HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20080303THE CITY 4E ASPEN
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 3, 2008
5:00 P.M.
ORDINANCE #29, 2007 - 307 S. Spring and 625 E. Hyman Subdivision Review
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner t. ~ ~~~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~
DATE OF MEMO: February 22, 2008
MEETING DATE: March 3, 2008
(cont. from August 13, 2007, August 27, 2007, October 9, 2007,
November 12, 2007, November 26, 2007, December 3, 2007,
January 28, 2008, and February 11,2008)
RE: 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Subdivision Review
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
APPLICANT /OWNER:
633 Spring II, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc
LOCATION:
307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman
(Wienerstube Property)
CURRENT ZONING:
C-1 (Commercial) Zone District
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision review to PREVIOUS PLANNING AND ZONING
construct a new mixed USe bUlldlrig On the COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
property located at 307 S. Spring Street and The Planning and Zoning Commission voted
625 E. Hyman, where the Wienerstube three (3) to zero (0) to approve the project in
currently exists. The proposal has been Resolution 28, Series 2007 and voted five (5)
amended to reduce the amount of parking to zero (0) to approve growth management
to 23 spaces, provide a cash-in-lieu reviews in Resolution 20, Series 2007.
payment for 2.25 FTEs in addition to the
affordable housing provided in the STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
project, provide a deed restriction on a Staff recommends that the City Council
portion of the commercial space, and approve the Subdivision request.
include variation in the building height.
neighboring pazking lot.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the
development of multi-family residential units at 307 S. Spring and 625 E. Hyman. The
residential units are part of a mixed-use development. Staff note to Council: Council has
seen the Staff memo a number of times, so rather than providing the same memo again,
this memo provides a brief outline of the requests made by Council at the January 28,
2008 Public Hearing and discusses the latest architecture and commercial changes.
BACKGROUND:
Summary of January 28, 2008 Public Hearine: At the Januazy 28, 2008 Public Heazing
City Council asked the applicant to examine the following three (3) aspects of the project:
I . The long-term affordability of the commercial spaces;
2. The height of the building; and
3. The amount of affordable housing provided by the project.
The Applicant has made two (2) of the above changes by providing a deed restriction on a
portion of the ground floor commercial space and amending the heights of the buildings.
DISCUSSION:
Changes made by the Applicant: The Applicant has provided a letter, attached as Exhibit
C, outlining proposed changes to the commercial spaces and to the parking. The previous
commitment to provide acash-in-lieu payment for 2.25 full time equivalent (FTEs) in
addition to the on-site affordable housing remains in effect. Section 13 in the Ordinance has
been changed to reflect this commitment.
The letter from the Applicant only references aspect 1 listed above (long-term affordability
of the commercial spaces). The Applicant has addressed aspect 2 above (height of building)
by providing illustrations of the building's height and lowering a majority of the height to
thirty-eight (38) feet six (6) inches, attached as Exhibit B. Aspect 3 (providing more
affordable housing) has not been addressed by the Applicant.
Commercial Space Affordability:
The applicant has committed to ensuring the long-term affordability of commercial space in
the project by providing a rental deed restriction on the commercial spaces located along the
mid-block walkway and the alley. The Wienerstube restaurant is located along the Spring
Street frontage of the building, and is subject to a 10-yeaz lease, outlined in Section 24 of the
Ordinance. Excluding the Wienerstube space, there aze 7,823 square feet of net leasable
space on the first floor. The Applicant has pledged to restrict the rent on 2,046 squaze feet of
this space to 50% of the overall average per square foot cost of the remaining first floor space
(4,796 squaze feet). These spaces would also be subject to the following restrictions:
The reduced rate spaces shall be sepazately demised from the spaces that front the
street and shall never be connected to the spaces that front the street;
• The reduced rate spaces shall be accessed off of the alley or the mid-block walkway;
The reduced rate spaces shall be prohibited from being an Office or a Storage Use;
• The retailer(s) in the reduced rate spaces shall not be the same as the retailer(s) in the
spaces that front the street;
Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Staff Memo
Page 2 of 5
• The City of Aspen shall be party to the covenants for the reduced rate spaces, and the
City Attorney shall approve the covenants with respect to the affordability provisions;
• The City of Aspen shall review and approve all leases in the reduced rate spaces to
ensure compliance with the covenants and the Ordinance; and
• Al] leases for these reduced rent spaces shall include a whereas clause stating that the
City of Aspen has reviewed and approved the lease for compliance with the
covenants and Ordinance.
Staff has added Section 25 to the Ordinance to reflect the commitments made by the
application with respect to the commercial spaces.
Architecture and Buildinl? Hei¢ht:
The Applicant has amended the building to lower the height and to minimize the visibility of
three story elements along the street. This project was applied for before the new
Commercial Design Guidelines were approved, and is therefore not subject to the new
guidelines. However, the Applicant has made attempts to meet the new Design Guidelines,
so Staff will reference these new Guidelines in this memo and at the Public Hearing. This
project received approval of a Commercial Design Review at the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Exhibit B includes seventeen sheets that illustrate the building's height. Page 11 of this
exhibit illustrates the roof plan and outlines the proposed building heights. As this page
shows, 1% of the building is forty-two (42) feet high, 25% of the building is between forty
(40) feet and forty (40) feet six (6) inches high, 51% of the building is between thirty-eight
(38) feet and thirty-eight (38) feet six (6) inches high, and 23% of the building is twenty-
eight (28) feet eight (8) inches high or less. The vaziations in height are intended to add
architectural interest to the building, as is outlined in the Commercial Design Guidelines for
the Commercial (C-1) zone district . Indeed, page 34 of the Guidelines states, "A building's
roofscape should be regarded as an architectural `elevation', given its visibility from nearby
buildings and mountain slopes. Specific attention should be paid to creating a varied and
interesting roofscape." Staff believes that the variations in height meet the Commercial
Design Guidelines, and help this building contribute to the overall fabric of the Commercial
Character Area.
The design includes two building masses, an east mass on the corner of Spring and Hyman
and a west mass, sepazated by a mid-block walkwayZ. In the previous design, the western
mass included a three story brick element located at the lot line that measured forty-two (42)
feet in height. This element has been pulled back so the mass located on the lot line
measures twenty-eight (28) feet eight (8) inches, and the third story measuring forty (40) feet
six (6) inches is set back from the lot line. The Design Guidelines encourage a relationship
to the street by placing a building's facade at the property line. While vaziation in height is
~ This project is located in the Commercial (C-1) zone district, and is part of the "Commercial Character Area"
in the Commercial Design Guidelines. The Guidelines for this Character Area aze found on pages 13 through
36 of the Design Guidelines.
Z Page 19 of the Guidelines discusses the characteristics required of mid-block walkways in the Commercial
Character Area.
Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Staff Memo
Page 3 of 5
required3, it is important that a building maintains a relationship with the street. The building
element that the Applicant has proposed to reduce in height at the lot line was the only
element on the building that was three stories in height at the property line. Staff believes
this added architectural interest, and helped to maintain a relationship with the street. While
pulling the third story back reduces the perceived height from the street, it also detracts from
the overall interest and variation in the building.
Exhibit B also outlines sections of the building (see pages 13-17). Page 13 includes a site
plan of the building with lines number 1 though 6 going through the building. These
represent the different sections provided on the following pages. The easiest way to read
sections is to think of the site plan as a loaf of bread, and the different sections as slices in the
loaf. Each section, or slice of bread, illustrates the height and use make up of the building at
that point. The Applicant has provided six sections, looking from Spring Street toward
Hunter Street.
Parking:
As outlined in the Applicant's letter, Exhibit C, the Applicant has reduced the amount of
parking to twenty-three (23) or spaces. This allows for one space to be dedicated to each of
the residences (both affordable and free-market) and for an additional five (5) or six (6)
spaces for commercial users. The pazking required under the Land Use Code is 23 spaces°,
so even though the pazking proposed by the project is being reduced it meets the code
requirement. This change in packing spaces has been incorporated into Section 22 of the
Ordinance.
Subdivision: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of
multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision, pursuant to the definition of a
subdivision.5 The creation of multiple dwelling units (or one unit within a mixed use
building) is considered an act of subdivision. If the Applicant is interested in creating
individual ownership interests in the units, condominiumization must be undertaken in order
to demarcate ownership units within a single building.b
In reviewing the Subdivision request, Staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable
subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review
Standards, as outlined iu Exhibit A.
3 Specifically, page 25 of the Guidelines states that "No more than two consecutive 30 ft. facade modules may
be three stories tall, within an individual building." And the Guidelines require a vaziation in height when a
project site is more than two (2) traditional lot widths. This site encompasses six (6) traditional lots, so
variation in height is required.
Land Use Code Section 26.510.030, Required number ofoff--street pazking spaces, states that 1 space per 1000
sq. ft. of commercial space is required in the Infill Area, and that no pazking is required for residential units in a
mixed-use building in the CC or C-1 zone districts. The commercial space provided in the project is 23,254
square feet, resulting in a requirement of 23 pazking spaces.
5 Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is defined as "The process act or result of
dividin¢ land into two or more lots parcels or other units of land or sepazate leeal interests for the purpose or
transfer of ownership leasehold interest building, or development..."
5 Once construction is neazly completed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must
file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Community Development Director.
Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Staff Memo
Page 4 of 5
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff believes the proposed commercial affordability
changes will go a long way towazd ensuring the long-term affordability of the alley and mid-
block walkway commercial spaces. Prohibiting Office and Storage Uses will help ensure
that these spaces have vitality and will add to the commercial mix on the block. Staff
believes that the 50% deed restriction is a significant commitment to meeting the AACP's
goals of Economic Sustainability. Further, Staff believes the overall height of the building,
as illustrated in Exhibit B, meets the new Commercial Design Standazds by providing
architectural interest at the Street Level and on the roofscape, and meets the underlying zone
district requirements. Further, Staff believes the building furthers the AACP goal related to
Design Quality. The project also provides more affordable housing than is required under
the Land Use Code. Additionally, Staff finds that the land subject to the application is
suitable for development in that it already contains a commercial building and is served by
the necessary utilities to support the proposed development. Staff recommends approval of
this project.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007, approving a
Subdivision for the redevelopment project at 307 S. Spring and 625 E. Hyman."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Exhibit A -Subdivision Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -Floor Plans and Building Sections from Applicant (note, the pages aze numbered
through 17, but do not include a page 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12)
Exhibit C -Letter from Applicant outlining Commercial changes, dated 2.8.2008
Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Staff Memo
Page 5 of 5
ORDINANCE N0.29
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS A SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A MIXED-USE BUILDING AT 307 S. SPRING STREET AND 625 E. HYMAN
AVE, LOTS D-I, BLOCK 100, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY,COLORADO
Parcel No. 2737-182-25-003
Parcel No. 2737-182-25-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from 633 Spring II, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc, requesting
approval of Commercial Design Review, Growth Management Reviews, Multi-year
Development Allotments, Condominiumization, and Subdivision to construct athree-
story mixed use building on the properties located at 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E.
Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject properties contain approximately 18,000 total squaze
feet and are located in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds,
the Community Development Department recommended the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the Applicant's request for multi-yeaz development allotments, finding
that the current design and massing did not meet the standazds for an exceptional project
necessary to obtain multi-yeaz development allotments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission passed
Resolution 28, Series 2006 approving Commercial Design Review, 2006 Commercial
Growth Management Allotments, twelve (12) 2006 Affordable Housing Growth
Management Allotments, one (1) 2006 Free-Market Growth Management Allotment, and
recommending City Council approve an "Exceptional Project or Multi-Year
Development Allotment" Growth Management Review for five (5) 2007 Free-Mazket
Growth Management Allotments and a Subdivision Review on November 7, 2007; and,
WHEREAS, on December l ld', 2006 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance
No. 49, Series 2006, on First Reading by a four to zero (4-0) vote, approving with conditions
the Multi-Year Growth Management Review and Subdivision of properties located at 307
S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of
Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on January 22nd, 2007,
Februazy 12`h, 2007, and February 26d', 2007, and took public comment on Ordinance No.
49, Series of 2006, and on February 26d', 2007 the Aspen City Council did not approve
Ordinance No. 49, Series 2006, by a two to one (2 - 1) vote, approving with conditions
Multi-Yeaz Development Allotments, and Subdivision for the development of a three-story,
mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 1
WHEREAS, during a regulaz City Counci] meeting on February 27a', 2007, the
Aspen City Council voted to reconsider the project on Apri123`d, 2007 by a two (2) to one
(1) vote; and,
WHEREAS, on April 11`h, 2007 the Applicant amended their application to
"renew" their growth management request to request five (5) Free-Market Residential
Allotments under the Growth Management Review "Free-Market Residential Units
within aMixed-Use Project" sepazately from the approvals received in Resolution 28,
Series 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the amended
application and recommended approval of the five (5) Free-Market Residential Growth
Management Allotments, finding that application met the standazds for such a review and
recommended approval of the request; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 5, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2007, by a five to zero
(5-0) vote, approving with conditions, a Growth Management Review for five (5) Free-
Market Residential Units in a Mixed Use Development, for the development of a three-
story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, on July 9`", 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 29,
Series 2007, on First Reading by a three to zero (3-0) vote, approving with conditions the
Subdivision of properties located at 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots
D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February I1, 2008, continued
from August 13, 2007, August 27, 2007, October 9, 2007, November 12, 2007, November
26, 2007, December 3, 2007, and January 28, 2008, the Aspen City Council approved
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007, by a _ to _ ~-~ vote, approving with conditions a
Subdivision for the development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block
100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision for the
development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, City and
Townsite of Aspen, subject to the conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all
conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 28, Series of 2006,
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 20, Series of 2007, as well as all
conditions of this Ordinance. A Subdivision Plat shall be recorded concurrently with the
filing of the Subdivision Agreement. A final Condominium Plat may be approved and
signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of
construction and prior to transfer of ownership of individual units within the project.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The Applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in
Land Use Code Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, aze fulfilled. The building permit
application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance, P&Z Resolution 28, Series 2007, and P&Z
Resolution 20, Series 2007.
a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
c. A tree removal permit as required by the City Pazks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any
removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a
detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings
proposed on the site.
d. 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.
e. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described in
Section 6 of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 3
f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Department.
g. An excavation/stabilization plan prepazed by a licensed Engineer and approved by
the Engineering Department. This should meet all requirements out]ined in Section
21.12.140 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
h. Proof of energy efficiency requirement being placed on the property.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The use mix and dimensional requirements shall comply with the C1 zone district, as
described in the staff memorandum and included in the chart below. Specific squaze
footage requirements may be amended provided compliance with the below stated
requirements of the underlying C1 zone district is maintained. The dimensional
requirements approved for this development are as follows:
Dimensional;. Proposed ,
Requirement: I3nm4ens~onal
Re `uirements ,-
Minimum Lot Size 18,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 100 Feet
Minimum Lot Area 1 Unit per 1,000 SF of
Per Dwellin Unit Lot Area
Minimum Front Adjacent to Hyman- 0
Yard Setback Feet
Adjacent to Spring St.-
0 Feet
Minimum Side Yard 0 Feet
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard 0 Feet
Setback
Maximum Height 42 Feet
Allowable External Total- 2.74:1
FAR Commercial- 1.3:1
FM Multi-famil - .7:1
Minimum Off-Street Total: 23 Spaces
Parkin Pro osed On-site
Open 10%(1,800 SF)
Space/Pedestrian provided by paying
Ameni cash-in-lieu
Section 5: Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity
The property is required to either provide open space satisfying the definition open
space/pedestrian amenity equal to 10% of the property or pay cash-in-lieu thereof. If
providing cash-in-lieu, cash-in-lieu shall be provided in full based on the ca]culation
methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity.
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 4
Section 6: Construction Management
A construction management plan shall be submitted with the building permit application
that meets the requirements of the current "Construction Management Plan Requirements
Plan Manual" available in the City of Aspen Engineering Department. The construction
management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction pazking plan, a construction
staging and phasing plan, a construction worker transportation plan, a plan for accepting
major construction-related deliveries with estimated delivery schedule, the designation of
haul routes, and an agreement with the City to participate with other neighboring
developments under construction to limit the impacts of construction. This agreement
shall be prepazed by the developer and accepted by the Community Development
Director.
As part of the construction management plan, 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.
The construction management plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be
reviewed by the City Engineering Department that includes watering of disturbed azeas
(including haul routes, where necessary), perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of
adjacent right-of--ways, and a representation that the City has the ability to request
additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. A temporary
encroachment license is required for use of the City's right-of--way for construction
purposes.
The Applicant shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project
management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the Victorian Squaze
Condominiums, the owners of the Hannah Dustin Building, the Chateau Aspen
Condominiums, and the owners of the Hunter Plaza Building.
Section 7: Pre-Construction Meeting
The Applicant shall conduct apre-construction meeting with the City Community
Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application. This meeting
shall include the general contractor, the architect producing the construction drawings,
the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building
Department, a representative of the City Engineering Department, and the Community
Development Department's case planner.
Section 8: Fire Mitigation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to
accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System.
Section 9: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen 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
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 5
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 meters. A single water service line penetration into
the building shall be allowed. The Applicant shall abandon the existing water service
line and excavate it prior to installation of a new water service line.
Section 10• Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. The Applicant shall fund the replacement of 300 feet the main sewer line
located in the alley adjacent to the project. No cleaz water connections (roof, foundation,
perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. 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. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public
right-of--way above ACSD main sewer lines. The Applicant shall enter into a shazed
service line agreement. Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Service lines being abandoned shall be
abandoned from the main sewer line and excavated.
Section 11: Electrical Department Requirements
The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed
electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property
has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is
required to be installed on the subject property, the Applicant shall provide for a new
transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development
Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for
City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes,
if a supplemental transformer is installed. If after the subdivision plat is recorded and in
the event an easement is required, then the Community Development Director shall
review and approve the easement on the condominium plat.
Section 12: Energy Efficiency
The development shall exceed the Energy Star Target Energy Performance Results
requirements for energy usage by 50%. An energy audit shall be conducted on the
development at the property owner's expense after three (3) years of occupancy. The
energy audit shall be conducted by an energy consultant selected by the City of Aspen
Building Department. If the audit determines that the development does not meet the
target energy performance, then the building shall be upgraded to meet this requirement.
Prior to the building's occupation, the building shall be commissioned to determine the
energy efficiency prior to use. This shall be conducted by an energy consultant selected
by the City of Aspen Building Department and shall be conducted at the expense of the
Applicant.
Section 13• Growth Management Implications and Employee Housing Mitigation
The Applicant shall provide twelve (12) deed-restricted, two-bedroom affordable housing
units, to fully mitigate for the 25.9 full time employees (FTEs) required to be mitigated
for. The affordable housing units shall also contain 13,960 squaze feet of floor area as
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 6
indicated in the application. The Applicant shall also pay acash-in-lieu fee for 2.25
FTEs in addition to the housing provided on-site.
Section 14: Affordable Housing
The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the twelve (12) affordable
housing units in conjunction with filing a condominium plat for the property and
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the affordable housing units.
Three (3) of the affordable housing units shall be Category 2, four (4) of the
affordable housing units shall be Category 3 units and five (5) of the affordable
housing units shall be Category 4 units.
The owner shall have the right to choose the first purchaser on three (3) of the units
for the initial sale only. The households chosen shall be qualified through the
Housing Office and shall meet all of the following criteria:
a. Must have worked at least four yeazs in Pitkin County prior to application,
b. Must meet all aspects of the category specified for the unit to be purchased,
c. Must meet minimum occupancy requirements, and
d. Must show verified proof that at least one person in the household works for
a business in the development at the time of the initial sale.
All re-sales shall go through the Housing Office in accordance with the APCHA
lottery process. All affordable housing units not subject to the right of first
purchase as described above shall be "for sale" units and sold through the APCHA
lottery process.
A separate Homeowner's Association shall be established for the affordable housing
units. The affordable housing homeowners' association dues shall be a percentage of the
free-market residential development's dues equal to the affordable housing's market
value compared to that of the free-market residential component's market value in the
complex. If the Category 2 units aze not sold within six months of Certificate of
Occupancy, the units may be utilized as rental units. At any time said Category 2 units
would be found to be out of compliance from the qualifications as specified in the
Guidelines, the units shall be mazketed for resale through the lottery process. The
Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of one (1) 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 for the Category 2 units. Should these units be
sold prior to becoming rental units, APCHA shall sell the 1/10 interest to the qualified
APCHA owner.
Section 15: Landscaping
The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the building permit
application. This landscaping plan shall include a plan for right-of--way landscaping and
irrigation. The plan shall also include a parkway landscaping strip adjacent to all abutting
public streets of at least five (5) feet in width. Appropriate street tree plantings aze required
along all streets adjacent to the property and shall be spaced according to the
recommendation of the City of Aspen Pazks Department.
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 7
The Applicant shall meet with the Pazks Department and the Community Development
Department prior to building permit submittal to determine the best way to screen the first
floor wall along the alley while meeting the intent of City Council. The Applicant shall
provide a number of options for the Pazks Department and the Community Development
Department to review. The option chosen shall be indicated in the building permit
application.
Section 16: Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter
Existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter adjacent to the project shall be replaced and upgraded to
meet the City Engineer's design requirements. The sidewalk locations shall be in
substantially the same location as is depicted on the site plan in the subdivision application.
If the adjacent sidewalks aze to be snowmelted, the Applicant shall also snowmelt the curb
and gutter adjacent to the property.
Section 17: Park Development Impact Fees
Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance
on both the new residential bedrooms and the commercial/office space to be added to the
subject properties pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact
Fees. The Pazk 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: Exterior Lighting
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 a detailed
lighting plan for project that addresses unique lighting installations for the mid-block
walkway. This shall be part of the Pre-Construction meeting requirement as outlined in
Section 7, above.
Section 20: Wildlife Trash Containers
The Applicant shall install aildlife-proof trash container that meets the requirements of
the Environmental Health Department.
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: Off-Street Parkins
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 8
The Applicant shall provide twenty-three (23) sub-grade pazking spaces to be accessed from
the alleyway as approved by City Council. The affordable housing units shall each have one
(1) dedicated pazking space in the below grade garage. The remaining spaces shall be for
use by the free-market units, and the commerciaUoffice space. At no time shall the parking
structure or spaces be condominiumized other than to delineate ownership of pazking spaces
for the owners of the residential units and commercial/office space within the subject
building. The parking spaces shall not be used as a Commercial Pazking Facility, as
defined in the Land Use Code, unless the Applicant is granted land use review approval
for a Commercial Parking Facility in accordance with applicable codes at the time of
application.
Section 23: Development Timine
The Applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy on all of the affordable housing units
prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any other par[ of the building.
Section 24: Wienerstube Lease
At the time of recordation of this Ordinance, the Applicant shall submit a copy of a
signed ten (] 0) yeaz lease for the Wienerstube Restaurant. If at any time the Wienerstube
owners decide to terminate the ]ease for any reason before fulfilling the length of lease,
the Applicant shall replace the Wienerstube with a similar restaurant that shall fulfill the
remainder of the lease.
Section 25: Affordable Commercial Space
The Wienerstube restaurant is located along the Spring Street frontage of the building,
and is subject to a 10-year lease, outlined in Section 24, above. Excluding the
Wienerstube space, there are 7,823 square feet of net leasable space on the first floor.
The Applicant shall restrict the rent on 2,046 squaze feet of this space to 50% of the
overall average per square foot cost of the remaining first floor space that does not
include the Wienerstube (4,796 square feet). These spaces would also be subject to the
following restrictions:
The reduced rate spaces shall be sepazately demised from the spaces that front the
street and shall not be connected to the spaces that front the street;
• The reduced rate spaces shall be accessed off of the alley or the mid-block
walkway;
• The reduced rate spaces shall be prohibited from being an Office Use or a Storage
Use, as defined in the Land Use Code;
• The retailer(s) in the reduced rate spaces shall not be the same as the retailer(s) in
the spaces that front the street;
• The City of Aspen shall be party to the covenants for the reduced rate spaces, and
the City Attorney shall approve the covenants with respect to the affordability
provisions;
• The City of Aspen shall review and approve all leases in the reduced rate spaces
to ensure compliance with the covenants and the Ordinance; and
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 9
• All leases for these reduced rent spaces shall include a whereas clause stating that
the City of Aspen has reviewed and approved the ]ease for compliance with the
covenants and Ordinance.
Section 26:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 27:
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 28:
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 sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 29: Vested Ris6ts
The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution Number 28, Series of 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
Number 20, Series of 2007, and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from
the date of issuance of the development order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
boundazies of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the genera] public of the approval of a vested property
right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article
68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described properties:
307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and
Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 49, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City
Council.
Section 30:
A public heazing on the ordinance was held on the 9a' day of July, 2007, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City of Aspen.
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 10
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of July, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
G:\cityUessica\Cases\Wienerstube\Council\Subdivision\Wienerstube Ordinance2.11.08.doc
Ordinance No. 29, Series 2007
Page 1 I
Exhibit A, Subdivision
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
Al. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff finds the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Outlined below is the subdivision's consistency with applicable individual goals in the
AACP.
Managing Growth
The community goals listed in the AACP for the Managing Growth section include:
• "Provide fora `critical mass' of permanent local residents by providing a limited
number of affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. "
The proposed subdivision will allow for six (6) free-market units and twelve (12)
affordable housing units to be constructed and subdivided. The twelve (12) affordable
housing units will be deed restricted and provide housing for twenty seven (27) FTEs
within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
• "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary... "
The proposed development and subdivision is within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
• "Foster awell-balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic
diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from
different backgrounds. " The subdivision and development creates spaces for free-market
and deed-restricted residences, and spaces for office and commercial uses. These uses
are integrated in two (2) adjacent buildings that are connected through a second and third
story passageway, and are mixed within the floors. The location of the development
fosters lifestyles conducive to transit and pedestrian use, as it is located within the Aspen
Infill Area, has access to the bus route, and is within one block of the Commercial Core.
The building will provide additional landscaping along the street facing facades which
will provide a pedestrian friendly atmosphere for passersby, tenants, and residents. Staff
finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
• "We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. ~ We should
discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our open
spaces and our rural resources as well as the fiscal expenses associated with the physical
infrastructure of sprawl. " The Housing Guidelines maintain seven (7) Categories of
affordable housing; in furtherance of this AACP goal, the Code was written to require
affordable housing at the middle category level, namely Category 4. The proposal
provides a mix of Categories 2, 3, and 4 units. This mix will allow a more economically
diverse population to reside in town than is found in other redevelopment projects that
Wienerstube Redevelopment
Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 6
meet the minimum code requirements for Category 4 units. Staff finds the subdivision
meets this goal of the AACP.
Transportation
The community goals listed in the AACP for the Transportation section include:
• "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk
connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development
approvals, where appropriate... " The subdivision and development will include
sidewalk improvements along both Hyman Ave. and Spring St., creating a pedestrian and
bike friendly atmosphere. Further, the mid-block walkway adds an additional connection
and pedestrian amenity. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
• "Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area. " The development
includes underground parking for tenants and residents of the building. The location of
the parking reduces the impact these cazs would otherwise have on the surrounding
community if they were required to park at street level. Each of the affordable housing
units will be assigned a parking space that will enable the residents to store their cazs sub-
grade rather than utilizing limited on-street pazking opportunities. Staff finds the
subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
"New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit,
and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling. "
The proposed development is served by transit and is composed of compact mixed-uses
conducive to walking and bicycling. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the
AACP.
The intent of the Transportation section states:
"The. community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for
residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution. Walking,
Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal. " The proposed
development and subdivision promote the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly
lifestyle. The development is located one block away from the Commercial Core zone
district, is located approximately four blocks from Ruby Pazk, and served by close transit
stops. The development will increase the overall pedestrian experience, as it will provide
landscaping improvements, and will improve the relationship to Hyman Ave. by
replacing an underutilized vacant lot with lazge store front windows that supply visual
interest and engage the pedestrian. Staff finds the subdivision meets the intent of the
Transportation section in the AACP.
Housin
The community goals listed in the AACP for the Housing section include:
• "Encourage development to occur within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and
emphasize `good city form'. " The proposed subdivision, with its twelve (12) affordable
housing units, is within a development located within the Aspen Growth Boundary and
within the Aspen infill area. The development also promotes "good city form" through
Wienerstube Redevelopment
Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit A
Page 2 of 6
its improvements to the street facing facades, which make the building more pedestrian
friendly, and through its consistency with the Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds
the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
• "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing
affordable housing. " And "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in
developing affordable housing. " The subdivision includes twelve (12) high-quality
affordable housing units, which will be deed-restricted and provide housing for twenty
seven (27) FTEs. The private sector is providing these units as part of the development
proposal. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets these two AACP goals.
• "New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance
for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen. " The subdivision
will provide twelve (12) above-grade deed-restricted housing units in a number of
different categories. These units aze in the same building as six (6) free-mazket housing
units. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP.
Economic Sustainability
The intent of the Economic Sustainability section includes:
• "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen
area community... " The subdivision will include office and commercial uses that will
help promote and maintain Aspen's yeaz-round community. There is a lack of significant
office space currently in Aspen, and this development and subdivision will help increase
the office base needed in the community. The placement of commercial spaces along the
mid-block walkway and the alley are likely to provide opportunities for lower rent
commercial uses that enable locally owned and locally serving business a potential
incubator space. Further, the owner has agreed to retain the Wienerstube Restaurant
which serves tourists and locals alike for a period of at least ten (10) yeazs. The
subdivision will also include housing for twenty seven (27) FTEs who will live and work
within the community (as required by Housing Authority rules) and who will help
support a healthy, vibrant, and diversified year-round economy. Staff finds the
subdivision meets the intent of this section of the AACP.
• "Enhance the wealth-generating capacity of the local economy while minimizing the rate
at which cash flows through the local economy and limiting the expansion of the physical
size of the community. " The subdivision occurs within the Aspen Growth Boundary,
which will not increase the physical size of the community. The development will also
increase the local economy's wealth-generating capacity by providing commercial and
office spaces within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff finds the subdivision meets the intent of
this section of the AACP.
Pazks Onen Space & the Environment
• "Seek opportunities to discourage sprawl in order to preserve open spaces between
communities. Encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing
urban fabric." The development will provide a Pazk Development Impact Fee, and
includes streetscape improvements along Spring St. and Hyman Ave. This project will
Wienerstube Redevelopment
Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit A
Page 3 of 6
integrate housing into the urban fabric by providing twelve (12) affordable housing units
and six (6) free-market residential units within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff finds the
subdivision meets this section of the AACP.
Design Ouality
The intent of the Design Quality section includes:
"Ensure the character of the built environment in Aspen is maintained through public
outreach and education about design quality, historical context, and the influence of
existing built and natural environments. " This AACP section does not relate well to the
subdivision itself, as it will divide the internal spaces into sepazate ownership interests.
The development itself meets this AACP section through its compliance with the
Commercial Design Standards, its use of fenestration and fagade articulation to break up
the building's mass, and the inclusion of a mid-block walkway that helps to break up the
development's bulk and creates a unique design solution to a lazge lot. Staff finds the
subdivision and development meet the goals and intent of this section of the AACP.
The community goals listed in the Design Quality section of the AACP includes:
• "Retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the
special character to Aspen. " Again, this section relates more to the overall development
rather than the subdivision. The development itself represents a high quality design that
will work with and enhance Aspen's unique character. The buildings mass is broken up
through fagade fenestration and the use of different materials, which helps it relate to
Aspen's historic thirty (30) and sixty (60) foot lot widths. The fagade is made of
different materials and colors that relate to those traditionally used in buildings in the
commercial core, while also using materials and colors that relate to neighboring
buildings in the C-1 zone district. Staff finds the subdivision and development meet the
goals and intent of this section of the AACP.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the uses proposed in the subdivision are consistent with the character of the
existing ]and uses in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the development in the
immediate vicinity consists of mixed-use or commercial/office buildings. The Hannah
Dustin building located across Spring Street from the proposed development is currently an
office building that has approval for the creation of several additional residential units. The
Patio building, which contains commercial and office space is located directly across E.
Hyman Avenue from the proposed development and the Victorian Squaze office building is
located directly to the west of the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findine
The subdivision of the building will not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding areas, as the division of the building into sepazate ownership units will not
impact the development abilities in surrounding areas. The development itself will not pose
Wienerstube Redevelopment
Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit A
Page 4 of 6
an adverse affect on surrounding areas. The surrounding properties aze close to fully
developed, and the surrounding road and utility systems have the capacity to support this
development. Additionally, the development meets all the requirements of the C-1 zone
district. All park development, school land, and other impact fees will be paid at the time of
building permit issuance in order to mitigate for any other impacts from the development.
Therefore, Staff finds that the proposal will not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with al[ applicable requirements
of this Title.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets all requirements of the Land Use Code. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of Land jor Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudJlow, rocks[ide,
avalanche or snows[ide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the properties are suitable for subdivision and development. There are no
known geologic hazazds on the site and the Wienerstube property currently contains an
existing commercial building. The site contains no overly steep topography and no known
geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed
development. Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of
public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public
facilities. The Applicant has committed that the cost of any necessary utility extensions or
upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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:
I. A unique situation exists jor 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.
Wienerstube Redevelopment
Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit A
Page 5 of 6
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and
provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable required improvements
pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements
of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivtsion 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
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, is not applicable for this subdivision. The
development includes new free-market residential units and provides more affordable
housing than is required by the Land Use Code. The application has been granted the growth
management allocations required for the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards
set forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu instead of
providing land. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication
fee at the time of building permit issuance for development within the subdivision. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the Ciry Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2)
Staff Finding
The application has requested and received the necessary growth management allocations for
the proposed development, pursuant to Planning and Zoning Resolutions 20, Series 2007 and
28, Series 2006.
Wienerstube Redevelopment
Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit A
Page 6 of 6
.r~ . ~xh~bi~ C~
~-
~.
~.~ ~ r r.,
8 February 2008
Mayor and Members of the Aspen City Council
c/o lessicn Darrow, Long Range Planner
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen. CO 8161 1
Re: 633 Spring Street Subdivision Review-Affordable Commercial Proposal
Dear Mayor Ireland and Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of our client 633 Spring Street, LLC, owners of the
"Wienerstube" property, to provide information for the Aspen City Council
review for condominium subdivision at the continued public hearing
scheduled for 1 I February 2008.
The applicants have discussed incorporating a deed restriction relative fo
"affordable commercial" ai this property. Providing a deed restriction
should serve to assure the City Council that the affordability of a portion of
the building will endure. I would emphasize that this is a benefit not
required in the land use code, and is offered as a voluntary response to
Council's concerns regarding affordable commercial opportunities.
Having discussed this concept with you and Chris Bendon, and based on
your review of the proposal with the City Attorney. we believe that this is a
program which will address Council concerns. Here are the details:
• Excluding the Wienerstube, which is covered under a separate contract
fo assure its presence in the new building, there are 7,823 s.f. of net
leasable commercial on fhe ground floor:
• The applicants would permanently restrict the rent of 2.046 s.f, of ground
floor commercial to not exceed a net per square foot cost greater than
50% of the overall average net per square foot cost of the remaining
4,796 S.f.
• In other words. 26% of the first floor area (excluding the Wienerstube)
would be rented at one-half the average rental for the free market half;
The Wienerstube space, comprising 2,750 s.f., is covered under a
separate 10-year contract to assure affordability;
Overall, this means that 4,796 s.f. of net leasable commercial~r more
than 45~--would be rented at a reduced rate for the first ten years and,
after 10 years, 26% of the overall first floor area would remain
permanently resfrlcted.
=
.°
'-. ~ Ms. Jessica Go~raw
~' ~ $ February 2408
Pagel'wo
This reduced rental rate would be guaranteed by a covenant io which the
`° City of Aspen would be a party. The aopliconts propose to prcvide rental
,ti rate information and verification upon the full leasing of the building and at
subsequent two-year intervals.
AdditionaPy. City staff has requested and the appliconts would agree to the
following provisions:
1. The reduced rate cammercial spaces shall not be cannected to
spaces accessed from the street facades of the building. These
reduced rate spaces would be separately demised and accessed
either frarn the alley or from the inferior mid-block passage;
2. the reduced rate commercial spaces shall be prohibited from being
an Office or Storage Use, and the retailer in these rent controlled
spaces shall not be the same retailer in the spaces that front on the
street;
3. the Ieoses for these spaces shall include o whereas douse chat
dotes that the Ciiy of Aspen has opproved of the lease and hos
found that it meets all requirements of the Ordinance and the
covenants;
4. The City of Aspen shall be party to the covenants, which shall be
approved by the Cify Attorney with respect to the affordability
provisions.
I believe that this approach to ensuring affordability will be relotively easy to
review as all the required data can be within the applicant's ability to
provide. I understand that you will want to review this concept wilh the City
Attorney prior to forwarding it on to Council. I look forward to responding fo
any questions that may arse from the City Attorney review of this offer.
As part of this offer, and its associated cods and risks to the applicants, the
applicants would reduce the building parking to 23 spaces, which conforms
to the requirements of the land use code.
we hope that this voluntary additional offer will bring our hearing process io
favorable closure, recognizing the many benefits being provided by this
proposed new addition to the community, and the suitability of the project
for subdivision as required by the process before us.
Ve yours.
St C o ICP, ASLA
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
p
9
.w
%'
a'
c
cv
~aaa~s ~uiads
O Q
Ya ~ W
w CJ
~ N
O
U
- - ~ - -
I I
N I C
II
II
w
Q~
I.1L
J
~ w ~
/^
VJ WW_
~ ~ ~~ J
1 f (~
0
0
O
O
.„ „, _. II
n I - ~~ - - o
I ~~ I
I
~- ~ -- -- -- o-b L L ., ...._.
D ~ ~ o i ___
~° II li
I ~- ~ II ~ ~ II
~ II ~ II
I I ~',; II
----- _IL- --- ----___====iL====~
------ -~~~:=Q ---
cn
II II w
~~_-
o ~ ~ ~ ~
~I II o
~; ~ II
o II w w¢
.__~_ ~_ _~ _ wa
II ~ ~ Q> ~~
~w
=____----===J ~-'
o'
~~
.~0
A a
2 `~
O
m
^
~---i
c~
~o
N
O
C7 ~
J ~
LL
c~
C yyi
Y~
Q ~~
^~
I..L
/Z
V
V/
~. ~.~
NW
I^.L
LL
~~
W W J w J Z
J Y ¢ J ¢ Q
m ~ U m U f-
~ ~ ~ g ~ g Z ~
Y
p ~ w O U
Q~ ~ U Q pU a U
Y ® LJ ^ ® ® L
N
V~ o -
C °=
d
;aa~~s ~ui~dg
~~I
~I
A a
2 ~'
O
m
.~
^L^
i~f~
N1
N
as
C ~
_ N
~ O
~ N
o~
2
~ °m
-~
ca
O~
Q g3
...
~~
N ~
~ `,;
N
J
N
O
d
O
i
d
N
C
N
a
E
T
______- -- ~I
`00 3
~~
~ ~
m ~
~ ~~
~ (~
~
C
O U
~~
,~ _
_ -O"6
(~
~~
O
-~
~ ~ -,
m r
~,~
~~
i ~ ~ ,
~ ,
~ v-~ A ~~~~
= E ~ J _..
~11 /J' N3~'" ~~~~'~ -
-- ~ ~
i
m ~ i
- ~ U /~' m I \ f -
= E ~°n ~ ~..~ l`
Q v m .. - --
m o i
~ " --
Z
C7
W
w
d
O~
W W J W J Z
J Q J Q O
Y
O] ~ U m U Q
O Z ~ W O W Z J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y O
O O ~ O O O G U~
Q S ~ U Q U d U
h
N o
G m=
d
~aaa;s ~ui~ds
_ ~'
!~
.°~
a
n
Z N
O
m
.~
L
N7
M
~jq o
~ o
N p
~ N
o~
_~
~v
-~
cv
o~
~~
-- ~~
N ~
~ ,~,
J
N
O
d
O
i
Z
W
w
C
Q
2
iiil~~I
i ii7
MU
o~
r
w
Y
W W J
~ Y Q
m ~ U
O Z_ ~ w
~ O w ~
Q = LL O
W -, Z
~¢ qO
~ W U Q
~ ~ Z
Y
O o Q ~
Q U d U
~i
i„
N _W
y o-
o m~
d
d
C
Q
C
R
W W J w J Z
J .1 Q J Q O
oz ~ w ow z ~
~ Y
N ~ ~ V
Q S ~ ~U Q ~U d U
Y ® LJ, ®,
~aa~~g ~ui~dg
O ~
~' O
~ ~
N m
c
~ +--~
~ c
O ~
- -
I
c I I
q ~~ II I ~~ I ~m
~ cn v °' .r
Q ~ ~~ O c
U
Q - -
I
------------~ ~ s
o ~
- - - ~ o
~ ~
°~ m
c
I ~ ~~
I • ,~ ~ .
-~ - -~ I~ _ '~4 _
~ ~~i w
--
~n
4
~~
!~ ~, d'
C _ ~
~°
a ~a
2 ~ •V o
~ N
~ ~
O
> LL
U ~'
^ ~
L J
~ ~ ~~
y o ~~
U W
N s
(!~ ='
O
d
O
d
Z
C7
C%1
w
a
w
O~
N"
N e
O m=
d
I-
Z
p ~
H W
~ W
p Y d
H ¢ ~
~ ~ ~
w ~;
w
LL
N
C
Q
C
E
x
I-
Z
gpF-
O~-LL'
w
O Y ~
~ ~
m ~ ~
N W ~
W
W
J
}aa~~g ~uiadg
H
Z
~ p
O f-
~wC'1
~ Y ~
~ Q ~
m ~ ~
N W ~
W
H
Z
~pl-
O I- ~
p w ~
~ Y N
°wao
m~~
N W .--i
W
lL
z
gel-
o~`'-
w
O Y U'
~ ~ N
~ Q ~
00`x^
N W ~--i
W
W
~~
~ N
.~0
~ a
2 ~'
0
m
~~
L
Q.
N
~o
~o
Y N
f0 0
G ~
~ ~
Q~ D
i y
L.L ~
~ „
J
~ s~
~~
H ~
~ c
N
0
Q
0
Z
C7
W
p
W
W J w J Z
J Y Q J Q O
00 ~ U m U Q
~ Z ¢ W o w Z J
N ~ ~
Y
Q 2 ~ i U Q U d U
Y ~~~~ ~!
a„
N
y o
om=
a
~~
/ /~
I
W W J W J Z
J Q J ¢ O
Y
^ Z ¢ W ~ W ~ J
~ Z
~ - O
N ~ ~ Y
~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q 2 ~ OU ¢ OU d U
Y ~~J~~~
~~
.~
~+ °-
_ ~
0
M
^~
L
y
ao 0
~o
Y N
~ O
~ ~
_ a
~ ~i
J
~ "~
~~
N B9
~ ~5
o~
a,
0
z
c~
w
w
O~
I N W
N "_
C m~
d
~aaa~s ~ui~ds
~~
~ n
.~°
~n
n
2 `~
m
^ ~
^L^
i~i~
N
~--i
~o
~To
~ o
C Z
Q
~~
LLL
.~
2ss
~_ Y
m ~
z
W
W
d
a
a o
~--~ ~
N 0 0
'+
~1 N 0
N
~ ~
O O
~ M
(~ iLl
N l0 ~ ~
C1 C7
~ ~
N f~
O ~D
C7
N
01
~
'+ O
V V ch
00 M M
~ LL
O O
ae ~
l0 O
_ V
a °
o ~
O
¢
~ lMi.
ch O
° ~
N
LL
Op
~
Y ~ ~
N
a ~
, , io So
W CO
M N
~.~ 0
01
-
a~
a
;„
N
N "_
G e.
d
,`rZ =:
~ w
- ~
LC')
I z
i O
F-
U
W
J
J•- -_ y v,K _ --
~ Z W
l Q ~
I~ f ; ~ a..
x a
3NIl utl3a0Nd
'' ^^
~l.I
Z
i O
U
w
c/7
C ~
.°~
---- -- ~ d
-_ ~
~ ~ m
i ~w
xQ
3Nn un3aaea
~~
^~
ii
N
I
'"~
m z
~ o
Z ~
O U
~ W
U ~~~ - - - ~
w =~ j
~ ~ ~-A _
V
Z
O
U
w
Hyman Avenue
d
H
d
II
S
E
r
~a
1
N
Z
O
H
U
w
cn
Z
Q
'~ J
m ~
N ~
c ~
N O
J
W
W
J
Z
Q
M
~--~
T ~
~ o
~ o
+' o
N N
+, z
L ~
,~n`
~ ~i
Z ,}~,}
98
y€
i~
w
w
c.
LL-
H
N
O V
Id
.0-.lf .4.E1 .9-~fl
am am xf
t ',
/ - +r
.9-.04
H
w w J w J Z
.~ Y Q J 4 O
QG7 ~ U <~ ~
oz ~ w ow z
O~ w ~ O~ Y U
w 7 w ~ tl ~ 0= ~
¢2 u~. OU QOU d U
Y
~ ~ '~
~ ~ ~--i
~~
~~
~~ .Oo
t~ U o
O U N
m ~ ~
as
c~
a,
~~
~ ~~
.~ m
L ~ ~s
Q ~ xs
y o~
a a~
O s
Z
w
w
i ~,
N
N =-
O "`
d
! E
~" y~ E: ~ gk ~r
.~ _ . _ .. .. 3 -
'L t 'L 1 '. ti
/ .9-.fI / .0'.6 -~~~0.6 / .U-.L ~ .9.G[ ~
W
J W J
¢ W J
J Q Z
O
m Y
~ U m C..) ~
~ Z w w Z Q
~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
OW ~ w ~ OW ~ ~ ~
O O Q O ~
~ U
3NIl ALtl3dOtld
~-
~~ -
3NIl Ala3dOLd
_~
o~
Z
Q
U
W
} -- - - ~
w
J
J
,y __
.0 .6
N
Z
O
W
_ ~ ~.['~
~ ~ .--i
~°
N~
n C °o
2 ~ O N
I~ y--' O
O U N
M ~ Z
v
C lL
_ ~ yEE
~ ~
m 7
~ Y¢
N ~
0 ~~
d S
O_ `~
Z
W
W
H
He
O ~`
d
W w
J J W J
Q J Q Z
O
Y
m ~ U m (~ ~-
O Z ~ W ~ W Z J
~ ~
W
O ~ ~ ~
~ O ~ Y ~
~
~
~ ~ Q ~ ~
~
Q
~ U U
, ~ ,
Y '
3NI~A1L3d0bd
3 Nll A1H3dONd ~
i
i
~rruaaaa~~ =I
8F
~~
K~
Z
0
U
w
Z
O
U
W
_ CD
~ N .--i
.m
~~
a C o
N O cv
n +-~ o
O V N
m ~ ~
~~
c~
_ ~
.~
m "~
~ ~s
~ 9~
V I N ~y
d~
O
L
Z
W
W
:~
N"
N o-
O
d
W
J W J
Q W J
~ C Z
O
m Y
~ U m U H
J
O Z ~ W O W Z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~
~ ~ O a
Q ~ U
Q o
.. U
/'
.9'•BE
.0- L2
'~ .~ ez
W
Z ~
Z
~ w
} ~
=Q
I-
3Nn uaadoad
-3RIT7¢H~d683" }
w
~ J
o ,, Q ____
¢ a .R,f
f_._-___ - _- _. .__
~~ ~ .0 •[Z
.9'.B£
3NIl ALa3d0ad
I
-~amaa3aoa~ WI
8~
Z
O
W
_ ~ ~
~ N ~--i
,_
.~
N ~
d ~ O
2 !n Q N
N
O U ~
m ~ ~
~~
LL
_ ~
.Q ~
m
y ~ ~~
Q~
O~
Z
C7
W
W
flJ "
N e
O m_
d
~~~~ ~`'~
~~~
Kenneth Schnitzer
2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1760
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-443-8295
February 28, 2008
Mayor and City Council
The City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611-1975
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Chateau Aspen respectfully requests that you deny the application for redevelopment of
the Weinerstube property as proposed. In its current height and size, it will overwhelm
the existing neighborhood buildings
~NJ~~n /"1NNRi9In.
The Hammah Dustin Building ak,~$st with a 30 foot setback, the Garfield and Hecht
building at 28 feet and Chateau Aspen at 28 feet aze the largest buildings in the area.
Although an attempt has been made to scale the building down,
42 feet would make this massive building 50 percent taller than its neighbors -blocking
most, if not all, of the natural light.
The Aspen Area Community Plan requires height, scale and form of new development to
be within context of the existing neighborhood, and I believe that this project does not
conform to the Community Plan.
Please deny this redevelopment projectas currently proposed.
{R~espe~ctfu~l) ,
l~/`i`
Kenneth Schni
Member of the Boazd of Directors
Chateau Aspen Condominiums
KS/djm
Yahoo! Mail - writejacknow@yahoo.com Page 1 0 1
-- - ~~c~L Print-CloseVVin ow
From: "Gail Otte' <gdotte@hotmail.com>
To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us, dwayner@ci.aspen.m.us, jackj@ci.aspen.co.us, jed@ci.aspen.co.us,
stevesk@ ci.aspen.co. us
Subject: Weinerstube Redevelopment INarch 3, 2008 Meeting
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:40:23 -0700
Hi,
Just wanted to drop you all an email with some comments regarding the Weinerstube redevelopment. As I was
perusing your web page on the city of Aspen site. I totally agree with what it says and is part of the reason I love
living here. In the event you haven't read it recently---it says "Aspen is a small community with a colorful history
and special character and fragile environment. Our uniqueness.....quality of life..." etc.... I realize that
something will eventually go in that space. But is the best use something as tall as 42 feet? As you look at the
projects around town and their massive size...they just don't fit into the character and charm of Aspen. (I think
we have learned just by looking at how huge the Limelight project has become and soon Dancing Bear, The
Residences) It makes me sad...because I just can't call that charming. I ski quite often and have had
conversations in the gondola and I would have to say that not a single person has said how much they ENJOY
the big buildinos. Again I know things do change...but most of the ride consists of what happened to such &
such (Red Onien, Ute City Banque, Motherlode, La Cocina, Movie theatre?)...and then it turns to greed and how
could these things have been approved? I also agree with the letter in the Aspen Times 3/1/08 from Junee Kirk
that "neighborhood character matters".
Thank you for considering the comments of the people-and realizing that most of us like the character and
charm of our town. We didn't move here for it to become like "anywhere else USA" with chain stores, big huge
city buildings. Please don't let the greedy developers ruin our town. When you look at the help wanted ads--it
shows that places are not fully staffed...now how will more big buildings (ie-hotels) find employees?? THANK
YOU for all your efforts thus far on stopping some of them-Lift 1A area...again I know something will go in...it
just doesn't need to be so massive. And on that note--ACRA does not need a voice in the COWOP- I think we
know what their voice is.
Thanks for your time and your service to our community. You truly are appreciated!
Kind Regards,
Gail Otte
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. ._~rn more.
http://us.f314.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=3319_11067826_29149... 3 /3/2008
Yahoo! Mail - writejaclmow@yahoo.com
M~~'tIL
From: Aspenrealestate@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:26:43 EST
Subject: Fwd: Wienerstube project
To: dwayer@ci.aspen.co.us, jackj@ci.aspen.co.cs
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. ~ --., .. ~, ic'- , c , ,~,vi_ i_i~'ina.
Forwarded Message
From: Aspenrealestate@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 18:38:37 EST
Subject: ~h'ienerstube project
To: micki@ci.aspen.co. us, dwayne@ci.asper.cc.us, jack@ci.aspen.co.us
HTML Attachment
Page 1 of 2
I will be attending the Monday council meeting, because I am very concerned about the scale of the proposed
Wienerstube project. The Asoen Area_Communi Plan states that new building should "maintain and
enhance the special character of our community". I am so concerned about the character of our community,
which has already been negatively altered by projects that have been completed in recent years, and others
that are nearing completion or, which have plans that have been approved or are close to being approved.
There seems to be no going back on those projects that were approved by the last city council.
We are stuck with them and our town has already been negatively altered.
The Aspen that I have known for most of my life has been unique, charming and one of a kind. We used to
hold ourselves up as being different and more special than resorts like Vail, but, if we continue the course
that we are on, soon we will look the same...or worse.
Reading the paper today, I was dismayed to hear the scope of the redevelopment and development that is in
the works. I didn't even know that a massive Jewish center was taking the place of the charming Auberge
cabins on Main St. Also, the city has been one of the largest developers in the county, with mostly employee
housing....and now there is proposed, by the city, to build a huge amount of basically civic center-type
buildings.....and....what's this about a newer and larger museum? Why?....when we have a distinctive
museum for our little town, and it is set in a wonderful location along the river and adjacent to the park. Are
we trying to turn Aspen into Denver or,even worse....LA, Palm Beach or Beverly Hills.
Let's take a stand against the carpetbaggers, who are trying to buy Aspen. Let's take very seriously the real
needs of our beautiful town and community. And....we shouldn't just sell our town off to anyone willing to do
build (or give money to) employee housing. So we get employee housing at the cost of the character and
soul of Aspen. It's not worth it.
In the last year, my mother and I voluntarily went through the approval process to have her chalet on Dean St.
made a historic landmark. I had received offers of up to $4,000,000 from developers wanting to tear it down
to build a spec house or duplex. I have been a real estate broker in Aspen for 29 years and yet I feel that
some things are more important than making more and more money.....and losing the Aspen that we love and
call home. So, my mother and I decided to keep that charming little chalet on Glory Hole Park as a legacy to
Aspen.
We can and will have change, but please guide the community (and community government) to make
http://us. f314.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=7211 _11078235_29159... 3/3/2008
Yahoo! Mail - writejacknow@yahoo.com
sure that those changes "maintain and enhance the special character of our community".
L2^.r,i',S'hite
Lsr,i 1`rh!te € Associates
a.Q, eo;: 1p53
Fsr,.-
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. > ~'sich the video on ~ u'~. L','-,
Page 2 of 2
http://us.f314.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=7211 _ 11078235_29159... 3/3/2008
DR. DRUCE EINAR CARLSON
415 E. HYMAN • P.O. DOX 9587
ASPEN, CO 91612
(300 920-3159
Yyll~-Rcih ~ ; l.,u-u ~
,~+J Ci~ i .~ Cvu.n~G,`L
C~'w`_"~
~ ~~
~~ ~
~~~~ U . ~
s
~~~~~~ ~~u~ ~~ 5 ~ rn~~
~~ C+rs 1
~~
Friends jor Preserving Aspen's Neighborhoods and Character
P.O. Box 958
Aspen, CO 81612
February 28, 2008
Deaz Friends and Neighbors:
Do you know that the proposed redevelopment of the Wienerstube block does not follow the
Aspen Area Community Plan? It does not conform to the chazacter of the neighborhood which is
a transitional zone from residential to commercial.
Because this development meets Staff s assessment of the present "infill code" in height and
mass, we feel that in fact it is destroying our neighborhoods and Aspen's small scale and
character. To that end; we have formalized ourselves as "Friends for Preserving Aspen's
Neighborhoods and Chazacter," urging responsible growth and protection of pedestrian amenities
of open space, front and side setbacks and views.
We feel that historic buildings of the 19th Century, in the core, should "stand alone" as historic
structures rather than serve as examples of boxy designs and height expectations of 42 feet for all
new development to follow, within Aspen's core and adjoining outlining neighborhoods.
We feel that the Wienerstube does not conform to the chazacter and scale of the neighborhood,
and we do not support this project or other large massive projects going up in Aspen which aze
not in "context" with the neighborhood.
Please show vour support by attending Mondav's meetinP, March 3rd. at 5:00 nm in Citr
Council's Chamber.
Sincerely,
Residents of Aspen and Concerned Citizens:
N AME PHYSICAL ADDRESS TEL # or Email
1. Lani White 0650 North Spruce 948-9464
2 Su Lum 1020 East Cooper su ofnet
2. Martha Madsen 608 West Hopkins 925-3095
3. Jim Jenkins P.O Box J 925-6346
4. Jane Jenkins 0269 Heather Lane 925-6346
5. Betty Fazson 155 Lone Pine Rd. 925-3708
6. Michael Behrendt 334 West Hyman 9925-3220
7. Nila White 827 Dean 925-9464
8. Larry Rosenfield 1119 Vine St. 920-6813
9. Joyce Murry 1422 Buttemulk 925-2634
10. Walt Madden 218 North Monazch 925-2691
11. Oskar Oskicic 205 West Bleeker #10 390- 3868
12. George Madsen 931 West Francis 925-6310
13 Heather Vicenzi 324 Midland Ave #202 hvicenzi,~honnail.com
14. Olive Siegesmund 1024 East Hopkins 925-7898
I5. Connie Madsen 931 West Francis 92506310
16. Christie Kienast 406 W. Smuggler 925-8921
17. Jordan Gerberg 312 W. Hyman 9253393
18. Susan Whitney 605 E. Main St. 9253530
19. Jennine Hough 421 West Hallam St. 544-8049
20. Patti Seifer 819 East Hyman 925-6292
21. Walt Madden 218 North Monazch 925- 2691
22. Kent Reed 1023 Vine St. 319-6867
23. Adam Walton 635 East Hopkins 925-8643
24. Ellen Holste 0111 Big Pinon Dr. 925-9091
25. Tom Peckham 107 Aspen Mt. Rd. #7 925-6027
26. Bazbaza Martell 702 East Hyman 925-5799
27. Betty Buckley 320 Midland Ave. #303 925-6674
28. Peggy Rowland 0059 Shady Lane 925-3253
29. Martha Meagher 115 William Rod Dr. 9257512
30. Patricia Hill 600 Meadow Dr. 925-2001
31. Martin Horowitz 111 Williams Ranch Dr. 309-8000
32. Joanie Lebach 1322 Vine St. 544-1031
33. Nasser Sadeghi 600 Meadow Dr. 925-2001
34. Patrick Sagal 229 Cottonwood Lane 379-7297
35. Sharon Rice 630 East. Cooper 920-6960
36. Martin Horowitz 111 Williams Rance. 309-8000
37. Roine St. Andre Shady Lane 925-3253
38. Bernard Phillipps 311 S. Aspen flvingcello ,comcast.net
39 Nahum Amiran 550 South Riverside Dr. 925-3095
40. Robin Wittlin 434 East Main St. Apt. 101 920 4598
41. Tom Curtis 1020 East Durant #202 646-981-8076
42. Janet Guthrie 1525 Silverking Dr. janeta uthriena cs.com
43. Patty Simpson 116 Maple Lane 920-4254
44. Fred Martell 702 East Hyman 925-579945.
45. Bob Baum 700 East Hyman 925-3907
46. Allen Brooks 1129 Vine Street Aspen 1-310-367-9091
47. Betje Cazlson 414 East Hytnan Suite #402 925-2691
48. Bruce Carlson 415 East Hyman 925-2691
49. Joyce Murray 1422 Buttermilk Rd. 925-2634
50. Sean Gooding 620 East Hyman Ave. 618-5347
51. David Egglestone 0042Midland 274-9756
52 Helen Palmer 23 Williams Ranch Ct. 925-7124
53. Elaine Baum 700 East Hyman 925-3907
54. Merbie Marybell 325 Glen Eagle Dr. 925-9183
55. Tom Payne 325 Glen Eagle Dr. 925-9183
56. Ken Larson 1316 Vine Street 920-5465
57. Ray Koenig 19 East Lupine Dr. 925 2883
58 Mazcia Corbin 1211 East Hopkins 925-5214
59. Leelee Steges 830 Cemetary Lane 379-8748
60. Bill Sharp 595 Cemetary Lane 925-2761
61. Pat Sharp 595 Cemetary Lane 925-2761
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE.GROWTH
KEYPOINTS & QUESTIONS
Abbreviations:
AACP -Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
CLHDO -Community, Lodging, and Hutoric Design Objectives
AHPG -Aspen Ffistoric Preservation Guidelines
ent:
Followuig P&Z approval of the rema;n;ng Sfree-market GMQS allotments on June 5, 2007, the application
was revised, withdrawing GMQS review and requesting subdivision review only. Council's current purpose is
to determine if the application meets the standards for subdivision (~ 26.480) set forth in 1(a)-(c), below:
1) Current Application Subdivision Requirements -Land Use Code g 26.480
a) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
(~Q')
r) A~plirar¢'s Ar~c+~rr¢ (7'ab 22; 6.25.2007 SulxfizisionAp~~icationJ:
(1) Cwsistern ~ AA CP ~nzl to mzrage grorrtJ~ by f~tenng "a i¢dl bxlamd mrronaaty tJ~gb uncgrate~l
coign tlxu pramte aorxn¢c ckreniry, trarniz arrd p~estrian friordy lifatya'a, argil Jae rrzzvg ~paole
~~~y
(a) 1'~mr~+a xorxrrac cbzersity by irrmasirg mirrreiaal aryl q~ue span in mrneet ~adckiiorral reickrnial
oPP~ '~
(b) PruYmta trarcit ara'~/estrian fnerePy li~atyde by adcGrg rz3ider¢ial dreellirg zaAZS dace to daurnoran
rom aril armnitia ~uliro'i erxarrra~ altemati7e traraprntatiwx
(c) Mix ~firemxriz¢arrlaffwzlaEtehaesirgprarote ev>r~racckzeniry
(2) Furtlers AACP rrtanmrr~ticnszppoizirg ir~ill in dorvuoun mre area
u) Stn F' . (Tab 23J:
(1) Claw to core, enun-a~ altematite traraport
(2) 13rozida gmaz deal of ackhiiarrl cw~rrer~rl/g~ spN~
(3) Procida dertsz`v to repGzce t~/endilizal ezuar2l~ mrE~ teat with zrfill gads
iir) Citizens' Argument:
(1) "Decisions regazding scale, massing, form, materials, texture, and color must fast be
measured by context." (AACP, Design Qualit}' Philosophy, p.42
(a) Massing is out of scale with the surroundir~ buildings, all of which are two-story
(r) Building rises as it leaves CC and approa;:l:es MU
(u) Appropriate dialogue and continuiryaith CC is the two-story brick building on the
comer (Garfield & Hecht)
(b) Does not respect the three properties up for historic consideration across the street
(i) New guidelines require that development step down in scale to respect height, form,
and scale of historic buildings
(u) Setting a precedent to discourage historic designation in properties of interest
(c) Does not respect historical fast floor prominence
(i) Commercial retail is 12'6" (Weinsowski, Tab 17, 6.52007 P&Z minutes)
(u) AH is 8' (Weinsowski, Tab 17, 6.5.2007 P&Z minraes)
(iu) Free-market is 9'-14' (Weinsowski, Tab 17, 6.52007 P&Z minutes)
(d) Does not respect solar access of buildings to the north
(r) Clawson says circulation of light is difficult for sub-grade development
1. See 2(b)(r)(1), below
-3-
2. Consider the effect of the proposed 42' high building on the solar access of
L'Hostaria directly to the north across East Hyman
(2) "Build upon success in limiting auto traffic" (p.10)
(a) Project will add 449 trips per day (Tab 3)
(3) "Promote design of "highest qualiryand is compatible with the historic features of the
community." (p.10)/ )/ "E ndeaeor for "better, without getting bigger" (p.2)
(a) Ultra-modem and sassing aspects will create drive to replicate in new development, at
the cost of historic czvelooment
(b) Affordable comme: °z1, perhaps even below grade commercial (pp.30.32
(4) Hrstoric Preservation (pp..S-4~)/ "Maintain community character and design° (p.2)
(a) "let historyiruom: ;',. ie~°es of development through sensitiviryto scale" (p.39)
(b) "protect all buildings o± historic significance" (p.40)
O Patio Building and others will be forced to match the context of the new
development
(5) Staff guilty of mid-application flip-flop, with no explanation
(a) 9.5.2006 Staff Memo: "adtun to P & Z (Tab 8)
() Work o.^. reducing the massing
(u) Problems with the _rltra-modem design of comer
1. Architectu.^i design should be simplified ("Staff believes that the design is
struggling for as a clutectrual identity')
a Ab: spt :-ans pion between traditional and modem
b. Scale and massing needs to be re-studied
(b) 11.7.2006 Staff Memo:-andtun to P & Z (Tab 10)
(i) Scale and massi-tg needs to be re-studied
(u) Needs to simply architecture/transition to modern
(iu) Approves and punts to Council by Ordinance 28, 2006
(c) 12.11.2006 Staff Memorandum to Council (Tab 12)
(r) Staff recommends approval because design is "headed in right direction", but feels
this is an area for discussion by Council
1. "the modem comer piece and the more traditional piece along Hyman did not
respond to each other well and did not create a convincing dialogue." (pS)
2. "continues to have concerns about the design that staff feels should be
discussed at City Council.° (p.9)
(d) 1.22.2007 Staff Memorandum to Council (Tab li)
(r) Staff restates problems with dialogue between traditional and ultra-modern
1. Minutes from 1 <2 indicate "Staff does take issue with the lack of transition
between the more modem piece at the corner... and the traditional pieces along
the streets" (Tab 17)
(u) Further discussion required byCouncil
(e) 2.12.2007 Staff Memorandum to Council (Tab 14)
(r) Heading in right direction, still requires discussion at Council stage
(u) Staff, with no explanation, thirils the modern comer "holds the corner" and an
attempt to have a dialogue with the past (p.3)
1. Minutes from 2.12 indicate "Staff supports the proposed design particularlythe
modern comer, which holds the comer and creates a dialogue with other
buildings in Aspen." (Tab 17)
(iu) Still an azea for Council and community discussion (p.3)
(f) 2.26.2007 Staff Memorandum to Council (Tab 16)
(i) Staff recommends flat approval, modem design "holds the comer"
(~ (u) Recommendation for further Council discussion (p.5)
t~lWUl The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
~~L area
4-
i) ~plicar¢'sArgamera(7'ab22; 6.25.2007 SuFxlizisiatAppluatiorrJ:
(1) Mixe~use is ctr>~ZtiF,1e with surraa~cltrg rri~ilu~licixl
(a) Sandy's GffiCe Supply aref L'Hcxtaria acres Hyman
(b) Reideruial to Nortlrcut
(c) MUaanssSprirg(HarmzliDustinapproutlsJ
(d) MUacr~salleyirsi'udaZlrsah;arefMezzaGasaanclArtGallerie
(e) Ccrrareraal ir,~'ude lawarulRE ~, BlueMaiz~ to ~ W/et
(2) Design
(a) mflazsrnztenaL~arctdaigna'e~rrns~prser¢inac§a~rnsnaraca8
(b) diziclirg in nursing (30'/6 ~ to rellez historical pattemc g~'de,Plopmna
u) Sta F' (Tab2.Jr
(1) Majority ~vrrrraut° zicir¢n, u rroxe~acse ar ccvr-remal/~
(2) Harmah Dustin aci~s Sp~zngl:cst got appnrrals to go from ~ to rruxec6ure
(3) Patio Building mr2zva ccrrr^rnial ara' gfice
(4) Victorian Sgcazre dimly to tact
iu) Citizens' Argument:
(1) Massing is out of scale
(a) Transitional ~cning, headed towards resideniiai
(t) Lou; rn-o-story residential directly kitty=comer
(u) Across the street every><ltirtg is set back and tu~o-stories
(b) Future development cannot even reach 42' in this zone
(t) Applicant's project is 42' at the sidewalk on a portion of the Hyman facade
(u) New development is capped at 36', or up to 40' with commercial design review ($
26.710.150 (D)(S))
1. Co:r-nercial design review acknowledges context established by existing
development (~ 26.412.010)
(iu) CLHDO requires buildings to conveysense of human scale (p.3)
(iv) StoryBoard of Black/White overlay of new structure over Wienerstube
(c) Future development cannot reach this density in this zone
(t) Maximum total F.SR is 2.5:1, versus this development is 2.74:1
(d) Very least: story-poies and pictures showing impact from nearby historic buildings
(r) Presen ing historic views from armor, town hall, Jerome, etc.
(2) Lacks continuity moving from CC to MU and Residential/ "providing a sense of visual
continuitysuch that adjoining blocks have a relatedness° (CLHDO p.3)
(a) Escalates and overhangs towards MU, whereas it should be scaling down
(b) Stark contest to nonhem side of street
c) he proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding
rear
t) Applirar¢'sArQwrerff(Tab22;6.251007SuJxliusionAppluutionJ:
(1) Enlxinrec~opnrrat~surractrxGrga~rasbyprcvta^irtgapprt~niazecloaily~uithartGnrtath
Bam~aay/Crne
(2) Cormilxtte errrgK serial ir¢era aryl ubrarry
(3) Ceraral dcratian r~br~s teliide trips
(4) Bemuse ~thz pasitize relatiorahip with surramlirg use, there are nn ra~xtire irr¢xrcts wzsurraaxkrg
pro[xrtic assa~atui xaith this application
u) S F' (Tab 23J:
(1) staff dc~ trot fail that tl,~ pzpased su&bziriwz will adrersely aff~Z tl~ future ckca'op»au gFSUrraeoa~rg
pt~rties. staff firels this ctitzrwn to Jx erg
iu) Citizens' Argument: The Code forces Council to consider how nearby developments should
react to the development, as well as the Code constraints theywill face in doing so. Particularly
important are (1) this project's failure to respect the scale and massing of existing buildings, and
-5-
(2) the failure to recognize the desire of the new Code to encourage the north side neighbors to
preserve the historic aspects of three buildings along the block
(1) Makes future development for north side virtually impossible under current Code
(a) CI,HDO requires a "sense of visual continuitysuch that adjoining b1oc1Q have a
relatedness" (p.3)
(r) north side cannot match the 42' ultra-modem across the street, but still honor the
historic buildings and step down to the two-story residen.ial at adjoining block
(u) project is on the MU side of the block and should be stepped down from CC
1. However, the CC side of the block is onlytwo stories such that the project is
ac~,~ally increasing in size as it should decrease in size
(b) CLHDO states that fast fioor should be the highest floor (p31)
(r) Applicant will have highest floor on top
1. Commercial retail is 12'6' (Weinsowski, Tab 17, 6.5:'007 P&Z minttes)
2. AH is 8' (Weinsowski, Tab 17, 6.5.2007 P&Z minutes)
3. Free-market is 9'-14' (Weinsowski, Tab 17, 6.5.2007 PAZ minutes)
(u) Applicant has sandwiched asub-standard 8' second floor between the fast floor
commercial and the third floor free market (new code demands 9' minunum),
destroyurg continuity and ignoring the Code's suggested sl-.rinlarrg and recessing
patte.-n of upper floors
(2) Makes future development for owners to northeast and east difficult
(a) CLDHO endeavors to reduce the perceived mass of a building by design that respects
the design character of the area and reflects the human scale (p.46)
(r) 42' and an overhanging, ultra-modern corner directly across street
(3) Across the street has three buildings up for historic consideration/review (Ord. 48 lists 606
E. Hymarr, 610 E. Hyman, 630 E. Hyman)
(a) Overhanging, ultra-modem comer of Spring/Hymarr is right across street from Patio
Building
(r) Owners would need to demolish and rebuild:
1. Forced to demolish and rebuild to avoid looking outdated
2. Forced to build up to height limits to re-acquire its views
a Duficult to prevent up-scaling to the north
(b) Reviewing the regulations that applyto historic is useful in shewng that HPC feek
certaLn aspens of proposed project are hamtful to historic b ~:cL-rgs; byextensior., then,
the proposed project ensures that preservation of, e.g., Patie Building, will be less
desirable both to the owners and the City
(r) AY,i'G requires rectangles, nor overhang, in commercial core (13.12)
(u) AHI'G requires that three-story buildings (in CC, not to mention G 1) must
demonstrate no negative impact on smaller historic structures nearby
1. Proposed development will be 42' high, eliminating solar access and dwarfing
the historic structures
(4) Solar access of the northside owners will be jeopardized
2) Town Council Positions
a) Mick Ireland
i) "... however, there is a problem with context° (Tab 30, Minutes 11.26.2007)
u) Problem with asstuarrces for Wienersrube
(1) 12.3.2007 Ordinance changes (Tab 32)
(a) Requires that applicant submit copy of signed ten-year lease for Wiener;rube at time of
recording ordinance
(r) Council should see the lease Eefom approval
(u) Perhaps get assurances from owner that the lease is fair
b) Dwayne Romero
r) Would like to see more affordable commercial space (Tab 30, Minutes 11.26.2007)
-6-
(1) Has suggested belowgnde as something to explore (Tab 30, Minutes 11.26.2007; Tab 31,
Minutes 12.3.2007)
(a) Clauson responded that light and pedestrian circulation was difficuk
(r) But see:
1. Ajax (S. Marcus)
2. Kenichi (S. Marcus)
3. Mill Street Plaza (M & W -Cache Cache, Campo)
4. 630 E. Hyman (L'Hostaria)
5. Tom Thumb
6. Belly Up
7. Zanes Tavem
8. Zocalito
9. Takah Sushi
10. Erics
c) Jack Johnson
n I 0 i~ Uncomfortable adth discrepancy between this project (not historic) and across the street having
` ~ multiple buildings designated for review (Tab 30, Minr:_es i 1?6.2007/Tab 31, Minutes
\ 12.3.2007) ~~
u) View planestudyfromPatioBuilding ~~` _ c-C~V~~
(1) Requested byJohnson, pro '~
3) Pote :tial Procedural Flaw
a) Applicant sought and received GMQS allotments from two different years (2006 and 2007) without
doing multi-yEar review, and despite the fact that it did not need more than a single years allotment
i) Clauson's letter to planning on 4.11.2007 (Tab 18) states that he is malting the application "Per
the code interpretation provided on 9 Apri12007". There is no written record of the code
interpretation.
(1) Michael Feigenbaum to speak to Planning
u) See Addendum A, from Michael Feigenbaum, attached
4) X
A.^tior_ Pian:
1) X
2) C~a~,iunityOutreach/Support
a) Contact all affected parties, especia!irwithin one blockradius
~) Prepare information packet detailing arguments and/or discussion points
(1) Decision as to which information should be disclosed versus held until the meeting
u) Contact individual oame:s where appropriate/HOA Board where individuals would not be
practical or appropriate
iu) Hold community meeting with interested affected parries
(1) Detem~irre which parties would be beneficial to the coalition
(2) Encourage educated and appropriate public comment
iv) Reach out prior to January- 28, 2008 Council Meeting to remind everyone to show up
b) Consider media outreach
r) Particularly important to raise interest through impact images and statemerrrs
(1) Black on white comparison of new to old
(2) Storypoles: pictures from nearbyaffected structures as well as anyaffeaed historic
structures
3) Concerned parties
a) June 5, PStZ minutes (Tab 17)
-7-
Analee (620 E. Hyman) concerned 3~ floor will block her view
u) Shawn Gooding, resident, concemed stnrcture will block all views of the mountain
iu) Janver Denington, office across street, asked whythe comer was projetting
(1) Weinsowski responded it had a `transitional statement°
iv) Jim Analyst (attomeyfor 3 Chateau Aspen owners) is concemed about S loading areas in alley
b) 12.3.2007 Murutes (Tab 31)
r) Christina Crandall is concemed about views and context
-8-
ADDENDUM A
The application of 633 Spring II, LLC for the Wienexstube project (the "application°) is governed by'
the GMQS Code Amendment, Ordinance 21, Series of 2005 (section references herein referto the Code
Amendment). Under GMQS, "the `growth management yEaz' starts on March 1st of each year and projects
meeting the criteria for approval can proceed" (Memorandum from Chris Bendon to City Council, dated May
9, 2005, page 4; see also Section 26.470.020). The application was submitted on Apri124, 2006, and therefore
must have satisfied the criteria for approval before March 1, 2007.
The application was submitted for review byPlanning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the
criteria set forth in section 26.47C.040.G2 (Expansion/New CommerciaVLodge, or Mixed Use
Developmment). This requires (among other criteria) sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the
expansion. The applicant received, in the 2006 GMQS growth mazragement year sufficient allotmenu for
commercial and residential -affordable housing allotments, but only received 1 out of the 6 required
residential -free market allotments, because only 1 was remaining in such growth management year.
Subsequently, the application acts "renewed" in Apri12007 (See letter of Stan Clawson Associates dated April
11, 2007), upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission granted the additional 5 residential -free market
allotments for the project, in June 2007.
The following Code sections are relevant:
Settion 26.470.060 (Development Allotment and Application Review Procedures).
Subsection A.1 (,Number of Applications). "No more than one development application for
growth management allotments on any one parcel shall be considered concurrently. To
submit a new application, any attive growth management application for the same properly
must be vacated."
Subsection A.3 (No automatic "rollover" of Growth Management Applicazions),
"Applications shall only be eligible for growth allotments within the growth management
yeaz in which they are submitted and shall not automatically become eligible for fixture yeaz
allotments. Applications must be resubmitted or renewed in order to be eligible for the next
year's allotmenu."
Subsection B.1 (Application Submission), "An application for growth management maybe
submitted to the Community Development Director at anytime of the year. Applications
shall only be submitted within the growth management yEaz in which allocations zre
requested, unless the application requesu multi-year development allotments ...". (T.ne
application initially requested amulti-yeaz development allotment, which reauires the
designation of the project being considered "exceptional° by Council (section 26.470A40
D.l.a), pursuant to the criteria set forth in such section. However, this request was
withdrawn bythe applicant pursuant to the letter Stan dauson Associates referenced above.)
Subsettion B.3 (Allocation), "....Projects requiring allotments in excess of the available
development allotment shall be denied and the allotments shall become available to the next
eligible application.°
In this instance, the application did not receive all of the required allotments to accommodate the
project in the growth management yeaz in which it was submitted, and was not otherwise eligible for amulti-
yeazallotment (i.e, the project was not deemed "exceptional" and the request was subsequentlywithdrawn).
Because the criteria for review was not whollysatisfied, because sufficient residential -free market allotments
were not available, it should have been denied pursuant to subsection B.3 above, and the allotmenu granted
in 2006 should have become available to the next eligible application.
Subsequently, when the application was "renewed°, it should have been eligible orily for
the allotmenu in the following 2007 GMQS growth management year (subsections Al and A.3 above) and
should not have been able to "piggy=back° the 2006 allotmenu into the following yEar. Doing so would
negate the concept of a "multi-vear develcpment allotment°, the review by Council to find a project to be
"exceptional", and would render it mearirgless. The intent of "renewal° of an application, then, cannot mean
to avoid the "multi-year development allotment" and iu strict criteria, but instead must mean that the
application maybe considered wholly ai.hin the context of the following GMQS growth management year,
in this case 2007. Bta orilythe 5 residential -free market allotmenu mere granted in 2007, so in effect the
application spanned two growth management yEats and gained the benefit of a muhi-year development
allotment without having the review- and approval of Council.
One of two outcomes should have happened:
(I) In 2006, when the six residential -free market allotments were not available, the
application should have beer. denied by Planning and Zoning Commission (subsection B.3 above); or
(2) instead of the foregoing, and prior to the granting of the allotmenu in 2006, the applicant
should have tabled the application and renewed it during the neat GMQS growth management year
as an application for all 6 allotmenu, when it could have requested and received all required
allotmenu.
Neither of the foregoing occurred, and instead the GMQS process was circumvented to allow the
application to obtain allotments over two growth management years.
.~
,~ ~~^
~:
~., ~
J
~~
• ~~ ~ -
\`
,.` _..
I
{__ .
J + ,.
_1~~~
i~
f_ ,.r-.
~` ~~----
-~.. -.
.~'+l
a
~~~pn
I ~ - *S~
:~~
~ ,~{'
i~,~
~~~''
~~
w~