The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.Larkspur PUD / I ,'\. ,1. ",...." ",...." the doremus(fleisher Imason company LES ROCHE.USES A PROJECT BY DOREMUS/FLEISHER/MASON COMPANY The following presentation has been prepared for the members ~ftheC:l.tyofASpen Planning and Zoning Commission. QUALITY We feel there has been far too little pUblic concern by citizens in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for measures to control the quality of new developments. The primary concern of the conununitYhas been for control of density. We agree ~ ~ need ~ controlled growth. We think the emphasis to stop growth, however, is out of balance when compared to the concern for contr~l of quality. We think tht!l!'e iE; a gl!a'lfe 11li\l'l inunediate need to concern ourselves with, and to devote attention to, the problem of improving our construction projects. By quality we are not specifically talking about ~ materials are used. We are talking about design .... and how materials are used We are confident that the problem of design control will,. in the end, be the most difficult one attended to by both .the city and county agencies. What can be done, however, is to. give encouragement to the developer who understands quality and who shows the desire to undertake quality projects. poatofficebolln-3/aspen, colorado 81611/303925-2233 ,"",' , ~ /""'.. The materials to be used in Les Rocheuses are durable and well suited to both our climate and environment. The style and design of the building's exterior is exciting. The extensive landscape plan is befitting the site and location of the project. The interior layout has been thoroughly studied to provide area space suitable for permanent habitation, and includes those featUres required of our life stYle in Aspen. . DENSITY The control of density and the ultimate control of growth is a 1 multi~faceted problem. We will focuse only on those areas that directly relate. to our project, Les Rocheuses. We are aware of the growth problem in Aspen and the consequen- tial considerations to reduce the present density in the existing AR-l district... We agree'that controls need to be implemented. When giving consideration to all of the land now zoned AR-l, it appearst.o us that those AR-l properties contiguous to the existing commercial core should be evaluated differently from c those On the perimeter of the AR-l district. Locations that impose the least demand on city services and cause the least transportation problems on the community we feel should enjoy a highercdensity than those that, due to thei~ remoteness and distance from the Commercial core, will obviously contribute to an in auto traffic. Our property is contiguous to the and is consequently within easy walking service establishments and retail businesses. -2- f"". - :<' \,' ','~' Lot Size 16,600 sq. ft. Building 3,728 sq. ft. Stairs 245 " II Parking 4,592 II II 8,565 II II Net Open Space 8,035 sC;i. ft. LAND USE We are aware of recommendations to prohibit tourist accommo- dations in the. area of our proposed project. We whole- .heartedly agree ~~.proposal. We would like to cooperate with all efforts to establish methods that will guarantee that the future use of our units will be for permanent housing, rather than Short-term, transient accommodations. In addition, we nave given considerable thought to commercial uses for ourprope;ty. We have concluded that due to both the location of the site and the established trend of the existing neighborhood, the best use of the land is for a mUlti-family . permanent residential building such as we propose. We feel that to mix residential with commercial uses in this building would downgrade the residential environment we plan to create. In terms of economics alone, a project devoted to commercial use would be financially more rewarding than what we are proposing. The costs are significantly less and the income produced, whether .through long-term leases or immediate sale by the unit, will be at least the .same, if not greater, than what will be realized -3- . ,',"-'. ,..', 1"""\ .~ .a: residential project. . .We have chosen the less profitable project because we are con- .fident that.it best meets the existing needs of the community. :.The following describes details of the project: ; Development Objectives: To build a project consistent with a community need --' a " -, ' . . high quality multi-family residential building oriented towards . '. " thep~rmahent professi~nal or middle income resident. To provide .a high degree of .privacy and sound control while . . . taking advantage of the view amenities of Aspen Mountain, . Independence Pass and the Roaring Fork River. produce a st~ucture unique in design. fHlige~~~ pb~sible land coverage consistent with design and~ zoning limitations. - Design and Site Plan: each module is an independent by offsetting and staggering the building, .as demonstrated. in exhibit A. Each.unitmaintains complete , . .. . ',. , ',' ,,";.", .' ,,',:,' ,', '" . ..pdvacy while offering unobstructed views. The. four level . " ,",".:'.. also allows minimum land coverage. i','," ,,;H' '-'-'..1' "f',;,.." . """'H'\ ) -4- ". .','. . /..,'," "",' 1"'"\ 1"'"\ . The orientation of the building on the site maximizes the open space and green area along Original Street. Parking is at the wH:h entry from Original and hidden by burming .The floor plan, as demonstrated in exhibit B, provides for three bedrooms in approximately 1440 square feet of living per unit. ." . " ", ,'.::, .. ' The primary construction technique will be site cast concrete ,,' " slabs with exposed aggregate surfaces. This method of construc- will provide a very.strong, well-built structure requiring ~aintenance, excellent fire protection and sound control. building will be managed as a long-term housing facility as.such there will be no provision for on-site tourist accommodations. . , '-,"" . project to the Aspen City Council. We request your favorable recommendation of the Les Rocheuses , ' . , " ' . .' ., Respectively submitted, - .::-',' :-":,:-:' ,","" "",' ' ' .'l'heDoreinus1Fleisher/Mason Company I . ~ ~ _:'+~U.::azJbIHJ.L;: '.~~r:~ m ~ ~ ~ i:J>.;, . . </: II :1/ II I, I' I I . t- i ::t .~ I : j . , I .", , + EXHIBIT A - ......<. "' .A~'__. _. _.. ,,_ "_'M"" , ,'.n. --: ~A EoPi' ..;/_ . _:":,' -- .-.., ,"" ".",.,_.,n ".',"-' ","-':r , , , '" . /< < ""-' . ."-" ". ., "'-':." ,',- ",:::::;',j,,; >t- : ':}," '.:':_~-::'~'::'::::::C:'~t"\. .... , ~ ~1ia>1"'l'''' ..,. .... ._._.' ".. ..u~,_.,. . _, :.""""h.'___ :. / ~ e.1.pr... o :i , I OA1">> . /. , ,'.",-. () -. --- "'m-=-::- ." ~aT'.":.c~- I --___._-1 . . . .:.....' .. . --'.'l2.l,..., "'o.ly ---''''::~I~ .----__....,,_^.______..____n_.'..._.,~ ;', , , '. 'EXHIBIT B1 . 'oj ~ -~ ,#] : .. c . · .., ..,. 7 ..... ~c;.,.p- ~-~'~~w~ o 0 II I ...~... '.C:- ..,'1'=:: ;' ! " 'fI'Hl#7::'::::~:';::.:.:: ~ --,>> ' 7 .. .. ... :::OIl'iIH<iP'.:::::::~:=::' ():. ............. lOA.l.c'.&H'" . , f r ,< , , '. .EXHIBIT B2 .~ ~ TO: City Manager FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Larkspur Subdivision DATE: April 4, 1974 In October, 1973 Council approved a subdivision plat fOr the Larkspur, a 10 unit condominium project located at Hopkins and Original. The developer failed to record the subdivision plat within 90 days following approval as required by 20-6 of the subdiVision regulation. Failure to comply renders the plat invalid and necessitates reconsideration and approval by both the planning commission and the city council. The planning commission recommended approval at its meeting 4/2/74 and the applicant is requesting city council approval. ~\ ( 1 [ v 1""'\ 1""'\. ,-...~ ~~. ,:~,~ ,}~ ")"%{~re CI'TY~.i:6F>:A:S P E.N aspen,cQlorado,816!1) box v . '~(2;;V...;;i:'\";;:'f:~~ . January 18, 1974 Mr. Kit Mason Doremus/Fl~isher/Mason Company Post Office Box N-3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Kit: . The attached invoice was received from Wright-McLaughlin Engineers for the drainage study on the Les Rocheuses Condominiums. In accordance with your letter of agree- ment dated 7/ll/73, please remit paymentto.Wright McLaughlin directly. Very truly yours, Q~4 U!J Dave Ellis City Engineer encl. cc: Donna Baer Clayton H. Meyring ~ ".rr" RONAL.D C:~CL.AUGHL.IN KENNETH Ft.. WRIGHT HAL.FORD E. ERICKSON DOUGLAS T. SOVERN JOHN T. ttCL.ANE KENNETH ASH, MANAGER ASPEN OFFICE P,O. BOX 281.0 ASPEN, COLO, 81611 I"" '-"RIGHT-MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEER~ I"" ENGINEERING CONSUL.TANTS 2420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80211 (303) 4158_6201 Mr. David Ellis, City EnginE~er Asepn, Colorado B1611 JanUAry 8, 197~ COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE SPECIALTY FIELDS 01" WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRI8UTlON WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT SEWAGE COLLECT'ION AND REUSE INDUS'TRIAL WASTES STORM DRAINAGE PLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER WATER.ORIENTED PROJECTS ~T EM EN T C. Enginesri.ng services through j\fov.!mber 30, 1973 for storm drainage r'ecoll1lllsndation fOl' the Las Rocheuses Condom,iniums at Aspen, Colorado in accordance with letter request of July 31, 1973. Associate Project Engineer Engineering Technician Hydraulic Engineer Technician ;ft, " 1/2 hr. @ 19.00 $ 9.50 :3 hrs. @ 17.00 51. 00 II 1/4 hI's. @ 10.00 42.50 :( 1/2 hra. @ 1'+.00 35.00 1/4 hr. @ 8.00 2.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE. . . .$ 140.00 WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS By 4?n1tc~ R. Wright , RONAL-DC. McL.AUGHLIN KENNETH R. WRIGHT HALFORD E. ERICKSON DOUGLAS T. SOVERN JOHN T. McL.ANE KENNETH ASH. MANAGER ASPEN OFFICE P.O. BOX 2$10 ASPEN, COLO. $1611 / ("?' . CO!,! To -' 0""'0,- C. 'fy -I. I;/r Uc,;-O,,- COMPLETE ENGIN.EERING SERVICES IN THE SPECIALTY "IELDS 0... WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION WATER A"'O SEWAGE TREATMENT SEWAGE COLLECTION AND REUSE INOU~T"IAL WASTES ",~;!TO,R.~:~AAINAGE . "COOO.CONTROL. AND OTHe:~ WATJl:R.ORIJl:NTED PRO.JECTS 1""'\ .-. . ,.-. .1""\ 'RIGHT.MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS ' . ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2420 AL.COTT STREET DENVER, COL.ORADO 80211 (303) 4158_6201 November 1, 1973 Mr. Dave Ell is City En9ineer P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: REV I EW OF THE STORM ORA I NAGE FAC I LI TI ES OF LES ROCHEUSES CONDOMINIUMS Dear Dave: According to our earlier phone conversation, this letter reviews the drainage aspects of the Les Rocheuses Condominium to be located on the northeast corner of Hopkins Avenue and South Original Street. We also discussed this site in .terms of sanitary sewerage services as it was not clear if the site could be served from the existing sewer 1 ines. When we compared the historical runoff to the future developed condition of 56% impervious area for the 16,600 square feet site, it was apparent that the 100- year peak flows would increase from .6 cfs to 1.8 cfs. As we have stated before, it is important that the flow from the site be limited to historical conditions which will require that the site discharge be limited to 0.6 cfs requiring about 600 cubic feet of storage on the site. . As the roofs are not flat, it will re- quire that this runoff excess be stored in the parking area. This storage could be obtained by either raising the entrance a few inches and/or depressing a portion of the park i ng a rea i tse 1f. A notch or open i ng to the st reet about 5 i x inches wide with 1:4 side slopes should bt capable of controlling the discharge from the site and providing a relatively maintenance free situation. Only during rare in- tense runoff events would the site experience ponding as this opening would pro- vide sufficient drainage for "normal" events. .. As we discussed befo"e, the concept of draining the southerly portion of the site by a "catch basin" storm sew'er connection to the Original Street storm sewer would not work because of the high invert elevation. We also question this type of con- nection as it promotes entrance of local point pollutants. We also would mention that all contaminated areas, such as areas where trash recep- ticals are placed, are kept inside and drain to the sanitary sewer lines. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Yours very truly, WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS WCT:ms By /();&4t't(j'~ Wi 1 I i am C. Taggart . , ! t , I , I f I 1 ! F i I r ^.~ ^^ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Building Inspector FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance 19 Review, SUbject~~~. On P-18~73 the planning commission reviewed the above building permit and it was ~ approved denied Conditions: tZl ~ -.-- - ~.~ AA.b-J.~ ~ '-~ I~. r~ ~ ~.4/Vl.J ~, ~~ -+ to- ~~~ !/~. /It), ~~. ~-~. Planning Office Dated this / I day of , 1971 ( _ )~ ~ ~ v..... . j/~~ ~~~ -1/17/7Y ~ ~ 12 ,.,...-.,. ",..-, ~"_H_" '.' the doremus/fleisher/mason company September 13, 1973 Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Dear Member, Each of us, John Doremus, Kit Mason and Don Fleisher, is sympathetic with the problems you are faced"with regarding control of growth and its relation to urban sprawl, transportatiOn and continued growth of tourism. We are confident that our pro~ posed project is not inconsistent with the type of zoning changes needed to achieve any of your planning Objectives. Permanent residents should be encouraged to live close to their services, place of employment and source of primary recreation __ skiing. Our sHe is ideal for the resident who prefers to walk to these activities rather than commute. Our project logically should enjoy a greater density than one that places higher demands on the automobile. What does density in relation to our project mean? A. One unit (or three bedrooms) per 1650 square feet of land. B. An equivalent of 32 units (or 96 bedrooms) per one whole city block of 18 lots. C. One unit leSs than is currently allowed in the AR-l district. D. Only twice the units allowed in the single family R-6 residential districts. It seems obvious to us that somewhere near the commercial core of Aspen'there s.hould be a multi-family residential area devoted to permanent housing with the density weare asking for; if not our neighborbood then where? We have always endeavored to present our project for your review under the guidelines of eXisting and proposed ordinances. This we have done. Our design and archite~tural work was kept at a minimum through each stage of presentation. Each time you ap- proved our plans and instructed us to proceed we progressed further withftdditional planning. Only after receivirig ~our final approval, exemplified by the signiture of your Chairman affixed to the required copy of our plans, did we finally proceed, in good faith, with the posfofficebox n-3/aspen, colorado 81611/303925.2233 .?-\ "2'"2- ---- ,--" ~,", ~". page two... design development phase of architectural planning at significant cost to us. It is difficult for us to conceal our disappointment over your attitude toward our Les Rocheuses project as expressed during your September 4th meeting. We have worked long and hard to produce a project that could be of great benefit to our city... a project that. in its own way, will make its contribution to an improvement to the quality of our life in Aspen. From its inception last winter, the objective of our project has been to provide high quality housing in downtown Aspen, at a reasonable price. consistent with current land use recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission. . ~ summarize. in spite of the fact that our plans have already been approved by you once, we are confident that by having approved our plans a precedence is not being established that will lock you into a type of project or density that is detrimental to what your present planning objectives should be. We therefore request that you honor your previous approval of our plans and autho.rize us to proceed with our presentation to the City Council. Respectfully submi tted. D~e~ ./[cc ~a/~~ Kit r-. ~. the doremus/fleisher/mason company September 18, 1973 Mr. Herb Bartel Ms. Donna Baer Mr. Fred Wooden Dear Herb, Donna and Fred, I appreciate your taking the time this afternoon to review our enclosed letter to the members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and to discuss our project in preparation for my presentation to the P & Z later this afternoon. As I discussed with Herb earlier this afternoon, we feel our proposed project is the correct land use and the correct density for the property. If for some legitimate reason you want to recommend any changes please think of a way that, if we agree on it, we can also rely on it. In my presentation this afternoon to P & Z I will not talk directly or specifically about cost, profit or economics. On the other hand, you must understand that the amount of delay forced upon us henceforth should be limited and the amount of planning that can be scrapped has its limitations, also. I hope that the result of your discussion this afternoon is that you will advise me to make my final presentation to the P & Z today rather than cause us additional delay. However, if to make the presentation today would be premature of some homework you have to get done to such a degree that your recommendations to P & Z would be unfavorable to our project, then I would of course prefer to, once again, wait for a subsequent meeting when you are better prepared. Sincerely, 4, /:2 W;f/, ),r /'// 'fl" e .. i,i .;>' " ..:',' ~ . . r': /' .a".,"".<1'"".d'c('(;.~-:W. L ,. / Donald J. Fleisher DJF/pag post office box n-3/ aspen, colorado 81611/303 925-2233 ~ ..-4 " .,..,;:. ~."',-,;._"""'-'''..'''.'. ..,.,.,............-.......-...r-,...,-.;,.-'..-.....---......-."'...~... ESTIMATE OF VALUE Lots K, L, M, N. 0 and the East 16 feet of Lot J,Block 27, East Aspen Townsite, Pitkin County, Colorado. o '15 ~4\ s'l/ 1) .-:J tI1 , 1 , \ \\' / Prepared By: Robb Van Pelt Mason & Morse, Inc. August 7, 1973 ()l.~~n"'~11\ U' iltl~i<.~ij'~ti~ INCORPORATEO MBmBlllCIt. POST OFFICE BOX a ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE: 303 925-7000 POST OFFICE BOX 5039 SNOWMASS BRANCH WE S T V ILL I AGE, COLORADO 81615 PHONE: 303 923-3020 POST OFFICE BOX 701 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO 60477 P,I~ONt: ,30$ tl7,g.0159. If!' !';':q~~~jI?ln II I.",>>. !,.)'" INCORPORATED MIllO D1m:e' POST OFFICE'BOX a ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE: 303 925-7000 POST OFFICE BOX 5039 SNOWMASS BRANCH WE S T VI l LJA G E , COlORA-DO 81615 PHONE: 303 923.3020 POST OFFICE BOX 701 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO 80477 :1' HON E:3038 79.0694 1"""'..' .,-., August 6, 1973 D. F. M. Company Box N-3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, I have made an inv.estigation and appraisal of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, and the East 16 feet of Lot J, Block 27, East Aspen Town5ite, Aspen, Colorado. The subject lots are located on the corner of Original and Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado. The Purpose of this appraisal is.ta determine the fair market value of the property as of August 6, 1973. Contained in this report is some of the data used in support of my value conclusion. Based upon the data accumulated~ it is my opinion that t~e property has a fair market value as of August 6, 1973 of: $103,75.0.00 Respectfully Submitted, MASON & MORSE, INC. v,ellatlt(- . Robb Van Pelt RVP: 1 h i1' !'.<t!"i<1lD Iinilt$iliJI.i INCORPORATED Ullln GIRCB' POST OFHCE BOX a ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 PHONE: 303 925.7000 POST OFFICE BOX 5039 SNOWMASS BRANCH W EST V f L L 1 A C3 E, COLOR-ADO 81615 PHONE: 3039.23-3020 POST OFFICE BOX 701 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS. COLORADO 80477 PHONE: :30,3 sH!-Oe9:,( "....... ".......... COMMENTS The subject property is presently zoned to ~llow for multi family housing. The appraisal has been made on the basis of raw land without the influence of any structures. which may presently be on the property. The subject is located on the easterly corner of Original and Hopkins with frontage on both Hopkins and Original. The location offers easy access to the business center of Aspen as well as the Aspen Mountain ski slopes. The property overlooks the Roaring Fork River and offers a panoramicv.iew of Smuggler and Red Mountain. i:'.~nlnnii!!1 u h:i~<.ii~ ~~'>jtj INCORPORATED MOIROlflilB' POST OFFICE BOX a ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE: 303 925-7000 POST OFFICE BOX 5039 SNOWMASS BRANCH W EST V ILL I AGE, COLORADO 81615 PHONE: 303 923-3020 POST OFFICE BOX701 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO 80477 rHONE: ~H13 .'A7S).0694 " .- /"""". . i"""i\ -" ---""""--"-- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots K, L, M, N, 0 and the east 16 feet of Lot J, Block 27, East Aspen Townsite, pitkin County, Colorado. COMPARABLES L Lots F, G, H, Block 31, East Aspen Townsite, known as 825 East Hopkins, sold January, 1972, price allocated to land per square foot $7.00. 2A Lot S, Block 26, East Aspen Townsite and a pi~ce of property bordering Lot S originally considered Cleveland Avenue under the old maps of Ea~t Aspen Townsite now listed as Lot 938 and 940. Also known as 1000 East Hopkins. Sold April, 1973, price allocated to land per square foot $7.00. 3. A piece of property under metes and bounds description which lies at the end of East Hopkins. Price per square foot $5.44, sold in 1972. COMMENTS The number 1 and 2 comparab1es were acquired through real estate agents in the Aspen area. The properties presently are improved with condominium units and were ~ . sold with said improvements. The price per square foot for raw land was obtained from the agents handling the sales. Comparable number 3 was obtained from the purchasers of the property. The lack of a proper legal description plus being unable to acquire more than one source for the price per square foot of the sale does pre~ent some doubt as to the validity of comparable. The appraiser feels that the number 1 and 2 comparables should be held as the most valid comparables. Because the number 1 and 2 comparables contained improvements with sale their price per square foot for raw land could be discounted. It is the opinion of the appraiser that the number 3 comparable can be considered in the appraisal, but weighted due to its validity. ESTIMATE OF VALUE 16,600 sq. ft. @$6.25 per sq. ft. $103,750.00 . " I'I'V;j~S'%"O Il:t ';ha~~{]\Ui INCORPORATED Willi OIRce' POST OFFICE BOX a ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE: 303 925-7000 POST OFFICE BOX 5039 SNOWMASS BRANCH WEST V1LLfAGE, COLORA,DO 81515 PHONE.; 303 923-3020 POST OFFICE .BOX 701 STEA M BOA T8 PA t N GS, COLORADO 80477 PHONE: 303B7$l-OM4 .1"'"", ..~" M.""....~"..,.,'-.... C ..."."-"_...""._,...._"'_._~~-'~_._-'-'_._------."""'., ~...-;.-;,,,,,,,.,, .,." August?, 1973 To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that the undersigned is a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Colorado and has practiced in the Aspen area for a period of one and a half years. In connection with the above activity the undersigned has completed course 1 A an appraisal course offered by the American Institute of Appraisers. The undersigned is presentlY doing appraisals for the Mortgage Loan Department~f Mason & Morse, Inc. Previous activities include two and one half years with the Jrust Real Estate Department of the Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colorado. The undersigned is familiar with property values in the Aspen area and has personally inspected the subject property. No legal interpretations of any nature have been made and the undersigned has assumed good and clear title withoutanyre$trictions-on the property of an unusual nature. Respectfully Submitted, 7!ill/JiJ' Robb Van Pelt RV P : 1 h . 1""-' --, the doremus/fleisher/mason company July 11, 1973 Dave Ellis City Engineer City of As pen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dave: Per your memo of June 19, 1973 in reference to the re- commendations on the preliminary plat for the DFM sub- division (Les Rocheuses subdivision), we are submitting this letter as our agreement to pay the engineering fees of Wright-McLauglin for recommendations on storm drainage. We would appreciate your keeping us informed of these recommendations and of the engineering fees involved. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~.4~ Kit Mason KM/pb post office box n-3/ aspen, colorado 81611/303 925-2233 r-""" r--. the doremus/fleisher/mason company July 11, 1973 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission City of As pen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Reference: Les Rocheuses Subdivision (DFM subdivision) Gentlemen: This letter is to satisfy the recommendations of Dave Ellis per his memo of June 19, 1973 prior to signing of the final plat for our townhouse project. The following are our com- ments relating to the points of the memo. 1. The final plat does include a dedication of the easterly 16' of lot J, block 27 LA.A. to bring original street to its full width and to provide for street improvements and existing utilities. 2. A letter has been submitted to Dave E1.1is (attachment) agreeing to pay the engineering fees of Wright-McLaughlin for recommendations on storm drainage. 3. We hereby agree to join any future storm drainage improve- ment district or street improvement district, including paving, curb and gutter and sidewalks. We furthermore agree to include this condition in the Homeowners Assoc- iation and on the final plat. 4. The type and size of landscaping features are shown on the development plan. 5. We agree to include in the homeowners covenants a con- dition that all leases shall be a minimum of 6 months. We hope that this letter will satisfy the requirements for signing of the final approval of our subdivision. Respecti.ve1y submitted, ~~Ir Kit Mason KM/pb post office box n-3/aspen, colorado 81611/303925-2233 ~ --- !,~ ..~ - ~ ,...-.., .....-.. . the. doremus/fleisher/mason company June 28, 1973 -. The Mayor of the City of Aspen Members of the City Council City Ha 11 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Mayor and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: Our company is both a member of the Aspen Board of Realtors and involved in the development business. We would like to re9ister our support for the passage of Ordinance No. 19 now ~nder consideration. It is our opinion that there does exist a crisis situation in regard to the uncontrolled growth in the City of Aspen and this situation must be attended to immediately. In regardlto the letter of June 25 before you from the . .', " "Bo'a I'd" '0'" 'R~a har's'. 0e" if'O "rIot' 'ag fe"e' th'1.l t "p'a'5s age' o'f. Ord.imlfl-C e, , ", No. 19 should be delayed. He do, ho\~ever. agree that the Ordinance as written has some serious shortcomings which should be, summarily remedied either, prio,r to or immediately following its passage. The drawbacks wh~ch we conside~ most serious are those relating to the review procedure and criteria. We have submitted in a separate summary our comments relating to those items. We would also strongly urge and suggest the formation of a committee comprised of members of the planning office, the community at large and members of the real estate community (realtors, developers, architects and builders) to study and draft ~roposals for both interim and future zoning and planning ordinances. In that regard we would at this time like to offer our services in serving on such a committee. . ..,_. , ...... .( Respectively submitted, The Doremus/Fleisher/Mason Company Kit Mason KM/gg post office box n-3/aspElrl, colorado 81611/303 925.2233 ~ ,...-.. .' t. the doremus/fleisher/mason company ORDINANCE NO. 19 REVIEW It is our primary objective that Ordinance No. 19 be passed by the City Council and become a platform from which a sound . growth and zoning policy will evolve. Comments pertaining to the Ordinance It is suggested that Section 2 of the Ordinance relating to req~ired reviews be revised as follows: 1. All development plans shall be submitted to the'Planning ;;t.;"''':',, -.....,..) ,'., ...~;..a.iicF ZO'h 'i n'9'~C'o'mmi'Ssi'6'n"i' 0 r"'.'i''ts' y;~.,.'~~' "'~ ii"Cl"'C ohl1lief'at'i'~:n~'''''''''''~''<:' -.. ."....~ : .,,& .;,.. ." per the following schedule: ',. '... . " .. . '. o. '0' .t . '. ..' . ....... i o. . . af '.CQnc~pt.ua.f presentation: ..the' first pre'se~tatiori ;', ...... ..' ", to the ..' , o. ", Cooncil :~halibe.a conceptu'a'l' er sketch pian "presen-'" tation covering the basic objectives of the proposed development. Such presentation shall be in writing and include both a site plan and statement of intent for each of the review ~riteria pertaining to the area and type of development. b) Preliminary design presentation: After conceptual ..... 'approval has been achieved and all items of review agreed upon the second stag.e shall be presented; .. . consisting of a final site plan. schematic design post office box n-3/ aspen. colorado 81611/303925-2233 "..-. "...-\ drawings, preliminary elevations and a building model. c) Final approval: having achieved approval of the previous two levels and of all review criteria, the development plan and design development drawings . 'must be submittElg for final .approval prior to sub- mission to the City of working drawings for i~suance of a building permit. . ~~'c'The l>lillliifrigandZoning CoOimlssion shall app'rOve or . disapprove each stage of the above presentation develop- ment plan within 30 days of the date of receipt of the plan by the Commission. - ~ '- y.... .: ".....,~,., F"" ,.~ ~ ~'" 'kf"'l!h'-e" WE!111:-'" o'f .'''(14''5' il'pP l':oV',p}...:ttte-":'l",-e-as,cllS""fCl'r'''''ili-w'.p'p,r1ll'\l' ol'.'I:; ."",. ,......._,..:':i:;..",.~ shall be' given in writing to the applicant. ..... ..... ..... ....";. ,........, ........... ','.. .t....... ....:. ." . .".......:..........,......!................ ...............!.... .. "'......... ...... .,.' .. 10 . _. ~ ...:'.. ..":. . ..:... . .' 4. .' AT:{er 'approv1r'0:t't!\e pre'l fiJi.tna l'y"d'eS1g ri'-"~res e'ri'ta ii on '. ".'. 1 :'.t, . '. ....... '". .' .. . .'" : ~ .'. .'.' 'by.t'he 'Plan~ing" ~nd 'i:oriing'Co~m'ission the p'lan"sh~lf 'be' . . ~ ... ." presented to City Council for approval. . .. 5. Prior to presentation of the preliminary plan comment shall be acquired and submitted with the presentation from the persons concerned with the following: . a) b) c) d) e) f) water electric .. . gas fire city engineer s c h 00 1 ,. ..' , . .",........, ~ '. Comments on review criteria A. Suggested areas: .1) Affected areas of public service as presented in paragraph 4 of previous section. 2) Site plan 3) Building ground coverage 4) Building size (fl 00'1' area) 5) Building height 6) Building bulk (cubic feet) 7) Parking 8), Access 9) Open Space 10) Landscaping 1%""; ~~"'~;: '.,.:..J; ..~..':..~:.t\~~'l'J'\."~"rl:'''',f.\;.',~:':,''~...:~~l\~~~..,t:l:''''~~ ~"11 $.l:&.......,.......~~-;<o(<.~ ..."':...;~..;",.;.:oh, ';"4' ~,....:}.1.~:t...~.!.r><. .~,.,....,~ .J.'~~..~.~'#.~. ~~~.:.,," .~l.~.v..... "''':'''\e... ' . 'I. / DU1101n.g use \ cype" mlX/..... .. . ~. '~'.- .,. ... ,..,. " . 12) Number of units . ..: .'.'t'.. '.'~:" ......;: '. _...,,""':,~' ,.,..: ....:.. :.. ,,~,:,"~,r.'.""t ..~.:. ..~...... ':..~.,...'...., ...'...,."".... ":'..; :.,....~.....~..,....'.....:.,.;.<:..a....->...,j; .. ...... , '.' t"'\,.Dlll.'ldj'og .des'i.g-n., '. , ,.. . ......., . '.' .. -'.' ":'fo"I#~'_"':''';~';''';:'':''''''~'.~ '. !," ~". . : . ,~;",~""',~'"'~':''~.;~..~''~''~it~'''i-:'-1'",.':"Il'''','1e;'''~''>>'''.....>.....:.\:.;:....~ ..I(....~,..:..~.......:,~~..:..~:.'l'!':!(.... ." .;. ". . .... '. ..' . ',; .14)"'Building'materi'als&. c~lo'r .' .'. -' . . ..... . ". . ,.. '. .... ... . .' '." ~. .. - -....... '.'., 15) Amenities < 16) Management \. 17) Covenants Note: For purposes of discussion of these criteria we have ma~e reference to four zones: Zone A: the commerc i a 1 core . Zone B: that area immediately adj.c~nt to the com- mercial core and within easy walking dista~ce Zone C: the transi ti on area between. 'Zone Band Zone 0 Zone'D: the outer boundary area of the City ",...,....., "....- B. Suggested Criteria 1. Building ground coverage, height and bulk. Note: It is our feeling that ground coverage, height " arid bulk should relate to each other in as much as a building covering less ground area should be allowed greater height. As S~chlfor each area we would re- commend limits on cov~rage and height expressed in a linear relationship. - 'Zone A: Limit 1 - 80% ground coverage with 30' height Limit 2 - 50% ground coverage with 60' height Zone B; Limit 1 - 75% ground coverage with 20' heigtt rI"~'~r:;1r....~~~~.,". '-(:;'~'~'.~/.;:1',~\o~,.~<;:,~ ~~\~~.:~~.~#t..w!t';~}..~lJ>.~ofr~. ~:}~'''~~~''YJl ~~~,~~~r~~~w~~:,,!~i.~~.n:";..~~;,~J1~~..~~.;~,.,~~;~t&>~,.~~__~~~~,-~'~.~ Zone C:Limit 1 - 50% ground coverage with 30'height :;.... ~..~t; ,...~.f....; .~.~..:. ..,' .....:...~,.. ....:...............:........... ..:'.:.:...... ......Oot'_:.. ."............",.; . .:<:.:...1'.... ~.~. ~...'.. ......, ..:(..."....~.."'...:.........\.........:...~'''' .i.. ,.,.,...." ,.". < :....J. "'-1",..:.::.;..,. :~.., !",11R:j.;t,:2> -,'.2!l-2k.:g.r..e.u-n.d ,.qlV e.riHl.e.,.\'I.{.t.h. -5>0,'~.,MJ:9hi....:.,..... ,:=. ..~: ,....,~ . ." . ..' .. .. . : . . '.. :'." . ,," ". - '. .' ." ..' -' "', . ,.....:... ......'"' ';",:. '.'- . " . "" . ..... ' ." ';' ~ . "..0 .. '.,. ". '... "".. . ',' " 't. ".. -". .' '..... '.' ".. . ::'" ,.. '. ... ,'. ," ': II,: " . ..... :'., ., . . . . ~':.; ," '. .,.. . . Zone 0: Limit 1 - 30% ground coverage with 20' height Limit 2 - 10% ground coverage with 40'height . 2. Floor area suggested ground area to floor area ratio: Ratio Cr ground to floor area area Zone A 1 to 2 Zone B 1 t.o 1 Zone C 1.5 to 1 Zone 0 2 to 1 . . ~ ~ 3. Number of Units: We would like to suggest three categories of units as it relates to housing: stu- dio, 1 bedroom and unlimited. Furthermore,we would suggest a 20% increase in required land ar~a for .tourist units versus permanant units. Note: Zone E would be those areas of large unde- veloped land which are not now a part of the city which may be annexed in the future. Land Area Per Unit (square feet) Zone , ..~. ....".. ". .-,&,. .~..,.""," ..~.~Bi;"~II"'~'~"'j,\;;.:l.C;",,"..,"'\o:"N.-t.:ll"!'-"'Y';~"""...~.&..r~"'~'""?'~"..:'l'..:.1f',.;~"'''::J;:.~,,:, ~.::.~~.,4:'::!:--~\:''''::''~~'':.!...t.,;~::t:...~~~_.~,~..~,::.....":'~..,"'{,:<<J'S-I..~.....!\>.... ....1'...,.. r;. ....':'-.' ", _ r .... _.. Studio 43 36 24 18 12 . . l-Bdrm. 36 . 29'. '19" 14.. 9.. '. '. , . -.' .' .:..;. '. . ::.... ., ..' ~ ll-li'Jl1;j..ted .... . ,':2 S. .....' .:" !".;Z4-" .,.... .... 1'6" ..r :'1'2 .. . "fa:: ." ..,., ..... " '. .. .' '. ....:.~.... .,',,;, .0 ....,............."; ....~ .... ':o...,.;;t.......:... -0;" .,.........~;.~;.....:....... ......~~;{;,..~ ,..~ ~:._~.:;:t'~.-....,.:.... ~,.;.: ;: .>4~f........:;;::'.~..~~.:....'~~-. ~~.'(>t'}':.~.1,.,?l_:..: ~.~...:...~...,:"':';r.;.., ,.... ..... . .Mea~.i"munCuri'(t' Si.ie'.' ... . . ................... .. Z.Ol1e...'.'........ " ... ........ -C . 0 .... . . . , . ........ A B E Studio 1-Bdrm. Unlimited 2000 2400 3000 1200 1500 1800 1200 1500 1800 1200 1500 1aOO 1800 2250 2700 4. Parking . It is the intent of the parking requirements that those units within ea~i.t walking distance to town have the least required parking spaces. Parking space~per unit. . Zo.ne A .!! f .Q. Studio purChase 1 1.5 2 I-Bdrm. from 1 1.5 2 Unlimited Ci ty 1.5 2 3 J ..... . . . ~ ~. , .' . C. Other Considerations One of the biggest problems facing the City of Aspen and surrounding area is how to control and encourage use, as it te1ates to permanant versus tourist housing and' design and ~ua1ity of construction. , .1. Use- suggest that permanant use is encouraged by: a) A reduction of density for tourist use as presented previously. b) Restrictive covenants c) Design d) Management 'e) Amenities 2. Design and quality - encourage good design and quality by: ... ~.~ f'~"t"#">L'. ....~.~..... .... "..... .'~ ...:. ..4:,;,..,.... '. . .... .' -..... ..J....... :.~.~..;,:."'~ .~.:t :f"'-.... ~r"~..-::.": .~. a1.~fi1 cb'b"fa';g~r ~y !';'Br~&K~'e~if:~'6"Li~T1t"fng'~+pa:'t tiytn~o.<:'.T"~"":::~_.~"'N~~;:-~~+~~'.;';;::.";,o~;~~~~(~~~v.,t"~t:~ . b) Limiting use of materials . ... ...... . :....'. .,..:.... ..... ."..~.:;., ......... .:_,....~.. .... ...: .";.....~...;.I;,. ~" ......:....i,:. ~!:........::...:....:~...~~,;~;.:......;-........... ,..~.....;.os;~...., i",\,.,~.':"';i;''', '. ...~.l..~~.~q,.(j..:k\;j.n gp;,~r...ti4j.n~fl.&$,i g)kf.~.ahu.l:'..~S."',$I,l.s;b; a ~.:....:.......8.......'""'~.;.. ...,,,' ......, ...,..... 1., The.rmo.pane"gla'ss" ......'.. ...... '.."'~.,..,~......,.."....'''' "~".;">... . ..... .2...Ster.age. .' .... . ,'.: .., .' ......~.: .....,.. '.' ."....... ... ..., .' 3. Large balconies . ,.' . d) Qu.ota system of allocating building permits. . .' '.". . . . ~ . ,....- . ,; ".....-, CIT MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT:DFM Subdivision DATE: June 7, 1973 ,,-~ PEN box V ;m~ ~~ Please schedule and advertise DFM Preliminary and Final Plat for Planning and Zoning's next regular meeting. The applicant has already hand carried plats for referral. List of adjacent ownership is attached. 01)3 ,...-... rw-" , '. r---"- OWNERSHIPS ADJACENT TO DFM COMPANY SUBDIVISION Block Lot(s) Owner & Address 27 P,Q,R,S Robert & Frances Knight P .0 . Box 561 Aspen, Colorado 81611 28 3-9 Original Curve Condominiums (see names of owners on attached list) 28 17 & 18 Donald & Dolora Westerlund P.O. Box 927 Aspen, Colorado 81611 31 A,B,C William M. & Charlotte B. Zilm P.O. Box 1090 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 31 D,E,F Raymond & Jesse Bates P .0 . Box 472 Aspen, Colorado 81611 31 G,H East Hopkins Condominiums (see names of owners on attached list) 104 Jack D. & Eloise H. ligen P.O. Box 195 Aspen, Colorado 81611 '. ~. , ':} Unit # 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 "....-.... ORIGINAL CURVE CONDOMINIUMS Owner & Address Mounta in States Communications c/o William Dunaway Box E Aspen, Colorado 81611 Boyd, William W. & Patricia A. P.O. Box 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mounta in. States Communications c/o William Dunaway Box E Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gay, Jeanne B. & Flaherty, Catherine P.O. Box 2268 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gay, Jeanne B. & Flaherty, Catherine P.O. Box 2268 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Abamuha, Eij iro Not available Gay, Jeanne B. & Flaherty, Catherine P.O. Box 2268 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sharrocks, William & Marilyn N. 118-66 Metropolitan Avenue #12 ,Ken Gardens New York, New York 11415 Gay, Jeanne B. & Flaherty, Catherine P.O. Box 2268 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Olen, Mary E. 537 S. Kennon Court Denver, Colorado 80228 '. ~ , Unit '# 201 202 20.3 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 .301 ~- ORIGINAL CURVE CONDOMINIUMS (continued) Owner & Address Boyd, William W. & Patricia A. P .0. Box .301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Conaboy, Thomas 915 Pres i dent Street Brooklyn, New York 11215 Fisher, Larry H. & Cochran, John 509 W. Euclid Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 Jacobi, Jeanne S. P .0 . Box 5.3.3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Berscheit, Mary Jo .369 W. 56th Street New York, New York 10019 Universa I Enterprises, Ltd. P .0 . Box 2840 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carey, Richard J . and Marilyn Not available Flowers, Christel P .0. Box .3419 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gay, Jeanne B . P.O. Box 2268 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jenkins, David P .0. Box 588 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Cowart, Trent E. P.O. Box 7681 Dallas, Texas 75209 '- ~ 1 Unit 'iF 302 303 304 . 305 306 307 308 309 310 ~. ORIGINAL CURVE CONDOMINIUMS (continued) Owner & Address Hovdesven, Bayard p.O. Box 3810 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tutt, John W. P .0 . Box 2454 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Martinson, Frederick 2070 S. Milwaukee Denver, Colorado 80202 Nutzhorn, Carl R. P.O. Box 1043 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Berg, Denn is 2465 Pfingstew- Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 Clark, Harold F., Jr. P.O . Box 2775 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Fanning, Thomas Sr., & Jr. 233 "A" Street, Suite 1108 San Diego, California Rose, LawrenceJ. Not avai lable Kirk, Charles E. & McSherran, Alexine P.O. Box 506 Jackson, California 95642 "! " , ;#'" ,....-- "......- EAST HOPKINS CONDOMINIUMS Unit # Owner & Address 1,2,3 (northeast) Alan J. Goldstein 497 State Street Rochester, New York 14603 Alan J. Goldstein 497 State Street Rochester, New York 14603 1,2 (southeast) 3 (southeast) Carol Ann Jacobson P.O. Box 956 .Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~~. t0dcu/ t;,t<o/>,ah ~?7 :7.,('5-";; 3'd?3 . /"""'.. .'" '" ,~ SUBDIVISION PLAT GilliCK FORl'1 ~~I'l-).3 Date Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulati.ons, any tract of land divided into two or. more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for. the City of Aspen. This form, with, attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, ~tc., and where necessary sketching recomrr~nded alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he returned to the City of Aspen Plannin g and Zoning Com_ mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. '-rh, ~~ A-<1 ir~,,~'~~ ~~ dA-- -~~ 2:2:zL.. ~ ~L &4 .J,d, ~--L ~~~~ -;D~~~ A /yJ!: ~~CZ4, ... /^rl"'A# /J' / ..:;t; (/<lK/ CLW- 1""'.. .".,....,. ?c~/ ~/#L. I"'" ,-., SUBDIVISION PLAT C:llliCK FOR1'1 Date 6 -If - 23 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com_ mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks: _ Df ~J1??11 Z-J'~ ~ LJ" ~";5 ~ ~~ ~-~. ~ I~.-R ~-L..-<<-. ~~~~ C~ r~~-.:6~, <,d);~(2~ ~~ CJ,6( /{/~ )fr'~.-' //:/ .;lack ,-.~ SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FOR}1 Dat~ (2....< .y C7 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, w'ith attached copy of. the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no later than seven (7) days from the above de.te. Remarks: r " l' /'~J::-~~--P :#1:-1 _ <'--Y" -<ft ~ 4.~ ....-:?1~~;>., ~/ 'e'" .' I" :/'';$'.''''' . ...._" ~ . .~.;/ V 6'Jr'L .~ ~ ''''4? JJ~~i_. -----------..- . (~'"~.C~;.A1 A'!U":tf4': .t....J't' <€ ~ C~A-I'..bJ.. . ....4k)A~ I -11>- ~~~ ./~ii!fF~ 1;t;1 ;J.:?S- 29;; 2, "'. ~ ~~~ ~ ~r-, ~.--.. SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FORM , Date June 1, 1973 Gentlemen: According to the procedure,set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, ap.y tract of land divided into two or more lots m'.1st be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for. the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, mnking comments, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com_ mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks: With only limited information it is difficult to determine ---- school related problems. Assuming that the project will house school age children, the School ~~~tri:..t_~s_:~::cer,,:~~ with provision for safe routes to and from school and w.ith . the required contribution, under the subdivision act, for open space (school sites), If)rJ L ~ ~. ~J-~ eJVP-< a-,/~ ~ ~ 9::?5- 3'(;,0/ d?557 tb!\.~ ,-., r'\ SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FORH Date!Vl"y 31, 1973 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com_ mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. 16,emarks : Provision has been made by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District to connect this property to the manhole in Original Street. Line capacity and Plant ::::::::~SuffiCi'nt~ Clint Samp, n E~c >iv, S.cretary " ~ .-.. LARKSPUR SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this <2/ day ,1973, by and between DONALD FLEISHER, THONY DE[EVATI and CHARLOTTE DELEVATI (hereinafter referred to as "Owners"), DOREMUS/FLEISHER/MASON COMPANY, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider"), and TH E CITY OF AS PEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners hold record title to a parcel of land situate in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which parcel may be more particularly described as follows: Lots K, L, M, Nand 0, and the Easterly 16 feet of LotJ, Block 27, East Aspen Townsite, and . WHEREAS, Owners and Subdivider have submitted to City for approval, execution and recording a subdivision plat of the above-described property, such subdivision to be known and designated as "Larkspur Subdivision"; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within an area of the City zoned AR-I Accommodations - Recreation; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such subdivision plat, the proposed condominium development and the improvement of the subject property shown thereon, and is willing to approve, execute and accept said plat for recordation upon the agreement of Owners and Subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, which matters are deemed necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, Owners and Subdivider are willing to enter into such agreements with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of said subdivis ion plat by the City for recording, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: r~" ~ ~ ,-, I. Owners and Subdivider shall construct and install the storm drainage facilities shown on the subdivision plat of Larkspur Subdivision, as well as whatever additional storm drainage facilities may eventually be recommended for the subject property by the study now being conducted by Wright-McLaughlin, prior to submitting an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject condominium project, or by October 15, 1974, whichever first occurs. 2. Owners and Subdivider shall landscape the subject property in accordance with the landscaping features shown on the subdivision plat of Larkspur Subdivision prior to submitting an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject condominium project, or by October 15, 1974, whichever first occurs. 3. City, Owners and Subdivider mutually agree that the sum of $37S"I.00represents four (4'10) per cent of the current fair market value of the land described above, and that such amount shall be paid to the City by Owners at the time construction of any kind is commenced upon said land or on Apri I 15, 1974, whichever first occurs. 4. It is the opinion of all parties hereto that the bonding and escrow procedures provided for in Section 20-9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, are not necessary in connection with this particular subdivision, in light of the relatively low costs involved in complying with the agreements set forth in paragraphs I and 2 hereof, and the fact that a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued for the subject condominium project until such agreements are fully performed, and such bonding and escrow procedures are therefore hereby waived in this instance. 5. The parties mutually understand and agree that the condominium units to be constructed on the subject property are intended to be owned and occupied by long-term residents of the area. In order to insure that the aforesaid purpose is fulfilled, Owners and Subdivider hereby agree that each and every instrument by which title to one of said units is eventually conveyed shall contain the following covenant: "By his acceptance and recording of the instant Deed, Purchaser agrees that the condominium unit conveyed hereby sh,all never be - 2 - ,. ~ 1"'-\ . , leased for a period of less that six (6) successive months. This restriction shall constitute a covenant running with the title to the subject unit." Owners and Subdivider further agree that an identical leasing restriction will be incorporated in the Larkspur Condominium Declaration so as to provide record notice of such limitation. 6. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, City agrees to approve and execute the Final plat of Larkspur Subdivision and accept the same for recording in the real property records .of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon pay- ment of recording fees and costs to City by Owners and Subdivider. 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. OWNERS: -- ,\-"" --,' -j SUBDIVIDER: DOREMU /FLEISHER/MASON COMPANY By C ~~- res i ent . , /~-' .--,~, ~_. L Mayor ATTEST: ~_J'~~ . . . .'. .. I Y er - 3- '- .(' . 1"""\ 1"""\ Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing Draft December 19, 1972 9() D ,00 , PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 24 REGARDING CONDITIONAL USES IN AF ZONE DISTRICT Section 24-8. (b) AF-AGRICULTURAL/FORESTRY to be amended as follows: Uses - conditional--- subject to the approval of the board of adjustment (1) Public buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, radio towers; (2) Recreation clubs, open use recreation sites, INCLUDING ,SKI RUNS, SKI LIFTS AND SKI LIFT FACILITIES, uses operated by a nonprofit agency or neighborhood associations; (3) Sewage disposal areas, water treatment plants, water storage and reservoir areas; (4) Electric substations, gas regulator stations (not including buildings for business offices, repair or storage). c