HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.939 E Cooper Ave.A91-94
^
.-,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: PARCEL 10 AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-34-001 A91-94
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Lan le S division of 939 E. Coo er Rezonin GM S
Exemption/Special Review/Condominiumization/Historic Desiqnation
Project Address: 939 East Cooper
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Richard Cowlinq 303-444-0591
Applicant Address: 118 Deer Tral. Boulder. CO 80302
REPRESENTATIVE: Bob and Darnell Lanqlev 920-4383
Representative Address/Phone: Box 8885
Aspen. CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 2119
$ 242
$ 150
$ 60
$ 2571
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
20
20
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:~
P&Z Meeting DateJ\~), ~ PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: ~ NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
NO
DRC Meeting Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
~ c~ty Att~rney ~ Parks Dept. School District
c~ty Eng~neer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. _>( Fire Marshal COOT
Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
~ city Electric ~ Mtn. Bell Open gpflce ~~ard
---X- Envir.Hlth. X ACSD X OtherCJ:n~
">(' Zoning Energy Center ' Other - _ -',
DATE REFERRED: J111\ INITIALS: 7W DUE6b)
==================J=============================================
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
_ city Atty
_ Housing
_ city Engineer
_ open space
_Zoning _Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
'\
-
~/
380644 B-778 P-9~:::0 04/19/95 J.;;::: 13P PG 1 OF 34
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
REC
170.00
DOC
_._._---_.._._-~---~----,-----_.~-~_..~".~,--_.~-----
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE
EAST COOPER COURT CONDOMINIUMS
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and
between ROBERT ADAIR LANGLEY AND SHERRI DARNELL LANGLEY (hereafter
called "Owner") and THE CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
("City") , as of the date(s) provided below.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain real property (the
"Property") located at 939 E. Cooper, Lot A, Block 37 and 75' x
100' of Cleveland Street, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1995 the City Council of the City of
Aspen granted approval for a residential project on the property
pursuant to Sections 24-7-1001(Subdivision), 24-7-1004(C) (0),24-
7-l004(C) (4) Cf),24-5-103(B) (Map Amendment),24-S-l04(GMQS Exemption)
and 24-6-207CVested Rights) of the Municipal Code of the city of
Aspen and for the relocation and remodel of the existing historic
house on the property, the relocation and remodel of the existing
historic barn on the property, the deed restriction of a Category
3 employee unit, the development of two additional free market
units and an additional Resident Occupied deed restricted employee
uni t ( See Ordinance No 2, Series of 1995, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A"); and
WHEREAS, the approval of the development was conditioned upon
the owner complying with certain requirements, including entering
into and executing a Subdivision Agreement for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval ,
execution and recordation a plat for the property(the "Plat") and
the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat on the
agreement of the Owner to the matters described herein, subject to
the provisions of the Code, the conditions contained herein and
other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the city has imposed conditions and requirements in
connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat
and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the
public health, safety and welfare and, pursuant to the Code, the
City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein
will be faithfully performed by the Owner and the Owner's
successors and assigns; and
.~
~
--\
V
38064-4
8-778 P-921 04/19/95 12.13P PG 2
OF 34
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such agreement
with the City and to provide assurances to the City; a
WHEREAS, prior to entering into this Agreement, the City fully
considered the development applications filed by the Owner with the
City Planning Department and has reviewed the anticipated benefits
and burdens to neighboring or adjoining properties by reason of
this project. Further, the city has considered the requirements,
terms and conditions of the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen and
such laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein and the approval, execution and acceptance of the
Plat for recordation by the city, it is agreed as follows:
1. Description of Proiect. The Project comprises two parcels.
Parcel "1" comprises approximately 6,000 sq. ft. which is zoned
Residential MUlti-Family ("RMF"), City has approved the development
of one relocated and remodeled Historic house and one new house to
be located on Parcel "1". Parcel "2" comprises approximately 4,500
sq. ft. City has approved one relocated and remodeled historic barn,
to be a Category 3 deed restricted employee unit, a resident
occupied deed restricted employee unit and one new free market home
to be located on Parcel "2". Parcels "1" and "2" are collectively
known as the "East Cooper Court Condominiums".
2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this agreement by
all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final plat by the
Engineering Department and Planning Office, the city agrees to
approve and execute the final plat for the project submitted
herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Section 24-7-1004
of the Code. The City agrees to accept such plat for recording in
the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of
the recordation fee and costs to the City by the Owner.
a. Final Subdivision Plat, Recorded Boo~page 9'
b. site Plan, Recorded Booka~ Page~ 2
:1
3. Construction Schedule and Phasinq: The City and The Owner
mutually acknowledge that an exact construction schedule cannot be
determined at this time. However it is anticipated that the
relocation of the historic structures will commence by August of
1995 and be completed within 9 months. The site utility work will
commence by July of 1995 and be completed within 3 months. The
construction schedule for the remaining 3 structures will commence
no later than July of 1996 and be completed within 9 months.
2
r',
~\
380&44
B-.778 P-922 0L,/19/95 12: 13P PG 3
OF 34
4. Parkinq and Ooen Soace Reauirement. The City upon review
and consideration of the special review standards for parking and
open space and standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Code,to
wit, Division 4 of Article 7 especial review) for Parcel "2" has
approved five (5) on site parking spaces and 0% open space. The
Historic Preservation Committee upon review and consideration of
the special review standards for parking and open space and
standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, Division
6 of Article 7, development involving a historic landmark, has
approved four (4) parking spaces on Parcel "1".
Owner agrees that central courtyard on Parcel "1" shall be
preserved and maintained required "open space" for the entire East
Cooper Court Condominiums Project, as that term is defined in the
current land use Code at 24-3-101. The courtyard shall be for the
use and enjoyment of all residents of East Cooper Court
Condominiums.
5. Public Imorovements and Landscaoinq.
a. Soecial Imorovements District: The Owner hereby agrees to
Jo~n any Special Improvements District formed to install
improvements required of the project not included within the curb,
gutter and sidewalk to be installed at time of construction,
pursuant to the Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements Agreement
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "B".
b. NecessarvPublic Imorovements and Landscaoinq: Attached
hereto as Exhibit "C" is an itemization of the cost of the
following public improvements and landscaping, prepared and paid
for by the Owner.
(1) Sanitary Sewer System
(2) Water Supply System
(3) Sidewalk,curb and gutter.
(4) Landscaping(including relocation of pine tree and
cost of replacement if tree does not survive.
c. util i tv Service Aooroval: Detailed plans shall be
approved by utility providers prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
6. Drainaqe: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the Project, a drainage plan shall be submitted to the City in
accordance with section 24-7-1004 (C) (4) (f) of the Code and shall
be approved by the Engineering Department. The drainage plan shall
comply with requirements that hi~toric runoff will be maintained,
and drainage plans wille: accommodate street drainage where the
Project reconfigures the pavement and adds curb and gutter.
3
r'C\
3806'+4
r--,
8-778 P-923 04/19/95 12:13P PG 4
'-,
OF 34
7. Public Riqhts of Wav: The Owner Shall obtain an excavation
permit from the Street Department and design approval from the
Engineering Department for any work done in a public right of way.
8. Trees: The Owner shall obtain a tree removal or relocation
permit prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project,
and shall stake and fence all existing trees that are not to be
removed in order to protect them from excavation and construction
activities. The OWner also agrees to post a bond, in the amount of
four thousand dollars ($ 4,000), for a period for 5 (five years)
for the value of the tree in the Northwest corner of the Property
to be used to secure the cost of replacement in the event that the
relocated tree does not survive.
9. Fireplaces: The Owner agrees that no woodburning fireplaces
or woodburning stoves shall be allowed in the East Cooper Court
Condominium Project.
10. Fuqitive Dust
building permit for the
be submitted to and
Department.
11. Parkinq Mi tiqation Durinq Construction: Prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the project, Owner shall submit
to the Planning Office a parking mitigation plan that addresses
construction activity on the site.
Control Plan: Prior to the issuance of a
Project, a fugitive dust control plan will
approved by the Environmental Health
12. Deed Restrictions: Unit "E" is to be restricted as
Resident Occupied Category housing pursuant to applicable
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office Guidelines. Unit "C" is to be
restricted as Category 3 housing pursuant to applicable
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office Guidelines. Attached as exhibit
"0" is an Occupancy and Resale Master Deed Restriction, which shall
be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project.
Upon sale of each unit, a Memorandum of Acceptance of the Master
Deed Restriction shall be executed and recorded by each unit buyer.
13. Material Representations: All Material representations
made by Owner on record to the City in accordance with the approval
of the project shall be binding upon the Owner, its successors and
assigns.
14. Enforcement: In the event the City determines that Owner
is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement
or the Final Plat, the city may serve a notice of noncompliance and
request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of 45
(forty five) days. In the event the Owner believes that it is in
compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owner
may request a hearing before the city Council to determine whether
the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance
4
,~
..-.,
380644
8-778 P-924 04/19/95 12:13P PG 5
OF 34
or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the
City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures
and take such action as it deem appropriate. The City shall be
entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct
and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this agreement.
15. Notices: Notices to the parties shall be sent by U.S.
certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid to the
addresses set forth below, or to any other addressees which the
parties may substitute in writing. Such notices shall be deemed
received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of
mailing of same.
To the Owner:
Robert Adair Langley and
Sherri Darnell Langley
P.O. Box 8885
Aspen, Colorado 81612
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
To the City:
16. Bindina Effect: The provisions of this agreement shall
run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the project
is located and shall be binding and enure to the benefit of the
Owner, its successors and assigns and to the city, its successors
and assigns.
17. Amendment: This agreement may be altered or amended only
by written instrument executed by all the parties hereto, with the
same formality as this Agreement was executed.
18. Severability: If any of the provisions of this agreement
are determined to be invalid, such determination shall not affect
the remaining provisions hereof.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, The parties hereto have executed this
Subdivision Agreement the day and year first written above.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
a municipa co oration
~ xl f1,e~
Kathryn . Koch, City CIErrk
Mayor 'F'P!'e> 't1i!II-\
5
380644
B-778 P-925 0Lf~/95 1.;::;: 13P PG 6
OF 34 1-'
.-, ~ ~'--'---'--'''--''''''''-----'-''''- "" - -" ,,-- ._._-~ ._-_........_.....~._~--,,_.--- ".----.-.------------..-......
~b-./~/
Robert Adair Langle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~f~ 't/;Q'1.!'
A 0 ey
Cit;t3~;j!b ~y15-
~.~~~
Sherri Darnell Lanql ~
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
th"..The fO::'7'-!ei~ instrument j,li?,R~~~.Qknowledqed before me this
1'1' day o:~~ 1995 by J~as Mayor and ~~thftr.i~ S.
Koch, as C-ity Clerk of the City of Aspen. It#UlIy#
Witness my hand and seal.
My commission expires e#b1/qq
~g~
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foreqoinq instrument is hereby acknowledqed before me this
, \ day of O~ , 1995 by Robert Adair Lanqley and Sherri
Darnell Lanqley.
Witness my hand and seal.
My commission expires
I h;l'1-"li
:fl~k ~
Notary lic
6
,~
t::Xt-iJI,3IT . nAn
",-"
h
Ccuv{..~
..J ~ ~~ :7
.;.J c" __
/<"
,
/
(
\.
ORDINANCE NO. 2
(SERIES OF 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SUBDIVISION, MAP
AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION AND VESTED, RIGHTS STATUS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 2 FREE MARKET UNITS
ON LOT A, BLOCK 37 AND 75' X 100' OF, VACATED CLEVELAND STREET, EAST
ASPEN ADDITION TO THE. CITY OF ASPEN, 939 EAST COOPER AVENUE (EAST
COOPER COURT), ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the applicants, Darnell and Bob Langley, have
submitted an application to subdivide their property, 939 East
Cooper, and rezone the newly created parcel (Parcel 2) from
Residential MUlti-Family CR/MF) to Affordable Housing CAR); and
WHEREAS, the applicants, also request a GMQS Exemption for the
development of housing in the AR zone district and vested property
rights; and
WHEREAS, the applicants, also
special review for the '
procedures set forth at Section 24-6-205 (A) (5) Cb) of the Municipal
Code and did ,conduct a public hearing t~ereon on November 22, 1994,
and again on December 6, 1994; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the special review
standards for parking and open space and standards as contained in
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 4 of Article 7
eSpecial Review), .the Commission approved the special reviews for
.
this devf-lopment establishing 5 on-site parkin~ spaces and
approximately 0% of the, site as open space as defined in the
l.
1
380644
B-778 P-926 04/19/95 if:: 13P PG 7
OF 34
,~
"-"
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the application for
rezoning, subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, agency and public
comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 10 of Article
7 (Subdivision), Division 11 of 'Article 7 (Amendments to the
Official Map) and Article 8 CGMQS), the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the East Cooper Court
development application subject to amended conditions, to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered
the rezoning and subdivision under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
by the
several
to
proposed
such ,as,
conformance with side yard setback requirements, restudy the
historic barn orientation to the alley to provide more room between
the homes on the affordable housing parcel, reduce the massin~ of
the buildings on the site, reconsider the mix of free market and
deed restricted units, and explore a duplex configuration for the
homes on the affordable housing parcel; and
WHEREAS, the apPlicants'haverevised1tnesubmitted site plan
and the affordable housing proposal in an' effort to address
l_
380E-'+4
'2
B-778 P-927 04/19/95 12:13P PG 8
OF 34
,.-,
,-"
c
concerns expressed by Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezoning and
subdivision meets or exceeds all applicable development standards
and that the approval of the rezoning, subdi vision and GMQS
Exemption, 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 public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, aE IT ORDAINED ay THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant a subdivision and rezoning of 939 East
Cooper Avenue CEast Cooper Court), Lot A, Block 37 and 75' X 100'
of vacated Cleveland Street, East Aspen Addition to the City of
Aspen,,Asp'en Colorado. .
1.
The applica~t's
afford review
is complete and suff icient to
for approval.
2. The,subdi vision is consistent with the purposes of subdivision
which is to assist in the orderly and efficient development
of the city and safeguard the interests of the pUblic and the
subdivider and provide consumer protection for.the purchaser.
Section 3:
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 2 above, the
Council does hereby grant SUbdivision approval for the East
Court project subject to the following conditions:
1. Any costs fo~newpublic se~vices that must be
upgraded shalt be borne b~ the applicant on a
basis depending upon the specific agency's
I > 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
\- 3
380644 B-778 P-928 04/19/95 12: 13P PG 9
OF 34
,-,
,,-,,
(
shall submit a sUbdivision plat and SUbdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with section 24-7-1004.C. and D. of
the Aspen Municipal Code for review by the Engineering and
Community Development Departments and the city Attorney.
The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. language to the effect that preserves and maintains
the central courtyard on Parcel 1 as required
open space for the entire East Cooper Court
Subdivision;
b. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
c. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves;
d. a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department; and
a. all transformer and
,
b. a detailed drawing of the area for allservicejtrash
and recycling areas;
c. a 5 foot wide sidewalk shall be located adjacent to
the property line with a 5 foot buffer space between the
sidewalk and the future curb and gutter; and
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department.
5.
All existing water service lines and all new water service
connections to this. property shall be connected to the 16-
inch water main located in East Cooper.
Prior to the ispuanceof any building permits:
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
6.
l
380644
4
B-778 P-929 04/19/95 12:13P PG 10 OF 34
(
9.
,-..,
,-,
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging or
over digging within the drip line; ,
b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in
the future;
c. the applicant shall pay all application water and
sewer tap fees; and
d. the applicant shall file the appropriate deed
restrictions with, the Housing Office for the deed
restricted dwelling units on Parcel 2.
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be in compliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
8. As required in Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall
maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the
site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that
currently exist on the site.
The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
At. the completion of each ,phase, of the work, the appl'
'aH'~':~\ii::)tiiitii"stateinerit \:~B<;?"at;i:'eistered' rofesslonal
". rema{~~i~'~;i~c:~at~h~~~i;eg~~~~~:;12:bnl~S~~~P:~ti-e~~i~?f :Ji?Y~~~
Colorado Revised Statutes:' ,. . .- . '.
Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the vario~s
phases of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible
'mylar as-built drawings of ,sidewalk, utility improvements, arid
all other work located within the public rights-of-way,
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot,
accuracy of all utilities,incluciing their size and
identification, together 'with any other features encountered
during excavation within- the rights-of-way . The as-built
shall be signed" and, stamped by a registered professional
engineer. The as-built shall. also be provided to the City on
a disk in a dxffile compatible with the city GIS ArcInfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded ~?
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to, neighboring
propr-rties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground Capproximately 3' in height) and shielded.
13. All work in the alley and public right-of-way shall require
(
380644
5
B-778 P-930
04/19/95 12:13P P8 11
OF 3Lf
(
(
I""',
,-,
a permit from the streets Department.
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. The sUbdivision of 939 East Cooper is contingent upon the
applicant successfully receiving historic landmark designation
for the entire property, both Parcels 1.& 2.
16. All light and access/egress wells shall be kept free of snow
accumulation.
17. The applicant shall continue to restudy Unit E to create more
space between Units A & D of the Langley sUbdivision and the
Villager apartment building to the east.
Section 4:
That it does hereby grant a rezoning for Parcel 20f 939 East
Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37 and 75' X 100' of Cleveland street,
East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, Aspen Colorado from
residential mUlti-family (R/MF) to affordable housing (AR) with the
following condition: .
1. The rezoning of Parcel 2 of 939 East Cooper .is
the applicantsuc:ce~~fully receivin~historic landmark
f ortheent,ire prppeJ;:ty, both ParCels ,1 ,& .2:
;,"// :':";',,:,.":i""':':';i,':,:,';:::::_::-(:};.'::i';I';'::,:;':',i{,':;(,,/::;:;, -., ;-, ;',"; .,',~'" '\"';?!'8::<h:::;..'",
'.~lic:fidris:
The Official Zone Dist:t"ictMap for the City ,of Aspen,
shall be and is hereby amended to ~eflect those rezoning
as set forth in Section 4 above and such amendments shall be
promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section
24-5-103B of the Municipal Code.
Section 6:
Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 of the Municipal Code, the
Council does hereby grant a GMQS Exemption for Parcel 2 for
development of 2 affordable dwelling units, one Resident
and one Category 3. The applicant shall file the appropriate
restrictions for the deed restricted units. City Council
grants a GMQS Exemption for one free market unit for Parcel 2,
Section 7:
.
All material representations and commitments made by the developer
pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in publici
hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning
6
38121644
B'-778 P-931 1214/1'l/'l~5 12:13P PG 12 OF 34
,t""'\
,.-,
(
"
Commission and 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 other specific
conditions.
Section 8:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City
Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East
Cooper Court development subdivision as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site' specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and jUdicial review.
t-.
,3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
, , exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
',. " r~views and or approvals required by this Ordinance, or ,tl,le.
.. ,,~;,i~~~~:~c~~}:~ie~~~~~~~8?6v~ls~f!riel},j;~~esi~b6~is~;~f ;erf~~~~'~
-,:;' ':);:>;;;:'<':?':tF<'::i'.',~~!:'i:,<:: "";:" ' .. :.,. """ <\,,"'.", -., :."",,/).t',,~,,""":;?i:';::;""" ";"-/':'.>':'.< .:: ,"", ,:::~~:~.';x,: ""/'~/"' "', ::>J. :''':''.;,:':':/~.' :><j:~/':.,::.: ....::.".:. ';.. 'c. ',::' .... ..:,',', .::":.,:,:: .::".~:'.":.'::'.." :', ';.. "::. "," ;:...: ,':.i.":.':':: '<:'.:, :':. /"',';',,'<',1:;,\-". ':::~':tt
'approvals:grantedC!-nd vested, here~n.' :./"
The establishment herein of a vested property,right shall not'
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations Wh~ph'
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to'land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing; electrical 'and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, Plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
section 9:
,,'W'
<:,,-
';"h
':";:';"
::i
'~;:T/;'
f:';;.f::
,-;,,-,
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pendi~g
'under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as her~in
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
"',;;,::;
""'-C::,..i:(..
,!,;'i?I~
",.,;;,!:~;,1
'\"-'(~t$-
),~;
'-\:",
section 10:
",_~,i
'~'<!.
.....,j.,,-
":;~i,;;
c
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
7
e'
;',':(\
:""~'
38121644
:;)$1i,:'I,
,,;:,}.{,,'
B-778 P-932 1214/19/95 12:13P PG 13 OF 34
;);
:'r':'<(
,;.,'
-."'---..-. ..---- ----------""..~,'
e
:--'",.,t;:
".-':<b~>
\
I
i
'-..'
~
-..
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Seotion 11:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days fOllowing final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given in the fOllowing form:
Notice is hereby given to the general pUblic of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
seotion 12:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this
ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in' the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
:,,"i:',,_,'-"
.!:~~:~~,~.~~~t~ :,.,;, ;;;;'!~:";:i;;;;'<';;';:\;if';,'~;;t,;:;?!~'~~f~;,:, '.' . .',. ,< '. ;',!" "
itA ':PUI:>~'tiC:'5~e,aOJ;~l}gtSoh>t';~~t:]2Fc2;:l;iancl~C)~hlt.~Jb.l;;pe.hA, e~ClO~c'~the,PH 'IPI A..... .
colorado,fifte~it:'(1~) days prior,~o"whic:h heCiring a pUblic notic.e ' .
of the same "sl).all;. be published. in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
. .9Y. the City Council of the City of en on the d:>7 day of
~'O~1995. (~~
John
~LY:
"
,....
e-l'"
adopted, passed and
1995.
approved this ..2::;- day of
~ (~~-
nett, Mayor
John
8
380644
B-778
P-933 04/19/95 12:13P PG 14 OF 34
\19;
'.:>{iJ
I
.,~~"
)'f1'
';~
>,
::'irfJ/
>::/:
,;~,
^
~
380644
B-778 P-934 04/19/95 12:13P PG 15 OF 34
EXHIBIT "B"
CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ASPEN AND Robert Adair Langley and Sherri
Darnell Langley
WHEREAS, Robert Adair Langley and Sherri Darnell Langley are owners
of the real property located at 939 East Cooper , Aspen Colorado,
(hereinafter "Owners); and
WHEREAS, owner has recently completed new construction and desire
to obtain a certificate of occupancy; and
WHEREAS, owner's property is within a zone district or other area
as designated on the City of Aspen adopted sidewalk, curb and
gutter plan requiring construction of curb ,gutter and sidewalk
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or, in lieu
thereof, an agreement for future construction pursuant to Section
19-100 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at this time, The city Engineer deems the construction of
curb gutter and sidewalk on pUblic right-of-way adjacent to the
owner's property withinC three) 3 years unfeasible due to existing
improvements or conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Owner agrees to construct curb,gutter sidewalk and driveway I'L
according to the Site plan recorded Book's (, Page (fJ 0 , at the f Ii1
cost of approximately $ 2.474.85, within the 1995 construction
season.
2. Owner agrees to construct curb,gutter and sidewalk along the
frontage of owner's property (approximately 105 feet) at such time
as the City of Aspen deems construction necessary and feasible. It
is acknowledged by all parties that the present requirement is for
two (2) foot gutter, six(6) inch vertical curb, and five(5) foot
wide concrete sidewalk.
3~ In the alternative, at the City's option, the city may construct
the above improvements and owner and owner shall reimburse the City
for all costs of such construction. Reimbursement shall be made to
the City within ninetY(90) days after receipt of invoice.
!.-."
,~.
38121644
B-778 P-935 1214/19/95 12:13P PG 16 OF 34
4. This agreement shall be binding and shall insure to the benefit
of the heirs, assigns, and successors in title of the parties
hereto.
Entered into this ~l~O~ ~""'5
By: Z~~~~Pd~
By: ~.~"~~~~~ ,
Sherri Darnell Langley ~
state of Colorado)
)
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -1J..day
of ~ ' 19,9'S ,by_Robert Adair Langley and Sherri Darnell
Langley.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: ~
I/-d'1-91 ~"'1 k.. l'(-~
Notary PUblic
" .
.;;X,:,';',;:':
~",.\- "
Address:
P.\:) . e,vy... \<5'-/
~,c..ll.~ 'i'.1...\~
," ':.,.:6j
"""~ :..If?r:~.
. , .. ~..' ;",..:,. ,'"
~ /~"""""" ..~~w' .', i]-
I" .....~.,.. '"''' ("'~' ~
~. v;,,'''''o Qi'" "!i",l
", ""(,,; ,t.; 't\\.
'" 4'm,'<:"~
CITY OF
BY:
CMAYOR)
(CITY CLERK)
Attest:
1""\
38121644
,~
B-778 P-936 1214/19/95 12:13P PG 17 OF 34
~ __ n. _......___.....___...__....__.' _ _ _ __..___.'....___.____.___
EXHIBIT "C"
SEWER SYSTEM
WATER SYSTEM
SIDEWALK 105' CSTREET FRONTAGE)
@ 5.09 LF
CURB AND GUTTER 105' @ 17.67
LANDSCAPING
$ 4,440.00
$ 8,950.95
$ 619.50
$ 1,855.35
$18,886.00
APR-11-95 TUE 03:03 PM ALP~ DESIGN & PLANNING 303 92~585
P _ ell
380644
B-778 P-937 04/19/95 12:13P PG 18 OF 34
ALPINE
Design
& f'lanillng
\.ond$capO Ard1l'""uro
April 11, 1995
Mr. Bob Langley
c/o The Fleisher Company
Via Facsimile 920-1628
Dear Bob:
The following budget was prepared using standard industry pricing from a variety of local
Sources. The materials and quantities are those reflected on the landscape plan for
East Cooper Court, dated April 11. 1995, by Alpine Design.
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE BUDGET EAST COOPER COUR' 4/11195
Q\lll!ltity Unit Unlt Coot Ill<l....IQll
PUNT MATERIALS -INSTALLED UNIT l'lUCES
3' col. NarrowleafCottonn->Od (<o>tlonl...) 6 .. S300.VV 51,800.00
2-3" Aspen 8 .. S175.00 SI.4OO.00
3" Jilow..;.,g Cubapple (Sterile) 10 .. $350,00 $3.500.00
8' Lodgopojo Pine 2 .. $200.00 $400.00
3' Mus!><> pm. 18 .. S150.00 S2, 700.00
5 gol"'" declcluou, oilnlbs 30 eo $28.00 S840.00
Pexom>lolo - I g>Uon 100 .. SIO,VO $1,000.00
Gr....dcover.llal 0/32 60 .. $33.00 $3,300.00
Sod (ill<luding -!O><le) 1300 sf SI,OO SI,3VO,00
SVBTOTALMATliaU.ol.LS $16,140.00
SITE WORK
M.Iscou-u.l>OO, ~4 mh S24.00 $$76.00
Rel>1ooe t"l""il and llI'ade SO <Y $30.00 SI,SOO.OO
PWohpling -<<p>lpmenr 6 l>t $30.00 $300.00
iSU8TOTAL SIn: WORK $~,l7..00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE BUDGE: $18,61'-00
PO Box 9348, Aspen, CO 81612 . 303.925.6585 . PO Box 4785, Steamboat Springs, CO, 80477
f""".
EA1ifBfT liliDtl
t""'\
DEED RESTRICTION
OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT
FOR EAST COOPER COURT CONDOMINllJMS
THIS DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT (herein
the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ~ day of ~P'Y/~ , 1995, by
Robert Adair Langley and Sherri Darnell Langley (herein the" eclarant"), for the benefit of
the parties and enforceable by the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (herein
"APCHA"), a duly constituted multi-jurisdictional Housing Authority established pursuant to the
AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT by and between the
City of Aspen, Colorado (herein the "City") and Pitkin County, Colorado (herein the "County"),
dated September 26, 1989 and recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, Declarant owns the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein (herein the "Real Property"), at 939 East Cooper, commonly known as
East Cooper Court Condominiums. For purposes of this Agreement, the real property and all
dwellings, appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the approval granted by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado, for subdivision approval of the Property, the Declarant is required to enter into this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Declarant agrees to restrict the acquisition or transfer Residential Site C,
East Cooper Court Condominiums to "Qualified Buyers" under the Category 3 (herein "C-3")
and Residential Site "E", East Cooper Court Condominiums to Resident Occupied (herein "RO")
definitions, as those terms are defined in this Agreement and established by the City of Aspen
from time to time in APCHA's Affordable Housing Guidelines. In addition, the Declarant
agrees that this Agreement shall constitute a resale agreement setting forth the maximum sale's
price for which the Property may be sold ("Maximum Sale's Price"), the amount of appreciation
and the terms and provisions controlling the resale of the Property should Declarant's purchaser
desire to sell its interest in the Property at any time after the date of this Agreement. Finally,
by this Agreement, Declarant agrees to restrict the Property against use and occupancy
inconsistent with this Agreement.
WHEREAS, "Qualified Buyers" are natural persons meeting the income, asset, residency
and all other qualifications for C-3 or RO as applicable and as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines (herein "the Affordable Housing
Guidelines"), or its substitute, as adopted by the City of Aspen upon the recommendation of
APCHA, or the successor'thereof, and in effect at the time of the closing of the sale to a
380&44
1
B-778 P-938 04/19/95 12:13P PG 19 OF 34
I"'"
~
380644
B-778 P-939 04/19/95 12:13P PG 20 OF 34
Qualified Buyer, who must represent and agree pursuant to this Agreement to occupy the
Property as his or her primary residence (as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines), not
to engage in any business activity on the Property, other than that permitted in that zone district
or by applicable ordinance, not to sell or otherwise transfer the Property for use in a trade or
business, and to otherwise be bound by the Agreement of applicable provisions of the Affordable
Housing Guidelines.
WHEREAS, an "Owner" is a person or persons who is/are a Qualified Buyer who
acquires an ownership interest in the Property in compliance with the terms and provisions of
this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an "Owner"
hereunder only during the period of this, her or their ownership interest in the Property and shall
be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants,
conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period.
NOW, THEREFORE, for value received, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Declarant hereby represents, covenants and agrees as follows:
1. The use and occupancy of the Property shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing
for natural persons who meet the definition of Qualified Buyers and their families.
2. An Owner, in connection with the purchase of this Property or Unit, must: a) occupy any
Unit within this Property as his or her primary residence during the time that such unit
is owned; b) not engage in any business activity on or in such Unit, other than permitted
in that zone district or by applicable ordinance; c) sell or otherwise transfer such Unit
only in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines; and d)
not sell or otherwise transfer such Unit for use in a trade or business; and e) not permit
any use or occupancy of such Unit except in compliance with this Agreement.
3. Default in Pavrnent:
a. It shall be a breach of this Agreement for Owner to default in payments or other
obligations due or to be performed under a promissory note secured by a first
deed of trust encumbering the Property or a Unit. Owner must notify the
APCHA, in writing, of any notification received from a lender, or its assigns, of
past due payments or default in payment or other obligations due or to be per-
formed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust, as described
herein, within five calendar days of Owner's notification from lender, or its
assigns, of said default or past due payments.
b. Upon notification from Owner, as provided above, or other notice of such
default, the APCHA may offer loan counseling or distressed loan services to the
Owner, if any of these services are available, and is entitled to require the Owner
to sell the Property or a Unit to avoid the commencement of any foreclosure
proceeding against the Property or a Unit. In the event that the APCHA
2
I""",
f: ',;
~.
380&44
B-778 P-940 04/19/95 12:13P PG 21 OF 34
~----~~--,-_..~----_..,-~_.._---_._",-,-,,-
determines that sale of the Property or a Unit is necessary, Owner shall
immediately execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the
Colorado Real Estate Commission, providing for a 30-day listing period. If a
sales contract has not been executed within the initial 3D-day period, the Owner
shall extend the listing period for an additional 180 days, provided such extension
does not conflict with the statutory rights of any secured creditors. The listing
agent shall promptly advertise the Property for sale to Qualified Buyers. The
Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an amount equal to one
percent (1 %) of the sales price. In the event of a listing of the Property or a Unit
pursuant to this Paragraph 3, the APCHA is entitled to require the Owner to
accept the highest of any qualified bids which satisfies the Owner's financial or
other obligations due under the promissory note secured by a first deed of trust
and deed of trust in favor of the APCHA, as described herein, and to sell the
Property to such qualified bidder.
c. Upon receipt of notice as provided in paragraphs 3a and 3b, APCHA shall have
the right, in it's sole discretion, to cure the default or any portion thereof. In
such event, the Owner shall be personally liable to APCHA for past due payments
made by the APCHA together with interest thereon at the rate specified in the
promissory note secured by the first deed of trust, plus one percent (1 %), and all
actual expenses of the APCHA incurred in curing the default. The Owner shall
be required by APCHA to execute a promissory note secured by deed of trust
encumbering the Property in favor of the APCHA for the amounts expended by
the APCHA as specified herein, including future advances made for such
purposes. The Owner may cure the default and satisfy it's obligation to the
APCHA under this subparagraph at any time prior to execution of a contract for
sale, upon such reasonable terms as specified by the APCHA. Otherwise,
Owner's indebtedness to the APCHA shall be satisfied from the Owner's proceeds
at closing.
4. This Agreement shall constitute covenants rwming with the Real Property, as described
in Exhibit "A", as a burden thereon, for the benefit of, and shall be specifically
enforceable by the APCHA, the City Council for the City (herein the "City Council"),
and their respective successors and assigns, as applicable, by any appropriate legal action
including but not limited to specific performance, injunction, reversion, or eviction of
non-complying owners and/or occupants.
5. Pertaining to RO unit, in the event that an Owner desires to sell the Property or Unit,
the Owner shall execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado
Real Estate Commission providing for a 180-day listing period, or such other time period
as required by the APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at time of listing.
The listing agent shall promptly advertise the Property or Unit for sale by to Qualified
Buyers. The Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an amount equal
to one percent (1 %) of the sales. If FNMA type financing is used, there may be a fee
3
("'\
.~
380644
8-778 P-941 04/19/95 12:13P PG 22 OF 34
charged by the APCHA based on the amount financed. The amount of this fee to be paid
by the subsequent Owner shall be as set forth in the current Affordable Housing
Guidelines and will be distributed to the APCHA Mortgage Fund Account.
If the Housing Office markets and sells the Deed Restricted Unit, then the Owner shall
contribute a two percent (2 %) fee [on the total sales price] to the overall housing
program.
Pertaining to the C- 3 unit, in the event that an Owner desires to sell the Property or
Unit, the Owner shall execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the
Colorado Real Estate Commission with the APCHA providing for a ISO-day listing
period, or such other time period as required by the APCHA Affordable Housing
Guidelines in effect at time of listing. At this time, the Owner shall deposit with
APCHA an amount equal to one percent (1 %) of the estimated value of the Unit. The
APCHA shall promptly advertise the Property or Unit for sale by competitive bid to
Qualified Buyers. At the time of closing, the Owner shall pay to APCHA an additional
one percent (1 %), for a maximum fee of two percent (2 %). If FNMA type fInancing is
used, there may be a fee charged by the APCHA based on the amount fmanced. The
amount of this fee to be paid by the subsequent Owner shall be as set forth in the current
Affordable Housing Guidelines and will be distributed to the APCHA Mortgage Fund
Account.
MAXIMUM RESALE PRICE
6. One (1) of the Properties is designated RO by specific authorization of the City Council.
The Maximum Resale Price for the unit specified as RO shall be as follows:
a. The initial sales price of the RO unit by the Declarant shall be as set forth on
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (herein the
"initial Sale Price"). Should the RO unit be sold in the first three (3) years, it
can be sold for the initial sales price only.
b. Except as specified in Paragraph 3b above, the Maximum Resale Price of the
Property in the event of any resale thereof more than three (3) years from the
date of the initial sale by the Declarant, shall be limited to the initial sale price
plus an increase of four percent (4 %) ,of such price per year from the date of pur-
chase to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell (prorated at the rate of .33
percent for each whole month for any part of a year), inclUding years one through
three.
7. One (1) of the Properties is designated Category 3 (C- 3) by specific authorization of the
City Council. The Maximum Resale Price for the unit specifIed as C-3 shall be as
follows:
4
^
t""\
380644
B-778 P-942 04/19/95 12:13P PG 23 OF 34
a. *(the owner's ourchase price willl!:o her on the Memorandum of Acceotance),
plus an increase of three percent (3 %) of such price per year from the date of
purchase to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell (prorated at the rate of .25
percent for each whole month for any part of a year); or
b. an amount (based upon the Consumer Price Index, All Items, U.S. City Average,
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (Revised), published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) calculated as follows: the
Owner's purchase price multiplied by the Consumer Price Index last published
prior to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell divided by the Consumer
Price Index current at the date of this Agreement. In no event shall the multiplier
be less than one (1). For purposes of this Agreement, "date of intent to sell"
shall be the date of execution of a listing contract when required by this
agreement, or if a listing contract is not otherwise necessary, the date shall be
determined to be the date upon which a requirement for the Owner to sell is first
applicable. PLUS
c. For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale Price in accordance with this
Section, the Owner may add to the amount specified in Paragraph 6 above, the
cost of Permitted Capital Improvements (as defined in Exhibit "C") in a total
amount not to exceed ten percent (10 %) of the initial listed purchase price set
forth on Exhibit "B". In calculating such amount, only those Permitted Capital
Improvements identified in Exhibit "C" shall qualify for inclusion. All such
Permitted Capital Improvements installed or constructed over the life of the unit
shall qualify. However, the allowance permitted by this subsection is a fixed
amount, which shall be calculated on a cumulative basis applicable to the owner
and all subsequent purchasers, and shall not exceed the maximum dollar amount
set forth in this subsection 7a.
d. Permitted Capital Improvements shall not include any changes or additions to the
Property made by the Owner during construction or thereafter, except in
accordance with Paragraph 7a above. Permitted Capital Improvements shall not
be included in the APCHA's listed purchase price, even if made or installed
during original construction.
e. In order to qualify as Permitted Capital Improvements, the Owner must furnish
to the APCHA the following information with respect to the improvements which
the Owner seeks to include in the calculation of Maximum Sale's Price:
1) Original or duplicate receipts to verify the actual costs expended by the
Owner for the Permitted Capital Improvements;
2) Owner's affidavit verifying that the receipts are valid and correct receipts
tendered at the time of purchase; and
5
(""\
,~
380644
8-778 P-943 04/19/95 12:13P PG 24 OF 34
3) True and correct copies of any building permit or certificate of occupancy
required to be issued by the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department
with respect to the Permitted Capital Improvements.
f. For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale's Price in accordance with this
Section, the Owner may also add to the amount specified in Paragraphs 6 and 7a,
the cost of any permanent improvements constructed or installed as a result of any
requirement imposed by any governmental agency, provided that written
certification is provided to the APCHA of both the applicable requirement and the
information required by Paragraph 7c, 1) - 3).
g. In calculating the costs under Paragraphs 7a and 7d, only the Owner's actual out-
of-pocket costs and expenses shall be eligible for inclusion. Such amount shall
not include an amount attributable to Owner's "sweat equity" or to any
appreciation in the value of the improvements.
NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE A
REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE BY THE APCHA OR THE CITY THAT
ON SALE THE, OWNER SHALL OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM SALE'S PRICE.
8. All disputes between the Owner and the administrative staff of the APCHA shall be heard
in accordance with the grievance procedures set forth in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines.
9. Owner shall not permit any prospective buyer to assume any or all of the Owner's
customary closing costs nor accept any other consideration which would cause an
increase in the purchase price above the bid price so as to induce the Owner to sell to
such prospective buyer.
10. In the event that title to the Property or a Unit vests by descent in individuals and/or
entities who are not Qualified Buyers as that term is defmed herein (hereinafter "Non-
Qualified Transferee(s)"), and subject to the option specified in Paragraph 10 c. below,
the Property or Unit shall iIpmediately be listed for sale as provided in Paragraph 5
above (including the payment of the specified fee to the APCHA), and the highest bid
by a Qualified Buyer, for not less than ninety-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Sale's
Price or the appraised market value, whichever is less, shall be accepted; if all bids are
below ninety-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Sale's Price or the appraised market
value, the Property or Unit shall continue to be listed for sale until a bid in accordance
with this section is made, which bid must be accepted. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the Non-Qualified Transferee(s). In the event of more than one (1) qualified
bid as specified herein, Non-Qualified Transferee may select the Qualified Buyer.
6
1""\
^'
380644
B-778 P-944 04/19/95 12:13P PG 25 OF 34
a. Non-Qualified Transferee(s) shall join in any sale, conveyance or transfer of the
Property to a Qualified Buyer and shall execute any and all documents necessary
to do so; and
b. Non-Qualified Transferee(s) agree not to: 1) occupy the Property or said Unit;
2) rent all or any part of the Property or Unit, except in strict compliance with
Paragraph 15 hereof; 3) engage in any other business activity on or in the
Property or Unit; 4) sell or otherwise transfer the Property or Unit except in
accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines; or 5) sell
or otherwise transfer the Property or Unit for use in a trade or business.
c. The APCHA, the City, the County, or their respective successors, as applicable,
shall have the right and option to purchase the Property or Unit, exercisable
within a period of fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of any sales offer
submitted to the APCHA by a Non-Qualified Transferee(s), and in the event of
exercising their right and option, shall purchase the Property or Unit from the
Non-Qualified Transferee(s) for a price of ninety-five percent (95 %) of the
Maximum Sale's Price, or the appraised market value, whichever is less. The
offer to purchase shall be made by the Non-Qualified Transferee within fifteen
(15) days of acquisition of the Property or Unit.
d. Where the provisions of this Paragraph 10 apply, the APCHA may require the
Owner to rent the Property or Unit in accordance with the provisions of
Paragraph 15, below.
OWNER RESIDENCE
11. The Property and all Units shall be and is/are to be utilized only as the sole and
exclusive place of residence of an Owner.
12. In the event Owner changes domicile or ceases to utilize the Property or Unit as his or
her sole and exclusive place of residence, the Property or Unit will be offered for sale
pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 10 of this Agreement. Owner shall be deemed
to have changed Owner's domicile by becoming a resident elsewhere or accepting perma-
nent employment outside Pitkin County, or residing on the Property or Unit for fewer
than nine (9) months per calendar year without the express written approval of the
APCHA. Where the provisions of this Paragraph 13 apply, the APCHA may require the
Owner to rent the Property or Unit in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 15,
below.
13. If at any time the Owner of the Property or Unit also owns any interest alone or in
conjunction with others in any developed residential property or dwelling unites) located
in Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties, Owner agrees to immediately list said
7
1""'\
~
380644
B-778 P-945 04/19/95 1;:::: 13P PG 26 OF 34
other property or unit for sale and to sell Owner's interest in such property at a sales
price comparable to like units or properties in the area in which the property or dwelling
unit(s) are located. In the event said other property or unit has not been sold by Owner
within one hundred twenty (120) days of its listing, then Owner hereby agrees to immedi-
ately list this Property or Unit for sale pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 10 of this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed between the parties hereto that, in the case of
an Owner whose business is the construction and sale of residential properties or the
purchase and resale of such properties, the properties which constitute inventory in such
an Owner's business shall not constitute "other developed residential property" or
"dwelling unit(s)" as those terms are used in this Paragraph 14.
RENTAL
14. Owner may not, except with prior written approval of the APCHA, and subject to
APCHA's conditions of approval, rent the Property or Unit for any period of time. Prior
to occupancy, any tenant must be approved by the Homeowner's Association, if
applicable, and the APCHA in accordance with the income, occupancy and all other
qualifications established by the APCHA in its Affordable Housing Guidelines. The
APCHA shall not approve any rental if such rental is being made by Owner to utilize the
Property or Unit as an income producing asset, except as provided below, and shall not
approve a lease with a rental term in excess of twelve (12) months. A signed copy of
the lease must be provided to the APCHA prior to occupancy by any tenant. Any such
lease approved by the APCHA shall be the greater of Owner's cost Or the monthly rental
amount specified in the Mfordable Housing Guidelines fot units which were constructed
in the year in which the subject unit was deed restricted at the appropriate income
category. Owner's cost as used herein includes the monthly expenses for the cost of
principal and interest payments, taxes, property insurance, condominium or homeowners
assessments, utilities remaining in owner's name, plus an additional twenty dollars ($20)
and a reasonable (refundable) security deposit.
The requirements of this paragraph shall not preclude the Owner from sharing occupancy
of the Property or Unit with non-owners on a rental basis provided Owner continues to
meet the obligations contained in this Agreement, including Paragraph 12.
15. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OWNER CREATE AN ADDfITONAL DWELLING UNIT, AS
DEFINED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY OR CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODES, IN OR ON THE
PROPERTY.
16. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO PROTECT OR
INDEMNIFY THE OWNER AGAINST ANY LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RENTAL,
INCLUDING (NOT BY WAY OF LIMITATION) NON-PAYMENT OF RENT OR DAMAGE TO
THE PREMISES; NOR TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO OBTAIN A QUALIFIED TENANT FOR
THE OWNER IN THE EVENT THAT NONE IS FOUND BY THE OWNER.
8
,,-.
,,-.
380644
B-778 P-946 04/19/95 12:13P PG 27 OF 34
BREACH
17. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner is violating the
provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA, by it's authorized representative, may inspect
the Property or Unit between the hours of S;OO a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours' written notice.
IS. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a notice
of violation to the Owner detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the Owner
fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner may request a hearing
before APCHA within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no
hearing is requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the
Owner shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the
APCHA, the decision of the APCHA based on the record of such hearing shall be fmal
for the purpose of determining if a violation has occurred.
REMEDIES
19. There is hereby reserved to the parties hereto any and all remedies provided by law for
breach of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to litigation
with respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
20. In the event the Property or Unit is sold and/or conveyed without compliance herewith,
such sale and/or conveyance shall be wholly null and void and shall confer no title
whatsoever upon the purported buyer. Each and every conveyance of the Property or
Unit, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the
covenants herein contained, even without reference therein to this Agreement.
21. In the event that the Owner fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and
all available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this
Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring sale of the Property or Unit by Owner
as specified in Paragraphs 3, 10, 13, and 14. In the event that a sale is required as a
result of a break of this Agreement, the sales price shall be calculated in accordance with
Paragraph lO,and a qualified bid under Paragraph 10 must be accepted. The costs of
such sale shall be taxed against the proceeds of the sale with the balance being paid to
the Owner.
22. In the event of a breach of any of the terms or conditions contained herein by the Owner,
his heirs, successors or assigns, the APCHA's initial listed purchase price of the Property
or Unit as set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement shall, upon the date of such breach
as determined by APCHA, automatically cease to increase as set out in Paragraph 6 of
this Agreement, and shall remain fixed until the date of cure of said breach.
9
.1""\
~
380644
B-778 P-947 04/19/95 12:13P PG 28 OF 34
FORECLOSURE
23. If FNMA-type financing is used to purchase the Property or Unit, as determined by the
APCHA, the APCHA and the Board may, pursuant to that certain Option to Buy
executed and recorded of even date herewith, the terms of which are incorporated in this
Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth herein, agree to release and waive their
ability to enforce the resale deed restrictions contained herein, in the event of fore-
closure, provided that said Option to Buy grants to the APCHA and the Board, as the
designee of the APCHA, the option to acquire the Property or Unit within thirty (30)
days after the issuance of a public trustee's deed to the holder (including assigns of the
holder) of the promissory note secured by a first deed of trust for an option price not to
exceed the redemption price on the last day of all statutory redemption period(s) and any
additional reasonable costs incurred by the holder during the option period which are
directly related to the foreclosure.
In the event that APCHA or the Board, as the designee of the APCHA, exercise the
option pursuant to the terms of that certain Option to Buy, described above, the APCHA
and/or its designee, may sell the Property or Unit to Qualified Buyers as that term is
defined herein, or rent the Property or Unit to qualified tenants who meet the income,
occupancy and all other qualifications, established by the APCHA in its Affordable
Housing Guidelines until sale to a Qualified Buyer is effected.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
24. Notices. Any notice, consent or approval which is required to be given hereunder shall
be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed
and with postage fully prepaid, to any address provided herein or to any subsequent
mailing address of the party as long as prior written notice of the change of address has
been given to the other parties to this Agreement.
Said notices, consents and approvals shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following
addresses unless otherwise notified in writing:
To Declarant:
Robert Langley and Sherri Langley
939 East Cooper
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To APCHA:
Executive Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
530 East Main, Lower Level
Aspen, Colorado 81611
10
1'"
1"""".
.
,
380644
B-778 P-948 04/19/95 12:13P PG 29 OF 34
25. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto (Exhibits "A", "B" and "C") are incorporated
herein and by this reference made a part hereof.
26. Severabilitv. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related
document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but
if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said
applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or
prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of such document.
27. Choice of Law. This Agreement and each and every related document is to be governed
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
28. Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained
herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties.
29. Section Headim!s. Paragraph or section headings within this Agreement are inserted
solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to, and shall not govern, limit
or aid in the construction of any terms or provisions contained herein.
30. Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of
this Agreement shall be valid against any party hereto except on the basis of a written
instrument executed by the parties to this Agreement. However, the party for whose
benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such
condition.
31. Gender and Number. Whenever the context so requires herein, the neuter gender shall
include any or all genders and vice versa and the use of the singular shall include the
plural and vice versa.
32. Personal Liability. Owner agrees that he or she shall be personally liable for any of the
transactions contemplated herein.
33. Further Actions. The parties to this Agreement agree to execute such further documents
and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions
and intent of this Agreement or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered
into in connection herewith.
34. Modifications. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this
Agreement shall be effective only when made by writings signed by both parties and
recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the APCHA reserves the right to amend this Agreement unilaterally where
deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose and intent of this Agreement, and where such
unilateral action does not materially impair the Owner's rights under this Agreement.
11
1""
r.,
380644
B-778 P-949 04/19/95 12:13P PG 30 OF 34
35. Owner and Successors. The term "Owner" shall mean the person or persons who shall
acquire an ownership interest in the Property or Unit in compliance with the terms and
provisions of this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be
deemed an "Owner" hereunder only during the period of his, her or their ownership
interest in the Property or Unit and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete
performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein
during such period.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the day
and year above fIrst written.
DECLARANTS:
By ~/L.~NL
Robert Adair Langley ,
-~~~~\~~
Sherri Darnell Langley ~
STATE OF COLORADO
)
)
)
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~day of April, 1995
by Robert Adair Langley and Sherri Darnell Langley.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: \\-~"\_"I\
NO~~'\ \( 'R..__ p~ ''1~
12
t".
~
38121644
B-778
P-95121
1214/19/95 12:13P PG 31
OF 34
ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
The foregoing Deed Restriction, Occupancy and Resale Agreement for Resident Occupied
Units and its terms are hereby adopted and declared by The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority .
By:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was aCknowledged before me this 11ft- day of April, 1995,
by David Tolen the Executive Director of the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority.
Witness my hand and official seal. I
My commission expires: 1/';,7 ~ l.{
ct4
Notary Pub ic
13
1"'\
,~
380644
B-778 P-951 04/19/95 12:13P PG 32 OF 34
EXHIBIT "A"
RESIDENTIAL SITES C AND E
Legal Description
East Cooper Court Condominiums, Pitkin County, Colorado,
according to the plat appearing in the records of the
County Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado,
in Book3...1..- at Page'l-~~ as defined in the
Declaration of Protective Covenants for East Cooper Court
Condominiums, appearing in such records in Book7".r at
Page ~.
14
r'\
f""",
380644
8-778 P-952 04/19/95 12:13P PG 33 OF 34
EXHmIT "B"
Address
Catel!:ory
Initial Sales Price
UnitC
3
Original cost of unit or
$146,900, whichever is
less
Unit E
RO
To be determined by
declarant and buyer
15
!"'\
/'''''\
380644
B'-778 P-953 04/19/95 12: 13P PG 34 OF 34
EXHmIT "C"
Permitted Capital hnprovements
1. The term "Permitted Capital Improvement" as used in the Agreement shall only include
the following:
a. Improvements or fixtures erected, installed or attached as permanent, functional,
non-decorative improvements to real property, excluding repair, replacement
and/or maintenance improvements;
b. Improvements for energy and water conservation;
c. Improvements for the benefit of seniors and/or handicapped persons;
d. Improvements for health and safety protection devices;
e. Improvements to add and/or finish perma!),f:Iit/fixed storage space;
....~..) ;/' .
, .
f. Improvements to finish u~mishedspace;and/or,
g. The cost of adding dec~s,and balconies, and any extension thereto.
2. Permitted Capital Improvements as us~d in this Agreement shall not include the
following:
a. Landscaping;
b. Upgrades of appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, carpets, and other
similar items included as part of the original construction of the unit;
c. Jacuzzis, saunas, steam showers and other similar items;
d. Improvements required to repair, replace and maintain existing fixtures,
appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, painting, carpeting and other
similar items;
e. Upgrades or addition of decorative items, including lights, window coverings, and
other similar items.
3. All Permitted Capital Improvement items and costs shall be approved by the APCHA
staff prior to being added to the Maximum Resale Price as defined herein.
\sales\mstr _ ecc.dr
16
1"""'\
nHIBIT A
//~
~-
--
~~
------:>--=_-=..--
.
-,..
EAST COOPER COURT
Land Use Application
<
East Cooper Court
Land Use Application
Application Submitted By
Bob and Darnell Lanqley
939 East cooper
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
(303) 920-4383
Packet Prepared By
Marcia L. Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-9275
"
~
..
, .
, 1)
2)
~1
IAND USE 1\l?PUCAn:OO RR!
Project Name ~~T (' ~F V (~\ ')\71-
\
Proj~ WcaF c;~"\ 'E.. CCI0~~ A:vF }--C)T A ,~L-()c.x.. ~'"9- ~
\~ 'j., \(:)C:::. C'\"F- CJ}::V'i:::L~I') ~T' 'E~""T~~-?I=N ):>.N:')\~DS>~ ~I= A..~~0..
(i.ndi.cate ..t.....et adch. -, lot & block'p"""""',.lega1 ~ Wei:e -H '
apprqriate) .
Pl.....:l:nt Zoni.ng' ~ \f\ F 4) IDt size '\:), <E,~ ~
I
Afplicant's Name, l\ddreSS & J.'tlooe f. ~F'N.N'1 ~L\~~.~\1."R?_~F ~\TCi~t,q'"
~~~~~~~~~~G\\Uj,L~\jl~ "G::.'~~~d-- '
~ s: ~tive's Name, l\ddresS & BIcne f. ~e... ~ ~~EL\,_ ~\5:::.~
=?,O.%1-.'6~~S A..~~ C::('o,.~\\""\d- ~~~-~cl.<0-4:~'E.i
~ ~
>
3)
5)
6)
7) Type of lIn?' i,.".tiat (please dIedc all tbat awl-Y):
_ 0Jndi.~ Use . _ 0:ln0ept:ua1 SPA ".
'-....\ Si:"""'i,,' Review' _ Final SPA
_ 8040 Greenline ._ 0:ln0ept:ua1 EUD
.'
_ stream lmgin _ Final Em
_ M:Juntain y.iew Plane ~ S"M~Yisicn
_ ~tiat ~ ~'Awaa:lluel1l:;
~ '.' "","'."""
. _ IDl;~~. ;"
. J\dju..t.-:.d:,':'';:;~-' ..,-"
.: "-', {,(
, ~ 0:l'DapbJai HistOric'DeII'.
. _ Final.Hi.sl:or:k: DeII'.
_ Minor Hi:;;t:oric DeII'.
_ Hi,st:or:ic I'Pmnl ;tial
~ HL~nrir- n>c:;gnatiat
,...-- GQ:; Allvt....-d:
~ GQ3 F~-'t,'Uon'. ".',-
- '-~.:"'~:_~.:'
Desc:ript:i.cn of, Existing' Uses, (1"""""""', and t;ype of elCisting. ~;
~ sq. ft.; pmh<or of b.:ch,uuuS; ,aqy p:eviaJs ~ gxanted 1:O'tbe
prcperty) -, .'
. \ ~\'l':)~~~\\~
~ \\'\-1 ~ ?-E.N?~~
8)
\-\aN. E", ?>..9f='ir.c;'/o..\l'...\t..,\l,-\
W't'i \ ~.J:S;i"~. \ 'S,;\,?,t::,
\ 4Sc--. ,~~ . F\" .
1 -
~ I j., ~\::) l.:i:CI~'
.p.. ~\'-\ ll.."'- \ (',PT.
Description of JJeire:L~ lIn?' ir.ation
, ,
~\('E%.>=-e"~a10 ~ (')~E.. \(\c...\D\U~~ ~\~~,R...'::> Cc:)\'\~ ~~\::)
c~E.. ~ 'i?:.\)\\ ~~€\ ~\::::> b..C~\~\~'Lti:. b..\::)\:::.\T'()N~1.......
?--\\..\\ ~~~ TD 02El::>.\"'"F'_ ./l.,,' 't-\,~\ - C-C:ll--\N\)\\.:l~ c...~';;:,.\'SI1~~
<::><= (:>... \'3\}l.\.., \::) 'F ~ ~Q.,~ ~~ET' ~ ~ "tH PL.O~i::.. ) ~<:::lHE- S :
Have you attadled the foll~? , '
~ ~lSe to At:t::;ad:mlent 2, Mi.niJIIJID. S"......i=icn Cont.errt:s
~ ~ to A~ 3, Spe<"if'ic s........;c:.c:icn ccntent:s
~ RespOnSe to At:t::;ad:mlent 4, Review St;arrlal:ds for Your Afplication
9)
10)
Preface
1..0
2.0
3.0
4.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING GOAIS AND OBJECTIVES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5.0 LAND USE PLAN
6.0 GHOS EXEMPTION
2
-
. -
.
,
Ll:ST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE NUMBER
Location Map J,.'..
,.
Site Plan 2
Unit Plans and Elevations 3
Public Facilities in City of Aspen 4
Existing City Zoning Map 5
Proposed Zoning Map 6
Aspen Area Community Plan, Bikeway and
Pedestrian Systems 7
Aspen Area Community Plan Potential Housing
Sites 8
3
'. ,
Ll:ST OF TABLES
Table Title
TABLE
Dimensional Requirements
..,
t
1
2
Development Data
Resident generation Data
3
LIST OF EXHl:BITS
EXHl:BIT TITLE
oWner Authorization Letter
'Proof of OWnership
utility Availability Letters
Pre Application Conference Summary
EmBrr
A
B
c
D
4
,
PREFACE
This application is submitted by Bob and .l!arnell Langley,
cowner authorization letter, exhibit A). '
The applicant requests that the City of Aspen grant the land
use approval necessary to develop the 939 East Cooper. The
development proposal is for relocation of 2 historic buildings. The
plan calls for Subdivision of the existing parcel, rezoning of
parcel 2 to AH CAffordable Housing) to create a courtyard style
family development for 5 free standing homes.
This application is pursuant to section 5-206.2, Affordable
Housing Zone (AH)., Chapter 24, Land Use Regulations of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
The specific land use request are:
* Subdivision of 939 East Cooper
* Rezoning of parcel 2 to Affordable Housing Zone
* GHQS Exemption for 5 units
* Special Review for parking and open space
* Condominiumization
* Historic Designation
The land use application is divided into (5) sections
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Planning Goals and Objectives
3.0 Existing Conditions
4.0 Development Plan
5.0 Land Use Requirements
Within the application, figures (maps/plans)
provided to supplement the text. Pertinent
referenced as exhibits and contained in
and tables are
documents are
the appendix.
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The East Cooper Court project is designed
oriented energy into the Aspen Area Community.
provide 5 families with free standing homes in
that promotes socialization and interaction.
The Aspen Area Community Plan states that we are seeking to
create a community of a size, density and diversity that
encourages interaction, involvement and vitality among its
people.
tbi' inj ect family
The project will
a configuration
The project is working to use the best intentions of both the
Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines and The Aspen Area
Community Plan. It is sensitive to the historic nature of the
property by preserving the existing house and outbuilding and
responsive to the community concerns by providing family housing
as well as 2 deed restricted employee unit.
The East Cooper Court project proposes subdividing the
existing 10,500.00 sq. ft. parcel into 2 parcels. The first
parcel, consisting of 6,000 sq. ft. would keep the relocated
historic house and R/MF zoning and under the guidelines of the
Historic Preservation Incentive Program a second home would be
built. For the second 4,500 sq. ft. parcel, we are requesting;
rezoning to Affordable Housing to "allow the historic outbuilding
to be relocated and remodeled as an employee deed restricted
unit. Two additional units would be added, one free market and
one additional employee RO CResident Occupied) unit.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The East Cooper Court Project is located at 939 East Cooper,
Aspen, Colorado.
CLocation map, figure 1)
6
2. 0 PLANNING GOAIS AND OBJECTIVES
The East Cooper Court Project plan is designed tq-fit with a set
of adopted goals and objectives that are included;within the
Aspen Area Community Plan and the adopted,Affordable Housing
Production Program. This section discusses the relationship
between the East Cooper Court development proposal and the
Community Plan , and Housing Production Program.
2.1 RELATIONSHIP TO ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
The Aspen Area Community Plan is divided into various elements,
each of which has its own vision or goal. The vision statements
relevant to the East Cooper Court project are listed below in
Bold type, and the planning method used to comply with the goal
is described.
Housing: Create a housing environment which is dispersed,
appropriately scaled to the neighborhood and affordable.
The East Cooper Court proposal is a thoughtfully scaled
development nestled in an existing neighborhood and creates a
family environment with housing ownership opportunities for 5
family units.Affordable Housing continues to be an important
local issue. By utilizing the Affordable Housing Zone created by
the City Council, ~e are proposing a development which will
successfully integrate smoothly into an existing neighborhood.
This is very characteristic of Aspen, to have residents of varied
income levels living in the same neighborhood. CAspen Area
Community Plan,Housing, figure 8)
Character: Maintain and create places and opportunities for
social interaction and lifestyle diversity and maintain design
quality and compatibility with historic features of the
community.
Traditionally, Aspen's neighborhoods have been comprised of a mix
of housing types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents. The East Cooper Court project development will
assist in sustaining the "mixed use" residential character of the
neighborhood. It will also be compatible in terms of land use,
development intensity, site planning, massing and scale. The
development plan will also bring back and element of character to
this neighborhood ~hich has been lost to recent development.
7
Community Vision: The V~s~on which underlies the Aspen Area
Community Plan is to revitalize the permanent population.
Implicit in this vision is a recognition that den$~ty increases
above current levels will occur within the City to accommodate
this revitalization.
The East Cooper Court project is designed
oriented energy into the Aspen Area Community.
provide 5 families with free standing homes in
that promotes socialization and interaction.
The Aspen Area Community Plan states. that we are seeking to
create a community of a size, density and diversity that
encourages interaction, involvement and vitality among its
people.
to inject family
The project will
a configuration
Transportation: The community seeks to provide a balanced,
integrated transportation system for residents ,visitors, and
commuters that reduces congestion and pollution.
The East Cooper Court site with its close proximity to
downtown is on the established Mountain Valley transit route.
The project is also within walking distance to shopping and to
the commericial core of Aspen.
Balanced and Managed Growth: Encourage land uses, businesses, and
events which serve both the local community and tourist base.
The Growth Management Plan was established to ensure that
components of community growth are mutually balanced. Even with
this "system balance" in place, the community has become
imbalanced as many working residents are excluded from Aspen's
neighborhoods. The Affordable Housing ZoneCAH) allows fora few
locals to "buy back into" the Aspen experience, and live in a
diverse vibrant neighborhood. This project proposal allows us to
accomplish the balance so quiCkly lost.
2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN
The Affordable Housing Production Plan is intended to be used as
a tool by elected City and County officials to guide housing
decisions through 1995. The Affordable Housing Production Plan
has identified an 800 unit target over the five years, if growth
continues in the area. In this production plan the private sector
is responsible for developing 115 units. The East Cooper Court
proposal will produce 5 family oriented units,with 2 deed
restricted employee units. toward that goal.
8
,'~ "
"
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed East Cooper Court Site currently exists with a
1,400 sq. ft. historic house and a 20' x 30' barn with a small
loft.
3.1 NATURA.r. FACTORS
The site is flat site with good views and sun.
3.2 MAN MADE FACTORS
The manmade factors currently on the site are the two
historic structures which we are ,proposing be relocated on the
site.
9
3.3 SmDlARY OF SITE FEA'l'ORES AND CONDITIONS
t" .~
tC
The site features and conditions represent a wonderful
opportunity with no constraints for development. These factors
are summarized below.
OPPortunities for Development:
* The site will have a flat building site after relocation of
the existing buildings.
* There are no significant stands of vegetation which will
need to be moved, rare or endangered plants, or wildlife habitat
to impede development.
* The parcel is readily accessible via existing roadways. , It
is also within walking distance to bus stops/routes and downtown'
* Utilities are currently located on the site to serve the
development.
* The East Aspen Neighborhood contains a variety of land uses;
intensities of development, and architectural styles.
* There are excellent views of Aspen, Aspen Mountain, and
surrounding mountains.
Constraints to Development:
* None
10
i' .~
.
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The East Cooper Court project proposes Subdividing the
existing 10,500.00 sq. ft. parcel into 2 parcels. The first
parcel, consisting of 6,000 sq. ft. would keep the relocated
historic house and R/Mf zoning and under the guidelines of the
Historic Preservation Incentive Program a second home would be
built, For the second 4,500 sq. ft. parcel, we are requesting
rezoning to Affordable Housing to allow the historic OUtbuilding
to be relocated and remodeled as an employee deed restricted
unit. Two additional units would be added, one free market and
one additional employee RO CResident Occupied) unit.
The Plan CSite Plan, figure 2) incorporates traditional, planning
concepts and places emphasis on integrating the proposed
residences into the surrounding neighborhood and development
patterns. CUnit Plans and Elevations,figure 3)
11
4.1 WATER SYSTEM
The City
existing
capacity
project.
of Aspen can
water lines.
to meet both
provide service to the project from its
The lines have adequate pressure and
domestic and fire protection needs of the
,~
.
4.2 SEWAGE TREA~
The Aspen Sanitation District has the adequate capacity at the
wastewater treatment facility and in the collection system to
serve this project.
4.3 DRAINAGE SYSTEM
It is anticipated that the development shall have a minimal
impact on the property's historic drainage patterns and/or the
amount and distribution of surface water run off. Historic
drainage patterns shall be maintained.
4.4 FIRE PROTECTION
The site is contained within the Aspen Fire Protection District.
The design of the units will be in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code standards.
4. 5 DEVEI.O~ DATA
Compliance with Section 5-206.2 Affordable Housing CAH) of the
Municipal Code is shown in Table 1, Dimensional Requirements.
Table 2, Development Data, summarizes the East Cooper Court
Development proposal.
4. 6 ~FIC AND PARKING
The proposed development is adjacent to an existing street and is
within the guidelines for the parking requirement in the CAH)
Affordable Housing Zone, of a minimum of 1 space per unit and a
maximum of 2 parking spaces per unit. The project also qualifies
for parking variances for historic developments.
4.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The East Cooper Court Development proposal is in compliance with
the Affordable Housing Zone guidelines , Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Guidelines and 1990-95 Production Plan. The proposal
consists of 2 deed restricted employee housing units and one free
market family oriented housing unit.
12
4.8 STOVES AND FIREPLACES
Any fireplace proposed for the project willi~e approved gas
units. .
4.9 PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The Public Facilities Map Cfigure 4 ) illustrates the projects
proximity to parks, schools, libraries, governmental offices, etc.
The project is well located with respect to retail and service
outlets.It is on an established bus route which provides ease of
transportation to the downtown area.
4.10 EFFECT ON ADJACENT LAND USES
The existing neighborhood consists of single f~ily and multi-
family complexes. The land use patterns and neighborhood
character will be maintained and strengthened by this zone
amendment.Cfigure 5 and 6, Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning
Maps)
4.11 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The project is scheduled to break ground as early in the Spring
of 1995 with a completion date approximately 6 mOnths later."'.
13
,
5.0 LAND USE REOUIREMENTS
The East Cooper Court proposal is subject to the following review
requirements: SUbdivision, Rezoning, Condominiumization, Map
Amendment,a GMQS exemption, special review for p~r.king and open
space. Historic Landmark designation ,
CPre-application Conference Summary, Exhibit D).
Section 7-1102CA) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict
with any applicable portions of this chap~er.
The proposed development complies with applicable portions of the
Aspen Municipal Code Land Use Regulations as demonstrated within
this application.
Section 7-1102 CB) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
As shown in detail by Section 2.1 of this Submission, this
development proposal is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan,
Section 7-1102 CC) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible
with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
eXisting land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The East Cooper Court Development area is bordered by a mixture
of Multi-family units as will as single family homes, refer to
EXisting Zone Map figure 5. The proposed Affordable Housing CAH)
Zone district is compatible and characteristic of the existing
neighborhood'. and recreates some of the character which has been
lost in recent years. eLand Use Application, Section 4.10)
Section 7-1102 CD) The effect of the proposed amendment on
traffic generation and road safety.
This project will not add additional traffic to the
neighborhood. Its immediate proximity to downtown and the
estabiished bus route makes this proposal an auto dis ~ incentive
project. ,
14
Section 7-1102 CE) Whether and the extent to which the proposed'
amendment would result in demands on public faci~ities, and
whether and the extent to which the proposed amenBment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, water supply,parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
The East Cooper Court Project, based upon APCHA guidelines,
should generate a total population of approximately 15 persons.
The employee occupied units should provide housing for about 6
persons with 5 children.
This figure is calculated for the five (5) unit development as
fOllows; (5) 3-bedroom units at 3.0 persons/unit = 3.0 Persons =
15 persons.C Resident Generation Data, Ta~le 3)
The proposed development and its resident population should not
over-extent the capacities of existing, public facilities. The
project should actually have a reduced usage over the previous
use of the site. CUrrent facilities should be capable of
accommodating the service demands of the project and its
residents.CUtility Availability Letters, exhibit, C)
Section 7-1102 CF) Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
The development shall not adversely impact the natural
environment (Land Use Application, Sections 3.1 and 3.3.
Section 7-l102CG) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Aspen's neighborhoods have been traditionally comprised of
various housing types, including those which are affordable by
working residents. The Affordable Housing CAR) Zone development
and the proposal for the historic house are consistent and
compatible with the community character of Aspen (Land Use
application, Section 2.1 and neighborhood context map, Figure 9)
15
Section 7-1102 CH) Whether there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood
which supports the proposed amendment.
The changing character of the neighborhood as a whole has been to
bigger development. The East Cooper Court Project is an attempt
to bring back some of the character which has been lost in recent
years. However changes within the community as C/-'..whole have been
significantly changed in recent years.Substantial'quantities of
free-market housing, traditionally used by working residents,
have been removed from the available inventory, forcing a shift
in the permanent employee population downvalley. Additionally,
vacant land within the City of Aspen or nearby vicinity, that is
physically and economically suitable for development of
affordable housing is extremely scarce and expensive.
To address the affordable housing problem, the City, County, and
Housing Authority enacted a comprehensive program. The Affordable
Housing PrOduction Plan establishes a goal of 115 units to be
produced between 1991-95 by the private sector. The Aspen Area
Community Plan encourages small scale resident housing and infill
within the existing urban area to preserve open space. It also
wants to promote mid-sized smaller projects throughout the Aspen
Metro Area.
Recent changes within the community, support the proposed East
Cooper Court Affordable Housing CAH) amendment eLand Use
Application, Sections 2.1, and 2.2).
Section 7-1102 cr) Whether the proposed amendment would be in
conflict with the Public rnterest, and is in harmony with the'
purpose and intent of this chapter.
The proposed amendment is consistent with established public
policy regarding affordable housing and historic preservation.
The adoption of the 1973 Land Use Plan instituted a policy
favoring the development of housing for employees of the
community. The current Land Use Requlations,Housing PrOduction
Plan, and the Aspen Area CommUnity Plan are further refinements
in striving to attain the community'S affordable housing and
Aspen Character goals. eLand Use Application, Sections 2.1 and
2.2) .
PUblic policy has also shifted. The private sector is being
requested to become more actively involved in the planning and
development of affordable housing, while the City, County and
Housing Authority have attempted to down-scale their direct
involvement in the development process.
The East Cooper Court development will illustrate in real terms
Caffordable housing that is built) how the AH Zone works for the
benefit of both, the private and public sectors. It will
hopefully encourage other private sector development of
affordable housing.
16
6.0 GHOS EXEMPTION
The East Cooper Court Project qualifies for a Growth Management
Quota Exemption under Land Use Regulation Section 8-104 CA) Cl)
Cb) for historic Landmark and under 8-104 CC) Cl) Cc) for
Affordable Housing. The East Cooper Court Projec~~will help to
fill a family housing need and make a contribution toward
achieving the goals of Pitkin County and The city of Aspen to
create a housing environment which is disbursed, appropiately
scaled to the neighborhood and affordable.
17
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE
SETBACKS
FRONT
REAR
SIDE
COMBINED F/R
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
per dwelling unit
RESIDENTIAL/MULTI FAMILY
SETBACKS
FRONT
REAR
SIDE
COMBINED F/R 13
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
DIMENSIONAL REOUIREMENTS
"
,.
ALLOWABLE
PROPOSED
10
1
10
5
C2 at outside decks)
3
5
20
6
1,500
1,500
ALLOWABLE
PROPOSED
10
7
10
5
(2 at outside decks)
5
3
20
12
6,000
6,000
Table 1
18
DIMENSIONAL DATA
EXISTING
PROPOSED
I
LOT SIZE: 10,500.SQ.FT.
ZONING : R/MF
ALLoWABLE FAR 10,500 SQ.FT.
EXISTING FAR
HOUSE 1,935
BARN 600
PROPOSED FAR
PROPOSED BEDROOMS
2,535 SQ.FT.
SQ.FT.
SQ. FT.
EXISTING PARIcrNG
PROPOSED PARKING
CODE REQUIRED pARIcrNG
2
PARIcrNG VARIANCE REQUESTED
CURRENT ALLoWABLE FAR
4,500 SQ.FT.
AH
3,600 SQ.FT.
3,515 SQ.FT.
10
o
6
6
o
10,500 SQ.FT
PROPOSED REVISED ALLoWABLE FAR
PROPOSED FAR
7,200 SQ,FT
6,962 SQ.FT.
19
6,000 SQ.FT.
R/MF
3,600 SQ.FT.
3,447 SQ.FT.
8+ADU
o
4
I
I
8
- 4
TABLE 2
.
AU
VARIANCES REOOES'I'ED
R/MF
FAR:
** 489 SQ.FT.
o
** BARN FAR REDUCED
ACCORDINGLY
SETBA~
FRONT
9'
REAR
3
5'
C8 at decks)
SIDE
2'
5'
C8 at decks)
COMBINED F fR 14 '
PARKING 0
2'
8'
4 SPACE DECREAsE
20
Residgnt Generation and K-12 School ~ildren Estimate
East Cooper Court Project
October 25, 1994
Aspen/Pitkin HOUsing Study... Final Report, JUly 1991
".5 ,,,,. 1- All -.... liV'-rkLog '" Pi..... Coonty
Herged 1990-91 Data ( 1,876 resPonses)
HOUS~oldSize
i~.~
t.
Average number of Adults
Average number of Children
Average HOUSehold Size
= 2.0
= .6
.. 2.6
Residents Generated (Table lll-A calculations forR$sident
-"on. - Geidel""", April 9. "'-oh Aprfl .. ....,
EmPloyee units
No units
Kids in School
5 kids
5 kids total
# bed/unit
5
3
res./Unit kids/unit
3.0 1.0
kids
TOTAL NUJmER OF RESIDENTS
TOTAL NUJmER OF KIDS
5
5 kids
15
5 kids
TABLE 3
21
Aspen
Maroon C:eelt
...
To Snowrnou Villcge
I
ASPEl'
MEADOWOOD
AVH
ee~ Rd
CQS1ISCr
CcsTle Creek
SAAR SNOSSlE
JANSS . MeadOws fkt
8th Street
71h Street
6'h Sf_,
."' ...., J
~
'"' Street I
1 1
"'" Slree, _ ~
2nd Streer
-;'......~v.
iot.....i
1
" i<
LI
1 !
1''1:'.
. -
: '~::.:
.1 1
f
...-~.....
..... ......
..... .
Mountain
..,}.
~ wOItena 51
CAlDERwOOD
.W-
'.-
El _
fin
I
:>
......
1::'
f
........Sf
Ceek
W""utS, W1WAMs
W i ADDmoN
. "
"
-0/ ~c. +
.l-o<:ct-=h'o,",
z~
MioJond AV&nve
ASPEN
GROVe
KNOllWOOD
MOUNTAIN
VAlLeY
LOCATION JfAP
FIGURE
1
~
~
..
.;
I
l
1
I
..
i
::I:(Q
_C.:l
~(Q
O~
ClC/l
(')>-3
t:::(')
(')8
~~
Q
.trJ
)>
-
y
~ " ,
, '
. j.
~..
, ..
:e"",.
'I
;
~
11'
r
~
~
t"
~
I'
i:
"
:I: ,I
! I!
-
(j) j
-m H ..'
II' .0 '(0' ~'
" ~ " 'v:l
~ - , \cO
~ \.l ~.
\) ~ tJil'
:;J>
0:. ~ ~
..\> \.l \.l t
-\'- ~ 0 l?
'--- 0 ~
"\"- ~
:--- trJ
Q :::0,
t:rJ ,
:;J>
..
I
-
'"
, t
1""""\
- \'
,.2
"'0
S-\
-~-\
,- "
(/J _ 0:"
- () .-----
II "tI!i'
~ \'l1
-~\'I'
~
!I, ~
~
~
\)\
~ "
-j ~
~=\
'" ':?-
-'"
cp-l'o
_'i li-
-:-< I
~;t11'
-"',
----
tt1J
~
:::J
~
..
I
-
'"
/"",
~,
\
-~
~
"...._....0 ~.
r--
/-..,
'-7"
/.
V-' v
!f-
~
I,
;j;
"
o
"l-
,.";..,
~
CR
~
til
..
~
-
'"
~
~
~
r -I
o
-I
-I '"
:>
!i' r
'"
I" .(
" ')>
.,
,-"
I
,
.
o
z
z
o
~
~ -l
o "
~
~ '"
')> r'
~ fll
"-
1" '
:> '
-j
lJ -
o
;---..
'-
'"
Q r
c
~ -I n' -,!)?
C -:;: '7
-j ~
-I (' -I \ I
;p f11 1113 0 ' \
r -I
l1' '" i ", - -j pi
jll < !_ I.. .} . :t r
:t !i' pi
1::1 'i ! /-8 ~m '" <- r
- tj1'
0 ' -I I
z -
0 0
z
..
...
~
-
'"
,1"""\
~,
,
I
I
I'
t
I
f
~
~
, I
,
k
~
~
; ,
~,~ ~,','
<l~,(Q
~\'
tb."~ ~
'~.~ ~,.
:2l'\.) ,
t:rl-'''O'
,0
''''C
tzj,
~,'
..
I
-
'"
/"", u _,,'
~
I'
Ii
:[
10.
i
"~
.
'.
!
-
-
. .~:'" -:. I
,
,
~:I .':'::;
i :::",~~:.
: I '
,
1'1-...
,1- ..
I:
,
;i !
II
"
,
,
,
I!
I ,
, ,
I 1
I -
~
Z ~f&;
trl - (0 Ll
=6 '~
~ ~
Z ,\.)
trl 8
"tl
.trl
:::0
..
I
-
'"
I'm
....
~!~
iilll
!:.~
!~~j
'~;i
'i!Ji
i;aj
(j~
~ ::!~
I
~,
'H
j!
~'
;tR
~~
'1
,.
iii
"
"
"
;
~
!
,
.
f
~f~t~t~~~ .
. ,;d~,\'~:~",
"i.\'~~;\~::'
:~~~:f'~,~:;
'.;;;;:~~~
~ i
pi
n
--...;;.......1 it{k.~.R'~"-
~ _,!!.gi,:!.J
: ':'f.'{"\
;!; ;} '.
, .
,
i
!
II
il
;1:
3.:
:i
.!
.
:: its!
Ii j~iJ
1 ~:i:
:".1
i. ~:;;
."........
!':;
:i~
:Ej
~i;
_,~ti.i:/""..~,l,\"...',..,~~:~',':.'
z...--
----
.
I "'I
";, ,.~ ,~i,'
~ 1 i!
~ !~! ~
. "1'
; I'i..
. .'
~ ~ ~ !
I '.I
1,1
i : I
'}f~ !li,!;:m~
P:= ~jl"
'. ;:1; Ii
'f ail,!"!
hll'I'
~ ,";.1:111
i;iiu!
- ~!!;;!ii
, ,.:R:~~
""~'o . :!~ih:!
," :i 'l;~" ,i~!iii::
"':>;?\." 5l!di~1
"'~~....~ s :~~~=..
" :5~:,ril
:;lIil'
. ..:.....,.
;;:!~hi
"i--'"
.,J . ~ . ~.. ~
i~!Ji!!lil!lii'!m'!
II:ijS; ~ii"l h!r~!:,:
d7j .. "=: ." .".
.j~ jl ! --, Iji niS~
"'1; ,i ,1I ! ! ""I'i1!
ili , . .n,,;. ,.,
I! il.~ j .3~ - I ~ ,"I
..~ jfl J I ;1= ~,:; ;:=~:
i:l'!U; =~= ! u:":;;
, Ihi!~ ~~ ~ ~:j ~: ~ii~~
, . ,'".' = i,ri:. "..~: -: ~l'"
,."H' ~'l';II!'!ji:.,.rf! '~i~ ;!:~:
, ~"i!;' '!i " ',t:....., .....~I
'" ;1. (4;::,"" ~i c.' :,'lI,' ,,=: :
. :,..:', :.",:.:1 ~,': ~~' .. ::: "i ~:.;~
",' ". .' .... ". .....
..:,;::',,.{g=;;I=ii"; : ~; Hi ~~=!~
".:1::-::':,:..,. ,ih;hi : a -=i ;i '~~::
;l(",,~,,:r+':',il:;I'i1;1 ~ ! !f I! (iii
:~-:';'?Ill' I 'II I 'ii'
~~,~~\;:{;;;t ',' ..
,,~i;
1~~'~~l'
" ,~~i(.:,,1."
. 'j<i'\;~}:;
," ;~~t~,L'
'.t "_~l,."
~ ~ -'!
- -,"--~",.;..' ';"',:;-,-,.
~
.
il
"
.
<
~
o
r
I'T1
<
I'T1
IT1 r
:too' :too
Z
(J) 0,
-Ir i
o (J)'
:too -I :-II
(J):too ~ i
-0- CD'
I'T1 c!:i!
Z OJ:::I :
Ce.o l
o -,
o !
d^ 5i
::E 01 -11
Z -. "
en "" 1> I
-I
'[T1
ED
r
o
o
^
01
...,
....,._;c.'.. .:.....:.:..i.i:~..
,
;"
.
""."-"- _... _.--~--~..~.-
. .
I
I
.,:.
"
"
,
~/
,,':
.i
.':\
..~,~
j
"'~
.,~
'ij
"
"
~,'1
..
.'
O~T-20-84 15,52 FROM,LAW (nFFICES
J.,V'L' v"" uv.......
10.3034435478
C
PAGE 2/2
october 17, 1994
LesU.e LluIont
City of Aspen planning and Zoning DepllrtJler1't
130 S. Ga1.8Il& st.
Aspen, CO 81611
ae: 939 B. Cooper Ave.
Dear LeSlie,
~ mo1:her, :1ermy COVl1n9 ill tbII owner of record of t!uJaboVe
X'Sfereno-' property, whose legal delJCripd.on 1s --All of x.ot A, iD"
alock 37, Bast Aspen AdditlOPal '1'OWnSite Entry, .s ~ on 'tlie)...'
plat recorded IUJ d~ 110. 108453 in D1Wh Book 2A ..t ~'25ZMi;~;'
of t!uJ recor.J8 for Pitkin County, an4 that poR.101l Of C1eve1aDCl';jij~<
s~ lYing' soutnerly of t:he south line of eoopttr AVenue aij@.:",\Y\"
northerly of the nox-th line of the alley, lying adjacent 'to,anajfM;-~
vest.erly of Lot A, said 8l00k 37, and lyinv eaaterly of thel!llt~jY*;:(('
11M of ~ 1, 810ak 118, A8peQ Townsite- :I have poweI:' of at~~::\'
frolll lIer, an4 II&mtljJ8 t:l1e prilpertY. My aa4re88 1s 118 Deer ~:l.li2
BouldU, CO 80302, ay phone 1\'",-" is 303-444...0591. .
. "
I
!lob and Daz:nell LaAglq are1.Ul@l' ccmtraQt to purob.aS~,...i~,@.<
propexty. :t uriderStand t:l1at they are ljJOilllJ ~ugh the pZ'Clge...o~ '
havlug' the propertY &libdivic1e4 an4 de8ipabd. an lIi.torte l~"r)r:. ,.',
we agree to let the LdCJley'. institute the aU'thOr1sationprol:l'..,'
with t!le un4erstanding that final approval will be granted only if>
tbey eJ.ose on the purchaSe. ",.'c;,...:.
~
by 1l1ebard cowling pOWer of AttQrney
EXHIBIT A
;.~~;
.
TRII
COMMITMENT FOR TiTLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A '
1. Effective Date: 09/01/94
at
08:30 A.M.
Case No. PCT-9275C2
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 670,000.00
Pi~mium$ 1,533.00
Proposed Insured: Ra~e:
ROBERT ADAIR LANGLEY and SHERI DARNELL LANGLEY
(b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount $
premiumS
proposed Insured: Rate:
Tax Certificate $20.00
3. Title to the-FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof
vested in:
JEANNIE H. COWLING and EARL COWLING
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
~~. . '" ~'''.' "K ;~fti;-r~~~~j:~l;,,~;t.~~, .;:; -::;'~:~f':;)':,:' "~', .._.-,,>.;'~:: . .',- c.::" .,,: ,"",,<,:>:,:'~.d:.',,;,~i.,;\':- .
LOT Ai BLoCK 37 ,-EAST ASPEN.ADD1'l'IONTO ,!l'HECITYAND TOWNSITEOF;1ASPEN,iiS
, together that portion of;,f.i'~al::ed- Ciey~~and Street-lying between"t'ii,e""-lf,"r'~'
southerly line of East'Cooper Avenue-and the Northerly line of -the alley
in Block 37, East ~pen additional townsite extended Westerly to the ,
intersection of said Northerly line with the Northerly line of the alley
in Block 118, City and Townsite of ~pen. .
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
303-925-1766
Fax 303-925-6527
'Schedule A-PG.1
This Commitment is invalid
unless the Insuring
provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
EXHIBIT B
.
Marcia L.Goshorn
Gold Key services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
. .'
.'
October 15, 1994
u.s. West communications
P.O. Box 220
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
RE: East cooper Court Project
939 East cooper
Aspen, Colorado
To Whom It May Concern;
I am writing on behalf of Bob and Darnell Langley, the'
applicants of the proposed subdivision at 939 East Cooper . The
site currently contains one single family 3 bedroom ,1 bath home.
The development proposal includes the existing historic house,W'ith'
an additional bathroom added, as well as 4 additional, 3 bedroom,
2 bath free standing homes.The approximate total ,living space is
I 6,800 sq. ft..
As part of this submission", I need to provide aletter"p:f''':''
availability of service from U.S.. West Communications. Please
provide me with a letter and any additional comments which you deem
pertinent.
Should you have any additional questions or comments, pi ease
feel free to contact me at 920-9275. The letter maybe faxed to
925-8454. Thank you for your prompt attention to this-matter.
Sincerely,
\,~~
Marcia L. Goshorn
EXHIBIT C
.
Marcia L.Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
"
,"
t
October 15, 1994
TCI Cable
201 Aspen Airport Business Center
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: East Cooper Court project
939 East Cooper
Aspen, Colorado
To Whom It May Concern;
I am writing on behalf of Bob and Darnell Langley,' the
applicants of the proposed subdivision at 939 East Cooper ..The
site currently contains one single family 3 bedroom ,1 bathl1ome.
The development proposal includes the existing historic house,Sliitil.
an additional bathroom added,' _as well as.4additional, ,3bedroom'../
2 bath free standing homes.The approximate total living space is
~ 6,800 sq. ft..
As part of this submission,. I need to provide a lettEirof
availability of service from TCI Cable. Please provide me with a
letter and any additional comments which you deem pertinent.
Should you have any additional questions or comments, please
feel free to contact me at 920-9275. The letter maybe faxed to
925-8454. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~~
Marcia L. Goshorn
. ..
Marcia L.Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
t~.,.
,.
October 15, 1994
Ray Patch
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
113 Atlantic Ave.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: East cooper Court Project
939 East cooper
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. patch,
I am writing on behalf of Bob and Darnell Langley, the
applicants of the proposed subdivision at 939 East Cooper .. Th.~
site currently ,contains one single family 3 bedroom ,1 bathl}ome./"
The development proposal includes the :existing historic house/':with"::'
an additional bathroom added, as well as 4 additional, 3 bedroom ,
2 bath free standing homes. The approximate total living space is
+ 6,800 sq. ft..
As part of this submission,' I need to provide a letter of
availability of service from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. Please
provide me with a letter and any additional comments which you deem'
pertinent. .. '
Should you have any additional questions or comm~nts, please
feel free to contact me at 920-9275. The letter may be faxed to
925-8454. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~~
Marcia L. Goshorn
.. ::;
Marcia L.Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
,>
,..
.
October 15, 1994
Larry Ballenger
Director of Water
city of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: East cooper Court Project
939 East Cooper
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Larry,
lam writing on behalf of Bob and Darnell Langley, the
applicants of the proposed :subdivision at 939 East Cooper,. The
site currently 'contains'one:single.-familY,3 bedroom:',l:bath',home.'-" '
The development proposal includes the existing historic house,with
an additional bathroom added, as well as. 4 additional, 3 bed~oom ,
2 bath free standing.homes.The approximate total living space is
+ 6,800 sq. ft..
As part of this submission, I need to provide a letter of
availability of service from the Aspen Water Department. Please
provide me with a letter and any additional cOllllllents which you'deem
pertinent.
Should you have any additional questions or cOllllllents, please
feel free to contact me at 920-9275. The letter may be faxed to
925-8454. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
sincerely,
~~
Marcia L. Goshorn
III ;;.
Marcia L.Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
,'.'
october 15, 1994
Mr. Jeffrey Franke
Drawer 2150
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
RE: East Cooper Court Project
939 East Cooper
Aspen, Colorado
',i'
oilih
Dea.r Mr. Franke''.~1'",
I amwritingori'J:'i~alf of BOb'5and Darnell Langley,
applicants of theT-proposed subdivisi9n~fa.t 939 East cooP!r .
site currently co~tains one single fami~Y~3 bedroom ,l~p~th home.
The development proposal includes the exj,Ejt~ng historic Jlouse, with
an additional bathroom ,added, as well as't+l!iddition!l,*)"i1;;3' bedro()m ,
2 bath free standing homes . Theapproximat,e,{total "l~ying .' space is
+ 6,800 sq. ft.. ' AI'
As part of this Submission, I need to provide a letter of
availability of service from Holy Cross Electric. Pleaseprovi~e
me with a letter and any additional c()mments which you deem '
pertinent. ..
Should you have any additional questions or comments, please
feel free to contact me at ,920-9275. The letter may be faxed to
925-8454. Thank you for your prompt attention to this_matter.
Sincerely,
~~
Marcia L. Goshorn
. .
Marcia L.Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
t'~ .'
,
October 15, 1994
Mr. Bruce Matherly
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: East Cooper Court Project
939 East Cooper,
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Matherly,
I am writing on behalf of Bob and Darnell LangleY,the
applicants of the proposed subdivi.sion at ,939 East Cooper, .~~\<
site currently contains one single.family 3 bedroom,l bath.hc:)Ili~;;!\\
The development proposal includes the existing historichousei~,with';.,
an additional bathroom added, as well as 4 additional, 3 bedroom ,
2 bath free standing homes.The approx~matetotal living space\is
Z 6,800 sq. ft.. .
As part of this submission, I need to provide a letter of
availability of service from The Aspen Consolidated SanitatiCln
District. Please provide me with a letter and any additional
comments which you deem pertinent.
Should you have any additional questions or comments, please
feel free to contact me at 920-9275. The letter may be faxed to
925-8454. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~-' ~~"-k>~
Marcia L. Goshorn
----
-----'
-II!" ..
S/(~
CITY OF ASPEN
L::1-APPLICA~ON CONFERENCE
PROJECT: t--~ - A U. :') (f 10
.. I (.\
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: < aJOVr
SUMMARY
OWNER'S NAME:'
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application:
2 .Desc~ibe action/typeofde'leiopn;entJ:ieing ;eque ted: ". '. .
Sl)\n', \[ .'rit \0. 506 ~~I rV(f~:,:4l <;t)G -\-;. ~-tti
CbIN\~s~.r-~o~, J (\Ql)'f~r61-d:'J '\
O~f\~"'" ~ J . .'
"S. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, t:yp~s
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
. Referrrr ;;-
\ kJdTu -..:...'
,
~.
~s
f\~ Sf>
~,r-'G
~\J,f, ~~mJth
~~~
4. Re ew is: (P&Z Only) (CC
5. Fublic Heari~q: 0YES) ')
Comments
only:).
(NO)
(6&Z then to ~
7. What fee was applicant requested to
to be sUbmitted:~~
l~' ,'i:.~
+ 0:+
J f d<-f';) ':-~:54
::J
,
6. Number of copies of the application
8. Anticipated date of submission
9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
EXHIBIT D J
#
~.....
..:,.,'.,.;',4,"'~.
'-' '",:::,"-;' f::;''!;.~SX;>::::,~,;~-,;0~\7T'(J~0~;':' ;
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
p..PPRO\lE.O
RE:
Hatem Residence (East Cooper Court, Unit C) -- Insubstantial Sub~~ion
Amendment for Storage Area Floor Area 1'A~R \) S
E.Cl()f\
ELOPMall 011\
COl>\l>\\JllI1'l ~~ OF {>SPEll
DATE:
February 29,1996
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of an increase to the approved floor area to
allow for a storage loft, Storage area is not exempt from FAR calculations.
REVIEW: This five unit residential development was approved in 1995 via the
subdivision, rezoning, and Historic Preservation review processes, Among other
approvals, the HPC granted a 500 square foot bonus to the project. In January of 1996,
Planning staff reviewed the approvals in order to clarify the floor areas approved by the
City Council.
Staff's review established that the maximum total allowable FAR for the subdivided and
rezoned property is 7,250 square feet. The proposed FAR represented to Council during
the project's February 1995 approval was 6,884 sq,. ft. The Community Development
Director approval of an insubstantial amendment to the FAR on February 9, 1996 brings
the proposed total to 7,164 square feet of FAR
CURRENT ISSUE: The Hatem residence (Unit C) entails the renovation of a historic
barn on the property. The footprint of the building is small (approximately 20' by 30'),
and a historic 10ft existed in the building at the time of HPC review.
In consideration of 1) the design intent of the entire project; 2) the proposed FAR still
being below the maximum allowable FAR on the site; 3) HPC and Council approval of
the "shell" of the home; and 4) the effort on the part of the owner to create storage space
in a small dwelling without adding to the bulk of the building, staff supports an
insubstantial amendment to increase the current approved FAR from 6,884 sJ. to 7,164
sJ, Staff finds that the change will not increase visual or functional impacts on the
, property because the space will be used solely for household storage. However, staff is
concerned that the plans show a closet in the space, This should be eliminated to
reinforce the use of the space for storage purposes rather than living purposes,
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an increase in FAR from 6,884
sJ, to 7,164 sJ, for the total floor area of the East Cooper Court project to accommodate a
storage loft in Unit C. This is divided among the individual units as follows*:
Parcell:
Unit A northwest comer - 1,800 square feet
Unit B northeast corner - 1,800 square feet
~
..,;.:
Parcel 2:
Unit C southeast comerlbarn c 880 square feet
Unit D middle unit - 1,598 square feet
Unit E southwest comer - 1,086 square feet
* note that the floor areas discussed in this memo pre-date the Ordinance 30 changes to
floor area definitions,
Staff also recommends a condition that the closet in the loft be removed,
I hereby approve the insubstantial Amendment to the Subdivision development plan for
East Cooper Court with the one condition as stated above pursuant to Municipal Code
Secti -7-1006.
------- - --- ----l-C==---------__________,_____
uson, Community Development Director
______:3_:__~_:__3_~_______
date
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12. 1995
Jake did a straw poll on the whimsical house and only two members
voted in favor,
Jake did a straw poll on a restudy of the entry window and only
three members voted in favor,
AMENDED MOTION: Roger moved to withdraw the whimsical house on the
roof and eliminating #3 of the original motion which was restudying
the fenestration of the entry side; second by Melanie, Motion and
amended motion carries 6 - 1. Linda opposed,
Sven and Donnelley are the monitors of this project,
939 E. COOPER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT
Jake stepped down.
First Vice-chairman Les Holst chaired this portion of the meeting,
Amy: This is final approval for two of the five units that will
be built on this project; for the historic house and the historic
barn, In terms of the historic house I think that the proposal is
very appropriate and a compatible addition, Conditions of approval
would be that the proposed new foundation for the historic building
is a rubble stone foundation and I suggested that they use a
coursed ashlar sandstone veneer because it is a more appropriate
and compatible material and more historically accurate, On the
south facade of the addition in the gable end the architect has
extended the windows through the gable I feel at least on the
street scape side this presents something of a scale issue and that
the gable should have clapboards instead of the window. Any
information discovered during construction regarding original
window location or original detailing has precedence over our
approval tonight,
Amy: As far as the barn there have been changes since conceptual
and it has been turned 180 degree so that the taller side is now
facing west to increase the light. My recommendations are
eliminating the skylight on the east facade which lights a storage
area. On the west facade there is a large skylight that could
possible be eliminated, We also need to have a discussion as to
the means of preserving the barn. The proposal is to take the barn
apart and build a new structure and side it with the old siding,
It is not really an appropriate preservation solution and a number
of bonuses were received by the applicant for preserving the barn
i,e. square footage bonuses, the ability to have an additional unit
and preservation grants and other incentives and setback variances,
I feel there should be true preservation as a result of that,
Scott Lynde 1 , architect for Studio B: Turning the building gives
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12. 1995
us the only view from the site which is a down valley view late
afternoon sun, There is a large building behind us, Our logic for
wishing to take the barn apart is that structurally it doesn't meet
code. We would have to fur it out completely under the interior
which would be increasing at least four to six inches all the way
around the interior walls. Right now the-footprint is only 600
sqft. and the' floor area is 580 sqft, If we had to do that we
would loose 60 to 80 sqft, We would like to reconstruct it to the
exact scale' and, dimensions and reuse the siding. Currently the
roof is leaking and not functional, We would like to do a
corrugated material for the roof.
Amy: As far as the corten skirt are there any other options or
treatments that could be used on the existing material to have the
same effect?
Scott Lyndel: We could go with a stone material but it would be
more expensive because we are going to the window well, Corrugated
would work better due to the proximity of the adjacent bldg, We
were trying to keep the idea that this was an out building,
Marsha Goshorn: The maximum that can be spent to build this
building is $145,000.
Scott Lyndel: Leaving as it is now and bringing it up to code
would cost more.
Amy: Everyone realizes that the preservation way is more expensive
but that is what we are here for. It is unfortunate that it was
not thought through price wise bringing it to a category 3,
Marsha:
costs,
Dave Tolen stated that he would look at the additional
Amy: If it could be a category 4 and sold for more in the future
it makes more sense to invest more money in the preservation
because you can recover that.
Martha: As a board we have a problem with replication vs
preservation on certain situations such as the gazebo and as a
preservation board we need to deal with this head on and that means
we preserve the barn,
Roger: Your proposal is to place it on cement block and put a
metal skirt around it,
Scott Lyndel:
We would do a poured foundation and a basement,
Sven: I support Amy on this in trying to retain the existing barn
as much as possible.
~
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12. 1995
Les: Basically the barn will stay and we are here as a resource
for the applicant, You don't have to fur like another entire
house, All along we have talked about moving this and putting down
a slab. We will work this and I do not feel it will be that big
of a problem,
Scott Lyndel:
It is basic code requirements,
Les: We have building codes for historic buildings and the Bldg,
Dept, can help you with that.
Scott Lyndel: To what extent in the level of detail do you want
the windows and existing barn door, Can the barn door be restored
or do we have to find old wood to match,
Les: We have stacks of old wood and where it cannot be replaced
you can use new,
Amy: We want you to preserve the original materials as much as
possible but we do not want you to retain things that are going to
cause the building to deteriorate,
Martha: Who makes that determination?
Amy: Staff and project monitor,
MOTION: Roger moved to approve the barn for 939 E, Cooper with the
orientation north/south without skylights and that the skirting on
the barn will be metal as proposed. The barn will be preserved in
its entirety without replication and all surfaces of the barn that
can be preserved will do so, A bond will be posted and a bracing
plan submitted before the barn is moved; second by Martha, All in
favor, motion carries,
Amy: On the historic house I recommended approval with three
condi tions: That in lieu of the proposed rubble foundation a
coursed ashlar sandstone foundation be used because it is more
compatible and more accurate, On the north elevation I recommend
the removing of the window on the gable end addition and replacing
it with clapboard. Any information found during construction that
is more accurate about window placement etc, details supersede the
drawing before us at least on the north elevation,
Darnell Langley: This is what we presented at the worksession and
the only thing that changed is on the new addition of the N Land
on the E L instead of board and batten we did a wider siding so you
can distinguish between old and new and set it apart, From staff
recommendation we changed the garage door to fade in more with a
clapboard so that it doesn't look like a garage. The windows Amy
~
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12. 1995
has mentioned set the building apart, the old from new,
Roger: Is there anyway to make the garage door less of a garage
door, make it go away,
Darnell: We thought we addressed that changing the siding on the
garage door to fade in,
Roger: On the N L, the balcony above the garage door there are two
doors what is the height of those doors?
Darnell: I believe they are 7' whi.ch is 6' 8" .
Roger: Is the window larger than the historic window?
Darnell: Smaller,
Roger: Were you proposing river rock for the base of the house?
Darnell: It is not river rock but a rock with wide mortar between
it, It is local stone,
Roger: Do you feel the historic house should have as tradition a
sandstone facing and the newer addition would have your selection
of stone or do you feel it should all be the same,
Darnell: I would prefer to be consistent and have the rock base
all the way around,
Sven: The applicant has presented overhead rolling door which are
the most common, I am not considering cost but you could make a
panelized custom door so that it looks like an old carriage house
door, Historic homes never had an over head operating door, You
need a door that looks like it operates like a carriage house door.
I also like the different stone treatment suggested by Roger as
long and the color treatment is similar,
Melanie: I wondered why you wanted the clapboard around the window
in the front when it is definitely a new part of the building and
it carries throughout the rest of it,
Amy: I feel it is an interesting way to subtly distinguish old
from new, This is a new solution for us that Jake has presented,
I feel it works well on all facades except the street facade, I
have a certain concern that it is an element that disturbs the
scale of the historic, house.
Darnell: The historic house is 17 feet forward,
Sven: The east elevation needs restudied and the fenestration
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12. 1995
needs looked at,
recommendation of
glazing,
If you are changing the garage door to the
a carriage type it will force you to restudy the
Les: Our job is not to redesign and direct you,
Susan: I agree with Roger about the garage door since it is facing
the street,
Darnell: The comment from conceptual is try to make the garage
fade in and that is why we put siding on it. There will also be
a three to four inch mortar between the rocks. Ther~ is limited
stone base and we would prefer to have it the same all the way
around.
Roger: My comment would be that the foundation would be coursed
ashlar on the historic part and rubble on the new to show the
differentiation. That the garage door be redesigned and would be
custom door, 280 Lake Ave, has an example of the carriage door,
The doors on the balcony and the adjacent windows would be the same
scale as the historic resource and that there be a restudy or
elimination of the windows above.
Jeff: I concur with Roger on the rock base and the garage door.
I rather like the combination of the clapboard and board and batten
as it gives the building an added on look to it, After reading the
minutes it seemed there was a concern on the glazing of the second
story as it takes on a look of some of the newer houses, I agree
with that and feel there are more creative ways to get light into
that upper story than simply glazing the entire wall.
MOTION: Roger moved to approve the historic house at 939 E,
Cooper, unit A as draw with the following conditions:
A) Landscape plan be submitted in full for the entire project,
B) Garage door be redesigned to become an historic carriage door
which is a custom door.
C) That the foundation wall of the historic structure will be
coursed ashlar sandstone and that the foundation wall on the
new structure will be rubble of the same color and type of
stone,
D) That the north gable porch and window treatment be restudied
so that the lower doors and windows maintain the same scale
as the historic structure and that some other treatment is
restudied for the other windows, I am talking about the north
porch and gable only, that the fenestration and doors be
restudied,
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 1995
second by Sven,
DISCUSSION
Martha: I am having trouble with the two types of rock and it
seems to be that it is not compatible,
Amy: It will be the same material but laid differently,
Les: You will barely notice it,
VOTE: All in favor, motion carries.
ASPEN PHYSICS
Brad Ziegle from Harry Teague's office did the presentation: The
Center was part of the Aspen Institute and about three years after
they were founded they became their own center, The goals is to
have their 90 participants on campus and in a suitable environment,
Summer program is the main program and they have up to 400
participants, As you come down Gilespie the idea was to minimumize
the site and the peak is 17 feet high and 25 feet wide and faces
the street as a house would face the street, There will be offices
and meeting rooms, We have recommended pushing the trail easement
over to the trees on the Physics property,
Jake: What were the concerns of P&Z at the meeting,
Brad: The length of the building and crowding. Also the impacts
of the neighbors, Neighbors were concerned about the overall length
of the building and they were concerned about 90 cars and how does
that work,
Ramona Markalunas: It was like a great wall,
Brad.: A neighborhood concern was the access to the race track and
that the new building mitigated the existing trail, They also felt
that the campus and physicists were turning their back to the
neighborhood. This project need to be a private space and somehow
that has to happen, The building sits on the line that was defined
as the circle of serenity.
Jake: You have several schemes in your book and which one do the
physicists prefer?
Brad: Scheme B takes out two offices and six inches out of each
office, It pulls us away and gets us on the west side of the
existing ditch, Scheme B is preferred,
12
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
'February 27,1995
"
)
/
Councilwoman Richards said she would like a report from the housing office on
how these scattered site units are being monitored, Dave Tolen, housing director,
said his office approved this unit on the condition that it be owner-occupied,
which makes monitoring it much easier.
Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series 00995, on second
reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers
Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes,
Motion carried,
WILLIAM RANCH ANNEXATION AND REZONING
Councilman Reno moved to table Ordinance #61 and Ordinance #66, 1994,
Williams Ranch Annexation and Rezoning to March 13, 1995; seconded by
Councilwoman Waggaman, All in favor, motion carried,
f'ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1995 - .22..9 E. Cooper Subdivision
Rezoning and GMQS Exemption
)
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this property is 10,500 square fee
and is currently zoned RMF, The applicant's request is to split this into 6,000
and 4,500 square foot parcels, The applicants also request rezoning with a
historic designation overlay on the entire 10,500 square feet; rezoning parcel 2 to
affordable housing, and leaving the 6,000 square foot parcel as RMF. Ms.
Lamont told Council the applicants plans to refurbish both the historic house and
bam on the property, There will be 2 free market units on parcell and I free
market, I ROand 1 deed restricted unit on parcel 2.
The applicants requested variations from HPC. The minimwn sideyard setback in
RMF is 5 feet, the total is 15 feet The applicants have complied with the
minimwn of 5 feet but only have 10 feet on each side, The sideyard setback in the
affordable housing zone the minimwn is 5 feet; the applicants meet that The total
is IS and the applicant has 10 feet, The front yard setback in RMF is 10 feet; the
applicants are providing 7 feet The front yard setback ilt-:AH zone is 10 feet; the
applicants are providing 5 feet from the road. Ms, Lamont pointed out the
property is being subdivided east to west rather than road to alley. The rear yard
setback in the AH zone is 18 feet for the bam to 5 feet The required rear yard
setback is 10 feet
)
4~c" .t;CLI Jco h US..... 5 GO
Ms, Lamont reminded Council the applicants are using 2 incentive programs, The
affordable housing zone allows applicants to increase the allowable density on
property and also provides special review for parking and open space, The AH
zone also allows free market housing outside the GMQS competition, The
applicants are also using the historic preservation incentive program which allows
4
~
"'01''/,"'",' "
1':' .\
':.,'
~~""S'
D
1)
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
February 27,1995
for dimensional variations, The applicants are offering the city 2 refurbished
historic structures, one deed restricted RO and on 'cted category 3 unit,
The allowable floor area currently on the parcel 10,500 square e , This
_ proposal i~~29quare feet which is a 35 percent reductIOn e parcel from
allowablsS ere will be 5 detached si.ngl6 family houses on the property. Ms.
Lamont said at first reading Council requested several revisions; one was
maintenance of the sideyard setback. The applicant has met the minimum 5 feet
around the external of the property; however, the total proposed is 10 feet, not 15
feet as required, Another revision was to turn the bam so that it is perpendicular
to the alley, The applicant met with HPC who agreed that was a better site plan,
The applicants looked at duplexing the two units on the rear ofthe property; HPC
was not supportive of putting two of the units together.
Bob Langely read from the Aspen Area Community Plan in support of vitality of
full time residents, the creation of in-town affordable housing with density
increases to encourage revitalization, Jake Vickery, architect, went over the site
plan, Vickery told Council the applicants tried to design the project to be
compatible with the community by creating 5 separate structures rather than one
large building, Vickery said this project does not rely on tax subsidies; the
community is getting some deed restricted housing, This is a small scale project
mixing employee housing, RO units and free market units together. The project
preserves some historic structures, The open space is in the center and is usable
by all units, Vickery pointed out changes from the first reading are that the east
and west setbacks have been increased to 5 feet; the space between all units has
been increased to 10 feet. Turning the historic barn allowed the increased space
between the buildings as well as get some parking on to the site and decreasing
the size of some garages, which reduces the mass of the project. Vickery said the
light wells have been reduced to the minimum code requirement, Vickery
showed Council models of the project before the changes and as being presented.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing,
Jim Curtis told Council the housing board was very supportive of this application,
Curtis said these applicants are taking a big risk to try and solve their housing
problem on their own behalf, Don Erdman, Chairman HPC, told Council the
Historic Preservation approved this project and feels it shows the advantage of
flexibility in sideyard setbacks, Phoebe Ryerson told Council she wholeheartedly
supports this project, Don Crawford, representing 4 units in the Villager, asked
about the off-street parking for the project. Vickery said there are 4 for the 2 free
market and 4 for the other units, There are 15 bedrooms in the project. Crawford
noted people will occupy these bedrooms and will have cars, This part of town is
already overcrowded with cars.
Stephen Kanipe, neighbor, told Council he supports this project as the
neighborhood has been disappearing and this will be a stronghold for families.
5
\
v\J
~
~
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
'February 27,1995
Marcia Goshorn said this is a local family trying to house themselves and doing it
without a subsidy, Ron Krajian said he, too, is worried about the parking
situation, Steve Buettow supports this project as it is 5 detached houses, which
will be more affordable to people living in Aspen.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing,
Councilman Paulson said he is concerned about the neighbors, the taking away of
light and air. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed about he nearness of the
buildings, The building to the east has had a view for years, This project is
broken up instead of one massive structure. Councilwoman Waggaman said she
would like this project to be less dense; however, it fits within the city's codes.
d'Q,uncilwoman Richards said she likes the fact that the restored historic house and
~ free market units are 1700 square feet instead of monster houses. This lot
could have a 10,000 square foot building rather than 5 units totaling 6,500 square
feet. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about the egress through the
window wells and would like to see in the conditions of approval include a
provision about snow removal for these windows wells, Councilwoman Richards
said she would like the city to focus on Cooper avenue and enhancing the
sidewalks and pedestrian experience.
)
Councilman Reno asked if the FAR that is not being used can be used at a future
date, Ms, Lamont said the AH zone district is using up the allowable square
footage, The FAR for multi-family housing is greater than that for single family
or duplex. Councilman Reno said he has always questioned the one car per
bedroom parking requirement. The reality is probably more like 2.4 cars per
residence, Councilman Reno said he is concerned about the distance between the
buildings internally.
Mayor Bennett said he shares the density and square footage concerns, Mayor
Bennett said he feels this prQ' im roved since first reading, This project
has followed the rules; it s 35 percent smal er an a straight multi-family project
on the same lot. This is the type 0 housing that a lot of Aspenites are looking for;
it fits the architectural style of some parts of Aspen and is very compatible.
Mayor Bennett said the applicant should not be penalized for the underlying
zoning,
.~
./
City Attorney John Worcester suggested adding a new paragraph 16 on page 6 to
read "All light and egress wells shall be kept free and clear of snow
accumulation" and at section 4 add from residential multi family (R/MF) to
affordable housing (AH), Worcester added pictures of the property and the
Villager next door into the record.
6
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
February 27, 1995
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 1995, with the
amendments outlined by Worcester and an advisory to the applicants to examine
ways to continue to create greater space around unit E and breaking up height and
closeness of the buildings; seconded by Councilman Reno. Roll call vote;
Waggaman, yes; Richards, yes; Paulson, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes;
Motion carried,
ORDINANCE #9, 1995 - 939 East Cooper Historic Designation
Amy Amidon, planning department, told Council HPC and P & Z both
unanimously recommended approval of the historic designation finding that 3
standards are met; architectural importance, neighborhood character, community
character.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing, There were no comments, Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing,
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 1995, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards, Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Reno, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor
Bennett, yes, Motion carried,
)
ORDINANCE #12, 1995 - Extension of Ordinance #35, 1994
Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council this Ordinance
extends Ordinance #35,1994, to May 30,1995, Staff has been working to
address the issues of large structures, light, setbacks, character and design
guidelines, There was a symposium, A check list has been developed to control
size but not stifle architectural creativity and not remove owner's property rights,
This will provide for a process to enhance building in close proximity, Clauson
said staff has a schedule to create an objective check list and to work with
Council's suggestion revisions and to engage the architectural committee in
modeling efforts.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing,
Councilwoman Waggaman said she supports this ordinance but is disappointed it
has to be extended. A lot of progress has been made and this is going in a good
direction. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would not support a second
extension,
OJ
j
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 1995, on
second reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson,
7
.
AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30,1994
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE
COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM
COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING
530 EAST MAIN
ASPEN, COLORADO
4:00 P.M.
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Minutes:
A. November 9, 1994
B. November 16, 1994
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
V. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
VI. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Special Review Criteria for Emergency Worker Priorities -
Kappeli (4:10 - 4:15)
B. Recommendation on Referral Comments for the Langley
Subdivision Special Review on East Cooper - Tolen (4:15 - 4:30)
C. Resolution No. 94-7, Regarding Recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners and City Council on the Priorities for
the Aspen/Pitkin County 1994 Affordable Housing Guidelines -
Baker (4:30 - 5:30)
NEXT MEETING DECEMBER 7,1994
4:00 p.m.
To:
Housing Board
From:
Dave Tolen, Executive Director
Date:
28 November, 1994
Re:
939 East Cooper AH Proposal
=================================================================
Baokground: The applicants are proposing an historic landmark and
affordable housing project for a 10,500 square foot property on
East Cooper Avenue. Many of you may remember this parcel, as it
was offered in trade for our East Hopkins site. The application is
in two parts:
1) Designate the entire parcel as an historic landmark.
2) Subdivide the property to create two lots. One lot, of
6,000 square feet, will be developed under historic
landmark provisions as two free market homes. The second
lot of 4,500 would be rezoned to AH and developed as one
free market unit, one R.O. unit and one Category unit.
Disoussion of Issues: The proposed mix of units is of concern to
the Planning Office. The mix on the 4,500 foot lot is consistent
with our earlier recommendations for the AH zone. However, looking
at the entire parcel, in effect the proposal is for three free
market units, an R.O. unit and a category unit. The Planning
Office would be more comfortable with a mix on the small lot of two
R.O. units and a category unit. The applicants have stated a very
strong preference for their current proposal.
The issue is one of balancing the community benefit from the AH
zone against the incentive for a developer to use it. without
approval of this application, the owner of this lot could develop
two single family residences exempt from growth management. The
only possible lot split that produces conforming lots is the one
proposed, as the AH zone is the only zone that permits less than a
6,000 square foot lot.
staff has looked at the feasibility of developing an AH project on
small lots. The AH zone doesn't offer very much in the way of
incentive over what can be developed, by right, on most small lots.
This lot can already accommodate two free market units by right, so
it might be argued that the only incentive to develop an AH project
would be to provide one additional free market unit.
The applicant is asking for one addi ti~l}.it~ .,g~n.!'l,~d7r~t:i~n: approval
of a category four single family unit"'a'l:'1!'i'la,o'at;;;SqUarl:i;,';~$.i This
is sma1l7:r: t:hal1,t:l:1E!1!r<1a~ fO~t:.~inimu~il}.ou:r:. gu~fi7:I.iI}.El~' " '1'~.j!~;t
'consists cfal}. ;,7:x:isi:cillg' 606 <square' :foothrstoricist:i:uctare;'OJo'~L~.;
E%a.a!'!Sc;H.I:Cl:r::'E!;"f.go1h.la~:;;~l1!sn'l:. We have the flexilaility to approve this
unit, given the constraint of working with an historic structure,
laut it is an additional laenefit to the applicant to do so.
Recommendation: The Planning Office has legitimate concerns alaout
the proposed mix for this project. We agree that two R.O. unit and
a category unit would lae more appealing, and would encourage the
applicant to consider this option. We would not recommend outright
denial of the application, laecause of the difficulty in making the
AH zone work on small lots. We laelieve that the mix proposed lay
the applicant is, at least, preferalale over the two single family
residences that could lae developed there lay right.
~~/'-;;;U ";"""".1..1. ......1
.~'
IlBIlORA.nUII
To: Cindy Christiansen
From: Bob & Darnell Langley
FAX: 920-5580
Re: East cooper Court
Dear Cindy,
We would like to meet with the Housing Board to obtain their
approval of the housing split we propose for our project at 939 E.
Cooper Ave.
We have proposed the following:
1. Have the entire parcel of 10,532 square feet designated
an Historic Landmark by the Historic Preservation committeo;
2. Subdivide the property to:
(a) Create one 6,000 square foot lot that will remain
RMF. Taking advantage of the incentives offered by the
HPe, we would move the historic house to one side of the
property, and build an additional free market house on
the other side of the property;
(b) Re-zone the remaining 4,532 AH. On this parcel, we
propose one Category 4 three bedroom house, one deed
retricted RO unit, and one free market unit that will be
occupied by our family.
It is our goal to sell the homes on the front parcel to local
families. We, ourselves, will develop the category unit and our
own unit. In addition to not being able to recover any land costs
for the category unit, it will cost me approximately $250,000 or
more to build it because it will incorporate one of the existing
buildings already on the site. We hope to pre-sell the RO unit,
but may end up developing that ourselves as well.
Our alternative is to sell the entire parcel to a developer who
wants to put two free market hOllIes on the 10,532 parcel. They
would not provide any housing for the housing inventory.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
/~~
seconded the motion.
Krizmanich, Myler and
unanimously,
ROLL CALL VOTE: Kasabach, Weil,
Curtis voted yes, Motion passed
B. Reco1llIllendation on Referral C01llIllents for the Langley
Subdivision Special Review on East Cooper. Leslie
Lamont was present representing the Planning
Department. Bob and Darnell Langley were present as
the applicants on this project, and Marsha Goshorn was
present also representing the applicant,
Tolen briefed the Board as to what is being proposed,
Tolen stated that the Planning Office has a concern
with the property as they are looking at this property
as a whole, therefore, the applicant is getting three
free-market units, and the Housing inventory is only
getting one RO unit and one category unit,
Darnell Langley stated that all of the units are going
to be smaller than what could normally on the lots,
That they want to create a village-type, neighbor
community, Goshorn stated that they are propos~ng
downzoning and that there are two historic structures
on this site that have to be picked up and moved.
Lamont stated that the Planning Office's concern is
with looking at the project as a whole, The Planning
Office is looking for a recommendation from the Housing
Board, Bob Langley stated that they are not asking for
any public money to do this project, but would like to
maintain one of the affordable housing units as a free-
market unit for themselves. The applicants plan on
selling the other two free-market lots to local
families,
Myler stated that he supports the project, but would
~Ji~~tse~h~~eWcoa;lejO~~t ~e~nis~r~~an~~: ~~'e~s ca;;:g~~~
housing inventory.
.'
:1
Kasabach also would support the proj ect, but would
prefer the Category,,04 unit' be changed to a Gatego.ry' 3
'~nI;tV, Weil is in favor of the project and has no
problem with the Category 4 unit, Krizmanich stated
that she would l2ir~?~;r,;);:,;i'f}~~EjJ;dent oct:upiedunitsan~
a~'ea~'~~J?jJ;''S:1~f).ffctir-Hl3ea:gi-eeswHhMto'J:er ana Kasali:!.ac~,
The Board asked staff to go through an analysis with
the Langleys to see if a Category 3 unit would be
feasible,
APCHA MINUTES
November 30, 1994
3
Myler made a motion to recommend approval of the
Langley's proposal withc<:>~!3igeE~tio:n of changing the
'i(g~!t~~SS~ji:i~''l.l.i:i:d!,t+i~9',itat",CC'<<,eiilg.6m+iYiieiiitind..t!if':fq~~;i~i~~S;ii!');l,El
l5yn~ Curtis seconded the, motion. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Kasabach voted no; Krizmanich, Weil, Curtis and Myler
voted yes. Motion passed,
C, Resolution Uo. 94-7, Regarding Recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners and City Council on the
Priorities for the Aspen/Pitkin County 1994 Affordable
Housing Guidelines. Baker stated that he needs final
approval from the Board on the memo going to the BOCC
and City Council on December 5 and Resolution No, 94-7,
Baker also stated that he thinks that the Board should
recommend a definition for a dependent and not leave it
up to the BOCC and Council,
Curtis agreed that he would encourage the Board to make
a definitive recommendation,
After a brief discussion, Myler made a motion to define
a dependent as -a child or blood relative who is 21
years or younger, and lives with that applicant a
minimum of 30 days out of every 12-month period
sufficient, Weil seconded the motion, After further
discussion, Myler withdrew this motion.
Krizmanich stated that she feels that a dependent
should live with an applicant the majority of the time
(at least six months and one day). This would preclude
one dependent being used twice for deed restricted
housing lotteries, Krizmanich made a motion to define
dependent as a person 21 years or under, either a blood
relation or by adoption, who lives with that applicant
at least six months plus one day out of every 12-month
period of time. Curtis seconded the motion. Kasabach,
Krizmanich and Curtis voted yes. Weil and Myler voted
no. Motion passed,
Kasabach made a motion to approve Resolution No, 94-07,
with the recommended amendments made by the Board,
Krizmanich seconded the motion. Kasabach, Krizmanich
and Curtis voted yes; Weil and Myler voted no. Motion
passed,
APCHA MINUTES
November 30, 1994
4
/"",
1""""\
EXHIBIT E.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
A. General Requirements
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: There are several goals and recommendations out of the
AACP that pertain to this proposal.
A. Create a housing environment which is dispersed,
appropriately scaled to the neighborhood and affordable.
East Cooper court is located in a diverse neighborhood with
a variety of differently scaled buildings: large multi-
family buildings, historic structures, and large single-
family and duplex structures. The proposed mix of units in
the proposal will enable various income levels of families to
live within town.
B. Maintain and create places and opportunities for social
interaction and lifestyle diversity and maintain design
quality and compatibility with historic features of the
community.
The proposal entails a central courtyard for all the residents
to share. Because the entire parcel is being Historically
Landmarked, HPC has full review of all new development in
order to ensure that the architecture is compatible with the
historic resources on the property. In terms of massing,
scale, and site planning the proposal is intended to provide
a characteristic that has been lost along Cooper Avenue with
recent development of the small historic cottages that once
graced this entrance to town.
C. The vision which underlies the AACP is to revitalize the
permanent population. Implicit in this vision is a
recognition that density increases above current levels will
occur within the city to accommodate this revitalization,
The project is designed for families in a configuration that
promotes social interaction. Injecting vitality into this
area of the community is the primary goal of this proposal.
The proposal has less floor area and fewer units than a multi-
family, one-bedroom apartment building that would be allowed
in this zone.
D. The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated
transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters
1
^
~
that reduces congestion and pollution.
East Cooper Court is on the established Mountain Valley
transit route. As mentioned in this memo, the project is 2
blocks from City Market and 5 blocks from the gondola and
commercial core.
E. Encourage land uses, businesses, and events which serve
both the local community and tourist base.
The AH zone district was designed to enable local working
residents to live in and participate in the community.
(b) The proposed development shall be consistent with
the character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are a mixture of various types
of residential housing. Large multi-family structures are
predominant as well as large single-family and duplex structures.
The Brass Bed lodge is located behind the project. Although the
renovation of the lodge has not completed the property is zoned LP.
The east end of Aspen use to encompass numerous small victorian
cottages that have either been redeveloped with the "bustle"
approach or have been lost to neglect or demolition,
Because of the required HPC review of all new development on this
property design emphasis of the new development has been placed on
compatibility and character with the historic resources on the
property.
(c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: Currently the allowable floor area on the parcel is
10,500 square feet and the density would be 8 one-bedroom units or
5 tWO-bedroom unit or 3 three-bedroom units or a combination
thereof. Please see the attached development analysis.
The floor area for the entire site is 6,839 square feet and HPC has
conceptually granted a 489 square foot bonus for a total floor area
of 7,328 square feet. This is a 30% reduction in the allowable
floor area of the R/MF zoned parcel.
The project proposes 5 three-bedroom units which is a greater
density than the density allowed on a R/MF zoned parcel of 10,500
square feet for three-bedroom units. However if subdivision is
approved, the allowable density on Parcel 1 is two three-bedroom
units, with an allowable floor are of 3,600 square feet, The
applicant's proposal for Parcell is 2 three-bedroom units with a
total floor area of 3,530 square feet.
If Parcel 2 is created through subdivision and rezoned to AH, the
2
1'-".
,,,.....,,,
minimum lot area for each detached dwelling unit is 1,500 square
feet with an allowable floor area of 2,820 square feet (the
allowable floor area calculation is based upon that of a single-
family home on one parcel). The applicant's proposal for Parcel
2 is three detached homes, on a 4,500 square foot parcel, with a
floor area of 2,820 plus a 489 square foot bonus granted by HPC.
Total square footage equals 3,309 square feet.
The proposed side yard setback variances for the west property
boundary may adversely affect future development of that property.
Currently the adjacent parcel contains a single-family home on the
Inventory of Historic sites and Structures. The applicants have
requested a HPC variance from the 5' side yard setback for the
historic barn on Parcel 2 to a 3' setback. The neighbor has also
requested that the distance between the historic barn and the new
home on Parcel 1 be increased. The applicants are proposing a
minimum distance of 10 feet.
The Villager property to the east of the project has requested that
the 5' side-yard setback be maintained between the historic
residence on Parcell and their property. The applicants proposed
a 4' side-yard setback.
(d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development
to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the
applicant.
RESPONSE: The development of the second free market dwelling unit
on Parcel 1 is a GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director and will
be reviewed after final HPC review. The provision of the three
units on Parcel 2 are GMQS Exemptions by City Council.
(e) The project shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Provided subdivision, rezoning, and GMQS Exemption is
approved by the Commission and Council this application will be in
compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
The applicants propose to relocate a 10" diameter conifer tree that
is on the northwest corner of Parcell. The tree on Parcel 1
obstructs the driveway proposed for the new cottage, Although a
tree removal permit shall be required before the tree may be
relocated, it is the philosophy of the City to discourage attempted
relocation of significant trees in the City if the tree can be
accommodated within the new development. Relocation is rarely
successful and very expensive. However, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and HPC have recommended relocation in order to preserve
the center courtyard of the project and enable the garage of the
new home to remain on the west side of the property.
(f) Other subdivision standards address sidewalk, curb
3
~,
1""""\
and gutter:
RESPONSE: The applicants propose to construct a sidewalk with a
5' buffer between the walk and curb. However, curb and gutter will
be installed when the rest of the block is upgraded.
----------------**---------------
DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
R/MF
HIST.DESIG.
SUBDIV. PROPOSED
Parcel
(1)10,500 sq.ft.
(1)10,500 sq. ft.
R/MF6,000sg.ft
AH 4,500 sq. ft.
FAR
10,500 sq. ft.
4,170 sq. ft.
(no bonus)
R/MF 3600 sq. ft.
AH 3309 sq.ft.
(w/bonus
detached DU)
4950 (multi
family)
Density,
5 2-BR
2 detached FM/DU
R/MF 2 DU
AH 3 DU
Open Space
35%
35%
R/MF 35%
AH SR (0%)
Side Yard
5' total 10'
may vary
R/MF min 4'
AH min 3'
*Key*
DU - Dwelling Unit
BR - Bedroom
FM - Free Market
SR - Special Review
min- minimum
Bonus - is HPC floor area bonus up to 500 sq. ft.,
HPC has granted a 489 sq. ft. bonus for this proposal.
4
^
.~,
EXHIBIT F.
MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) REVIEW CRITERIA
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application for rezoning is in compliance with the
standards of Section 24-7-1104 and other applicable portions of
Chapter 24, the Land Use Code for the City of Aspen.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) encourages in-fill
of small parcels throughout town. The AACP also encouraged small,
scale resident housing which fits the character of the community
and is interspersed with free market housing.
This development proposes small detached housing with two deed
restricted dwelling units. The proposal is also consistent with
the Intent of the Design Quality and Historic Preservation section
of the AACP "to ensure the maintenance of character through design
quality and compatibility with historic features."
The proposal will locate permanent resident housing near desired
acti vi ty centers such as the downtown and the base of Aspen
Mountain.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The properties surrounding this proposal are all zoned
R/MF except for the Brass Bed Lodge which is zoned LP. As pointed
out previously, a multi-family development on this parcel could
achieve an allowable floor area of 10,500 square feet and develop
8 two-bedroom units.
The maximum height of the structures comply with the height limit
in the R/MF and AH zone districts, 25' to the mid-point and 30' to
the peak of the roof. Although the AH zone allows an increase in
height by Special Review, the applicants are not requesting an
increase in height.
The proposed floor area of the three single-family homes on Parcel
2 equals 3,309 (which includes the HPC bonus). If the units were
attached as a mUlti-family structure, the allowable floor area
ratio in the AH zone district is 1.1:1 which would enable 4,950
square feet of floor area.
1
^
-'\
Although the maximum floor area allowed on the entire parcel if it
was a historically landmarked for two structures would be 4,170
(not including a potential HPC bonus), the AH zone district offers
incentives for development of affordable housing such as greater
density and floor area. This proposal will provide needed family-
oriented housing near the downtown while preserving two historic
structures without large additions to the homes that so often
accompany preservation of Aspen's historic structures.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: According to the Environmental Health Department, 28
more trips/day will be generated by the addition of 4 more homes
on the property. However, the site is ideally located for easy
pedestrian access to City Market and downtown. The free, Mountain
Valley, RFTA bus travels Cooper Avenue every 20 minutes,
The applicants propose two on-site parking spaces per dwelling
unit. The applicants have been working with the Colorado
Department of Transportation for permission for another curb cut
off of Cooper Avenue. Parking and access to Parcel 2 will be via
the public alley behind the parcel.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but, not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: According to referrals from public service providers,
there is adequate capacity to service this project.
utility pedestals are not allowed in public right-of-ways,
'The existing fire hydrant on the corner of the property will be
replaced.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment,
RESPONSE: Because the applicant is proposing to subdivide the
property and rezone Parcel 2 to AR, additional density (in terms
of three-bedroom units) is allowed on the entire parcel. However,
the applicants desire to provide as much common open space for the
residents as possible. Therefore the applicants have incorporated
a central courtyard on the site plan.
The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan, as approved by the
Parks Department, to be recorded with the subdivision plat.
2
^
.'~
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The AACP proposes the revitalization of the permanent
community and the encouragement of development that is pedestrian-
oriented as an auto disincentive. The development is family-
oriented and within close proximity of the downtown. It is
believed by the applicant that the small scale development of
family-oriented housing, while preserving two historic structures,
will enhance community character.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
sUbject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The reduction of Aspenites working and living in Aspen,
combined with the increase in commuter traffic, have led the City
of Aspen to encourage the-development of in-,town affordable
housing. In addition, many historic structures on the east side
of Aspen have been severely altered or destroyed. The Historic
Preservation Officer and the HPC have worked long and hard on this
parcel in an attempt to save both the existing home and barn.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposal will provide family-oriented housing of a
mixed income nature. staff recommends that the applicants continue
to work with staff, neighbors, Parks, HPC and the Housing Office
to create a project that mitigates all concerns_
3
~,
CITY,
30
303-920-51 nistration
303-920-5198 FAX
May 24, 1995
Marcia L Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: East Cooper Court Project, 939 East Cooper
Dear Marcia,
,.-..
Electric service for the units in the approved sUbdivision is
available however you are responsible for any cost to upgrade our
primary delivery' system necessary to provide service to these
units.
Attached is a application for electric service. You need to fill
out the top part of the form down to new transformer. Please return
the form to me, and I will fill out the rest of the form and
determine if any upgrades to our system is necessary. If any costs
are incurred for this, you are required to prepay the amount prior
to my ordering the materials needed for the upgrade. Some electric
materials have very long delivery dates. In particular,
transformers can take three months to get here from date of order.
If you require this service this summer, you should return the form
immediately. Thanks for you time.
j
cc: Leslie Lamont, Planning
1""'\,
~
Robert and Darnell Langley
939 E. Cooper
P.O. Box 8885
Aspen, Colorado 81611
April 11, 1995
City of Aspen
Parks Department
Attn: George ,Robinson
Dear George ,
This letter is to confirm our conversation of this morning
concerning the relocation of the tree on the East Cooper Court
Condominium Project. We agree that we will work with the parks
department and a tree specialist to find a location which will give
the tree the best chance at survival. We will supply a letter ~
opinion letter from the landscape contractor, prior to moving the
tree.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, ~
~~~(yd>
Robert Adair Langley
~.~~~
Sherri Darnell Langle ~
/
./
~
/'....,
:""",,,
(I.
f/V~
--
p
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: EAST COOPER COURT SUBDIVISION, REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION,
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND VESTED RIGHTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, February 27, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before
the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. '
Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Bob and
Darnell Langley, requesting the following approvals; SUbdivision
into two parcels; rezoning of the newly created parcel to
Affordable Housing; GMQS Exemptions for three new dwelling units
on the parcel; Landmark Designation and Vested Rights. The
property is located at 939 East cooper Ave.; Lot A, Block 37 and
75x100 I of Cleveland Street, East Aspen Townsite. For further
information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO 920-5101
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 10, 1995
=================================================================
City of Aspen,Account
~ h L~S
:2/7/ Cf.S-- - JZ{I -
1"""\
JHIBIT G
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU:
stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
939 E. Cooper Avenue, Landmark designation,
Ordinance #___. Series of 1995
DATE:
January 23, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Staff recommends Council approve Ordinance #___, Series
of 1995 for the landmark designation of 939 E. Cooper Avenue on
First Reading. There are two structures on the site, a victorian
house, built in the 1880's and an outbuilding built within this
century.
The entire site is to receive Landmark Designation, giving the HPC
review over the redevelopment proposal. The applicant will retain
and restore both of the existing historic structures; the house and
outbuilding. .
APPLICANT: Bob and Darnell Langley.
LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37 and 75' x 100' of
Cleveland Street, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step
process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public
hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation
Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at
second reading.
HPC approved landmark designation 6-0 on November 2, 1994.
P&Z approved landmark designation 5-0 on December 6, 1994.
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land
Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation,
requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one
of the following standards:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly
identified or associated with a person or an event of
historical significance to the cultural, social or
1
,I""",
I""",
political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the
United States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct
or of traditional Aspen character.
Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's
cottage with major alterations. Original windows have
been removed, a garage was constructed on the east and
the whole structure has been covered with asphalt
shingles. The applicants have indicated an intention to
restore the structure as part of their redevelopment
plans. It does retain the traditional form of a
Victorian house.
From the 1904 Sanborne Insurance maps, the historic house
was a one and one-half story historic structure with a
one story lean-to on the back. There are two
outbuildings shown on the site in 1904, but neither is
in the location of the existing shed. These, along with
two other Victorian houses which occupied a portion of
the land which is now 939 E. Cooper appear to have been
demolished. The existing outbuilding has become
historically significant and is not proposed to be
demolished in the current redevelopment plan.
C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a
significant or unique architectural type or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Architectural Importance: The
significant work of an architect whose
has influenced the character of Aspen.
structure is a
individual work
Response: The architect or builder is unknown.
E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
Response: There are a number of Victorian structures in
the immediate vicinty of 939 E. Cooper. These buildings
are mixed in with some very dense multi-family
development and are the only remaining evidence of the
early character of this neighborhood.
2
r"\
1""""\
F. Community Character: The structure or site is
critical to the preservation of the character of the
Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of
size, location and architectural similarity to other
structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: This site is representative of the modest
scale, style and character of homes constructed during
the min1ng era, the community's primary period of
historic significance.
Recommendation: Staff, HPC and P&Z recommend Council
approve Landmark Designation of Lot A and 75'xlOO' of
Cleveland Avenue, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen,
finding that standards B, E and F are met.
Staff also recommends Council approve a $2,000 Landmark
designation grant for the property.
Recommeded Motion:
Series of 1995.
"I move to read Ordinance #_,
"I move to approve First Reading of Ordinance #_,
Series of 1995 for the Landmark Designation of 939 E,
Cooper Avenue, Lot A and 75' x lOa' of Cleveland Avenue,
East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, finding that
standards B,E, and F are met."
"I move that a $2,000 Landmark Designation grant be granted
to the applicant."
City Manager's Comments:
3
;c.:;./
I"-
J /(J -tA"Io.)
MEMORANDUM
,~
TO:
Mayor and Council
Amy Margerum, c~ty Manager Qt(/'i
stan Clauson~or Community Development
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
January 23, 1995
RE:
East Cooper Court Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption
for Affordable Housing, Historic Landmark, and Vested
Right - First Reading Ordinance 2, Series 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicants, Bob and Darnell Langley, propose to
develop a five unit family-style complex on Cooper Avenue. The
Langleys propose to use Historic Designation incentives and the
affordable housing zone district to:
* refurbish the existing historic single family residence and
keep the unit a free market unit;
* refurbish the historic barn as a category 3 or 4 dwelling
unit;
* build a Resident Occupied unit; and
* build two additional free market homes.
The applicants request subdivision of a 10,500 square foot R/MF
zoned parcel into two parcels, rezoning of ' the newly created parcel
to AH, GMQS Exemptions for four new dwelling units on the parcel,
Landmark Designation and Vested Rights.
The Historic Preservation Committee has conceptually reviewed and
approved relocation and refurbishment of the historic structures;
Landmark Designation of the entire parcel; various setback
requirements; and reduction of two required parking spaces on the
R/MF parcel for the free market units.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposal at public
hearings November 22, 1994, and December 6, 1994. The Commission
approved the special review for parking and open space in the AH
zone district (5 spaces for 3 units and 0% of open space as defined
by the Code). The Commission recommends to Council subdivision,
rezoning to AH of Parcel 2, GMQS Exemption for housing in the AH
zone district and Landmark Designation.
Please review the attached application, exhibit A.
1"""'\ '
/~~'\
LOCATION: 939 East Cooper Avenue, Lot A Block 37 and 75'x 100' of
Cleveland street East Aspen Addition, Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R/MF, Residential MUlti-Family
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemptions for
two Affordable Dwelling Units and two Free Market Units, Historic
Designation, and Vested Property Rights
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, exhibit
B. Following is a summary of those comments:
1. HPC - The HPC has spent over a year and a half working on this
parcel. The HPC has reviewed and approved a conceptual development
plan. Please refer to the referral comments from HPC.
2. Housing - The net liveable square footage for the category 4
unit must be verified with the Housing Office. Although the
Housing Board supports the project as proposed, it recommends that
the category 4 unit be designated category 3, unless that
designation renders the project unfeasible for the developer. In
working with the Housing Office, the applicant has agreed that if
the sales price of the free market units are sufficient, the unit
will be deed restricted to category 3. The Housing Office will
verify sales prices.
2. The Parks Department has identified a 10" diameter conifer tree
in the northwest corner of the property. Currently the driveway
for Cottage B is in conflict with the tree. The applicants have
proposed to relocate the tree, but the Parks Department recommends
a redesign of the cottage rather than attempt relocation, A
detailed landscape plan must be submitted for review,
4. The Fire Marshall indicated no problems with this proposal at
this time.
5. The Water Department has the capacity to provide water to he
proposed subdivision. Existing and all new service lines must be
connected to the 16 inch water main located in East Cooper. This
development will be required to pay tap fees because the
development is not 100% deed restricted housing.
6. The Environmental Health Department recommends that the
applicants confirm with the ACSD that the District has the capacity
to service this proposal. Of a primary concern for the Department
is the project's ability to comply with the SIP for Aspen. Because
the project is within close proximity to downtown and on a bus
route vehicle trips should be reduced. Auto trips could be further
mitigated with a reduction in the maximum allowable number of
parking spaces on the site.
2
,r\
~
The applicants must prepare a fugitive dust control plan for review
by the Department prior to the beginning of construction.
7. The Engineering Department has indicated that a sidewalk will
be required at the time of development but a curb and gutter will
be postponed until the entire block is done. All historic drainage
flows must be maintained on-site and trash/utility areas must also
be provided on-site. The Engineering Department also supports the
request for a reduction in on-site parking.
------------------***-------------------
PROCESS:
SUbdivision and Rezoning, are a two step review process with the
Commission making recommendations to Council.
special Review is a one step review by the Commission.
GMQS Exemption for the Affordable Housing zone district is a two
step review with the Commission making a recommendation to Council,
Historic Landmark Designation is a three step review with both the
HPC and P&Z making a recommendation to Council.
Historic Landmark Review is a two step review by the HPC. HPC has
already conceptually reviewed and approved this proposal. Final
HPC review will follow P&Z and Council review.
Condominiumization is a Planning Director approval.
GMQS Exemption for an historic landmark is a Planning Director
approval.
------------------***-------------------
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - Together, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the
Housing Authority have pursued a comprehensive plan to address the
community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold it
requires that developments: 1) seek to preserve the existing
affordable housing stock, 2) mitigate a "fair share" of their
affordable housing impacts, and 3) produce new affordable housing
to reduce/eliminate the current affordable housing shortfall,
As part of this comprehensive approach, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH) .'
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
Although the AH zone district requires a 70%/30% split between free
market and deed restricted dwelling units. The Housing Office and
3
.r-,
,--,
Planning Department have always encouraged applicants to also
explore a 1/3-1/3-1/3 split when working with a triplex or three
unit proposal. This is particularly relevant within the City where
small in-fill parcels may lend themselves to a development of only
3 units. In addition, the revisions to the GMQS/RO/AH sections of
the county and city land use codes does include language to this
effect.
In addition, the City has developed and continues to refine a very
strong incentive based Historic Preservation program. There are
many "carrots" in the Land Use code to encourage the preservation
and restoration of historic homes and outbuildings. One important
incentive in the Code is the ability to locate two single-family,
detached free-market units on a site that has been historically
designated. In return, the city maintains the inventory of
Historic Structures and the HPC has full review authority of
development on the parcel.
II. site Description - The property is approximately 10,500
square feet with an existing single family home and barn. The
property is listed on the City's Inventory of Historic sites and
Structures because of both the home and barn.
According to the applicant, the property is flat with a significant
conifer in the northwest corner of the property. The existing home
is approximately 1,450 square feet with three bedrooms and one bath
and one on-site parking space. The barn is 600 square feet with
a loft.
The site is on the south side of Cooper Avenue at the end of
Cleveland Street. Another single family home on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures is adjacent to the west of the
subject parcel and the mUlti-family building, the Villager, is on
the east side of the parcel. A pUblic alley borders the parcel to
the south. The alley serves as public access for many residential
units on this side of town.
Within the neighborhood is a mixture of large single and duplex
residences. A few remaining historic structures, several multi-
family buildings and the Brass Bed Lodge are also within the
vicinity of the proposal.
The site is within 2 blocks of City Market and 5 blocks of the
gondola and the downtown commerical core.
It is zoned residential mUlti-family (R/MF).
III. Project Description - Please refer to the site plan,
exhibit C and the Dimensional Data, exhibit D. The applicants have
proposed a five unit courtyard/family style development. Because
of the Historic resources on the property and the Affordable
Housing zone district, they applicants have proposed a development
4
~
,~.
that combines both programs in order to
themselves and housing to off-set the cost of
homes.
develop housing for
development for their
This parcel is zoned R/MF with an allowed floor area for a multi-
family building beyond the FAR proposed for this development.
The proposed project consists of five single-family dwelling units.
The 10,500 square foot parcel is proposed to be subdivided into two
parcels. Parcell will be 6,000 square feet and remain zoned R/MF.
Parcel 2 will be 4,500 square feet and rezoned to AH.
On Parcell, the historic, single-family, residence will be moved
to the northeast corner of the property and a second single-family
residence is proposed for the northeast corner of the property,
Section 24-5-206 of the Land Use Code allows a second detached
single-family residence, exempt for GMP, on Landmark Designated
parcels.
On Parcel 2, the historic barn is proposed to be relocated to the
southwest corner of the property keeping the same angle to the
alley as currently exists. Also "fronting" off of the alley, the
applicants propose two additional detached dwelling units.
Both dwelling units on Parcel 1 are proposed to be free market
units. For Parcel 2, the applicants propose one category four
dwelling unit, one Resident Occupied unit, and one free market
unit.
Parking for Parcell will occur off of Cooper Avenue. Although six
parking spaces are required, the applicants propose to provide four
spaces and has requested an HPC a variance for two spaces,
Establishment of parking for Parcel 2, the AH zone, is by Special
Review. The applicants are proposing two spaces for two of the
units and one parking space for the relocated barn in, order to
accommodate utility/trash areas.
------------------***-------------------
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Subdivision Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004,
subdivision is required because the applicants propose to create
two parcels for development and sale purposes. Please refer to
exhibit E, for the review criteria for a SUbdivision.
II. Map Amendment - Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102, the
applicants propose to rezone Parcel 2 to the Affordable Housing
zone district. Please refer to exhibit F, for the review standards
for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map.
5
/"",
,-,
III. GMQS Exemption - Pursuant to Section 24-8-104, before
any proposed development can be considered for exemption by the
City Council, an application for exemption shall be forwarded to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation
at a hearing.
The review criteria for an exemption includes the City's need for
affordable housing, the development's compliance with the adopted
housing plan, the number, type and location of the proposed units,
and the proposed price categories.
The project is designed to provide five detached single-family
homes on a total land area of 10,500 square feet. The second free
market home being proposed for Parcel 1 is a GMQS Exemption by the
Planning Director and is an exemption that is available because the
entire property is being historically designated.
For Parcel 2, the AH zone district enables
restricted split between dwelling units.
Council are required for all the units to be
2 .
a free market/deed
GMQS Exemptions by
developed on Parcel
The applicant have proposed to provide one category 4 unit, unless
(per the Housing Board recommendation) the sales price of the free
market units can support a category 3. The Housing Office will
verify sales prices.
In addition to the category 4 unit, one Resident Occupied unit,
and one free market unit are also proposed for Parcel 2. This
proposal is consistent with the requirement that a maximum of 40%
of the bedrooms must be free market. However, the requirement that
70% of the units must be deed restricted and 30% free market cannot
be met with a three unit proposal. As part of the recently adopted
GMQS revisions and the proposed changes to the RO/AH revisions that
the Planning Department has been working on for over a year, a 1/3-
1/3-1/3 split or the ability to have one free market unit within
a three unit proposal is included within the revised language.
IV. Historic Landmark Designation - Pursuant to Section 24-
7-703, the applicants have requested to Historically Designate the
entire parcel. HPC recommended approval of designation. The P&Z
must also review and make a recommendation to Council. Ultimately
designation will be the final step in this review. Subdivision and
rezoning are all contingent Upon final Landmark Designation,
Please refer to' the Designation memo prepared by Amy Amidon,
exhibit G. A separate Ordinance has been prepared for Historic
Landmark Designation.
V. The applicants also request Vested
Vesting language is included in the Ordinance.
Property
,
rights.
6
,~.
~,
-------------***------------
ISSUES: The following items are issues that have been raised during
the review of this proposal.
1. The planning staff and parks department have recommended a
restudy of the new free market unit on Parcel 1 in order to
preserve the tree in the northwest corner of the property.
However, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic
Preservation Commission believe that the project site plan will be
jeopardized if the tree is preserved in the original location.
The Commission has concluded that the tree should be relocated
rather than move the two buildings closer together and compromising
the center open space.
The HPC, in their review of the new building in context with the
refurbished historical building, recommend that the location of
the garage on the new building remain on the west side. If the
garage were shifted to the east side (next to the central courtyard
but providing the ability to preserve the tree) the garage door
and drive will visually impact the center courtyard and detract
from the historic residence in the northeast corner.
3. The applicants shall continue to work with the Housing Office
to confirm net liveable calculations for the category 4 dwelling
and whether that unit will be deed restricted to category 3.
4. The applicant shall consider a restudy of the site plan for
Parcel 2 in order to provide more open space between the historic
barn and the new home in the northwest corner of Parcel 1. In
addi tion, the Commission strongly encouraged the appl icant to
maintain 5 foot side-yard side setback between the historic barn
on parcel 2 and the adjacent property. Also the historic home on
Parcel 1 should provide the minimum 5 foot side-yard setback from
the adjacent Villager property line. Some members of the
Commission believed that the impacts of this project should be
confined to the project site and not spillover into the
neighboring parcels. Therefore the required side-yard setbacks
should be maintained.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to
Council approval of the Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption for
housing in the AH zone district, Historic Landmark Designation, and
Vested Property Rights for 939 East Cooper, with the following
conditions of approval:
1. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or
upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full
basis depending upon the specific agency's requirements.
7
r1
~
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.C and D of the
municipal code for review by the Engineering and Planning
Departments and the City Attorney.
The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. language to the effect that preserves and maintains
the central courtyard on Parcel 1 as required
open space for the entire East Cooper Court
subdivision;
b. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
c. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves;
d. a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department; and
e. a bond for the value of the tree in the northwest
corner that is to be relocated and language to the effect
that the bond shall be in place for five years to confirm
the tree's survival.
4. The final Subdivision plat and plan shall include the
following:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. a detailed drawing of the area for all service/trash
and recycling areas;
c. a 5 foot wide sidewalk shall be located adjacent to
the property line with a 5 foot buffer space between the
sidewalk and the future curb and gutter; and
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department.
5. All existing water service lines and all new water service
connections to this property shall be connected to the 16-
inch water main located in East Cooper.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
8
1""\
,,.-,
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging or'
over digging within the drip line;
b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in
the future;
c. the applicant shall pay all application water and
sewer tap fees; and
d. the applicant shall file the appropriate
restrictions with the Housing Office for the
restricted dwelling units on Parcel 2.
deed
deed
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be in compliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
8. As required in Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall
maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the
site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that
currently exist on the site.
9. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
10. At the completion of each phase of the work, the applicant
shall submit a statement by a registered professional land
surveyor that all required survey and property monuments
remain in place or have been re-established as required by
Colorado Revised Statutes.
11. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the various
phases of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible
mylar as-built drawings of sidewalk, utility improvements, and
all other work located within the pUblic rights-of-way,
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot
accuracy of all utilities, including their size and
identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within the rights-of-way. The as-built
shall be signed and stamped by a registered professional
engineer. The as-built shall also be provided to the City on
a disk in a dfx file compatible with the City GIS ArcInfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded,
9
^
~
13. All work in the alley and public right-of-way shall require
a permit from the streets Department.
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during pUblic meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
16. The subdivision and rezoning of 939 East Cooper is contingent
upon the applicant successfully receiving historic
landmark designation for the entire property, both
Parcels 1 & 2.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance 2, Series of 1995."
"I move to approve Ordinance 2, Series of 1995, on first reading
approving the subdivision, rezoning, GMQS Exemptions for housing
in the AH zone district, and vested property rights for 939 East
Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado."
"I move to read Ordinance , Series of 1995."
"I move to approve Ordinance , Series of 1995, on first reading
approving Landmark Designation-and a Designation grant for 939 East
Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado."
MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 2, Series of 1995
Ordinance Series of 1995
EXHIBITS
A. Application
B. Referral Comments
C. Site Plan
D. Dimensional Data
E. SUbdivision Review Criteria
F. Map Amendment Review Criteria
G. Historic Landmark Memo
10
('\.
."~
January 5, 1995
re: 939 E. cooper
Dear H.P.C. Members,
I own the property at 935 East cooper Avenue which is
adjacent to the planned Langely development.
Although I am in favor of Bob and Darnelle's vision for
their property, I have a very simple request.
That request is that the five foot side setbacks be
honored by both the structures being planned which will adjoin
my property. In addition, I would also like to see more
open space between both buildings (that will require
eliminating one parking space on the alley). I feel my
request would not put any hardship on the development.
I also believe the developer should bear any density issues
on his own property and must abide by the existing setback
requirements.
My request is not only just, it is the right and neighborly
thing to do.
Thank you,
/lW-JIf ~
Mark Tye
/"",
,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
939 E. Cooper Avenue, Landmark designation
DATE:
December 6, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation of the
property at 939 E. Cooper Avenue. There are two structures on the
site, a victorian house, built in the 1880's and an outbuilding
built within this century.
This site is currently under review for a proposed subdivision,
rezoning and redevelopment of the property, including construction
of three new structures. Special Review to exceed 85% of the
allowable F.A.R. was completed by the Historic Preservation
commi ttee. '
The entire site is to receive Landmark Designation, giving the HPC
review over the whole proposal. The applicant will retain and
restore both of the existing historic structures; the house and
outbuilding. The final approval of Landmark status, by City
Council, will not take place until all of the other approvals have
been granted.
NOTE: Landmark Designation was included in the public hearing
notice for this application. This memo was not included in P&Z's
packet for November 22nd, as the item was expected to be tabled and
there were a number of other issues related to subdivision and
rezoning which were to be discussed.
APPLICANT: Bob and Darnell Langley.
LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37 and 75' x 100' of
Cleveland Street, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step
process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public
hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation
Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at
second reading.
HPC, approved landmark designation 6-0 on November 2, 1994.
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land
Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation,
requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one
1
~
/);
/"",
~
of the following standards:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly
identified or associated with a person or an event of
historical significance to the cultural, social or
political history of Aspen, the state of Colorado of the
united states.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct
or of traditional Aspen character.
Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's
cottage with major alterations. Original windows have
been removed, a garage was constructed on the east and
the whole structure has been covered with asphalt
shingles. The applicants have indicated an intention to
restore the structure as part of their redevelopment
plans. It does retain the traditional form of a
Victorian house.
From the 1904 Sanborne Insurance maps, the historic house
was a one and one-half story historic structure with a
,one story lean-to on the back. There are two
outbuildings shown on the site in 1904, but neither is
in the location of the existing shed. These, along with
two other Victorian houses which occupied a portion of
the land which is now 939 E. Cooper appear to have been
demolished. The existing outbuilding has become
historically significant and is not proposed to be
demolished in the current redevelopment plan.
c. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a
significant or unique architectural type or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Architectural Importance: The
significant work of an architect whose
has ,influenced the character of Aspen.
structure is a
individual work
Response: The architect or builder is unknown.
E. Neiqhborhood Character: The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
2
1I'rJ
~
,-,
Response: There are a number of Victorian structures in
the immediate vicinty of 939 E. Cooper. These buildings
'are mixed in with some very dense mUlti-family
development and are the only remaining evidence of the
early character of this neighborhood.
F. Community Character: The structure or site is
critical to the preservation of the character of the
Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of
size, location and architectural similarity to other
structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: This site is representative of the modest
scale, style and character of homes constructed during
the mining era, the community's primary period of
historic significance.
Recommendation: Staff and HPC recommend P&Z approve
Landmark Designation of Lot A and 75'xI00' of Cleveland
Avenue, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, finding that
standards B, E and F are met.
, Recommeded Motion: "I move to recommend to City Council
approval of Landmark Designation of 939 E. Cooper Avenue,
Lot A and 75' xI00 I of Cleveland Avenue, East Aspen
Addition, City of Aspen, finding that standards B,E, and
F are met."
Additional Comments:
3
"V~
1'"'-.
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planing and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE:
East Cooper Court Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review,
GMQS Exemption, and Historic Designation
DATE:
December 6, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission first reviewed this application at the
November 22, 1994 meeting. The Commission continued review of the
proposal in order for the applicants and staff to meet with the
Housing Board to discuss the proposed mix of units on the AH zoned
parcel.
In addition, the applicants have also revised the site plan in
response to comments made at the November 22, meeting.
This memo is an update for the Commission, please bring the memo
that staff prepared for the November 22, meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. GMQS Exemption - Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C.1.c.& e., the
construction of deed restricted units and free market units in the
affordable housing zone district must be reviewed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission with a recommendation to City Council.
The applicants propose to create a 4,500 square foot parcel and
rezone the parcel to the affordable housing zone district and
develop 3 detached single-family homes; 1 free market, 1 RO, and
1 fully deed restricted.
The Housing Board reviewed the application and recommended approval
of the proposal with the condition that the category 4 dwelling
unit become a category 3 dwelling unit with a net liveable square
footage of 1,200 square feet. However, the applicant is to review
the proposal with the Executive Director of the Housing Office and
determine whether the project can survive a reduction from category
4 to category 3. Please see the Housing Office recommendation,
exhibit A.
The primary concern of the
on category 3 sale units.
4 dwelling units.
B. Landmark Designation: Currently there is a historic house and
barn on the parcel. The applicants propose to designate the entire
parcel a Historic Landmark. The HPC has recommended approval of
Board waS the Housing Inventory is short
There is not a need for small category
\\0
/""\
^
landmark status. The Commission must review and make a
recommendation to Council.
Amy Amidon has prepared a memo for the Commission's review. Please
see memo, exhibit B.
c. other rssues: During review of the proposal at the November
meeting, the Commission and staff identified several elements of
the project that needed more work. They are:
* Setback Variations;
* Elimination of one more parking space behind the historic
barn;
* Mix of units on the AH parcel; and
* Relocation of the tree in the northwest corner.
The applicants have revised the site plan to reduce the number of
side yard setback variations that were originally proposed. A new
site plan will be presented at the meeting. However, the proposed
changes are:
Sidevard Setback
Historic Cottage A -
Required Oriqinal
Amended
5 feet
3' 1st fl. ~~L ~
5' 2nd fl.
1st
2 ' W/ADU stairs 5 feet
3 feet 3 feet
3 ' 1st fl. 5' both fl.
5' 2nd fl.
Cottage B -
5 feet
Historic Barn -
5 feet
New Barn -
5 feet
In addition, Cottage B, in the northwest corner of Parcell, will
be moved at least three feet forward to create more space between
the cottage and the historic barn in back.
The second parking space for the historic barn on Parcel 2 has not
been eliminated. However, some Commission members encouraged the
elimination of the parking space to gain more open space.
The applicants are continuing to work with the Housing Office to
confirm if the project is still viable with a reduction from
category 4 to a category 3 unit. The Commission indicated the
intent to follow the direction from the Housing Office.
The tree is still proposed to be relocated to the center of the
parcel. The Commission believed that the courtyard and the project
2
\'\
,-,.,.
~
should not be jeopardized by the location of the tree in the
northwest corner of the parcel. The applicants will be required
to post a bond for the survival of the tree for at least 5 years.
However, staff still does not support relocation of the tree.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision,
rezoning, special review for open space and parking on the AH zoned
parcel, Historic Landmark Designation and the GMQS Exemption for
the development of housing in the AH zone with the following
conditions:
1. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or
upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full
basis depending upon the specific agency's requirements.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.C and D of the
municipal code for review by the Engineering and Planning
Departments and the City Attorney.
The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. language to the effect that preserves and maintains
the central courtyard on Parcel 1 as required
open space for the entire East Cooper Court
subdivision;
b. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
c. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves;
d. a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department; and
e. a bond for the value of the tree in the northwest
corner that is to be relocated and language to the effect
that the bond shall be in place for five years to confirm
the tree's survival.
4. The final Subdivision plat and plan shall include the
following:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. a detailed drawing of the area for all service/trash
and recycling areas;
3
,~
,,-..
.~
c. a 5 foot wide sidewalk shall be located adjacent to
the property line with a 5 foot buffer space between the
sidewalk and the future curb and gutter; and
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department.
5. All existing water service lines and all new water service
connections to this property shall be connected to the 16-
inch water main located in East Cooper.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging or
over digging within the drip line;
b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in
the future;
c. the applicant shall pay all application water and
sewer tap fees; and
d. the applicant shall file the appropriate deed
restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed
restricted dwelling units on Parcel 2.
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be in compliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
8. As required in Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall
maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the
site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that
currently exist on the site.
9. The applicant shall agree to J oJ.n any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
10. At the completion of each phase of the work, the applicant
shall submit a statement by a registered professional land
surveyor that all required survey and property monuments
remain in place or have been re-established as required by
Colorado Revised Statutes.
11. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the various
phases of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible
mylar as-built drawings of sidewalk, utility improvements, and
4
\rA...
,""""'"
1""""\
all other work located within the pUblic rights-of-way,
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot
accuracy of all utilities, including their size and
identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within the rights-of-way. The as-built
shall be signed and stamped by a registered professional
engineer. The as-built shall also be provided to the City on
a disk in a dfx file compatible with the City GIS Arclnfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded.
13. All work in the alley and public right-of-way shall require
a permit from the Streets Department.
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered. to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
16. The subdivision and rezoning of 939 East Cooper is contingent
upon the applicant successfully receiving historic
landmark designation for the entire property, both
Parcels 1 & 2.
C. Staff recommends the Special Review for the provision of 5 on-
site parking spaces and 15% or 675 square feet of open area for
Parcel 2 with the following conditions:
a. the applicant shall verify with the Zoning Officer the
amount of open space as defined in the Land Use Code and the
amount of open land on Parcel 2;
b. the applicant shall provide only 1 parking space for the
historic barn in order to move the barn closer to the alley
creating more open space between the barn and the new cottage
on Parcel ,1.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
"I move to recommend to Council approval of the sUbdivision and
rezoning of 939 East Cooper Avenue with the conditions outlined in
staff's memo dated December 6, 1994."
5
1,.0
~
~
"I move to approve the special review
on Parcel 2 of East Cooper Court with
staff's memo dated December 6, 1994."
for parking and open space
the conditions outlined in
"I move to recommend to Council approval of the GMQS Exemption for
the development of 3 dwelling units on Parcel 2; one free market,
one Resident Occupied, and one category 3 with the conditions
outlined in staff's memo dated December 6, 1994."
"I move to recommend to Council approval of the Historic
Designation of 939 East Cooper Avenue."
EXHIBITS:
A. Housing Office Recommendation
B. HPC Memo
6
1/\
DEC 01 '94 03:40PM ASPEN HOU~ OFC
~'"
P.1
MBKORANDtJM
'1'0:
Leslie Lamont, City Planner
Cindy Christensen, Rousing Office
December 1, 1994
FROM,
DATE,
U,
LANGLEY SUBDIVISION SPECIAL REVIEW
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-34-001
188U1!!: The Planning Office has requested the Housing Board to
review this application as to the mix.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Board met on November 30, 1994 to review
the proposal.
R.................TION' The Housing Board supports the project being
proposed and would recommend approval of this project. The Housing
Board does recommend, though, that the historic barn that is to be
designated as Categozy 4 be designated as a Category 3, unleas this
would render the project unfeasible for the developer. The Board
has requested Dave Tolen to work with the Langleys to see if
changing this unit to a Category 3 unit would be economically
feasible and still maintain the project being proposed. Once this
is accomplished, Dave Tolen's findings will be passed on to the
Planning otfice.
/
1/'1
11.t2gNO~2~~:~1 10:0ier1 ASFEN HOUS~ OFC
FAX:303-920-182S ~
Pre, 3 1
...o.....v.
'leu cindy Cbr1atian8en
1'roJa: BOb" Damall Langl.,.
J'AXt 920-5580
b: .e.t: Coopuo COUR
29
./
Deal' C1D4r,
We W01al4 like to If88t with. t:b. HouoiDlJ Board 'to oJJt:aJ.n t:tua:l.1'
appz-o"al of t;he h_.f.1I9 spU:t: va pz'Cloio-e tor 0fII.' project: .t: '39 B.
Coopel:' Ave. '
We have ~.. i:be' tollGw.tft9,
1. "'''8 _ enUre ~ael O~ 10,532.quIll.'8 ~..-t "iDeMd
an R!.tol:'ia :taJuIaa%k by t:ke Bis'toI:'!C1 ftellttl.'VllCloft ClaDitu.,
2. SldldJ.,,:lde the pnputy to:
ee) Cnla'te one 6,000 8lIU&n :lao1:. lo~ t.ha't. will :r:aain
JUII'. It'ak1ftt' HvUt.flge oi! t.ha 1Beet:t~VlNl 0:f:f8hd ~ 1;he
HPC. va wou.ld IIOV8Ua bl.~ic bOUH to DDS olde ot t:he
propa.rt:.r, and bui1d Ilft IlddttiODaJ. t'relI manot. howJo on
tile otobezo sU. 01' 1:he pzopea:ty:
(11) Ke-'Icme the AIIlliDiDI' 4,532~. on tb:l.s parc;e1, va
pa:'OpO&e Dfte C&l:e9cqo .. tbn. bedzooaa h......., ou tI...
ntr.iotecl,lIO \1n:l.t, aftd OM tru .aarut un1t 'tba't Will be
c:rccnapied by DUZ' 1'_U,..
n 18 OUZ 90al to ..11 the boHa on t.be fl.'Dftt parae1 to local
faillea. 1IIe, aurael".., w111 dO'Velop t:be c:at:egoqr IInJ:t fUld our
own \Ulit.. In addit.ion 'to not: !ann, abl8 'to recO'VU' llftY land cost:.
for the -~ _it, it. w1:l.1 C10at .. ~c:ud,.lRell" $250,000 CR
1101:'8 to wild. lt: Ille... it w111 :I.ncoZ'llOl:'ll1:e 0118 01' 'tbtl _.1R~
JItIl11cl1ng-a .beady - t.he lIiCe. we hops 'to pre-lieU the JiIO unit,
JNt: -y &114 \1p cl8velopiDl 1:!laC oun.l".. a. ..ell.
ClU:I: alt:m:mat:iv. 18 'to sall t:be Ultire pU'Qel to . dlWlllOS*l" tIho
Wllft'tB to put CWO l'.rea .arJr8t, .... OJ'I tbo 10,532 paNel. '1'Jley
would J1Ot:, provide u1 houcift9 foz t:be houDlq :lft.ventorr.
Pl.... let. lHi know tt .t CD provide any adtit;1cma1 infontation.
Singersl?,
I~ L-;;rR d
NaV 29 '94 1121: 1212AM ASPEN HOU~, OFe
~.
Posl-It'" bland lax transmito., ,nemo 7671
'110 ....In
....
P.l
, af pi198S II'
To:
Housinq Board
""pi.
Phl;lll1efl'
From:
Dave 'rolen, Executive D
:a8 November, 1994
Fll.#
-
Date I
Be:
939 East Cooper AH Proposal
--
_--4.
-
-
-........
Back\JZ'01m4: The applic::ants are proposing an historic landmark and
affor<IaJ:Ile housinq project for a 10,500 square foat: property on
Bast Cooper Avenue. Many of you may remember this parcel, as it
was offered in trade for our East Hopkins site. The app11cation is
in two parts:
1) Designate the entire parcel as an historic:: landmark.
2) Subclivicle the property to create two lots. One lot, of
6,000 squa:r:e feet, will l)e 4evelopec:t under historic
landmark provisions as t.wo free market hOllIeS. The second
lot of 4,500 would be relloned to AH and developed as one
free market unit, one R.O. unit and one cateqo:ry unit.
DisCU88ioD. of xlInes: The proposed mix of units is of concern to
the Planning Office. The mix on the 4, 500 foot lat: is consistent
with our earlier reC::Q1Dlllendations for the AH zone. However, lOOking
at. the entire parcel, in effect the proposal is for 1:hree free
market. uni't.s, an R.O. unit and a oatego:ry unit. The Planning
Office WOUld be more comfortable with a mix on the small lot of two
R.O. units and a category unit. The applicants have stated a very
strong preference for their current proposal.
The issue is one of balllnci.%lq the COIIIIlUnity benefit from the AH
Ilone ag-ainst the incentive fer a developer to use it. Without
approval of this application, the owner of this lot could develop
two single ramly residences exempt from -qrowth management. The
only possible lot split that produces conforminq lots is the one
proposed, as the All: zone is the only zone that per:mi'ts less than a
6,00D square foot lot.
staff has looked at the feasibility of developing an AH project on
small lots. The All zone doesn't offer very much in the way of
incentive over what can be developed, by right, en moat..slIla.ll lots.
'!'his lot can already aCCOIIllllodat.e t.wo free market units by right, so
it. might. be a:t'9Qe.d t.hat the only incentive to develop an AU project.
would be to provide one additional free _rltet unit.
NOY 29 '94 11,1= 02AM ASFEN HOU!jt""'-, orc
~
P.2
The applicant is asking for one additional consideration: approval
of a categCtty four single family unit at 1,200 square feet. This
1s slllIlller tban 1:11e 1,400 foot 11Iitlimm in our guidelines. The unit
consists of an existing 600 sqUare foot historic structure O?e:r:' a
600 square foot basement. We have the flexibility to approve this
unit, qiven the constraint of working with an historic strqgture,
but it is an ad.ditional benefit to the applicant to do so.
ReOOllllle:a.datiOll: The Planning- Office has legitimat.e concerns about
the proposed Illix for this project. We agree that two R.O. unit. and
a cateqory unit would !:le more appealing', and would encourage the
applicant to consider 1:11is option. We would not recOllllllend. ou1:J:':l.ght
denial of the application, because of the difficulty in making the
AHzone work on sull lots. We believe that the mix proposed by
the applicant is, at least, preferable over the t.WO Sinqle family
residences that COUld be developed tbere by riqht.
/"",
~,
MEMORANDUM
2 ~
v
^.._.^'._.._.-.~~,."...
To:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Of:-
November 23, 1994
From:
Date:
Re:
East Cooper Court Project
Following last night's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, I would like to provide
the following additional comments on preserving the tree:
Certain aspects of preserving the tree are engineering aspects. Those aspects relate
to site design and construction techniques. It appears from the existing site plan the tree
removal is proposed largely as a construction convenience, It appears that the tree could
be preserved with proper care during the construction process and that the garage would
only need to be relocated two or three feet to the east to accommodate maintaining the
tree in its current location, If the tree happened to be in the middle of the proposed
house location, the situation would be different. But the tree is not in the middle of a
proposed house footprint, and the tree is preservable in its existing location.
The comment that was made about the houses being there longer than the tree
would be are probably incorrect. The projected life of the tree should exceed the
projected life of the proposed buildings.
cc: Parks Department
Cris Caruso
M94.318
...., uc: DeJa on Tuesday, December 6, 1994 at a '
regular meeting to begin at S:OO pm-before the
Board of County Commissioners, Dlstrk:t Court-
room, S06 E. Maln St., Aspen to consider an appU-
catlon submitted by Ann, Adam and Luke Wachtel
requesting t041 Hazard Review and General Sub-
mission approval for construcUon of a single famI-
ly residence. The property Is located In ShlelGQ..
Mesa In the S 1/2 SWJ/4 NWI/4 of SectIon 14,
Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th P.M.
For further InlonnaUon contact Tim MaUoy at the
AspenfPitkln Planning Office, 920&195.
stRobert W. Child, Chalnnan
... Board of County CommisSioners
PubUshed In The Aspen TImes on November 4,
1994,
PUBUC NOnCERE: urrtE NElL SPEClAIl.Y
PLANNEDAREAAMENDMENT
N011CE LC) HEREBy OWEN that a public hearing
Will be held on Tuesday, November 22, J994 ata
meeting to begin at 4:30 pmbe/ore the Aspen
Planning and lonlns Commission, 2nd floor Meet-
Ing Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena. Aspen, CO to
consIder an application submitted by the CoJ~
orado CUlInary Capers, Inc., 685 E. Durant Ave.,
Aspen, CO requesUng approval to amend the Ut-
tie Nell SPA Development Plan to aUow a mobile
espresso cart and a separate, ,walk-up.
sandwlchfgrUl area on the AJax: Tavern paUo from
December 15 to April 15. For further Infonnatlon,
contact Kim Johnson at the AspenjPltldn PlannJng
Offlce,I305.0alena.Aspen.C092().SI00
" stjohn Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City CouneD
Published In The Aspen Times on November 4,
1994
PlIBUC NOTICE
RE: 204 EAST DURANT STREf:r PllD V ARlANCE
NOTICE IS HFREBY ClIVEN that a public hearing"
will be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1994 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Roor Meet-
Ing Room, City Hall, 130 S. ClaIena St" Aspep, to
consider an application submitted by S,G.A.
Aspen Umlted UabUlty Company, C/o Douglas P.
Allen, 225 N. Mill St., Suite 210, Aspen, CO,-
requesting a PUD variance to reduce the west
side yard to, zero feet and to reduce the required
parlclng by one space, to preserve a 65 foot
sproce tree on the site. The property Is located at
204 E. Durant Avenue: Lots K. 1., M, N and 0, Block
77, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further Infor.
matlon, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkln
Planning Office, 130 S. GalelIa St., Aspen, CO 92().
5106 '
S/Bruce Kerr, Chalrman
Aspen Planning and Zoning CommIssIon
PubUshed In The Aspen Times on November 4,
1994,
PUBUC NOnCE
RE: l.ANGLEV SUBPMSI0N, SPECIAL REVIEW,
GMQS EXEMP'110N, AMENllMENT TO 1llE om
CIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OP THE CITY OP
ASPEN AND LANDMARK DFSlONAll0N
N011CE IS HEREBy GIVEN that a public hearing
- ~.be~-~,-NuVember~;-iOO4;m--a--
special meeting to begIn at 4:30 pm be/ore"tm;
Aspen PI~ng and Zoning Commluton In the
Secorid f100r MeetIng Room, City Hall, 130 S. Gale-
na Street. Aspen, Colorado, to consider an appu.
cation submitted by Bob &: Darnell Langley
requesting approval for subdivision, rezoning to
Alfordable HOUSing (AH), S~ RevIew for park-;
lng and open space, GMQS Exemption for afford-
able hOUSing; and Landmark Designation. The
property Is located at 939 East Cooper Avenue.
Lot A. Block 37, East Aspen Addition, City of
Aspen. FQr further Information, contact leslie
Lamont at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office. 130 S,
Ga!enaSt., Aspen, CO. 92Q.5101,
s/Bruce Ken', Chairman
Aspen Planning and ZonIng Commission
PubUsbed In The Aspen Times on November 4,
1994
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: lNPEPENllENCE PASS GRAVEL Plf SPECIAL
REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBy GIVEN that a public hearing
win be held on Tuesday, December 6, 1994 at a
regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the
Board of County Commlssloners,Dlstrlct Court-
I'OOJrI. 506 East MaIn Street, Aspen to conskfer an
application submitted by the Colorado Depart-
ment of Highways requesting a Special Review
Permit for storage and staging OJ)el'"aUons ass0ci-
ated with an asphalt hot m.Ix plant at the indepen-
dence Quarry Site. The property Is located 12
miles southeast of Aspen on Highway 82, 100'
north of the highway, In Section 2, Township II
South, Range 83 West of the 6th P.M. Por further
Information contact Rick MagllJ at the
AspenfPltkln Planning Office, 92().SCJ62.
stRobert W. Child, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
PubUshed In The Aspen Times on November 4.
, m,
East ~In Street, Aspen to consider an applica-
tion/," "nltted by Condy Oordonand E1~beth
Gor 'equestlng approval of 104'1 J9,zard
Rev1"d General Submission for a single-family,
dweUing:The property Is located on Lot n, West
Soprls Creek Subdivision. For further .lnfonnatlon
contact RIck Magill at the AspenjPltldn Planning
Office, 920-5062.
s/Robert W. ChIld, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen Times on NoVember 4,
1994.
NOTICEOF!1NALPAYMEN!' '
Notice 15 hereby given that the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitldn County, Colorado, here-
lnafter,the "Board, ~ shall make filial settlement for
the work contracted to be done on the project
known as Household Hazardous Waste Trans-
port, hereinafter the "ProJect," to LaIdlaw Envi-
ronmental ServIces herelnaher the "Contractor,~
on Nov. 28: 1994 at - m.
Any person, co.partnershIp, assoctatIon of per_
sons, company or corporation that has furnished
labor, materials, team hire, sustenance, provi-
sions, provender, or other suPplies used or c0n-
sumed by the Contractor or his subcontractors In
or about the performance of the work contracted '
to be done or that supplies rental machinery,
tools, or equipment to the extent used In the
prosecution of the work, whose claim therefore
has not been paid by the Contractor or his sub-
contractors shall rue with the Board written verl-
fied notice of such claims at any time up to and
Including the time of final settlement first stated
above or forever waive any and all claims, with.
out Umltatlon, pursuant to 1973 C.R.S. 538-26-107,
as amended, against the Board of County Com-
missioners, PItkin County, Colorado and the Pro-
Ject.,
All claims must be addressed as fOllows:
Board of County Commissioners
c/o Chris HaJ~ Project Manager
530 East MalnStreet
3rd F100r
Aspen~ Colorado 81611 "
Published In The Aspen Times on November 4,
1994.
PlIBUC NOTICE
Please take notice that the Board of County
Commissioners has adopted Qn Octo~ 25, 1994
the foDowlng Resolution: A RFBOLtn1ON OP THE
BOARO OF COlJN1Y COMMISSIONERS OF Pm<iN
COUN1Y, <::OLORAOO, AFflRMlNG SUPPORT OP
THE SNOWMASs TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION
PLAN AND SETTING PORTH PRINCIPLES FOR
MANAGING THE OWL CREEK ROAD
Jeanette Jones; Deputy Clerk &: Recorder
Copies of the full text of this Resolution are
avallableror public Inspection In the office 01 the
Clerk and Recorder, 530 E. Main St., 8:30 am _ 4:30
pm.
Published In The Aspen TImes on November 4,
1994,
ORDINANCE NO. 61
: (Series of 1994)
AN ORDrNANCE OF1JiE CITY CO!..'fi!Cfl'::'OFTHE "
- CITY OF ASPEN, COWRAOO, APPROVING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRIToRY TO THE
CITY OP,ASPEN, COWRADO, TO ~KNOWN AND
PF.SlGNATEP /oS 'lllE WlWAM5 RAN(:II ANNEXA-
TKiN "
WHERFAs, on December 16,1991, the Smuaifet
Durant Mining Corporation dkl me with the City
" Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexa-
tion oftemtory to the CltyofAspenj and .
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Coundl did
adopt Resolut!on No.4, Series of 1992, finding
substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1),
C.R.S,; establishing March 9, 1992, as the-date for
a pubUc hearing to detennlne compliance with
Sections 31-12-104 and 3112-105, C.~.S.; and,
authorizing publication of notice of said hearing
and
WHEREAS, a p,ubllc hearing was held at. the
date. time and place duly noticed for said public
hearing and continued to March 23, 1992, at
. which time the public hearing was concluded;
and
WHEREAS, the City CounCil, by resoluflon
(Number J2, Series of J992) at Its regular meeting
on March 23, 1994, did find and determine, follow-
Ing a puQnC ~g, said Petition for Annexation
to be In substantial compliance with !i 31-12-104
and 31-12-105, C.RS,; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner, Smuggler Durant Mln-
Ing Company, and the City of Aspen have consent-
ed to that certain Annexation Agreement append-
ed heieto as Exhibit "A. and by this reference
Incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find
and determine that approval of the annexation of
said territoI}' to be In the CIty's best Interest;
NOW; 1lfEREPORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, co(...
ORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of larid described In
orado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB-
USHED as provided ~.Py the City Council of
the City of Aspen on r 'ayof, 1994.
,)hn S, Bennett, Mayor
ATI'ES1)~hrynS.Koch,CltyClerk "
FlNAU.Y adopted, Passed ~ approved thIs-
day of J994.
P.O. [
45 da
notlo
Pul
n,It'"
All
Asp,
will
Ihe
SOIlI
....0/
No.
labe
uod
Ihe
w<l
0'
John S. BeDnett, Mayor
A1TFST: KathrynS. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times on November 4,
1994,
NOTICE REGARDING PROPOSED 1995 SUllGET
, "FORSTARWOODWATERDISTRICT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE pursuant to Section 29-1-
106, C.RS., that the proposed J995 budget for the
Starwood Water District Water Activity Enterprise
Is open for inspection by the' public at the office
of Tim Herreid, CPA, located at 117 South Spring
Street, Aspen, Colorado, (a COpy Is also available
at the Starwood.Office, 012J Stewart Drive, Aspen,
CoIorad9)' and that.the Board of DIrectors of the f
Starwood Water Dlstrk:t WIn consider the adop- Pll
1Ion of the:proposed budget at Its regularly sched- te
uled meeting on Monday, November 28, 1994, at " 3C
8:30 A.M., at the home of M~g and Morgan
Haynes, 0670 Johnson DrIve, AsPen. Pitkin Coun-
ty, Colorado. ,Any Interested e1ector may Inspect
the 1995 budget, and file or register any objection
theretO at any time prior to the fina!. adopUon of
the budget. .
"
STARWOOP WATER PISTRlCT
Julia A. Johnston, Secretary
Published In'The Aspen Times on November' 4
and II, 1994. '
NOTICE REGARDING PROPOSED 1995 SUllGET
FOR STARWOOD WATER PlS11llCT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE purSuant to SectIon 29-1-
106, C.RS., that the proposed 1995 budget for the
Starwood Water DIstrict Is open for Inspection by
the public at the office of Tim HerrekI" CPA,loCat.
ed at 117 South Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado, (a
copy 15 also available at the Starwood Office, 012J
Stewart Drive, Aspen, Colorado), and that the_
Board of DIrectors of,the Starwood Water District
Win consider the adOPtion of the"proposed bucf..
get at Its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday,
November 28, 1994, at 8:30 A.M., at the home of
Meg and Morgan Haynes, 0670 Johnson Drive,
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Any Interested
elector may Inspect the 1995 budget, and file or
register any objection thereto at any time prior to
the final adoptiOn of the budget.
STARWOOD WATER. DISTRICT
JuIlaA.Johnston,~
Published In The Aspen llmes on November 4
imd II, 1994.
PlIBUCATION NOTICE
Notice Is hereby given that the Forest Service,
United States Department of Agriculture, Is c;:on-
sldering an exchange of land and Interests In land
with MacDonald Becket muler the authority of the
General EXchange ACt-of 1922 as amended by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Thelands under the Jw1sdiction of the Porest Ser~
v1ce,thatare belng'COllSldered for ~hange are
-deflCrib<<i-aa-:--"f;S7" N;jtUt W;; 'NMPM, La: Plata-
County, CO.,'Sec. 17: WIJ2; Sec. 18: EI/2EJ/2; Sec.
19: SJ/2NEJ/4; Sec.' 20:" Wl/?SW1/4SW1/2,
W1l2El/2SWI/4SWI/4;" _" :s~c. 29:
Sl/2S1J2NWI/4NWJ/4, Sec..3&. EII2NEI14;' total
acreage is 656.8 acres, more or less, and are Iocat~
ed In the San Juan National Forest, La Plata Coun-
ty,CO,
The Becket lands are descrtbedas: T.37 N., R.8
W.; NMPM, La Plaia County, CO., Sec. 5: Lots 2
and 3, SW1/4NEl/4, SI/2NWl/4, WI/2SEl/4,
NI/2SW1/4; T .8N., R.83 W., 6thPM, Routt County,'
CO., Sec, 21: NWI/4SEI/4, SWI/4NEJ/4; total
aCre<Jge Is 443, more or les., located In the San
Juan and Routt National Forests. U necessary to
equalize values, Becket may offer additlonallands
" In T.9S., R.89 W., 6PM, Pitkin County, CO., Sees:
31, 32, or 33; Or T..10 S.; R. 89W., 6th PM, 'Pitkin
and Gunnison" Counties, CO., Sees:
3,G,7,8,17,JS.19,20.~I.22,23,2S or 36; located In the
WhIte RIver National Porest.
Any or all of the above described lands may be
exchanged If values are equal. If the values are
unequal, ~ther party may equalize the values by
making a cash payment. This payment may not
exceed 2S percent of the value of the lands trans-
ferred out of Pederal ownership. f100dplalns
and/or wetlands may be Involved, and may fall
under the requirements of Executive Orders
11988 and 11990.
Persons claiming such propertle!l or having
valid obJectIons to this proposed exchange must
me their claims or obJe<:tionsWltQ James Webb,
Forest Supervisor, San Juan National Forest, 701
Cam"lno Del Rio, Durango, Colorado 81301, no
later than 4s days from the 'first date of publica-
tIonofthlsnotlce. '
Published In The ASpen Times on November 4,
11,18aOO25,I994.
DIID................~.____
PUBUC N011CE
RE: lANGLEY SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW,
GMQS EXEMP110N, AMENDMENT 10 1liE om
CIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 61
ASPEN AND u.NDMARKOESIONAOON (Series of 1994)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing AN ORnINANCF. OFTIIR ~rrv COl...!ticu. OF' THE
w.ll! be hel.::! <In TOl~j", November 22, i~, at a CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE
.pecJaJ meeting to begIn at 4:30 pm be/ore 'Uwr ANNEKATlON OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission In the CITY OF ASPEN, COl.ORAOO, TO BE KNOWN AND
SecoRd floor MeeUng Room, City HaJl, 1305. Gale- DESIGNATED AS 1lIE WIWAMS RANCH ANNEXA-
na Street. Aspen, Colorado, to consider an appIl- TJON
catlonaubmltted by Bob & Darnell Langley WHEREAS, on December 16" 1991, the Smufiler
requesting approval for aubdlvlslon. reumIng to Durant Mining Corporation dkI fOe with the City
Aflordable Housing (AH), S~ RevIew for park. Clerk of the City 01 Aspen a PetItion for Annexa-
ing and open space, CMQS Exemption lor afford- tlon 01 territory to the City of Aspen; and
able houslnR, and Landmark DeslgnaUon. The WHEREAS, on January J3, J992, City CouncIl did
property is located at 939 East Cooper Avenue. adopt Resolution No, 4, Series of 1992, finding
Lot A, Block 37, East Aspen Addltlon, City of .ubstantlal compliance with SectIon 31-12-107(1),
Aspen. For lurther information, contact leslie C.RS.; establishing March 9, 1992, as th&date for
Lamont at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Offic:e. 130 S. a public: hearing to determine compliance with
GalenaSt"Aspen, CO. 920-5101. Sectionl 31-12-104 and 3112-105, C.R.s.; and,
s/Bruce Kerr, Cha1rman authorizing pubJlcatl.on of notice of said hearinZ
Aspen Planning and ZonIng CommIss.ion and
Published In The Aspen nmes on November 4, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at. the
1994 - date, time and place dulYnotk:ed for said pubUc
~hearlng and continued to March 23, 1992, at
PUBUC N011CE - which time tbe public hearing was concluded;
RE: INDEPENDENCE PASS GRAVEL PIT SP and
REVIEW WHEREAS, the City Council, by re.olutlon
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing (Number J2, Series 011992) at Its regular meeting
will be held on Tuesday, December 6, 1994 at a on March 23, 1994, did find and determine, follow-
regular meetlnR to begin at 5:00 pm before the log a public JwmIng, said PetItion lor Annexation
Board 01 County Comm!ssloners, Dlstrlct Court- to be In .ubstanUal compliance with Ii 31-12--104
room. 506 East Main Street, Aspen to consider an and 31~12--105,C.RS.;ancl
application submitted by the Colorado Depart- WHEREAS, the petlUoner, Smuggler Durant MIn-
ment 01 Highways requesting a Special Review Ing Company, and the Cityol Aspen have consent-
Permit for storage and staging operations assod- ed to that certain AnnexatIon Agreement append.
atOO with an asphalt hot mix plant at the lndepen. ed hereto as Exhibit ~ A ~ and by this reference
dence Quarry SUe. The property Is located 12 incorporated herein. and
miles southeast 01 Aspen on Highway 82, 100' WHEREAS the City Council does hereby find
north of the highway, In SectIon 2, Township 11 and det~e that approval of the annexation 01
South, Range 83 West 0I1he 6th P.M. For further said territory to be In the City's best Interest;
information contact Rick - MaRUI at the NOW 'IHEREFORE. BE IT ORDAfNED BY THE
AapenJPitklnPlanning 01fke, 920-5062. CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ASPEN. COL-
S/Robert W. ChUd, Chairman ORAOO:
Board ofCmmtyCommlssloners SectIon 1. That the tract of land described In
Published In The Aspen 11mes on November 4, the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to
1994. as the WWlams Ranch Annexation, and as shown
on the annexation map, Is hereby annexed to the
City 01 Aspen, Colorado, subject to all the tenns
and conditions set forth In the Annexation Agree-
ment appended hereto as Exhibit ~ A ~ and Ordi-
IUU\Ce: 52, SerIes 011994.
SectIon 2. The City Clerk 01 the City of Aspen Is
hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy 01 the annexation map with
the original o( this ann~tIon ordinance In the
office of the City C1erkof the City 01 Aspen.
(h'-Tn........"".....I 111_...._ ___,__ _,.'-.
"-
s/Robert W. ChUd, Chairman
ill Board 01 County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen TImes on November 4,
1994.'
PllBUC NOTICE RE: unu: NEIJ. SPEClA1l.Y
PlANNED AREAAMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBy GIVEN that a public bearing
will be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1994 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen
Planning and Zonin,g Commission. 2nd Roar Meet-
Ing Room, City Hall. 130 S. Galena. Aspen, CO to
consider an application submitted by the Col-
orado Culinary Capers, Inc., 685 E. Durant Ave.,
Aspen, CO requesting approval to amend the Ut~
tie Nell SPA Development Plan to allow a mobile
espresso cart and a separate, walk-up
sandwich/grill area on the Ajax Tavern patio from
December IS to April 15. For further Information,
contact KIm Johnson at the AspenJPltkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena. Aspen, CO 920-5100
s/John Bennett. Mayor
Aspen Clt)' Council
Published In The Aspen nmes on November 4,
1994
PUBUCNOTICE
RE: 204 EASTDURAm'STREET PUD VARIANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1994 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commlssjon. 2nd floor Meet.
Ing Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St." Aspep, to
consider an application submitted by S.G.A.
Aspen Umhed tJablUty Company, C/o Douglas P.
Allen, 225 N. Mill St., Suite 210, Aspen. CO,
requesting a PUn variance to reduce the west
side yard to, zero feet and to reduce the requlred
parking by one space, to pre.erve a 65 foot
spruc:e tree on the site. The property is located at
204 E. Durant Avenue; Lots K. 1.. M, N and 0, BJock
'J7. CIty and Townsite of Aspen. For further infor-
mation. contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/PlUdn
Plamling Office. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, CO 921l-
5J06 .
S/Bruce Kerr, ChaIrman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published In The Aspen nmes on November 4,
1994,
~
PU8UC NonCE
RE: PFISTER SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS FOR
flJl1.Y DEVa.QPED LANDSAND ESSF.Nl1AL COM-
MUNrIY FAClU11ES, SCENIC OVERLAY. REZON.
ING, SPEClAl. REVIEW AND MINOR 1041 HAZARD
REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public: hearing
will be held on Tuesday, December 6, 1994 at a
regular meeting to begin at S:OO pm before the
~d ~L~~o/. ~~mlssl~s, DlItrlct Cowt-
-.,NOTICEOFFlNA1.PAYMENT '
Noli> '"hereby given that the Board of County
Com! 'en: 01 PItkin County, Colorado, here-
lnafte. Board,. sha1I make flrial settlement for
the work"Contracted to be done on the project:
known as Household Hazardous Waste Trans-
port, hereinafter the ~Project. ~ to Laidlaw Envl-
ronmental Services hereinafter the "Contractor:
on Nov. 28. 1994 at - m.
Any person. c:o-partnership, association 01 per-
sons., company or corporation that has furnished
labor, materials, team hire, sustenance, proY&-
slons,provendet, or other supplies used or ~
.umed by the Contractor or his subcontractors In
or about the performance of the work contracted '
to be done or that supplies rental ,machinery,
toob, or equipment to the extent used In the
prosecution of the work, whose daim therefore
has not been paid by the Contractor or hIa sub-
contr8ctors shall me With the Board written verl-
fied notice of such dalms at any time up to and
Including the time of final settlement first stated
above or forever waive any and all claims, with-
out limitation, pursuant to 1973 C.RS. S38-26-107,
as amended, against the Board 01 County Com-
missioners, PItkIn County, Colorado and the Pro-
/"'.
All daims must be addresSed as foUowa:
Board of Cow1ty Commissioners
C/o Chris Hall, Project: Manager
530 East MaIn Street
3rdAoor
Aspen. Colorado 81611 .
Publllhed In The Aspen Times on November 4,
1994.
PUBUC NOTICE
Please take notice that the Board of County
Commissioners has adopted on October 25, 1994
the foUowlng Resolution; A ~LunoN OF 1lIE
BOARD OF CQUNIY COMMISSIONERS OF PrrKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, AFARMING SUPPORT OF
THE SNOWMASS TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION
PLAN AND SE1TING FORTH PRINCIPLES FOR
MANAGING TIlE OWL CREEK ROAD
Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk & Recorder
Copies o( the lull text of this Resolution are
Ie for public inspection In the oIDce of the
Clerk and Recorder, 530 E. MaIn St, 8:30 am _ 4:30
m.
Published In The Aspen nmes on November 4,
1994.
NOTICE REGARDING PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET
. . FORSTARWOOEl'~t.l'ER DISTRICT
PLEASET~None" 'uanttoSectlon29.1_
tOO, C.R.S., th8t tbe pI'(; 1995 budget for the
StarwoodWater OIstric' wfder ActIvIt)' Enterprise
is open for Inspectlon-.\y the public at the office
of nm Herreid, CPA,1ocated at 117 South Spring
Street. Aspen. Colorado, (a copy is also available
at the StarwoocWlflce.OJ21 Stewart Drive. Aspen,
Colorado), and that the Board 01 Director. of the
Starwood Water D1sttlct wlll consider the adop-
tion 01 the proposed budget. at Its regularly sched-
uled meeting on Monday, November 28, Ifj94, at
8:30 A.M., at the home of Meg and Morgan
Haynes, 0670 Johnson DrIve. Aspen. Pttidn C0un-
ty, CoIorado..Any Interested elector may Inspect
the 1995 budget. and file or register any objectlon
theretO at any lOOe prior to the DnaI,adoption 01
the budget. .
STARWOOD WATER DISTRICT
Julia A. Johnston, Secretary
PubUshed In The Aspen Times on November 4
and 11, 1994. .
NO'IlCE REGARDING PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET
FORSI'ARWOODWATERDIS'IRfCT
PlEASE TAKE NOTlCE purSuant to Section 29-1-
106. C.R.S., that the-proposed 1995 budget for the
Starwo6d Water DIstrict Is open for inspection by
the public at the dIftc.e 01 11m Herreid" CPA, Iocat.
ed at 117 South Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado, (a
copy Is also avalJab]e at the Starwood OUk:e, 0121
'Stewart Drive, Aspen, Colorado), and that the
Board of DIrectors 01 ,the Starwood Water District
will conalder the adoption of the.proposed bud-
get: at Its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday,
November 28. 1994, at 8:30 A.M., at the home 01
Meg and Morgan Haynes, 0670 Johnson Drive,
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Any Interested
elector may Inspect: the 1995 budget, and me or
register any objection thereto at: any lOOe prior to
the ftnal adoption of the budget.
STARWOOD WATFR DISTRICT
JullaA.Jobnston,~
Published In The Aspen ,Times on November 4
&net 11.1994.
PlJBUCA110N NOTICE
Notk:e is hereby 8Iven that the Forest ServIce,
United States Department 01 Agric:ulture, Is ~n-
sldering an exchange 01 land and Interests In land
with MacDonald 8eclcet under the authority of the
General Exchange Aet-ol1922 as amended by the
Federal Land P911cy and Management Act: 011976.
The lands under the )urisdk:tkm of the Forest Ser-
\lice that are being considered for exchange are
described as: 1.3; N.. R.8 W., NMPM, La Plata
CoWlty, CO., Sec. 17; WIJ2: See. 18: ElI2EII2:Sec.
19: SI/2NEl/4: 'Sec. 20:' Wl/2SW1/4SWl/2,
W1I2El/2SWI/4SW1I4; _ 'Sec. 29:
SI/2S1f,.lNWl/4NW1/4, Sec:. 30: El/2NE114; total
acreage is 656.8 acres, more or Jess, and are Iocat.
ed In the San Juan Nauonal Forest, La p.lata Coun-
ty,CO.
The Becket lands are described as: T.37 N., R8
W., NMPM, La Plata County, CO., Sec. S: Lots 2
and 3, SWl/4NE1I4. SI/2NWl/4, WI/2SE1/4,
NI/2SW1I4; T .8N., R.83 W., 6thPM, Routt County,
CO., Sec. 21: NWl/4SEl/4. SW1l4NEJ/4; total
acrelJge Is 443, more or less, located In the San
Juan and Routt National Forests. u necessary 10
equalize values, Becket may oller acIdltlonallands
. In T.9S., R.89 W.. &PM, Plddn County, CO., Sea:
31,32, or 33; or T., 10 S.. R WNI.. 6th PM, .Pitldn
and Gunnison Countle., CO., Secs:
3,6,7,8, 17.18,19.20.;n.22.23.2S or 36; located In the
White RIver National Forest
Any or aU 01 the above described lands may be
exchanged U values are equal. U the values are
wlequa!. either party may equaUze the values by
malcing a cash payment This payment may not
exceed 25 percent 01 the value 01 the lands trans-
(erred out of Federal ownership. Floodplains
and/or wetlands may be Involved, and may fall
under the requirements of Executive Orders
11988 and 11990.
Persons claiming such propertl~ or having
valid objections to this proposed exchange must
fOe their da1ms or objections with James Webb,
Forest SuperAsor, San Juan National Forest. 701
Camlno Del Rio, Durang(l, Colorado 81301, no
later than 45 days from the lirsi: date 01 publk:a-
tlonolthlsnotk:e..
Published In The Aspen Times on November 4,
11, 18and 25, 1994.
PUBUCATION NOTICE
Notice la hereby given that the Forest ServIce.
United StUes Department 01 AgrIculture, Is con-
slderlnR an exchange of land and Interests In land
with Robert D. Undner Ranches Wlder the author-
Ity olthe General EXchange Act 011922 as amend-
ed by the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976. The lands under the jurisdiction of
the Forest ServIce that ~ being considered for
eXChange are described as: T.37 N.. R.3 W..
NMPM, Hinsdale County, CO., Sec. 14: NEl/4
NW1I4, Sec. 22: Lot 5, Sec. 23; NWl/4 SWl/4. Lot 5;
T.36 N., R.3 W.. NMPM, Archuleta County. CO..
Projects (Schedule Nos. t and 2Y, Spedf
No. 874AS027128. AU persons having c1ai
labor, rentals, .ervices, or materials fur
under this Contract. who shall not have bet
therefore, shall present the same to the O~
writing and verUled prior to date specified
or the Owner shall be free of a1li1abUitl
CONSQUD,
(1ncludl
(Dol'",
Consolidating domestic subsidiaries of
Pitkin, State 01 Colorado, 81611, and Dorr
tem, Federal Reserve District No. 10, Stall
30, 1994, published In aa:ordance with a l
suant to the provisions of the Federal Res
ASSETS ........H..............W.....;.......................,
Cash and balances due lrom depositoI)'
Nonlnterest-bearing balances and C1
Interest-bearing balances ............_.."
Securities
Held-to-maturlty securities .H......H....
AwUable for sale .ecurltles .............,
Federal funds sold ..................................."
Securities p~chased under agreeme.nl$
Loans and lease financing receivables:
Loans and leases, net of uneamed It
LESS: Allowance for loan and lease I,
LESS: Allocated transler risk resetV4!
Loans and leases, net of unearned I~
Assets held In tradlnR accounts...............
Premises and fixed assets (Including cat:
Other real estate owned ...........................
Investments In unconsOlIdated subsldlal
Customers' Uablllty to this bank on acc:el
Intangible assets .......'........w..._.....................
Other assets.................................................
Total assets..................................................
Losses deferred pursuant to 12 U.5.C. 18:
Total assets and losses deferJ"t!d pursuar
LIABIl.ITIF.S
Deposits:
In domestic offices ................,.................
Noninterest-bearlng.........................
Interest-bearlng................................
Federal funds purchased ...........................
Securities sold under agreements to rep'
Demand notes Issued to the U.S. Treasur
Trading liabilities ........................................
. Other borrowed money
With original maturity of one year OJ" ~
With Original maturity of more than one
Mortgage Indebtedness and obligations t
Bank's liability on acceptances executed
Subordinated notes and debentures......."
OtherllabllJtles..........................................."
T ota) liablJltleS...~.........................................,
Umlted-llle prelerred .tock and related II
EQUITY CAPITAL
PcrpetYa\ preferred Slock and related SUI
Common stock .................................._.........
Surplu. ..........................................................
Undivided profits and capital reserves.....
. Net unrealized holding pins Oosses) on I
Total equity capltal..H................._......;........
Losaes deferred pursuant to 12 U.s.C. 182
Total equity capital and lones dderred p
Total liabilities, IImlted-lUe preferred stoe:
losses deferred pursuant to J2 U.S.C. 182.:i
I, LORI KNOITS, ASSISTANT VICE PRESti
(including the lupportlng schedules) has
1~lued by the regulatory agency and Is true
We, the under.IROed directors. attest tl)
the supporting .chedules) and declare tn;
knowledge and beJJeI has been prepared It
and correct.
Jack E. Edgington
DATES!
Published In The ,
IlEPC
Consolidating domestic subsidiaries of th
of ASPEN '
In the state of Colorado, at the dose of b
made by Comptroller of the Currency; undeI
ber -. Comptroller of the Currency, Mldwesl
Statement of Resources and Lhi.blllties
ASSETS
Cash and balances due from depository instl
Nonlnterest-bearlng ba1an,~ and c:urrenc:
Interest..tJearing balances .............................
He1cJ-to..maturity.ec:urlues..............................
Available for sale securttles....._......................
Federal furids sold.......;.-..;;.....',..,_,....._..............
Securities purchased under agrHb~S to n
Loans and lease financing receivables:, _
Loans and leases, nel: of unearned Income
LESS: Allowance lor loan and lease losses .
LESS: Allocated transfer risk ~erve..........
Loans and leases, net of unearned Income,
Assets held In trading aCC:OUDl$ ......H...........
Premises and fixed asset. (Including capltl
Other real estate owned ..........................H....
Investments In unconsolidated subsldlarle:
Customers' liability to this bank on acceptl
Intangible assets ........................._..................
Other assets .........................................w.........
Total assets ...................................................;"
LlABumES
DePOSits:
-In domestic offices.......................................
Nonlnterest-bearing ............................,
Int......~._h__...__
i""""'"'-
^
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
FROM:
DATE:
November 22, 1994
RE:
East Cooper Court Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption
for Affordable Housing, and Special Review for Open Space
and Parking - Public Hearing
=================================================================
SUMMARY: The applicants, Bob and Darnell Langley, propose to
develop a five unit family-style complex on Cooper Avenue. The
Langleys propose to use Historic Designation incentives and the
affordable housing zone district to:
* refurbish the existing historic single family residence; and
keep the unit a free market unit;
* refurbish the historic barn as a category 4 dwelling unit;
* build a Resident Occupied unit; and
* build two additional free market homes.
The applicants request sUbdivision of a 10,500 square foot R/MF
zoned parcel into two parcels, rezoning of the newly created parcel
to AR, GMQS Exemptions for four new dwelling units on the parcel,
and Special Review for open space and parking in the AR zone.
The Historic Preservation Committee has conceptually reviewed and
approved relocation and refurbishment of the historic structures;
Landmark Designation of the entire parcel; various setback
requirements; and reduction of two required parking spaces on the
R/MF parcel for the free market units. The Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed this proposal at a work session several months
ago.
Please review the attached application, exhibit A.
Staff recommends continuing the pUblic hearing to December 6, 1994
so the applicant's can work with the Housing Office on the proposed
mix of units.
APPLICANT: Bob and Darnell Langley
LOCATION: 939 East Cooper Avenue, Lot A Block 37 and 75'x100' of
Cleveland Street East Aspen Addition, Aspen, Colorado
ZONING: R/MF, Residential Multi-Family
,.,~. --"-<""-";"~,-.'.~""'''-''''."~.,-,,,.._.
~
~
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemptions for
two Affordable Dwelling Units and two Free Market Units, Special
Review for Parking and Open Space, and Historic Designation
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments.
Following is a summary of those comments:
1. HPC - The HPC has spent over a year and a half working on this
parcel. The HPC has reviewed and approved a conceptual development
plan. Please refer to the referral comments from HPC.
2. Housing - The net liveable square footage for the category 4
unit must be verified with the Housing Office. Although the Office
supports a 1/3-1/3-1/3 split for a three unit proposal in the AH
zone district, the Office has a concern regarding the proposed mix
of units in the AH zone. The Housing Board will be reviewing this
proposal at a special meeting November 30, 1994.
2. The Parks Department has identified a 10" diameter conifer tree
in the northwest corner of the property. currently the driveway
for cottage B is in conflict with the tree. The applicants have
proposed to. relocate the tree, but the Parks Department recommends
a redesign of the cottage rather than attempt relocation. A
detailed landscape plan must be submitted for review.
3. Zoning indicated that the applicant will need to verify heights,
open space and variance requests prior to final review by the HPC.
A new UBC code has been adopted and egress well design has been
amended. Net liveable should also be verified.
4. The Fire Marshall indicated no problems with this proposal at
this time.
5. The Water Department has the capacity to provide water to he
proposed sUbdivision. Existing and all new service lines must be
connected to the 16 inch water main located in East Cooper. This
development will be required to pay tap fees because the
development is not 100% deed restricted housing.
6. The Environmental Health Department recommends that the
applicants confirm with the ACSD that the District has the capacity
to service this proposal. Of a primary concern for the Department
is the project's ability to comply with the SIP for Aspen. Because
the project is within close proximity to downtown and on a bus
route vehicle trips should be reduced. Auto trips could be further
mitigated with a reduction in the maximum allowable number of
parking spaces on the site.
The applicants must prepare a fugitive dust control plan for review
by the Department prior to the beginning of construction.
2
0':"'-:"1-'-7;" .
.. .... ... - -.-.: ,..,~".~.. ';(':
.....~,. ------,"'-' -,~'- ..,.-.."....,....'-
"'"'.'.~-..,...,..-....,...,',.._..,:---'",.'.--,::~".
,,--.. "-",..
1'"""\,
'""'\,
7. The Engineering Department has indicated that a sidewalk will
be required at the time of develoPment but a curb and gutter will
be postponed until the entire block is done. Al though the
Department does not support another curb cut on Highway 82, if COOT
is Willing to approve an additional curb cut then the Engineering
Department will consent. Driveway curb cuts must be kept to a
minimum. All historic drainage flows must be maintained on-site
and trash/utility areas must also be provided on-site. The
Engineering Department also supports the request for a reduction
in on-site parking.
------------------***-------------------
PROCESS:
SUbdivision and Text Amendments, are a two step review process with
the Commission making recommendations to Council.
Special Review is a one step review by the Commission.
GMQS Exemption for the Affordable Housing zone district is a two
step review with the Commission making a recommendation to Council.
Historic Landmark Designation is a three step review with both the
HPC and P&Z making a recommendation to Council.
Historic Landmark Review is a two step review by the HPC. HPC has
already conceptually reviewed and approved this proposal. Final
HPC review will follow P&Z and Council review.
Condominiumization is a Planning Director approval.
GMQS Exemption for an historic landmark is a Planning Director
approval.
------------------***-------------------
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - Together, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the
Housing Authority have pursued a comprehensive plan to address the
community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold it:
seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock, requires
developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable housing
impacts and produces new affordable housing to reduce/eliminate the
current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH).
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
},
"
3
~
~
Although the AH zone district requires a 70%/30% split between free
market and deed restricted dwelling units. The Housing Office and
Planning Department have always encouraged applicants to also
explore a 1/3-1/3-1/3 split when working with a triplex or three
unit proposal. This is particularly relevant within the city where
small in-fill parcels may lend themselves to a development of only
3 units. In addition, the revisions to the GMQS/RO/AH sections of
the county and city land use codes does include language to this
effect.
In addition, the city has developed and continues to refine a very
strong incentive based Historic preservation program. There are
many "carrots" in the Land Use code to encourage the preservation
and restoration of historic homes and outbuildings. One important
incentive in the Code is the ability to locate two single-family,
detached free-market units on a site that has been historically
designated. In return, the City maintains the inventory. of
Historic structures and the HPC has full review authority of
development on the parcel.
II. site Description - The property is approximately 10,500
square feet with an existing single family home and barn. The
property is listed on the City's Inventory of Historic sites and
structures because of both the home and barn.
According to the applicant, the property is flat with a significant
conifer in the ngrthwest corner of the property. The existing home
is approximately 1,450 square feet with three bedrooms and one bath
and one on-site parking space. The barn is 600 square feet with
a loft.
The site is on the south side of Cooper Avenue at the end of
Cleveland street. Another single family home on the Inventory of
Historic sites and structures is adjacent to the west of the
subject parcel and the multi-family building, the villager, is on
the east side of the parcel. A public alley borders the parcel to
the south. The alley serves as public access for many residential
units on this side of town.
within the neighborhood is a mixture of large single and duplex
residences. A few remaining historic structures, several multi-
family buildings and the Brass Bed Lodge are also within the
vicinity of the proposal.
The site is within 2 blocks of city Market and 5 blocks of the
gondola and the downtown commerical core.
It is zoned residential multi-family (R/MF).
III. project Description - The applicants have proposed a
five unit courtyard/family style development. Because of the
Historic resources on the property and the Affordable Housing zone
4
,.' _,"__,,,'"_""_;-~_'""_'~ ,._.-c'"_",~,,,_,___...'._"'_"""'~"
,~
1""""\
district, they applicants have proposed a development that combines
both programs in order to develop housing for themselves and
housing to off-set the cost of development for their homes.
This parcel is zoned RJMF with an allowed floor area for a multi-
family building beyond the FAR proposed for this development.
The proposed project consists of five single-family dwelling units.
The 10,500 square foot parcel is proposed to be subdivided into two
parcels. Parcel 1 will be 6,000 square feet and remain zoned RJMF.
Parcel 2 will be 4,500 square feet and rezoned to AR.
On Parcell, the historic, single-family, residence will be moved
to the northeast corner of the property and a second single-family
residence is proposed for the northeast corner of the property,
Section 24-5-206 of the Land Use Code allows a second detached
single-family residence, exempt for GMP, on Landmark Designated
parcels.
On Parcel 2, the historic barn is proposed to be relocated to the
southwest corner of the property keeping the same angle to the
alley as currently exists. Also "fronting" off of the alley, the
applicants propose two additional detached dwelling units.
Both dwelling units on Parcel 1 are proposed to be free market
units. For Parcel 2, the applicants propose one category four
dwelling unit, one Resident Occupied unit, and one free market
unit.
Parking for Parcell will occur off of Cooper Avenue. Although six
parking spaces are required, the applicants propose to provide four
spaces and has requested an HPC a variance for two spaces.
Establishment of parking for Parcel 2, the AR zone, is by Special
Review. The applicants are proposing two spaces per unit.
------------------***-------------------
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Subdivision Review _
Please refer to the application for specific site plans and floor
plans of this project, exhibit A.
Subdivision is required because the applicants propose to create
two parcels for development and sale purposes. Pursuant to Section
24-7-1004 the following review criteria for a Subdivision are as
follows:
A. General Requirements
5
~,
/--',
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area community Plan.
RESPONSE: There are several goals and recommendations out of the
AACP that pertain to this proposal.
A. Create a housing environment which is dispersed,
appropriately scaled to the neighborhood and affordable.
East Cooper Court is located in a diverse neighborhood with
a variety of differently scaled buildings: large multi-
family buildings, historic structures, and large single-
family and duplex structures. The proposed mix of units in
the proposal will enable various income levels of families to
live within town.
B. Maintain and create places and opportunities for social
interaction and lifestyle diversity and maintain design
quality and compatibility with historic features of the
community.
The proposal entails a central courtyard for all the residents
to share. Because the entire parcel is being Historically
Landmarked, HPC has full review of all new development in
order to ensure that the architecture is compatible with the
historic resources on the property. In terms of massing,
scale, and site planning the proposal is intended to provide
a characteristic that has been lost along Cooper Avenue with
recent development of the small historic cottages that once
graced this entrance to town.
C. The vision which underlies the AACP is to revitalize the
permanent population. Implicit in this vision is a
recognition that density increases above current levels will
occur within the City to accommodate this revitalization.
The project is designed for families in a configuration that
promotes social interaction. Inj ecting vitality into this
area of the community is the primary goal of this proposal.
The proposal has less floor area and fewer units than a multi-
family, one-bedroom apartment building that would be allowed
in this zone.
D. The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated
transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters
that reduces congestion and pollution.
East Cooper Court is on the established Mountain Valley
transit route. As mentioned in this memo, the project is 2
blocks from city Market and 5 blocks from the gondola and
commercial core.
6
. ", ~-"'::::''C"'~'7-';:;( ,".',:~.,,~c:1"7,':,':T~-:-"~';~.
,.,,.."
r--.
~,
E. Encourage land uses, businesses, and events which serve
both the local community and tourist base.
The AH zone district was designed to enable local working
residents to live in and participate in the community.
(b) The proposed development shall be consistent with
the character of eXisting land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are a mixture of various types
of residential housing. Large mUlti-family structures are
predominant as well as large single-family and duplex structures.
The Brass Bed lodge is located behind the project. Although the
renovation of the lodge has not completed the property is zoned LP.
The east end of Aspen use to encompass numerous small victorian
cottages that have either been redeveloped with the "bustle"
approach or have been lost to neglect or demolition.
Because of the required HPC review of all new development on this
property design emphasis of the new development has been placed on
compatibility and character with the historic resources on the
property.
(c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: Currently the allowable floor area on the parcel is
10,500 square feet and the density would be 8 one-bedroom units or
5 two-bedroom unit or 3 three-bedroom units or a combination
thereof. Please see development analysis, exhibit C.
The floor area for the entire site is 6,839 square feet and HPC has
conceptually granted a 489 square foot bonus for a total floor area
of 7,328 square feet. This is a 30% reduction in the allowable
floor area of the R/MF zoned parcel.
The project proposes 5 three-bedroom units which is a greater
density than the density allowed on a R/MF zoned parcel of 10,500
square feet for three-bedroom units. However if sUbdivision is
approved, the allowable density on Parcel 1 is two three-bedroom
units, with an allowable floor are of 3,600 square feet. The
applicant's proposal for Parcell is 2 three-bedroom units with a
total floor area of 3,530 square feet.
If Parcel 2 is created through subdivision and rezoned to AH, the
minimum lot area for each detached dwelling unit is 1,500 square
feet with an allowable floor area of 2,820 square feet (the
allowable floor area calculation is based upon that of a single-
family home on one parcel). The applicant's proposal for Parcel
2 is three detached homes, on a 4,500 square foot parcel, with a
7
,~,
,~
floor area of 2,820 plus a 489 square foot bonus granted by HPC.
Total square footage equals 3,309 square feet.
The proposed side yard setback variances for the west property
boundary may adversely affect future development of that property.
currently the adjacent parcel contains a single-family home on the
Inventory of Historic sites and structures. The applicants have
requested a HPC variance from the 5' side yard setback to a 2'
setback for parcell. stairs for a proposed accessory dwelling
unit encroach into the 5' setback. For the historic barn on Parcel
2 3' setback is requested.
(d) Final approval shal~ only be granted to the development
to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the
applicant.
RESPONSE: The development of the second free market dwelling unit
on Parcell is.a GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director and will
be reviewed after final HPC review. The provision of the three
units on Parcel 2 are GMQS Exemptions by city council.
(e) The project shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: provided subdivision, rezoning, and GMQS Exemption is
approved by the Commission and council this application will be in
compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
The applicants propose to relocate a 10" diameter conifer tree that
is on the northwest corner of Parcell. The tree on Parcel 1
obstructs the driveway proposed for the new cottage. Although a
tree removal permit shall be required before the tree may be
relocated, it is the philosophy of the city to discourage attempted
relocation of significant trees in the city if the tree can be
accommodated within the new development. Relocation is rarely
successful and very expensive. Additionally, the neighbor on the
west side of East Cooper Court has expressed,concern with regard
to the side yard setback proposal of only}'.
HPC supported the location of the garage on the west side of the
home and encouraged the compatibility of the home's east side with
the adjacent historic structure on the east side of Parcell.
However, staff has recommended a restudy of the site plan in order
to accommodate the tree in its current location and increase the
side yard setback on the west side. For example, if the applicant
shifted the cottage 2' into the central courtyard, the tree could
be saved and a setback variance is unnecessary.
(f) other subdivision standards address sidewalk, curb
and gutter:
8
.. '-'~'7'.~'C:~"':'''''''-~
/'""'-..
~
RESPONSE: The applicants propose to construct a sidewalk ~ith a
5' buffer between the walk and curb. However, curb and gutter will
be installed when the rest of the block is upgraded.
II. Map Amendment - The applicants prOpose to rezone Parcel
2 to the Affordable Housing zone district. Pursuant to Section 24-
7-1102 the following standards of review for an amendment to the
Official Zone District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application for rezoning is in compliance with the
standards of Section 24-7-1104 and other applicable portions of
Chapter 24, the Land Use Code for the City of Aspen.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) encourages in-fill
of small parcels throughout town. The AACP also encouraged small,
scale resident housing which fits the character of the community
and is interspersed with free market housing.
This development proposes small detached housing with two deed
restricted dwelling units. The proposal is also consistent with
the Intent of the Design Quality and Historic Preservation section
of the AACP "to ensure the maintenance of character through design
quality and compatibility with historic features."
The proposal will locate permanent resident housing near desired
' acti vi ty centers such as the downtown and the base of Aspen
Mountain.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood Characteristics.
RESPONSE: The properties surrounding this proposal are all zoned
R/MF except for the Brass Bed Lodge which is zoned LP. As pointed
out previously, a multi-family development on this parcel could
achieve an allowable floor area of 10,500 square feet and develop
8 two-bedroom units.
The maximum height of the structures comply with the height limit
in the R/MF and AH zone districts, 25' to the mid-point and 30' to
the peak of the roof. Although the AH zone allows an increase in
height by Special Review, the applicants are not requesting an
increase in height.
9
/'--""
~
The proposed floor area of the three single-family homes on Parcel
2 equals 3,309 (which includes the HPC bonus). If the units were
attached as a multi-family structure, the allowable floor area
ratio in the AH zone district is 1.1:1 which would enable 4,950
square feet of floor area.
Although the maximum floor area allowed on the entire parcel if it
was a historically landmarked for two structures would be 4,170
(not including a potential HPC bonus), the AH zone district offers
incentives for development of affordable housing such as greater
density and floor area. This proposal will provide needed family-
oriented housing near the downtown while preserving two historic
structures without large additions to the homes that so often
accompany preservation of Aspen's historic structures.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: According to the Environmental Health Department, 28
more trips/day will be generated by the addition of 4 more homes
on the property. However, the site is ideally located for easy
pedestrian access to city Market and downtown. The free, Mountain
Valley, RFTA bus travels Cooper Avenue every 20 minutes.
The applicants propose two on-site parking spaces per dwelling
unit. The applicants have been working with the Colorado
Department ,of Transportation for permission for another curb cut
off of Cooper Avenue. Parking and access to Parcel 2 will be via
the public alley behind the parcel.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: According to referrals from public service providers,
there is adequate capacity to service this project.
The applicants must submit a site plan indicating all
easements and trash/service areas on the parcels.
pedestals are not allowed in public right-of-ways.
utility
utility
The existing fire hydrant on the corner of the property will be
replaced.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: Because the applicant is proposing to subdivide the
property and rezone Parcel 2 to AH, additional density (in terms
10
. . ",-,,~,:,,~:?,""'~',
:_~.,:\^,,;,-, ..,:;-:;:, ,:,;~;:--.-;:->':;':Hz3%"~::.:j?'-
/"",
,-."
of three-bedroom units) is allowed on the entire parcel. However,
the applicants desire to provide as much common open space for the
residents as possible. Therefore the applicants have incorporated
a central courtyard on the site plan. Unfortunately, the close
proximity of the second home on Parcel 1 is conflicting with the
location of the large conifer tree. staff recommends that the home
be moved into the central courtyard in order to save the tree. The
City does not support the relocation of significant vegetation when
alternatives exist.
The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan, as approved by the
Parks Department, to be recorded with the SUbdivision plat.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The AACP proposes the revitalization of the permanent
community and the encouragement of development that is pedestrian-
oriented as an auto disincentive. The development is family-
oriented and within close proximity of the downtown. It is
believed by the applicant that the' small scale development of
family-oriented housing, while preserving two historic structures,
will enhance community character.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The reduction of Aspenites working and living in Aspen,
combined with the increase in commuter traffic, have led the City
of Aspen to encourage the development of in-town affordable
housing. In addition, many historic structures on the east side
of Aspen have been severely altered or destroyed. The Historic
Preservation Officer and the HPC have worked long and hard on this
parcel in an attempt to save both the existing home and barn.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the pUblic interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposal will provide family-oriented housing of a
mixed income nature. Staff recommends that the applicants continue
to work with staff, neighbors, Parks, HPC and the Housing office
to create a project that mitigates all concerns.
III. Special Review - The Affordable Housing zone district
requires Special Review for establishing off-street parking and
open space.
A. Parking - For Parcel 2, two off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit are proposed for a total of 6 parking spaces. The AH
11
";~?:;"";N~;
. ,-">.,,',,., .
c-'
~
zone district limits required parking to a maximum of two parking
spaces per dwelling unit.
The parking spaces will be provided off the alley in carports and
garages. In the case of the historic barn the parking will be
surface parking.
Given the project's proximity to downtown and other community
activity centers additional parking is unnecessary. This
neighborhood is within the residential parking permit area and on-
street parking will be strictly enforced.
The Environmental Health Department recommended a further reduction
in on-site parking to reduce vehicle miles travelled which
contribute to the PM10 count. In addition, the adjacent neighbor
to the west expressed concern with the small distance between the
historic barn and the new cottage in the northwest corner on the
front parcel. Because the buildings are close together,
approximately 12', they begin to close-in on the openness of his
backyard. staff would suggest that if parking space P6 is
eliminated, which is perpendicular to the alley, the historic barn
could be moved closer to the alley providing more space between the
front home on the northwest corner and the barn.
As an information item, on Parcel 1, the applicants are providing
two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit will
contain three-bedrooms. Because the property is proposed to be
historically designated, the HPC may reduce the number of required
spaces. At conceptual review, the HPC reduced the required number
of parking spaces from six to four.
B. open space - It is unclear from this application whether
any portion of Parcel 2 conforms with the Code's definition of open
space. The Zoning Officer has indicated in his referral comments
that all dimensional requirements must be verified. However 15%,
675 square feet, of Parcel 2 consists of green space or pedestrian
walkways.
The central courtyard on Parcel 1 is intended to provide an open
play area and gathering point for all residents of East Cooper
Court. The courtyard represents approximately 1,500 square feet.
Through the subdivision agreement, condominium declarations and
protective covenants, the central courtyard will be protected and
maintained for all residents. '
The open space requirement for Parcell, zoned R/MF, is 35%. The
proposal includes 36% open space, as defined by the Land Use Code.
IV.
proposed
Council,
GMQS Exemption - Pursuant to section 24-8-104, before any
development can be considered for exemption by the city
an application for exemption shall be forwarded to the
12
.. .,~_; ...e,..,._.'" -,-,.~.,,,;,,,~,..,~7'"
~
1""""\
Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation at a
hearing.
The review criteria for an exemption includes the City's need for
affordable housing, the development's compliance with the adopted
housing plan, the number, type and location of the proposed units,
and the proposed price categories.
The project is designed to provide five detached single-family
homes on a total land area of 10,500 square feet. The second free
market home being proposed for Parcel 1 is a GMQS Exemption by the
Planning Director and is an exemption that is available because the
entire property is being historically designated.
For Parcel 2, the AH zone district enables a free market/deed
restricted split between dwelling units. A GMQS Exemption by
Council is required for all the units to be developed on Parcel'2.
The applicant's have proposed to provide one category 4 unit, one
Resident Occupied unit, and one free market unit. This proposal
is consistent with the requirement that a maximum of 40% of the
bedrooms must be free market. However, the requirement that 70%
of the units must be deed restricted and 30% free market cannot be
met with a three unit proposal. As part of the GMQS/RO/AH
revisions that the Planning Department has been working on for over
a year, a 1/3-1/3-1/3 split or the ability to have one free market
unit within a three unit proposal is included within the revised
language.
Staff and the Housing Office have consistently expressed a concern
regarding the proposed split. Primarily when considering the
property as a whole, only two of the five units are deed
restricted. The applicants are continuing to work with the Housing
Office and have a special meeting scheduled with the Board for
November 30 at which time staff hopes to get more direction with
regard to the housing proposal.
Therefore, staff would recommend tabling the GMQS Exemption review
unit December 6, 1994, in order for the applicants to work more
thoroughly with the Housing Board.
V. Historic Landmark Designation - Pursuant to Section 24-
7-703, the applicants have requested to Historically Designate the
entire parcel. HPC recommended approval of designation. The P&Z
must also review and make a recommendation to Council. Ultimately
designation will be the final step in this review. Subdivision and
rezoning are all contingent upon final Landmark Designation.
-------------***------------
ISSUES: The following items are still unresolved or additional
information must be provided.
13
~
~.
1. The applicants must verify with the Zoning officer dimensional
requirements and variations proposed.
2. The applicants shall restudy the site plan for Parcel 1 in
order to preserve the tree in the northwest corner of the property.
3. The applicants shall continue to work with the Housing Office
to confirm net liveable calculations for the category 4 dwelling
unit and review the proposed mix of units in the AH zone.
4. The applicant shall consider a restudy of the, site plan for
Parcel 2 in order to provide more open space between the historic
barn and the new home in the northwest corner of Parcel 1 and a
greater side yard setback for the historic barn.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends the subdivision of 939 East Cooper into two
separate parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, as proposed in the
application submitted November 10, 1994 and the rezoning of Parcel
2 from R/MF to AH with the following conditions:
1. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or
upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full
basis depending upon the specific agency's requirements.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and subdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.C and D of the
municipal code for review by the Engineering and planning
Departments and the City Attorney.
The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. language to the effect that preserves and maintains
the central courtyard on Parcel 1 as required
open space for the entire East cooper Court
subdivision;
b. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
c. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves; and
d. a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department.
14
.'_"_~" .._,~...__.,,_.__._.,._ ~.e
. .....
r\
~,
4. The final Subdivision plat and plan shall include the
'following:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. a detailed drawing of the area for all service/trash
and recycling areas;
c. a 5 foot wide sidewalk shall be located adjacent to
the property line with a 5 foot bUffer space between the
sidewalk and the future curb and gutter; and
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department.
5. All existing water service lines and all new water service
connections to this property shall be connected to the 16-
inch water main located in East Cooper.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging 'or
over digging within the drip line;
b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in
the future;
c. the applicant shall pay all application water and
sewer tap fees; and
d. the applicant shall file the appropriate
restrictions with the Housing Office for the
restricted dwelling units on Parcel 2.
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be incompliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
deed
deed
8. As required in Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall
maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the
site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that
currently exist on the site.
9. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
10. At the completion of each phase of the work, the applicant
shall submit a statement by a registered professional land
15
.~~:.r';~~2,:~;._;),:"::')"""" c,,'i)"- ,,"
"'.".
.'- ,'-' W"_~._''''''____''__ '_'__m.._
~'.
surveyor that all required survey and ~ro~erty monuments
remain in place or have been re-established as required by
colorado Revised statutes.
11. prior to issuance of certificates of Occupancy for the various
phases of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible
mylar as-built drawings of sidewalk, utility improvements, and
all other work located within the public rights-of-way,
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot
accuracy of all utilities, including, their size and
identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within the rights-of-way. The as-built
shall be signed and stamped by a registered professional
engineer. The as-built shall also be provided to the city on
a disk in a dfx file compatible with the City GIS ArcInfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
,ground (approximatelY 3' in height) and shielded.
13. All work in the alley and public right-of-way shall require
a permit from the streets Department.
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the planning and
Zoning commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
16. The subdivision and rezoning of 939 East Cooper is contingent
upon the applicant successfully receiving historic
landmark designation for the entire property, both
Parcels 1 & 2.
17. Prior to continued SUbdivision review by the commission at the
December 6, 1994, meeting the following issues shall be
resolved:
a. the applicant shall restudy the location of the new cottage
on Parcel 1 in order to preserve the significant conifer in
the northwest corner of the parcel.
b. the applicant shall restudy the placement of the historic
barn on Parcel 2 in order to provide a greater side yard
setback from the west property line and more space between the
new cottage on parcel 1 and the historic barn.
16
-_.-...."-_.-:-~".,,,.,..,,-:-.--,.'~
I""'
~
C. Staff recommends the Special Review for
site parking spaces and 15% or 675 square
Parcel 2 with the following conditions:
the provision of 5 on-
feet of open area for
a. the applicant shall verify with the Zoning Officer the
amount of open space as defined in the Land Use Code and the
amount of open land on Parcel 2;
b. the applicant shall provide only 1 parking space for the
historic barn in order to move the barn closer to the alley
creating more open space between the barn and the new cottage
on Parcel 1.
D. Staff recommends tabling review of the GMQS Exemption for the
proposed dwelling units on Parcel 2 until the applicant has worked
with the Housing Office to confirm the mix of units proposed and
the net liveable of the category 4 unit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table review of East Cooper Court
to the next meeting, December 6, 1994, in order for the applicant
to continue to work with the Housing Office with regard to the unit
mix proposed for Parcel 2 and the net liveable requirements for the
category 4 dwelling unit on Parcel 2."
EXHIBITS:
A. Application
A1. Updated Development Data
B. Referral Comments
C. Development Analysis
D. Public Notice
17
". -.. '-', ....-.~'"'''~,.."
":;';7-"":::"',-::"::::?:;7C:"':'_"::~'7:':':~~-'-: .
''''''-~7'~,':"'':-:-':;:;''~':--'~-''''''~:-''""~
RESIDENTIAL/MULTI FAMILY
MINDroH LOT SIZE
MINIMUM LOT AREA
PER DWELLING UNIT
MAXDroH HEIGHT
OPEN SPACE
, PARKING
ALLOWABLE FAR
FRON'!'
REAR
SIDE
COHBINED F /R
FAR
FRON'!'
REAR
SIDE
COHBINED F /R
FAR
"-'--"''''J,',
r
.~
ALLoWABLE
PROPOSED
6,000
6,000
3,000
3,000
25
25
35%
36%
6
4 HPC Review
3,600
3, 530:t
Historic Cottaqe A
J.O
7
J.O
5
5
3/30
(~
20
Cottaqe B
J.O
J.O
10
7
5
30/5
,(17\""
( J.,700})
" ",it" "-
\ ,~"
"'''~~'-'''''''''''''~
20
'. .., m _ _ '_"..~"_,..,.
,.....-~........,
---"
EXHIBIT A1.
DIMENSIONAL DATA EAST COOPER COURT PROJECT
ALLOWABLE PROPOSED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE 3,000 4,500
MINIMUM LOT AREA
PER DWELLING UNIT 1,500 1,500
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 25 25
OPEN SPACE SPECIAL REVIEW 15%
PARKING 6 6
ALLOW~LE FAR 3309 3,309
Historic Barn C
FRONT 10 18
REAR 10 3.5
SIDE 5 6/3
COMBINED F/R 20 21.5
FAR 709
Cottaae D
FRONT 10 5
REAR 10 1
SIDE 5 8/6
COMBINED F/R 20 7
FAR 1,600
New Barn E
FRONT 10 5
REAR 10 1
SIDE 5 8/3
COMBINED F/R 20 6
FAR 1,000
/"",
,~
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
939 E. Cooper Avenue
DATE:
November 18, 1994
=================================================================
HPC has held several worksessions and site visits on this project
in the last year and a half. Primary concerns for the committee
have been preservation of the existing house and the barn.
Although the Langley's development plan originally called for the
demolition of the barn, through working with HPC they have
incorporated it into their project as a living unit.
On November 2nd and 9th, HPC reviewed this application for Landmark
designation, Conceptual development plan, partial demolition of
the historic house, on-site relocation of the historic house, and
Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R. The Committee
is in support of the site plan and overall mass and scale of the
project. A lot of discussion was given to the variances requested,
especially on the side yards, because of neighbors' concerns and
the fact that there is another historic resource directly to the
west of 939 E. Cooper. The applicants examined the possibility of
altering the orientation of the units to meet the sideyard setback
requirements, and in the end, have placed the smallest unit (the
barn) on the west and have stepped back the building walls on the
east to preserve the Villager units' access to light and air.
Approval was granted for this project on November 9th, with a
number of conditions, including further study of some architectural
design. The applicants intend to meet with HPC through
worksessions in the next few months before returning for a Final
approval.
NOV 17 '94 10:01AM ASFEN HOU~ OFC
~
,
P.l
Mm<<ORA'NIlUM
TO:
Leslie Lamont, City Planner
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
November 17, 1~~4
I'IIOM:
DATil;
0:
~ANGLEY SUBDIVISION SPECIAL REVIEW
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-34-001
ISSUE: The Langley's are proposing to subdivide an existing 10,500
square foot parcel into two pa~cels. One of the parcels is to be
rezoned to affordable housing and consist of three units. What is
being proposed as a mix for this parcel is one free-market unit,
one resident occupied (RO) unit and one category 4 unit.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Municipal Code states that the residential
uses are restricted to low, moderate and middle income affordable
housing guidelines and resident occupied units must comprise at
least seventy percent (70~) of the Unit mix of the development.
since this development consists of only three units, a 1/3-1/3-1/3
split would be acceptable.
RlilCOKM2NDATIO~: There are minimum net liveable square footage fOr
category units. The Aspen/pitkin County Housing 1994 Affordable
Housing Guidelines state that the minimum net liveable square
footage for a single-family detached Category 4 unit is 1,400
square feet. The Housing Office is requesting verification of the
size of the Category 4 unit. There is also concern with the mix of
a free-market unit, a resident occupied and only one category unit.
Staff will be discussing this with the Housing Board on November 30
for a recommendation to the Planning Office.
,^,
"'--'-.---, -.. --.......,'-.---. '---"--'-~_~'-"""'_~M ..~ ,..
f""'\
,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Leslie Lamont
Bi1{)A4ing
Langley Subdivision,
Exemption & Landmark
Rezoning,
Designation
Special
Review,
GMQS
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
November 16, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This project will require several setback variances from the HPC.
The applicant should verify these with me to correctly identify the
variances required prior to presentation to the HPC.
The applicant should be aware that the newly adopted 1994 Uniform
Building Code will regulate the egress well design in setbacks
(1994 UBC, Section 310.4).
The applicant should be aware of the differentiation between "net
liveable" as defined by the housing authority and "floor area
ratio" as defined by the Land Use Code.
Floor area, open space and height cannot be verified by me at this
stage of the drawings. The applicant may want to meet with me to
go over the methods used by the Zoning Officer.
/"",
""""
MEMORANDUM
TO: _ Leslie Lamont, Assistant Planning Director
TIlRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DAlE: November 15, 1994
RE: 939 East Cooper Court Development
We have reviewed the proposed development application for 939 East Cooper. In regards to Parks
Department issues, the greatest concern we have is the 10 inch diameter conifer tree located in the
north west corner of the property. We would request that Cottage "B" be redesigned to
accommodate the tree, rather than relocating or removing the tree. No detailed landscape plan has
been submitted and should be presented prior to final approval, particularly for landscaping in the
right of way.
The ouly other question is in regards to the "bike lane" shown on the site plan, is this something
the applicant is proposing to construct and or stripe?
I am unable to attend the DRC meeting but the applicant may contact us at 920-5120 if any
questions arise.
~,
.~
,-"
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (!<f:-
Date: November 15, 1994
Re: East Cooper Court Subdivision, Rezoningj GMQS Exemption, Special Review,
Condominiumization and Landmark Designation
(939 East Cooper Avenue; Lot A, Block 37, E.A.T. and portion of vacated Cleveland
Street)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
SUBDIVISION
1. Sidewalk Curb & Gutter - Sidewalk must be constructed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk must abut the property line. Curb and gutter will
not be required to be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy because
curb and gutter must be constructed a block at a time in order to allow for proper grade
and drainage design. The applicant must sign an agreement prior to issuance of a building
permit to construct curb and gutter at a future date. The curb will be located eleven and
a half feet from the property line in order to provide for a bicycle lane on Highway 82.
This requirement responds to the City bike lane project in about 1987.
2. Driveways - The statement on page 10 of the application that there are no constraints
to development is not correct. The frontage of the proposed development is along
Highway 82. Section 19-101 (1) of the City Code states: "No driveway or curb cut shall
be allowed on State Highway 82 or other designated arterial where public alley access
exists, anything to the contrary notwithstanding." The project site currently contains one
driveway, and the applicant is proposing to install a second driveway.
The Engineering Department has met with the applicant and reviewed the driveway
access design. The City Code allows for variations in driveways and curb cuts for "unusual
1
.-,
,-"
conditions." The applicant has applied to the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) for an access permit for the second driveway. The location of the property on
Highway 82 is at the east side of Aspen where traffic volumes are far less than in the west
side of town and the commercial core.
The Engineering Department is willing to grant the driveway variation if approved
by CDOT and other reviewing agencies, however it is preferable that the site be
redesigned to permit all vehicular access from the alley.
In order to reduce the impact of the driveways on pedestrian use of the sidewalk,
on parking on the street, and on the requested variation in driveway curb cuts, the
driveway widths must be kept to a minimum.
3. Site Drainage - As required in Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f, the new development plan must
provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm
run-off must be maintained on site. A storm runoff plan prepared by a registered
engineer must be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to issuance of any
building permits.
4. Trash & Utilif;y Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage
area, which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be
indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility
meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked
by trash and recycle containers.
5. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals, transformers, or other equipment
must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-
of-way. The existing pedestal is in the alley right-of-way. In the event that it is relocated
for project construction, it must be reinstalled out of the alley right-of-way.
6. Site Design - In order to ensure the "courtyard style family development," the project
should perhaps provide common declarations and covenants for both lots. The residents
of both Lots 1 and 2 should be able to access through each lot, and there should never
be a fence constructed on the property line between the two lots.
7. Existing Vegetation - There is a significantly large blue spruce on the site. The tree
is not as large as the controversial tree at 204 Ea~t Durant, but the tree is sufficiently
large that the site design would be improved by preserving the tree in its existing location.
8. Final Plat - The final plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D.
9. Iml'rovement Districts - The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement dis-
tricts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public
right-of-way.
2
r-\
~
REZONING
10. The application is lacking the rezoning request. The deficiency notwithstanding, the
there are no engineering concerns for approving the rezoning. There will be increased
traffic generation as a result of the rezoning, but the street/highway has the capacity to
accommodate the traffic increase without a reduction in the service level. The rezoning
will result in increased demands on all public facilities, but it appears that the increased
demands can be met.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION IN PARKING
11. The application is lacking the special review request for a reduction in parking. The
deficiency notwithstanding, it appears to be appropriate to grant. a reduction in parking
of four spaces. The project site is located close to the commercial core and on a RFTA
bus route.
CONDOMlliIUMIZAnON
12. The condominium plat must meet City Code platting requirements in Section 24-7-
1004.0 and 24-7-1007. The plat should provide for general common elements for access
by all owners through common areas.
OTHER COMMENTs
13. Basements - The application is not clear that all of the structures will have basements
underneath. The basements together with the requested setbacks indicate that there may
be construction impacting both the Cooper Avenue and alley public rights-of-way. The
Code requirements regarding work of this nature in the public rights-of-way are established
in Sections 19-54 through 19-57. The applicant has been provided a copy of the
regulations. In particular, the alley must be kept open for the existing, extensive
residential use. The alley dead ends at the river, so access is not available from both ends
of the alley.
14. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work
and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
3
,
1""'-\,
,^-
,
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso
Bob & Darnell Langley
Marsha Goshorn
M94.367
4
,~
I~.,
EXHIBIT D
DIMENSIONAL DATA
The applicants have revised the site plan to reduce the number of
side yard setback variations that were originally proposed. The
proposed changes are:
Sidevard Setback Reauired Oriainal Amended
Historic cottage A - 5 feet 3 ' 1st fl. 4' 1st fl.
5' 2nd fl. 4 ' 1st fl.
Cottage B - 5 feet 2 ' w/ADU stairs 5 feet
Historic Barn - 5 feet 3 feet 3 feet
New Barn - 5 feet 3 ' 1st fl. 5 ' both fl.
5 ' 2nd fl.
1'''
..-.,
.
.'
November 14, 1994
THE CITY; OI'ASPEN
ND\! I 5
Ms. Marcia L. Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, CO 81611
SUBJECT: EAST COOPER COURT PROJECT .
939 EAST COOPER
ASPEN, CO
....~-.....I
Dear Marcia,
The City of Aspen Water Department has the capacity to provide water to the proposed
subdivision at 939 East Cooper. The Water Department will require that all existing water
service lines that now p~ovide service to 939 East Cooper, and all new water service connections
to this property, be connected to the 16-inch water main located in East Cooper.
The City will be abandoning the old 5-inch steel water lirie in East Cooper that now provides
water service to 939 East Cooper. All water service , connections on the old main must be
transformed to the new 16-inch water main. Please ~ave the developer coordinate the
placements and location of the new service lines with the Water Department.
Sincerely,
~
Phil Overeynder, Water Director
City of Aspen, Water Department.
,
'.
~
"'_""'.'.~~
,. "€
'e...s
cc: Community Development
PO:rl
v
IphilJeooper.prj
130 SOUT~ GALEN~ STREET. ASPEN, COLORAD<? 81611 . PHONE 303~920.5000 . FAX 303.920.5197
rrlnledonre<ycledp.lpel'
~.
("""'. ASPEN.PITKINI"'\
b-....VIRONMENTAL HEALTH O~PARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Departmentc.f(.,
Through:
Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer
Date:
November 14, 1994
Re: Langley Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special Review,
Condominiumization and Landmark Designation
Parcel ID # 2737-182-34-001
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Langley
Subdivision land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the Citv of
Aspen. and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 'lI'hallbe,,'awfulfo'lhaowne<or__
of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on-site sewage disposal device,'
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection
lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this
department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the
increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant must
provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound
to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'Allb"H'U"g',struotu~,fao"Ilfes,_
or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility $Y$tem,"
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with
Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen
Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The
City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health
for drinking water quality.
A letter of service must be provided from the City of Aspen Water Department
documenting that the' applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the
proposal and thatl the service agency is capable of serving the development.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/920..507D
tecvcledpapet
r,
'""""
Langley Subdivision Review
November 14, 1994
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 '"",Ole..",,,," ofmai""".'...... pmtectl..;ls mo""palwale'~"""'fmm
Injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatoty and supervisory JuriSdiction within the IncotpOf'ated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sourees
COntributing to municlpal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municIpal water suppHesare diverted,"
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will
be evaluated by the City Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down
stream water quality.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 'It" th. .."""" of [th. ai, q""'Ity""'" of Ole Mo.','pal Cod.] to eo"""", th. m""mom .- d.....
of aIr purity posslble by requiring the use of all available pnlCticaJ methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city.... The Land Use
Regulations seek to "lessen congestion' and "ilvold transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and
reducing pollutants".
The major concern of this. Department is the impact of any increase in traffic in a non-
attainment area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To be
consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the. Aspen area, traffic generated
by three single family homes must be mitigated. These three single family homes are
normally assumed to generate 21 trips/day. However, given the location of downtown,
the shortage of parking, and the proximity to bus service it is unlikely that the
residents would drive to the commercial core from these units. Occasional trips will
. be made, but they would be mitigated if the project provided fewer than the maximum
number of allowed parking spaces on the property.
FIREPLACE/wOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a firepiace/woodstove
permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be
issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes this site may have two
department certified devices and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace
appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may
any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural buildings may not install
any type of fireplace device.
FUGITIVE DUST: A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not
limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent
. paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures
necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a
nuisance.
DEMOLITION: Prior to demolition the applicant should have the building tested for
asbestos, and if any is present, should consult the Colorado Health Department
regarding proper removal.
2
,,~~~
-~'-.
Langley Subdivision Review
November 14, 1994
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1: .,..,Ily "'""'".nd'anddod...."'"''''''..''.~gn.oant'''''''"af.nWonmenlal...lution'''"'
represents a present and lricteaslng threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the CIty of Aspen and It its visitors. .....Accofdlngly,
It Is the policy Of councU to provide standard$ for permissible noise levels In yarious areas and manners and at various Umes and to prohibit noise In excess of thosO 1eveIs..
During c~mstruction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards,
and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will
have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of..
this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels.
,..IT _ ENV:WP:LAND _ USE:LANGLEY.5UB
1
3
,-,
-'.
~
November 14, 1994
..
THE CITY, OF ASPEN
5
Ms. Marcia L. Goshorn
Gold Key Services
516 Independence Place
Aspen, CO 81611
SUBJECT: EAST COOPER COURT PROJECT .
939 EAST COOPER
ASPEN, CO
Dear Marcia,
The City of Aspen Water Department has the capacity to provide water to the proposed
subdivision at 939 East Cooper. The Water Department will require that all existing water
service Jines that now pr.ovide service to 939 East Cooper, and all new water service connections
to this property, be connected to the 16-inch water main located in East Cooper.
The City will be abandoning the old 5-inch steel water line in East. Cooper that now provides
water service to 939 East Cooper, All water service,connections on the old main must be
transformed to the new 16-inch water main. Please ~ave the developer coordinate. the
placements and location of the new service lines with the Water Department.
Sincerely,
~
Phil Overeynder, Water Director
City of Aspen, Water Department
.'
'.
~
..-' .~'l' "-
. CI ,f',
~ ",~ 'fO~,€
'e.~
,
'.
".
cc: Community Development .
PO:rl
'V
Ipbilfcooper.prj
130 SoUTH GALEN~ STREET. AsPEN, COLORADC? 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5000 . FAX 303.920.5197
l'ii:.ll!donrecydtldpaper
. .. .-...,.......--c'.~"...,.~..._,.
."--.-.- c"~",,:,,._,,,,,,..:~;~
-
o
r'\
Tele, (303l 925-360t
Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation rDistrict
56:i North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
FAX '(303)925-2537
Sy Kelly. Chairman
Albert Bishop - Trea..
Louis Popiah . Secy.
Michael Kelly
Frank Louahin
Bruee Matherly, Mg...
Nay...bar 1... 1994
NOV I 9 S94
____(.':Ii
L...l Ie Lamont
Co~munity Develop...nt
130 5. Calena
Alpen. CO 81811
Re'LanglaySubdlvls1on
Dear L...lle,
1 received Marcia GOlhorn', raqUBlt tor an ablllty to ..rv.
letter tht. morntn. by t.~. The requ..t wa_ dated the 15th 01
Oetober. but thl, "'a. the flrat reque.t tor th, project that ...a
have received.
In 11tht ot the very limited tl..a that wa haYa to review the
pro.leot. It appear. that .... would be able to "1''1"'. provided that
. II~nlfje'nt downstream oon.tralnt (w1th!n 8 block and ena-half
Immediately We.t at th~ project) Ie corrected. The ewletlng
conetr.lnt 101111 b. elJmlnated through a ey.te.. ot prorating the
c08t. to newde...elop..ent In this ilrea. Thla .urchar,e will be In
addlt10n to Our nor..al connact1on oharg... Our eo.....nt. are ba.ed
upon the project location S"hown on the !ocatlon map and not the
project locatIon .holo/non the public facllltLeslAap.
Due to the Inten.lty at development propo.ed. the applloant
should r~vle1o/ the prOject w1th oUr line superintendent. to
determlne serv1ce line requlre.,ent. and .11,n"ent.. II. usual,
s~rv[c. 1. contingent upon compl1ance with IICSO RUle. and
R.fulatlons, wh10h are on file at the Oi.trlct ottice.
Pie.... oall It you need .dditJonal 1ntor",atlon.
Sincerely,
....-^'."'~'1>
Bruc. Hatherly
DI.trlot Hanager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCEI..LENCI<:
1976 -1986 -1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
;.::::!!Il-":";"
/-\
!"'.,
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Hea1.th Department
Electric Department
Parks Department
Zoning Administration
Streets Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
Leslie Lamont, Planner
FROM:
RE: Langley Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special Review,
Condominiumization and Landmark Designation
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-34-001
DATE:
November 10, 1994
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Richard Cowling.
Please return your comments to me no later than NOVEMBER 16.
I apologize for the very short turn-around for your referral comments, but the applicants are
new to the process. I have scheduled a DRC meeting on November 16 at 11 AM to discuss
this application. Please call or let me know if you have any questions or problems with the
referral or meeting date.
Thank you.
r-.
..-,
,.,-""",,-,-,",',',...-.
#
EXHIBIT 0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: LANGLEY SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION, AMENDMENT
TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT HAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
LANDMARX DESIGNATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 22, 1994, at a special meeting to begin at 4:30
pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the Second
Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 1305. Galena Street, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Bob & Darnell
Langley requesting approval fgr subdivision, rezoning to Affordable
Housing CAH), Special Review for parking and open space, GMQS
Exemption for affordable housing, and Landmark Designation. The
property is located at 939 East Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37,
East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena st., Aspen, CO. 920-5101.
s/Bruce Kerr. Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 4, 1994
City of Aspen Account.
. d c h j)?U-~ LrLAq;(".1;y
/fJ/tcuM-&?t; {J - U
IO/3f/Q Y
1'""'\
,..-.",.
~
October 20, 1994
RE: 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Application for Landmark Designation,
Conceptual Development review and Special Review to exceed 85% of
the allowed FAR.
Dear Jake,
The following information is needed in order to make a complete
review of this application:
* Please recheck all figures related to area and bulk (the
supplemental page). You may want to fill this out again,
given the rest of the information below.
*
You need to provide calculations for the
provided on the RMF parcel. There is a 35%
not all open areas are counted in open
instance light wells and driveways).
open space
minimum and
space (for
* The required parking spaces for this site are a total of
7 on the RMF parcel and 8 on the AH parcel. You are
providing ten spaces, therefore a waiver of 5 spaces is
needed from HPC.
* The required setbacks need to be determined by calling
the lot split line the rear lot line for each parcel.
In the RMF zone, you need 10' in the front, 10' at the
rear and a minimum of 5' on each sideyard with 15'
combined. In the AH zone, you need 10' in the front, 10'
at the rear, no minimum on each side, but a total of 15'
combined. Window wells and stairs can only be in the
setback if the Building Department identifies them as
required egress. Decks are only allowed to project 4'
or 1/3 of the setback provided, whichever is less. So,
if you only provide a five foot rear yard setback, (with
a 5' variance from HPC), your deck can only hang 1.65"
into the setback. If you need a variance for a deck, you
need to specify that and HPC can grant it.
* We need to continue discussing what FAR will be allowed
on the 4,500 sq. ft. AH parcel. Have you given yourself
an FAR exemption for the garage space? You should be
eligible for that.
* The Engineering Department says that there is a section
in the code which prohibits any new curb cuts off of
Highway 82. Please get in touch with Chuck Roth.
* For the Special Review, we need the Langley's own
description of the character of their neighborhoOd.
Also, we need a written response to how the project
complies with the guidelines and some visual analysis of
I""
~
"'
the neighborhood through photos, maps,
streets cape elevation or some photos which
project sUperimposed onto them would be very
etc. A
have this
useful.
* From the historic maps 1 have at my office, in 1904 the
main house is shown as a 1 1/2 story building with a 1
story piece on the back. 1 assume that is the piece you
are planning on removing. Since it appears to be very
old, maybe you should consider some way to keep it. (1
realize you are planning on having two floors there.)
1 will be in town until noon on Tuesday, but 1 must complete the
memo to HPC before then. Please get me this information as soon
as you can, preferably by first thing Monday morning. 1 will
review what 1 have, but as 1 told you, 1 do expect this to take
both meetings at HPC (the 2nd and the 9th) because it is such a
complicated project. Call if you have any questions.
"
\
/;
cc: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
1""""\
.~
EXHIBIT C
R/MF
HIST.DESIG.
SUBDIV. PROPOSED
Parcel
(1)10,500 sq.ft.
(1)10,500 sq. ft.
R/MF6,000sq.ft
AH 4,500 sq. ft.
FAR
10,500 sq. ft.
4,170 sq. ft.
(no bonus)
R/MF 3600 sq. ft.
AH 3309 sq. ft.
(wi bonus
detached DU)
4950 (multi
family)
Density
5 2-BR
2 detached FM/DU
R/MF 2 DU
AH 3 DU
Open Space
35%
35%
R/MF 35%
AH SR (0%)
Side Yard
5' total 10'
may vary
R/MF min 3'
AH min 3'
*Key*
DU - Dwelling Unit
BR - Bedroom
FM - Free Market
SR - Special Review
min- minimum
Bonus - is HPC floor area bonus up to 500 sq. ft.,
HPC has granted a 489 sq. ft. bonus for this proposal.