transit
system (to be constructed when the financing is available), but for no other purpose or
purposes." The easement was consistent with the 1996 City vote and the 1998 Record of
Decision. The Record of Decision and Memorandum of Understanding with CDOT anticipated
the need for CDOT to acquire a permanent easement on a total of 8.6 acres of City open space
in order to construct the Entrance to Aspen:
2
Parcel
Zoline
Aspen Golf Course/
Plum Tree Field
Maroon Creek Basin
Marolt-Thomas
Castle Creek Basin
Easement
1. 5 acres
Returned Acreage Net Total
1.2 acres
0.5 acres
4.6 acres
0.8 acres
2.5 acres 2.1 acres
TOTAL
8.6 acres
2.5 acres 6.1 acres
2.5 acres would be restored to the Marolt-Thomas property (consisting of the existing aligrunent
from Cemetery Lane to the Roundabout and the top of the cut and cover tunnel). The net
acreage to be replaced was estimated to be 6.1 acres (MOD, p.9). In exchange for those 6.1
acres (along with the 1.5 acres of Moore open space that CDOT acquired from Pitkin County in
1999 for the Roundabout), CDOT agreed to convey 31 acres of Mills Ranch property at the
intersection ofSH82 and Brush Creek Road. Page 3 of the MOD states that, "CDOT shall
convey the replacement property from Mills Ranch as public open space by quitclaim deed to
the City and County, each to hold an undivided interest in the property. . . . The parties
acknowledge that the value of the replacement property is equal to or greater than the value of
the property taken." In exchange for the undivided interest with the County in the Mills Ranch
property, "the City agrees to provide permanent and temporary easements, as described herein,
at no cost to CDOT for completion of the transportation improvements."
In addition to the easement across the Marolt-Thomas property and in the Castle Creek Basin,
approximately 1.2 acres are in a long strip along the south side of the Aspen Golf Course and
the former Plum Tree Field (now tennis courts). Another 0.5 acre is in the Maroon Creek Basin
immediately below the new Maroon Creek Bridge. The remaining 1.5 acres are part of the
Zoline Open Space, most of which is under lease to the Maroon Creek Club.
In 2004 City Council, acting through the Elected Officials Transportation Committee, approved
$1.5m in funding to complete the design and construction drawings for a new Maroon Creek
Bridge. City and County staff worked closely with CDOT on the selection ofa consultant team
to do the design work. However, before the consultant team could begin work, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHW A) indicated its intention to require a Reevaluation of the EIS
before federal approval to proceed with design and construction of a new bridge as described in
the 1998 Record of Decision could be granted.
Discussions with federal and state officials during the summer of 2004 led to the decision to
proceed with the replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge that would operate
only as a replacement two-lane facility until a Reevaluation could be completed sometime in
the future. A two-lane replacement bridge was designed and is now under construction, with
completion scheduled for spring 2008. The new structure will be 73 feet in width and will
include a concrete median and wide shoulders that could be removed to enable the
construction of "any other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements" that may
come out of the Reevaluation process. During the bridge design process, plans for a two-lane
3
bridge with two bus lanes were also completed, with the understanding that the bus lanes
could not be built unless they were reconfirmed as the preferred transit component in a future
Reevaluation.
The City Attorney determined at that time that a two-lane replacement bridge could proceed
without another City election because the Right-of-Way easement was conveyed for a two-
lane parkway and corridor for a light rail transit system (to be constructed when the financing
is available). The two-lane bridge component would be built in full compliance with the
1996 City Right of Way vote and with the existing Record of Decision. The light rail
corridor would remain in place along the south side of the alignment and over the existing
historic Maroon Creek Bridge. Construction of any additional transportation facilities (e.g.,
bus lanes) would trigger the requirement for another City election to approve the new use for
the ROW, once the Reevaluation process determined what the additional transportation
improvements should be.
In February 2006 City Council and the EOTC approved $200,000 from the 'l'2 cent
transportation fund to proceed with a Reevaluation of the 1997 Entrance to Aspen FEIS and
1998 Record of Decision. CDOT contracted with the engineering firm HDR, Inc. to do the
technical review work.
Discussion:
The Reevaluation was completed between May and November 2006. On November 16
representatives ofCDOT and the consulting firm HDR, Inc. released the major findings and
results of the Reevaluation. They found that there have been no significant changes in the
project, the affected environment, or relevant regulations. Therefore the existing Preferred
Alternative remains valid and has been found to continue to meet the project objectives. No
further environmental analyses are necessary if the community decides to advance the
Preferred Alternative.
Construction of the new Maroon Creek Bridge continues, with completion scheduled for
spring 2008. However, the Reevaluation's conclusion upholding the Preferred Alternative
creates an opportunity to construct the new bridge with two general traffic lanes and two bus
lanes, and then to open the bus lanes from Buttermilk to the Roundabout in late 2008 or early
2009 if City voters approve a change in the use of the open space to allow bus lane
construction and operation. The open space directly involved with or adjacent to the new
bridge consists of a portion of the easement across the former Zoline property, the land in the
Maroon Creek Basin immediately beneath the new bridge, and a long thin strip of Aspen
Golf Course/Plum Tree Playing Field.
As previously mentioned, this property has already been conveyed to CDOT for the express
purpose of building two general traffic lanes and a corridor for light rail. The property has
already been impacted: Trails have been relocated to the extent that they need to be, bridge
4
piers are located in the Maroon Creek basin easement, the 10'h Hole tee boxes have been
relocated, six clay tennis courts have replaced the former Plum Tree playing field and are
located outside of the ROW. What is in question at this point is the allowable use of the
easement.
A draft ballot question that would allow the use of the easement for two lanes plus bus lanes
could be as follows:
Shall the City Council be authorized to amend the Right-of-Way Easement that was
conveyed in 2002 by the City to the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation,
for additional uses on the rights of way across City owned property along State
Highway 82 between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout to allow
construction, operation and maintenance of a two lane parkway and two exclusive bus
lanes, in addition to the already-permitted use for a two lane parkway and a corridor
for a light rail transit system?
Why This Portion afthe Easement?
There are three reasons why construction of the Preferred Alternative with bus lanes between
Buttermilk and the Roundabout in the near term is highly recommended:
I. Transit Service Operations: The new bus lane on Main Street is extremely
helpful and valuable in improving the speed by which RFT A buses depart town.
The time savings attributed to the bus lane on Main Street is anywhere from five
to eighteen minutes per outbound bus trip during afternoon peak hours. While the
Main Street outbound bus lane is saving transit passengers a considerable amount
of time, congestion from the Roundabout to Buttermilk has been eroding some of
the savings. The afternoon commuter buses are regularly experiencing delays
(Roundabout- AABC) of as much as 12-17 minutes. RFTA is finding it difficult
for the afternoon Aspen to Glenwood buses to make it down to Glenwood Springs
during peak periods in time for their upvalley runs and, therefore, RFT A has had
to build in backup buses and drivers, which cost approximately $100,000 per year
to provide. RFT A also encounters some significant traffic snarls in the inbound
direction as well, so having inbound bus lanes would save additional time. For
example, it often takes buses in excess of twenty minutes throughout the day to
get from the AABC to 8th Street.
Dedicated bus lanes from Buttermilk to the Roundabout could save buses about
15 minutes during the peak morning commute and at least 10 minutes during the
afternoon commute. Combine this with the time savings of the bus lane on Main
Street, and the time saving impact could be substantial.
With the additional 1.2 miles of bus lanes in place between the Roundabout and
Buttermilk, cost savings are anticipated to be realized from the reduction in
5
round-trip time from the Brush Creek Park & ride facility to Rubey Park. The
faster that buses can make the round trip during peak hours between Brush Creek
and Rubey Park, the fewer buses, drivers, and costs required to move people back
and forth from the park & ride to town. Travel time savings translates into
operational cost savings in terms ofreduced drivers' shifts and reduced fuel,
which would in turn be translated into reduced overhead costs that are passed in
part onto the City of Aspen and the Ski Company in our service contracts.
While the exact amount of cost savings is difficult to quantify at this time, the
savings would be most relevant for Aspen to Snowmass buses, Buttermilk and
Snowmass skier shuttles and the new West Side route to Burlingame and the
AABC, based on RFT A being able to avoid using additional pieces of equipment
and drivers during peak congestion hours. The new bus lanes would ensure that
the new West Side route can provide service and stay on schedule all the way to
the AABC and the airport, rather than spending many hours every day tied up in
mixed traffic.
In addition, with the associated improved service time reliability and trip time
savings, the exclusive bus lanes would provide a major incentive for people to
select transit for their trips. When stuck in traffic, seeing buses in the next lane
moving smoothly would serve to market transit to auto drivers and to further help
transit to compete with the private automobile in terms of reliability and travel
time.
RFTA wholeheartedly supports the City moving forward with implementing bus
lanes between Buttermilk and the Roundabout. (See attached RFT A
memorandum for more information.)
2. Cost and Funding Feasibility: The Reevaluation updated the total cost in 2005
dollars to complete the design, construction and remaining right-of-way
acquisition for the Preferred Alternative with exclusive bus lanes from 7'h and
Main to Buttermilk as approximately $77.7 million. However, funds for the
Maroon Creek Roundabout ($6.3m), the new Maroon Creek Bridge ($17.9m), and
realigned Owl Creek Road ($7.6m) have already been spent or allocated, leaving
the total remaining cost of about $45. 9m for the entire corridor.
The cost to complete the two general traffic lanes and two bus lanes between
Buttermilk and the Roundabout is estimated to be $7.9 million. Among the
assumptions that went into development of that cost estimate is that, wherever
possible, construction of the bus lanes should preserve the LR T platform on the
south side of the easement to allow the bus lanes to continue in operation
throughout construction of the LRT system at some point in the future.
In addition:
6
· Complete preliminary plans with a quantity breakdown do not yet exist for
this project, so estimates were made based on quantities for previous
projects including SH 82 ABC-Buttermilk, SH 82/Truscott intersection,
and the Maroon Creek Bridge.
· The bus lanes will also serve as right turn lanes for side roads and
accesses. The bus lane widening is essentially completed from station 874
to 894 (Buttermilk to Tiehack Road), both directions.
· The previously proposed pedestrian under-crossing (CBC) at the Country
Inn was not included in the cost estimates per EOTC direction and concern
about the $1.5 million cost. Country Inn residents are being served by free
taxi service to avoid the need to cross SH82 at that unsignalized location.
. There may be some overlap between cost items in this estimate and items
such as roadway approaches, median, striping, etc. that may be included in
the current Maroon Creek bridge construction contract. .
· Costs are based on current (2007) unit price assumptions, so there is
greater accuracy in this estimate than with the 2005 unit prices used in the
Reevaluation.
· The contingency was increased to 25% to cover the cost uncertainty based
on local labor, material and traffic control shortages, which have been
observed on the Maroon Creek Bridge replacement project.
While there are currently no federal, state or local funds identified that would be
sufficient to cover the $45.9 for the entire project, in November 2000,64% of
Pitkin County voters approved the following ballot question:
SHALL PITKIN COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $10.2 MILLION WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF
$14 MILLION (BUT WITH NO INCREASE IN THE COUNTY'S EXISTING
TAXES) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING DEBT
AUTHORIZATION OF $8.1 MILLION AND OTHER LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDING TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING TRANSIT
PROJECTS:
PROVIDE LOCAL FUNDS TO PARTICIPATE WITH CDOT IN THE
COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO HIGHWAY 82 FROM
BUTTERMILK TO 7TH AND MAIN, INCLUDING A CUT AND COVER
TUNNEL, NEW BRIDGES OVER MAROON CREEK AND CASTLE CREEK,
AND REALIGNING THE HIGHWAY TO CONNECT DIRECTLY WITH THE
7TH AND MAIN STREET INTERSECTION,
$7 MILLION FOR SNOWMASS VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS,
7
$1.5 MILLION FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO PITKIN COUNTY BUS
STOPS, AND
$7.5 MILLION FOR BUSES, MAINTENANCE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS,
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ROARING FORK TRANSIT
AGENCY OR SUCCESSOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
County voter approval of that ballot question authorizes the use of the current
cumulative surplus of about $12 million in the Y, cent county-wide transportation
tax (EOTC) fund (plus some capacity for debt service of up to about $10 million)
to go towards completion of the Entrance to Aspen, with concurrence of a
majority ofthe elected officials from each of the three EOTC jurisdictions.
Available Y, cent funds would be sufficient (without the need for bond proceeds)
to complete the $7.9 million Buttermilk to Roundabout segment, but would fall
well short of funding the entire $45.9 million necessary to complete the project all
the way to Main Street.
3. Community Acceptability: One of the project objectives for the Entrance to
Aspen is to "develop an alternative which fits the character of the community and
is aesthetically acceptable to the public." The various conflicting outcomes of the
26 votes over the past 37 years, including "NO" votes in 1999, 2001 and 2002 are
indicative ofthe contentiousness about crossing the Marolt-Thomas property with
a transportation project. Early indications from the public process that has been
underway since the release of the Reevaluation findings in November of last year
are that community sentiment about the use of Marolt- Thomas remains volatile.
There continue to be major stakeholder disagreements about mode, alignment and
profile options across the Marolt/Thomas property entering Aspen. However, the
only alignment under consideration between Buttermilk and the Roundabout is
the existing highway alignment. The controversy in this segment over the years
has focused mainly on laneage altematjves and transit mode preferences.
Implementation of the bus lanes now would not preclude construction of a
different transit mode at some point in the future.
It appears unlikely that broad community support among Aspen voters will
emerge over the next few months-in time to take advantage of the window of
opportunity to move forward with bus lanes on the new Maroon Creek Bridge and
the adjacent 1.2 mile segment of congested roadway between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout. Furthermore, as discussed above, funding sources for the additional
$38 million necessary to complete the project across the modified direct
alignment on the Marolt-Thomas property and across Castle Creek are not readily
available at this time. Unless City Council is prepared to act expeditiously and to
move forward with new funding sources promptly to construct the Roundabout to
Main Street segment of the project, staff recommends proceeding with a vote only
8
on the portion of the project that is feasible and where the impacts have already
occurred and been mitigated.
Why Now?
Ongoing construction of the new bridge with completion scheduled for next spring
brings an opportunity for significant cost avoidance and expedited opening of the
facility. The cost to construct and then demolish the concrete median on the new
bridge, along with new bridge asphalt and restriping is estimated to be $500,000.
There will be additional construction/demolition time involved and traffic control
delays associated with the demolition, resurfacing and restriping of the bridge after
the median is removed. However, if the City is interested in avoiding these costs
and inconveniences and in having the bridge open in its busway configuration,
CDOT needs to be notified in a timely manner. Notification delay beyond this
spring means that construction will need to proceed with the concrete median
included.
In the meantime, transit service will continue as is in mixed traffic for the
foreseeable future without a significant breakthrough in reliability and passenger
convenience. Reevaluation of the project cost information from 1996 to 2005 dollars
shows a nearly three-fold increase in highway construction costs over the past ten
years. Such double-digit annual inflation in roadway construction costs will
continue to significantly increase the necessary amount of funding if construction is
delayed.
Financial ImDlications:
The financial implications involved with proceeding with the Buttermilk to
Roundabout section of the Preferred Alternative include the opportunity to avoid
$500,000 in bridge construction and retrofitting costs if CDOT receives Aspen voter
approval and direction to proceed with bus lanes on the new bridge.
Total design and construction cost in 2007 dollars for the Buttermilk to Roundabout
segment is estimated to be $7. 9m for the project to be completed without conflicting
with a future south side rail platform. Funding for this project is available in the Yz
cent transit tax fund controlled by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee.
In addition to the difficult to quantifY, but very significant benefits of improved bus
service reliability and reduced travel time, RFT A would be able to avoid at least
$100,000 a year in regional backup service costs. Additional savings would be
realized on Snowmass and Buttermilk Skier Shuttle service costs. The new West
Side service to Burlingame and the AABC that debuts this spring would be able to
9
reliably operate all the way to the AABC and the airport rather than potentially
needing to be abbreviated during hours of peak congestion.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends going to the Aspen voters this May with a ballot question that
would enable the construction of the preferred alternative with bus lanes between
Buttermilk and the Roundabout. The voters' approval of use ofthe open space for
bus lanes would clear the way for the new Maroon Creek Bridge to be completed
with bus lanes on it instead of with two lanes, a concrete median and wide
shoulders. Buttermilk to Roundabout bus lanes could then open in late 2008 or early
2009.
Staff further recommends discussing this project with the other members of the
EOTC at its February meeting. With EOTC concurrence, funding is available to
proceed with this section of the project that has not been the subject of acrimonious
community debate. Ifthere is community will to proceed with this 1.2 mile segment
of heavily-congested roadway that would tie into the HOV lanes from Buttermilk
downva1ley, this portion of the project can proceed in the near term.
Crossing the Marolt-Thomas property remains the bitterly controversial part of this
project, and there is no readily identifiable funding available at the local, state or
federal level to accomplish that section and a new Castle Creek Bridge any time
soon.
Staff recommends that the following ballot question be placed on the May 2007
municipal ballot in order to open the new Maroon Creek Bridge and its approaches
with bus lanes. In so doing, about $500,000 in bridge construction and retrofit
expenses will be avoided, and transit passengers will begin to realize 10-15 minutes
of reduced travel time in both directions during peak hours of congestion:
Shall the City Council be authorized to amend the Right-of-Way Easement
that was conveyed in 2002 by the City to the State of Colorado, Department of
Transportation, for additional uses on the rights of way across City owned
property along State Highway 82 between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek
Roundabout to allow construction, operation and maintenance of a two lane
parkway and two exclusive bus lanes, in addition to the already-permitted use
for a two lane parkway and a corridor for a light rail transit system.
10
RO ING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Connecting our region with transit and trails
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7, 2007
TO: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager, City of Aspen
FROM: Dan Blankenship, CEO
SUBJECT: Transit Savings and Efficiencies Associated with Maroon Creek Roundabout to
Buttermilk Ski Area Dedicated Bus Lanes
Owing to a number competing priorities, RFTA has been unable to develop a detailed
comprehensive analysis of the potential cost and time savings associated with the
implementation of dedicated bus lanes from the Maroon Creek Roundabout to the Buttermilk Ski
Area. Even without this analysis, though, it safely can be said that the benefits in terms of
transit cost and time savings would be substantial, not to mention the improved convenience
and reliability for passengers. Generally, some of the benefits and cost/time savings are as
follows:
1. Reaional ASDen - Glenwood SDrinas Bus Service: Because outbound Aspen to
Glenwood Springs buses can be held up by congestion between the Roundabout and
Buttermilk during the afternoon peak hours, by as much as 10 - 20+ minutes, RFT A
must add a five-hour shift, Monday - Friday, that is used to enable buses to get back on
schedule on their return trips up from Glenwood Springs. This requires an additional
driver and a bus. The fully allocated operating cost of this backup, could approach an
estimated $100,000 per year.
Regional buses operating between down valley communities and Aspen generally have
30 minutes of recovery time built into their schedules in Aspen in order to allow for
congestion entering Aspen. Non-productive recovery time is costly. If conditions exiting
Aspen continue to deteriorate, the same amount of recovery time may be required on
the Glenwood Springs end of the service throughout major portions of the day, which
could easily add several hundred thousand dollars of additional cost to RFTA's
operation.
2. ASDen Skiina ComDanv (ASCI Snowmass Skier Shuttles: During the winter season,
RFT A and ASC normally allocate 12 buses to provide skier shuttle service between
Aspen and Snowmass Village Mall. Ideally, the service maintains 5-minute headways,
and each bus is allotted approximately 1 hour to complete a round-trip. However, due to
peak a.m. and p.m. congestion, in both the inbound and outbound directions, RFTA's
ability to maintain these headways is frequently degraded leaving us with only two
options: 1) add more buses to the service so that 5-minute headways can be
maintained; or 2) operate with the same number of buses and inconvenience the
passengers.
The first option involves additional vehicles, drivers and, ultimately, higher costs. The
fully allocated cost of skier shuttle service in 2007 is in excess of $80 per hour.
Depending upon the number of additional buses added and the length of time utilized,
the cost of skier shuttle service can begin to add up very rapidly.
The second option results in impacts that are less easy to quantify but, certainly, they
degrade the quality of the visitor's experience. Not only can the one-way travel time
from Snowmass Village to Aspen be increased from 30 to 45 - 60 minutes, the length of
time that visitors must stand in line waiting for a bus at the Snowmass Village Mall
increases as well. This kind of frustrating inconvenience does not reflect favorably on
the image of high-end resorts such as Aspen and Snowmass Village, and it may be
playing a role in the overall decline in skier visits and skier shuttle ridership when
compared with the peak in about 1997. Similar problems are encountered with the
Buttermilk skier shuttle buses; however, they are not as pronounced because the
distances involved are not as great.
3. Brush Creek Park & Ride Shuttle Service: In the future, the Brush Creek Road park &
ride facility may be useful in intercepting commuters. A convenient, free, shuttle service
operating on 5-minute headways would have the capacity to move approximately 480
passengers one-way per hour. At 1.5 passengers per car, this could reduce peak hour,
peak direction, traffic volumes by over 300 cars.
If the shuttles can make a round-trip between Brush Creek Road and Rubey Park in 30
minutes, 6 vehicles would be needed. If the round-trip takes 35 minutes, 7 vehicles
would be required and if it takes 40 minutes, 8 vehicles would be required. Assuming
two 4-hour shifts per day (morning and afternoon), per vehicle, the extra cost for each
vehicle required to maintain 5-minute headways, would be approximately $680 per day.
For each additional bus needed Monday - Friday, year round, to maintain 5-minute
headways, the additional operating cost would be approximately $180,000 per year, not
including the capital cost of the bus.
Conclusion: In closing, when buses in mixed-traffic are slowed down by automobile
congestion, it adds to the cost of operations because more drivers, mechanics and vehicles are
required in order to maintain the reliability of published schedules. Vehicles are expensive and
drivers and mechanics are difficult to recruit. In order to recruit an adequate number of drivers
and mechanics, RFTA needs affordable seasonal and year-round housing near its facilities, so
that it can recruit from outside of the area. An inadequate supply of employees and rapidly
escalating operating and capital costs jeopardize RFT A's ability not only to sustain current
services, but to expand and improve services to meet future demand. Allowing buses to be
stuck in auto congestion exacerbates an already serious recruitment challenge. Capital
replacement is also a major challenge for RFTA. Each bus costs approximately $350,000 so, of
necessity, the fewer buses required the better.
Additionally, inconvenient and unreliable transit services don't have the potential to attract as
many riders of choice as convenient and reliable transit services do. Entrance to Aspen (ETA)
automobile congestion is not just a local issue because buses departing late from Aspen also
inconvenience numerous passengers waiting for them at down valley bus stops.
It is not enough for transit services to be as reliable and convenient as the automobile; because
automobile travel within the ETA corridor is already very unreliable and inconvenient during
peak hours. No, to attract the highest possible number of passengers, transit must be even
more reliable and convenient than the automobile... and this goal is achievable with dedicated
Maroon Creek Roundabout to Buttermilk Ski Area bus lanes!
2