HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Villas #1
,."
I" "
. ~ /
,
.t$
( ....
1717'
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
March 10, 1975
The MA.A. would offer to spend $10,000 to renovate the basement and to pay $3,500 per
summer providing whatever is spent for renovation is credited against the rent. The
M.A.A. is also asking for a minimum of a three year lease.
Ted Armstrong, Parks and Recreation Direction, said there was a soda fountain in the
basement .and the space is just barely adequate to install some type of kitchen which
would feed that amount of people. Mayor Standley questioned the ventilation and elect:::i'c
system. Armstrong told Council some ventilation and storage for foods would have to
be.installed. Mayor Standley asked if there was sufficient capacity to femthat many
people. Edgar Stern said not everyone ate at once. Mayor Stanoley mentioned that Grass-
roots was willing to move their office space upstairs. Councilwoman Markalunas asked
whatwould,happen to the recreation program down in the basement. Armstrong said they
couldrnake other arrangements.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to lease the basement of the Wheeler Opera House, or that
portion under the control of the City, to the M.A.A. for three years as per their memo-
randum submitted dated March 10, 1975, and to move Grassroots upstairs; seconded by
Councilwoman Pedersen.
Councilman Behrendt suggested a rent of .$1 per year plus their share of the utilities.
Edgar Stern said the M.A.A. planned on paying their utilities as theywoulq only use the spac
for nine weeks. Mayor Standley told Council the City could use the space at other times.
Armstrong asked if other civic groups already using that space could still have it when
the M.A.A. wasn't using it. Edgar Stern saia the .M.A.A. would prefer to keep it under
their control but perhaps something could be worked out for after 8 p.m. and the MA.A.A
could lock up the kitchen.
Councilman De Gregorio suggested the motion be amended to include the fact that the City
can use the space after 8 p.m. Councilwoman Markalunas amended her motion so to read.
All in favor, motion carried.
/
ASPEN VILLAS - Final Subdivision
Yank Mojo, Planning Department, presented the final plat to Council. He also told Council
that the Villas were drawing up an agreement to prohibit use of the basements in the
Villas for bedroom purposes. Mojo mentioned to Council the property was valued at one-
quarter million dollars for cash dedicati~n purposes. The cash dedication to the City
will be $10,000.
Mayor Standley asked where the public trail will be. Mojo told Council it was on the
western boundary and will be paved in concrete. There will be accesses to this meandering
path from Seventh and Hallam. The bike path will not go on Sevenmand Hallam because
that is too dangerous. Mayor Standley asked if the bike path could be marked as such.
Mojo said yes, .i t could.
City Attorney Stuller said this agreement was directing that the subdivision agreement
be recorded and the City was accepting the cash dedication.
Councilwoman Markalunas said it was her understanding that there were to.be no parking
signs. along Hallam from..the bridg,e to t.he cornE~r. That hasn I t been done. In the summer
the bike trail is obstructed' with parked cars. Mojo told Council it 'was up to the City
to post the signs. Also, there are to be no curb cuts off Hallam street except one.
Councilman De Gregorio made a motion to approve the final plan for subidivision; seconded
by Councilwoman 'Pedersen.
Art Daily, representing the Villas, pointed out to Council the figure on pages 4 and 5
of the subdivision agreement for escrow arrangements should be $67,256.
All in favor of the motion" except Councilman Behrendt and Mayor Standley. Motion carried.
620 HYMAN BUILDING
Don Flei.sncr prese::.ted two models to Council for his proposed building site that he f~':lt
are both bett.er 'Chan the building uDoroved unde:;. Ordic.,ances #19 ar'.d #50, SeriQs or }
The first nodel had three levels above grade and the roof line fits into t.he sche,,'\<::: of the
block. The second model had one floor below grade. Fleisher pointed out to Councilthc:.tt
these arc not final design schemes but to demonstrate how mass and density can work and
~>till take L.i-:o c1C(_~ount the rest Df tho: block. Both of these plans h<J.v<-~ the same ,:i";~)tl:',_
of op(~n :.:-:...:r: it 1;ds bl.;.;l':;) dL;U:lr)utcd differently. Fleisher also mentioned li,e'. .:;,;:~
sti.ll irn 'w'hich OD,) they LLk,~d best.
Cou;",ciLrc",r:
r;,:.' \:::.end t
l1'.()vc:d
Uh:;
Coune .~.l '.'ot.e
in f'aTiO:::- 0:
:,,:;>
two
5 t.ory :'.:cd
.nr::i",:~ '1'(i''\ .\\<,!,:-, ~\; ~') 1
the two st.Cl.:"Y s~_'hi';;)() had all been v"or-Ked out. J(~r:::-y]\-'~
U;:', dr:-::hi.,t.,'~ct C,:;:' t :1;' '!~Oi('c:t, told CCli_1l'.(>il ~;o;~.,() Dr: t:
t,;: l':\.") ""1 , ':.;,(\ Y.:1N'O
'.:-,
Councilrla~ Br03stcd asked It
l':.
<"",,j
\-;
;;\.
\,:
,U f;
CC)llnci l:,,,()n: In l'~'d,'i.~;i'l\ .1~;L,:<l if j"tsh,_'!":" ~:till 11,:\,] to CUClli' back l\~,rj L 15 t,t" tli (~o ;n,-.: l
vC'c..d Oll t.;,\:: pre!) 'j F ,i<:i, '1. ~:,Ij,l CI1Ui1,'il. we'l.lld VOI..(~ ('n one of t:!lC,;(~ ,':ClH,.; ::<'
won't COlll" i)<1cf~ .1'ldin or- CCllll)(ciJ. cnllld voj'!, to ll't tl,,'m r(~-dC~"lJrn 1:11(' l'r'o'jc'ct on !:i:'-.l)'
idcil:,. i-:iLlI"t' n':;ulj. wuuLd lH' ,\ .'iynthc,;lS o[ tfh~ two I.Jro.)ects f'1ndid('dS.. Coutlci_lm':lli
Dn.:d:;t\,d d:,;k','d Wi,dt !.-,lllq"'()L,,ul,J\.l,'t.'1 tlv:'y' we're ta.lklnll ,-lboutin ch"nqlllqof.' t:hl'ir ,{, .;i'1~'.
l\:'Ulh.'tliil.i:! i:i, 1 t..,] i lv' .]t ,ill t.1\\.; ~io'\11.j j;.. I,;!'.' .,."t~y ('.j. I) .0 lit.lt 1,'1,. ~:l' I
dido' t. ~~l'" \'! f\L'.')~' dl1d :-lnl" 1,111:1'." ",,; -.<11 lly ill d 1;11';lll~di')":t,lndi.l1q. !.'I,'\:;I,"I' <'It\~'W''t'.,,,j
th~lt tlll~~ I.:' )tl ~t .t 111''')''[ \,.i~\,':\ .:1"'. ,1 '.'\!I""Tt ,!llii lli,}t ,t dcstqn. 1'1 (,!I" CCllill' :1 .1\'I't:
thi:; {,"'th"~;L t~\,.:;,,,'i 11 Ii, ,:'ll:t I t~
^
BRIAN L. G()(,_.dEIM
.'<0.
,-..,
'-
"
consultant
SYSTEMS
March 9, 1975
Mr. Art Daly
Holland and Hart '
P. O. Box 1128
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear ~k. Daly:
In regard to my written development appraisal of the Vi I la of Aspen
Phase I I and your subsequent request for a reappraisal incorpora-
ting new information, I have prepared this letter-addendum to my
previously submitted report. This letter completely supersedes the
development approach as evaluated in my previous appraisal.
This appraisal is being made: (1) to incorporate a revised and more
precise square footage measurement of the intended condominium im-
provements. Where previously assumed to be 1100 square feet of on-
. closed living space plus a 600 square foot basement, the revised
figures include 992 square feet of living space with a 448 square
foot basement (unfinished) and a 60 square foot canti levered balcony;
and (2) at your request for a detai led breakdown of hard construction
costs reflecting the direct costs al located to finished living space,
unfinished basement, and balcony.
These assumptions will affect only the income approach to value and
the market approach value estimate remains as previously stated.
The incromental change in unit square footage wi I I have its major
effect on constructi on costs as opposed to any change in anti ci pated
,gross revenues. This is true because purchasers buy within a given
price/qual ity strata and general iy do not make the investment decis-
Ion based upon i ncroments in any square footage parameter. Ther-efore,
it is assumed that the 108 square foot smaller unit could also be
sol d for $71,500.
In estimating hard construction costs in the previous appraisal, a
rate of $32 per square foot of living space was assumed. This figur-e
was applied to a base of livable square footage (finished) and con-
tained an allocation for the basement over the livable finished ar-ea.
The revised approach segregates living saace (@$27/sf), unfinished
basement (@$11!sf), and balconies (@$8/sf). These costs were obtahed
from Shaw Construction, contractor for the subject development, and
were verified by other local developers and contractors. This cost
structure, when app lied to the updated 'p roject speci.f I cat ions, revGa: s
the unit cost figures presented in the following table and represents
a total construction cost of $836,992.
Post Office Box 4348
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925-1730
Residence (303) 925-1558
PLEASE REFER
TO APPRAI SAL
REPORT AND
REVISED
DEVELOPt~ENT
APPROACH
,I"",
~
Mr. Art Daly - Vi I la of Aspen
Page 2
REVISED COST ASSUMPTIONS: VI LLA REAPPRA! sr,L
Degree of Standard Unit Cost Standard Un i t
Improvement Un it Quanti ty Per Square Foot Cost Component
I ivi ng
space 992 sq. ft. $27 .00/sq. ft. $ 26,784.00
unfinished
basement 448 sq. ft. $11 .00/sq. ft. 4,928.00
canti levered
ba lcony 60 sq. ft. $ 8.00/sq. ft. 480 .00
CONSTRUCTION COST PER UNIT = $ 32,192.00
Correlating the value estimates resulting from the market and (revised)
income approaches, a sorrewhat different comparison must be made from
the correlation in the previous appraisal. Because the market'approach
exceeds the income approach valuation, theoretically, the market value
of the subject property has exceeded its user value. Although the
extent of this excess is not great, the near equality of the market
and income approaches points out that the developer in this case,
could not afford to pay more than market value without beginning to"
erode his profits accruing from the investment and risks inherent
in bringing the subject property to its highest and best use.
Given the land value indicated by'the development (income) approach
is $232,720, and the landvalue indicated by the market approach is
$238.576, for the reasons above stated and subject to the assumptions
and limiting conditions previously stated and not superseded, I
recertify the subject property's market value, as of March 9, 1975,
to be equal to the value as determined by the market approach and
rounded to:
TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ,DOLLARS ( $ 238,500 )
Respectfully submitted,
,,&~t{ f}~J~~
Brian L. Goodheim
consultant-appraiser
(encl )
A
.
,,",,
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE: DEVELOPMENT APPHOACH
Revenues:
26 units @ $71,500
Less Marketi ng:
6% commission
NET SALES
Planning:
Legal & Architectural
Estimated Cash Dedication
Land Development:
Net Demolition Less Salvage
Excav., site prep., offs i tes
Constructi on:
26 units @ $32,192/unit
Arch., Engr., & Contract Adm.
(7% of contract)
Tap fees: water $23,700
sewer 7,800
Landscaping
General & Administrative:
.5% of Gross Sa I es
Financing Expense: (80% of Appraised)
Construction Points (2)
Construction Interest (9%)
Land Loan Interest (10%)
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
NET TO PROFIT AND LAND
Prof ii':
Bui Ider's profit (10% contract)
Developer's profit (10% gross)
LAND RES I DUAL
$ 1,859,000
111,540
1,747,460
20,000
10,000
(30,000)
10,000
,15,000
(25,000)
836,992
58,589
31,500
30,000
(957;081 )
(92,950)
25,168
84,942
30,000
(140,110)
$ 1,245,141
502,319
83,669
185,900 (269,599)
$ 232,720
,-..,
.-'
March 5, 1975
City Counci 1
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Council persons:
We have been asked by Dave Ellis to comment on the desirability, from
the standpoint of the people residing at the Villa of Aspen Townhouses,
of removing the berms on the south parking lot of the Villas and replacing
them with sidewalks. '
The board of directors recently met to consider this question, and un-
animously agreed that we prefer to retain the berms. Furthermore, board
members have subsequently approached at least a dozen other Villa res-
idents, and,they all desired to retain the berms. The berms provide a
place to play for the children and serve as a visual screen from the road.
We request that the berms remain as they are.
Very truly yours,
Villa of Aspen Townhouses Association, Inc.
~-~~
By Dusty Hamrick, President
JOSIAH G,HOLLAND
STEPHEN H,HART
JOHN L.J. HART
WILLtAM 0, EMBREE,JR.
JAMES L.WHITE
PATRICK M.WESTFELDT
CLAUDE M.MAER,JR.
ROBERT p, DAVISON
JOHN FLEMING KELLY
FRANK H.MORISON
WILLIAM C.McCLEARN
JAYW.TRACE:Y,JR
JOHN ALLE:N MOORE
BEN E.CHtDLAW
JAMES E.HEGARTY
FIE:LD C,BE:NTON
DAVID BUnE:R
J.MICHAEL FARLE:Y
WARRE:N L.TOMLINSON
BRUCE:T.BUE:LL
DON D. ETTE:R
/"'-. 1-\
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMES T. MORAN
HARRY L.HOBSON
KENNETHD.HUBBARD
ROBERT L.VER SCHURE:
GORDON G.GREINER
ROBEAT H.DURHAM,JR.
WILLIAM E.MURANE:
L.WtLLIAM SCHMIDT,JR
JAMES P,LINDSAY
EDWIN S. KAHN
SAMUEL P.GUYTON
JOHN S.CASTELLANO
DENNIS M.JACKSON
ROBERT E. BENSON
RICHARD M.KOON
CHARLEST.BRANDT
ROBERTT.CONNE:RY
HARADON BEATTY
ARTHURC.DAILY
JE:FFREY C.POND
JOHN UNDEM CARLSON
SOO EOUITABl..E BUll-DING
730 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DE:NVER,COl..ORADO 80202
RANDY L.PARCEL
DAVID G. PALMER
MICHAEL D. MARTIN
BRUCE W, SATTLER
RAUL N.RODRIGUE:Z
JACK L,SMITH
JOHN D,COOMBE
EUGENE F. McGUIRE
SOLOMON N.BARON
THOMAS A.FAULKNER
ROBERTJ.MOIR
MARK R, LEVY
R. BROOKE JACKSON
P.AULLRUTTUM
BRITTON WI-IITE,JR.
WILEY E:.MAYNE,JR.
RICHARD T. CASSON
GREGORY A.EURICH
TELE;PHONE AREA CODE 303 292-9200
CABl..E ADDRESS H'Ol..HART, DENVER
MOUNTAIN PL.AZA BUILDING
P. O. BOX 1128, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: 925-3476 AREA CODE 303
March 3, 1975
Mr. Yank Mojo, Assistant Planner
City of Aspen
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Villas Subdivision
Dear Yank:
I am enclosing to you herewith for your review on
behalf of the City a copy of the Valuation Report of the
Aspen Villas Subdivision property prepared by Brian L.
Goodheim under date of February 21, 1975. The Report
appears to be comprehensive in scope and well-grounded
analytically, and certifies a current fair market value
for the property in the amount of $238,500.00. In the
event this valuation is found acceptable by the City,
the cash dedication due to the City in connection with
the captioned subdivision will be $9,540.00.
Please let me have your thoughts on this as soon
as you've had an opportunity to discuss it with other
interested City personnel. As you know, we are scheduled
to appear before the City Council for final subdivision
review on March 10, 1975, and we would therefore like
to finalize the Subdivision Agreement before the end
of the present week. '
Thanks for your assistance.
Very
ACD:rnm
Encls.
cc: Sandra M. Stuller, Esq. (w/copy)
Mr. Dave Ellis (w/copy)
Mr. James Reser (w/copy)
Mr. Ronald H. Windemuller (w/copy)
CHRISTOPHER N. SOMMER
EDWARD M. GILES
BRITT CAROL ANDERSON
ALAN E:.BOLES.JR,
GERALD W.GRANDEY
STEPHENL,PEPPER
THERESAW. DORSEY
KENDALL T.SANFORO
THOMAS E.GEBOW
JANE MICHAELS TALESNICK
S.WYATT McCALLIE:
L.TYRONE HOLT
WILLIAM M. BURKE
JUf;RETAP.SMtTH
ARTHUR B. FERGUSON,JR.
JAMES E.HARTLE:Y
JAMES E, BOICOURT
.-!-
......" -
(')
',-,/
,-,
,-,
VALUATION REPORT
OF
DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Prepared
for
Holland and Hart, Attorneys-at-Law
(",
" 'I
"-'
representing
The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
Prepared
by
Brian L. Goodheim
Consultant - Appraiser
February 21, 1975
SYSTEMS
(......
"
-.,
c:
r--,
BRIAN L. GOODHEIM
consultant
~
.
February 27, 1975
Mr. Art Daly
Holland and Hart, Attorneys at Law
Post Office Box 1128
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Daly:
In compliance with your request, the undersigned has completed an
appraisal of development property owned by Vi I la of Aspen, Incor-
porated and currently improved as the Vi I la of Aspen Lodge. This
property is legally described herei n and by a metes and bounds de-
scription at book 266 page 37 of the Pitkin County, Colorado pub-
I i c records and conta i ns L 609 acres.
Please be informed that a careful and personal inspection was made
of this development site and that due consideration was given to
all factors and forces that influence property value in the Aspen
area.
In this regard, the attached report contains an analysis of spe-
cif i c data wh i ch was deemed essenti a I to support the esti mate of
value as calculated herein under the market and income (develop-
ment residual) approaches to vaiue.
As a result of my investigation and findings, it is my considered
and professional opinion that the subject development property,
having as its highest and best use the development of 26 town-
house condominium units, warrants a market value as of February
21, 1975, in the amount of
TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($238,500)
Should questions arise in connection with this report, or if I can
be of further assistance in this or other matters, please feel
free to call upon me.
Respectfu fly submi tted,
~:;? ., ~'1 ,/;,
---'///7~cO(' L ./CZt;.Z;.~cOI..C
Brian L. Goodheim
consultant-appraiser
Post Officll Box 4348
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925-1730
Residence (303) 925-1558
~
~
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( ~ pages plus Transmittal Letter, Table of Contents,
and Titl e Page)
I Title Page, Transmittal Letter and Table of Contents
II General Information
A""
V
III Purpose of Appraisal
IV Physical, Social, Economic and Market Data Pertinent to Appraisal
V Appraisal Assumptions
VI Statement of highest and best use and value in use
VII Preliminary Value Estimate: Market Approach
VIII Preliminary Value Estimate: Income (development) Approach
IX
Correlation of Value Estimates
X Certification of final opinion and limiting conditions
XI Qualifications of Appraiser
o
".....,.
"-,
~ II General Information
The subject property contains approximately 1.6 acres and is .legally
described by the following metes and bounds description:
o
A tract of land situated in the NE 1/4 SW 1/4 and the
NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of section 12, township 10 south, range
85 west of the 6th principal meridian, Pitkin County,
Colorado. Said tract is all of Block 11, City of Aspen,
the vacated alley in said block 11 and a portion of 8th
Street (vacated) less the northeasterly corner of Lot 1,
Block 11 as described in Book 266 at page 37 of the
Pitkin County records. Said tract is more fully
described as follows: beginning at the southeast
corner of said Block 11; thence N 75009'll" W 317.54
feet; thence N 14050'49".E 220.69 feet; thence S 75009'll" E
287.54 feet; thence S 30009 'll" E 42.43 feet; thence
S'14050'49" W 190.69 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 1.60 acres more or less.
This site comprises the southwest corner of Hallam and Seventh Streets in
the City of Aspen. The current commercial utilization of the subject
property is as the Villa of Aspen Lodge. A site diagram and photograph
illustrating the extent and situation of the existing improvements
is presented on this and subsequent pages.
IIAtt.-/lt/1 SToeeeT
310' :!:
~
I~
'", ~
'!JC1)
Qf"'!
n. 111:,
'11 fh
LJ,i,fl"'
. · "1
_____.--J
1
VIU..A
"PHASE. I
J
E:rls-fltJ$ --'>-
.IJSlpr-bve_M.e.v-f!t
,<{'''''"J(.. {7/ {xx> tit
?
..s:
+-'
l..
o
t:.
~/.ED'€.e STReET
0.,--,
..'......:...
SI.T 8
- "-
D.T..P..G R1\ ft\ ~ (/lot to sc,,/e:)
-_.._---~--
I. 0 /Jeres
(""\
v
><
E-i
~ U
I'il Z
p.., H
0
~ -
p.., Z
0 E-i I'il
p..,
U C/}
I'il <<:
r3 ""
53 0
"" <<:
0 :j
0 H
E-i P-
O I'il
P=1 P=1
p.., E-i
o
t"'-,
i" '
.'1
"
'c. ....,:.,'.~ '->,::, ,'-,
;~~,'- ;. j;) ~\ ~
,,~ ,-_~I'. "I
';~~,:;;'~f:; (~;"t '..'" '
. _:,~"__,-,,,,~,,"'~'-.r\;,7,a'"""',",':r,"~ill' ,; .I,',' ~
''';;:;;;.''l}>t ~ I:; '.
",2;,d-",: -~,- \ ~ t '
" 'Mt 1i~ . ",,'
, .t ';~4:' Jr~ ~I
~" Ill'l'~ ,!'i J
<$: ,f ':1 ~ c\ .!k11' i
~'\-). ~I~ 1 j\'~l~ fi
.~
}
,
.~
~_.,..~",,",-"...,,~:,:.<.-. \1~
r _~_:.:'" ._.~.....:.;. . ' t '
~~~: 7:71'-; "II~ '~t
t (i {-,.o;~. ~ tl i;
1'" ' ~ 0 ; ,
l1iJ~IJ \)
I
".~x-- ~.' \C ,
J',' :v, 1 'Ii!
;""t., ~-~' 1~j;f! 1 1 J,
. < r N 'f;,
i .;" i'li' .
,., J . !' /,~,:~:'
it: - ,'t -,'
, 11"*1 j'; ~ "::?),
\'" -", "" Ili'~" ,:;~
,;/i.!,\" ",~, ,..'.\'
: ..' ~ _~_"'_' t 1'; ,J . ",,~.:. /1.'
'-,,/~,;~~l!tw,I': ,';, ~)i':,f,I'J.
-; _,~lJ.;.:"~ ;~;'/;';:f21
,-,
'_,''1!lfl!''., .~' "P'l'f1,"
J:' .~ ~~'~ '-,"~
.._""'1"' - .\\
.,~,...t\.. ,."
, :::,,~;t.{ \\ \
~
-- "
--
. I
}
:~
dl
,~
ri'~
1,
i,J
~;J
~:
!.' f ~"
"'"
,---
III Purpose of Aopraisal
o
The purpose of this appraisal report is to establish a market value
estimate for the subject development property as of February 21, 1975.* It
is further understood that this land value estimate will be employed by the
City of Aspen as a basis on which to calculate a 4% cash dedication to be
paid by the developer to the City. This specific utilization of the
findings herein, however, in no way alters the appraisal methodology nor
valuation from any other market value appraisal process for development
properties.
The property ownership interest being appraised is a fee simple
interest. The inherent rights accruing to this absolute ownership
interest include the right to enter upon or into an interest thereof,
to use or not, the right to sell or not, to lease or refuse to lease,
, to donate or give as a gift, and the right to enjoy peaceful possession.
These rights are subject only to the governmental pOlice powers, eminent
, domai n, taxation and escheat.
The type of value being estimated by this appraisal is Market Value,
'which is defined as follows:
The highest price the property will bring contemplating
the consummation of a sale and the passing of full title
from seller to, buyer by deed, under condi ti ons whereby:
buyer and seller are free of undue stimulus and are moti-
vated by no more than the reactions of typical participants;
both parties are well-informed or well-advised and act
prudently, each for what he considers his own best interests;
a reasonable exposure is given in the open market; and
payment is made in cash or on terms reasonably equivalent
to cash, assuming typical financing terms available in
the community for similar property.
IV Physical, Social, Economic and'Market Data pertinent to Appraisal
Since all parties concerning themselves with this appraisal are
intimately familiar with Asp,en's economic and social patterns, only a
synopsis of these issues will be discussed herein.
Suffice it to say that Aspen is the Western Hemisphere's premiere
destination ski resort with annual ski visitation approximating one and
one half million skier visits. This economic base supports an ambient,
permanent population of between 7,500 and 10,000 with peak summer and
winter tourist visitation swelling the population figures to 15,000 and
24,000 respectively.
r''''\
'J *subject to the assumptions and limitations ancillary to this
appraisal opinion.
'C
.e
0,
,
,-.,
---
Offering a clean environment, quality skiing, fishing, hiking, educational
and cultural activities, Aspen's short-term visitors provide a ready market
for whatever real estate interest is available to make the transition to
Aspen residency. This strong demand for real estate is mitigated by an
extremely limited supply of privately owned land caused mainly by Aspen's
nearencap3Jlation by publicly-owned national forest.
A compl imenti ng force further constri cti ng the avail abl e supply of
real estate and housing is the latent political philosophy of local govern-
ment. Realizing that the ten plus percent annual population growth rate
prevalent in the 1960's could not continue without major environmental and
social degradation, growth controls in the form of special review ordinances
and a major downzoni ngwere instituted. The proposed downzoni ng woul d y'educe
the potential buildout within the city by two-thirds. In fact, the subject
property was downzoned from AR-l to R-MF use.
Economic implications of this downzoning, especially as development
appraisals are concerned, include to what extent will the downzoning,imply
a higher land cost per unit and what proportion of this increased land cost
may be passed on to the homebuying consumer. Assumptions regarding these
relevant issues are critical to the apprais'al process and are discussed
below.
,v Appraisal Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
The market value of most urban properties is a partial (but major)
function of the highest economic use to which the property can be utilized.
Given the prevalent Aspen real estate market, exhibiting conditions of
demand-pull and supply constraint inflation, the question arises as to
whether the specul ati ve market value of the Vi 11 a of Aspen property has
exceeded its economic use value. The answer is detennined by an assumption
regarding the degree to which an increased unit land cost component may be
passed on to the consumer and this degree is determined by the price elas-
ticity of demand for the final product. This elasticity reflects the
sensitivity of demand relative to changes in price at a given price strata,
and is a primary function of the degree of competition (the number of
purchase alternatives) in the market.
The elasticity assumption made herein is that since demand is so strong
and that there exist so few alternative housing purchase options, the entire
increased land cost component, may be passed onto the consuming public with
only a minor decrease in absorbtion rate. Pricing the units at $65.00 per
square foot of living area,* it is anticipated that sellout of 26 units would
be over a two-year period.
*This figure implies a retail price of $71,500 for a two bedroom, two
bath unit. -Current market averages of comparable units range from $51.00
to $69.00 per square foot and average $58.00 for comparable units without
basements.
,,....,
,~
<:; VI Statement of Highest and Best Use and Value in Use
()
o
With the implimentation of the proposed zoning change from AR-l to
R-MF on the subject property, its value in use as a lodging facility will
be non-conforming. Given the age of the structure (18 years) and the fact
that any additional improvements would require a zoning variance, its
continued value in use must be discounted to reflect these conditions.
In regard to the current and potential operating statements for the
Villa of Aspen, the 1973-1974 books show an operating loss of $28,500.
on gross income of $126,000 from rental of the 40 lodge units.
The 1973 assessed value of the land and improvements was $63,070 and
$68,740 respectively, which indicates an actual valuation of $210,260 and
$229,120 respectively, at the assessment rate of 30%.
Given the above information, the highest and best use of the subject
property is not its current use, but the development of the land into
condominium townhouses.
VII Preliminary, Value Estimate: Market Approach
Under the market approach to value, the value of the subject property
is determined by an examination of comparable sales, weighting each for
its comparability with the property being appraised. The value translator
generally used in vacant land is price per acre, per square foot, per front
'foot, or per buildable square foot or area unit. Adjustment is made in
these translators to reflect varying degrees of aesthetic differential,
adverse influence, or physical limitations to land utilization between the
comparable and subject properties. Hence, an indicated value of the
subject property is arrived at.
Encompassing the premise that the market value of a development property
is a function of the extent to which it can be developed, a land cost per
unit figure was calculated for combarable projects in Aspen, this cost was
brought forward to represent 1975 dollars,* this current dollar land cost
per developable unit was weighted on the basis of project comparability,
and finally this weighted average cost per unit was multiplied by 26 units
to determine the market value of the subject property based upon the project
yield.
The projects selected for comparison, in order of comparability, were
the Villas Phase I, the Larkspur, the Gant, and the Concept 600.
The comparison between the Villas Phase I and Phase II necessitated
a land cost allocation between the two parcels. This was achieved by
*at 10% compound interest.
c
o
o
.-.
~
taking the ratio of useable acreage for each parcel to the total useable
aCreage and allocating the unuseable acreage (east bank of Maroon Creek
flood plain) and regarding each phase as a separate project.
The Larkspur is the second most comparable project, but suffers in
similarity because of a slightly higher retail product (3 bedroom units)
and a lower project yield (marginal land cost per unit should diminish
as additional units are added, hence the cost function with respect to
units is nonl inear). On the other hand the price range of these units
is almost exactly that of the subject project.
In a comparison with the Gant, the opposite is true because this
project has over 5 times as many units as the subject development. This
factor is mitigated by the fact that the Gant contains a substantial number
of three and four bedroom units, which should represent a higher land cost
per unit. Hence the comparability weight of 20%.
The Concept 600 is the least comparable of the four projects because
the project density is very high and the project contains app.roximately
7000 square feet of commercial space for which an adjustment must be
made. The low weighting factor of 10% is assigned to the Concept 600.
From the self-explanatory analysis on the fOllowing page, it can be
seen that the market comparable approach indicates a land cost of $9,176
per developable unit. This represents $23a,576 as the indicated value of
the subject property under the market approach.
,......,
""",
C:
"iJ'
MARKET DATA APPROACH: COMPARABLE PROJECT ANALYSIS
~
~
.
C"-,,,
"',..'"
.,':,:.....11
VIII Preliminary Value Estimate: Income (development) Approach
The income approach to value is a "land residual" technique in which the
future income stream to land and improvements is segregated and that accruing
to land is capital i zed to give a present va 1 ue of the site alone. The deve 1-
opment residual is a hybrid of the income approach where an economic simulation
of the proposed development is used to create a pro forma cash flow. statement.
From the cash excess over labor, services, and materials is subtracted the
return accuring to capital, any endogenous contracti ng profit, and a 1 and
' development profit accruing to the entrepreneurial vehicle, leaving a land
residual which is the indicated economic value of the site. This technique
is especially useful as a pre-acquisition aid to developers to insure that
the asking price of the site is not speculatively priced in excess of its
development (user) value.
In the application of the development approach to the subject property,
final land yield of 26 units was marketed at $65.00 per square foot (or $71 ,500
per unit) to generate revenues of $1,859,000 over a period of two years.
Marketing costs consisting of a 6% brokerage' commission yields a net sales
$1,747,460.
Development costs consisting of planning, site prep, hard construction,
and general and administrative (overhead) were estimated based upon this
eap-praiser's experience with such costs in Aspen.
A return to capital in the form of construction and land financing ex-
pense was calculated based upon a construction loan of 80% of the appraised
Value of the improvements (the existing market rate of $55.00 per square foot
was used to appraise the project). The construction loan commitment was thus
assumed to be $1,258,400 for an 18 month commitment at 2 points at 9 percent.
From the net residual to land and profit, a building contractor's profit
of 10% of the construction contract, and a land developer's profit of 10% of
gross sales must be subtracted to arrive at the land residual of $238,560.
' This is the valuation estimate under the economic approach.
o
11"'\
'It
",~i
o
o
,.,....,
^
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE: DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
Revenues:
26 1100 sq.ft. 2BR 2BA units
A $65.00 per sq.ft. 71,500
Less t1arketing:
6% commission
Net Sales
Planning:
legal and Architectural
Est. 4% cash dedication
20,000
10,000
Land Development
Net demolition less salvage
Excav., site prep., util. offsite
10,000
lS,OOO
Construction:
$32.00 per sq. ft.
Arch., Engr. & Contract admin.
(7% of contract)
Tap fees- water 23,700
sewer 7,800
landscaping
General and Administrative:
5% of gross sales
Financing Expense: (80% of appraised value)
Construction points (2)Z5,168
Construction interest (9%) 84,942
Land loan interest (10%) 30,000
832,000
58,240
31,500
30,000
Total Costs
Net to Profit and Land
Profit:
Builder's profit (10% construction) 83,200
Land devel. profit (10% gross) 185,900
Land Residual
1,859,000
111,540
1,747,460
30,000
25,000
951,740
92,950
140,110
1,239,800
507,Q60
(269,100)
238,560
,,,'.,..~,j,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,~,,,,""_,'C"",,,'''''J..;.,~.,,,,..._."
c
o
o
r"
r-.
IX Correlation of Value Estimates
Given the close fit between the market nata and income approaches, the
certainty of the final valuation is increased.
Of the two approaches, the income method is the most applicable because
of the direct translation of the economic value of the property at its
highest and best use, development into 26 condominium townhouse units.
Had the valuation under the market approach greatly exceeded the
valuation given by the income approach, the market approach would have
taken precedence and indicated that the market value contained a strong
speculative component which had forced the price above the user (economic)
value.
By using the economic approach to indicate economic value and the market
approach to check for speculative value influences, the most certain valuation
opinion can be rendered. Given the close fit between these'approaches, it
can be concluded that the market value is its economic value, or $238,500.
X Final Opinion of Value, Limiting Conditions, and Certification as to this
Opinion '
This is to certify that the undersigned has made a careful personal
inspection and analysis of the development property described herein, and that
all findings, statements, and opinions submitted in this report are correct
to the best of his knowledge.
The appraiser has no present or prospective interest in the subject
property and the fee agreed upon is in no way related to or contingent upon
the value reported.
It is further certified that this appraisal has been made in conformity
with the professional standards of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers, although the undersigned is not a member of this organization.
The market value of the herein described real property, as of February
21, 1975 and subject to the limiting conditions noted below, is certified
to be:
Two Hundred Thirty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($238,500)
Certified by ,
~.':S;ta:(~~_c
Brian L. Goodheim
Consultant-Appraiser
C'"
:'.....J
o.
()
1""\
,---
Limiting Conditions
1. The property is free and clear of a11 liens and encumbrances other
than those of record.
2. The appra i ser di d not search val i dity of titl e, nor does he assume
responsibility for corrections which a survey of the property may reveal.
3. The market value of this property is based upon the typical financial
leverage of 29% down and adequate partial release provisions in all subsequent
encumbrances.
4. The project yield is assumed to be 26 2 bedroom, 2 bath plus base-
ment townhouse condominium units.
5. The information contained herein is not guaranteed, but it was
gathered from reliable sources which are believed to be accurate.
.
6. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character.
7. Sketches are accurate only for purposes of approximation.
8. Acreages were computed by planimeter from surveys deemed to be
accurate, but this information is not guaranteed.
ro.,
BRIAN L. C JDHEINI
consultant
.-"
SYSTEMS
~UALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER
Mr. Goodheim is a graduate of the University of Florida College of,
Business where he earned a BSBA in Finance and an MBA in Finance and Man-
agement Science. As a Graduate Assistant ,for the Bureau of Business and
'Economic Research, critical financial and land use analyses to the pro-
posedCross-FI ori da Barge Cana I were deve loped and pub I i shed. In addi-
tion' Mr. Goodheim held a research assistantship in the Finance Depart-,
ment where he developed computer systems as an aid to the setup and man-
agement of pension plans. This was in addition to his post as a Compu-
ter Center Manager.
o
Mr. Goodheim relocated to Aspen, Colorado in December, 1971 as a
financial analyst for Real Estate Affi liates, Incorporated, a national
real estate development subsidiary of AMEX-I isted C. Brewer, Limited.
In this capacity, Mr. Goodheim developed state of the art capital bud-
geting techniques for land development analysis and programming. In two
years as an analyst for REA, he analyzed over 15 projects '(representing
$30 mi I lion land value and over $iOO mi I lion potential capital commit-
ment) tO,determine each project's highest and best use and optimal de-
velopment schedule. In addition to writing the computer analysis pro-
grams and developing the feasibi lity studies, in many cases Mr. Goodheim
performed market research himself as an input to the economic simulation
models. This research enveloped historical real estate sales of products
comparab I e to the f i na I product wh i ch wou I d be marketed th rough the p ro-
posed development. Extensive market research and factor, anaiyses were
performed in Florida and Colorado.
Mr. Goodheim is an independent real estate consultant offering ser-
vices to developers, lenders, and governmental bodies. To date, his cli-
ents have included Thunder River Realty, First Colorado Corporation,
Vi II a I nternati ona I Property I~anagerrent, Emp ire Savings, Aspen Mu Iti p Ie
Listing Service, and the City of Aspen. These services range from systems
analysis to development consulting and master planning, to fee appraising
and and II ary servi ces. . .
Mr. Goodhaim is the regional appraiser for First Colorado Corporation
and Emp ire Savi ngs Bu i I di ng and Loan Company and in th is capaci ty has ren-
dered value opinions on approximately 100 residential, income, and devel-
opment properties on the western slope of Colorado.' During 1974, he de-
signed and implimented the area's only computerized property data base.
Containing over 750 properties, this wealth of information is used exten-
sively in appraising as well as marketing applications.
o
Mr. Goodheim is a licensed Colorado Real Estate Broker affi liated
with Colorado Country, Limited, a four-office brokerage in Aspen, Basalt,
Glenwood Springs, and Rifle.
Post Office Box 4348
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925-1730
Residence (303) 925-1558
';"-~--"-"";""-"'"
-"J,;
". ""''''~.'.:'':
. ^
,\,
",....,
. t
I
l
,"-'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
"'011'110 C,f.><"(CKf.LIl.9." l.C:l.
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
February 18, 1975
~Rular Heeting
spen View, cont'd
J
.D.P - final
',illas
-
~
1otion
3ubdivision - final
;'illas
j
:Motion
approval for Aspen View
such time when annexation
All in favor, motion
Barnard moved to table the preliminary subdivision
Condominiums, who waived their 30 days right, until
and street problems are worked out. Hunt seconded.
carried.
Art Daily noted that Council had approved their preliminary for 32 units
but since that time, they had been held to the new zoning code which says
they couldn't use vacated streets towards density so they were back to 26
units and down to two stories from three. Schiffer questi~ned whether they
still had the same easements and trails and Daily assured him they did.
Mojo explained that all that had been done was they had shrunk the project,
moving the buildings and poolS reducing it to 26 units. Johnson question~d
if there was any loss in parking places and Rich Wilde said they had stayed
the same at 40 parking spaces.
~
!
,
t'.
<
I
~
'/
~~
i
t.
Barnard moved to approve the final ODP /PUD for the Villas and Jenkins' seconded "
- All in favor, except for Collins who voted nay. Hotion carried. !
I,
~
For PUD/ODP final, Hojo said that all recommendations, etc. had been
satisfied, that the people had been cooperative and that this was the best
plan they had cqme up with yet.
Schiffer opened the public hearing and asked if ,all subdivision
had been met. Hojo said.that all had been satisfied except for
engineering problems that had to be worked out.
requirements
some
Ellis explained that these were engineering details which could be worked
and it wouldn't affect the site plan. Schiffer asked Mojo if he was
recommending approval conditional upon certain engineering problems being
worked out and Hojo was affirmative.
i
I
!
out i
Schiffer asked Mojo to review the condi.tions of prior approval and Hojo
listed a detailed drain,plan, domestic water supply, new fire hydrant ,and'
trash pick up areas for a front loading truck to. manuever.
Schiffer closed the public hearing.
Johnson moved to approve the final subdivision for the Villas conditional
upon resolution of the engineering problems to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department and working out a satisiactory subdivision agreement.
Barnard seconded. All in favor, except for Collins who voted nay. Hotion
carried.
Collins moved to adjourn and Barnard seconded. A1l in favor, meeting
adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
zk/J' J g~
Susan B. Smith. Deput City Clerk
-3-
""';~' .
~,
JOSIAH G. HO,Ll.ANO
STEPHEN,H.HART
JOHN 'l.'. J'; HART
WIl.LIAMO. EMBREE,JR.
JAMES:L:WHITE
PATRICK M.-WESTFE,I.OT
CLAVOEM.MAER,JR.
R'OBE'RT P-,OAVISO,N
JOHN FLEMING,KEl.LY
FRANK,H;MORISON
WIl.LIAM C. McCLEARN
JAY W;TRACE'r',JR.
JOHN ALl.EN MOORi::
Si::NE.CH,IDL)l.W
JAMESl!.'HEGARTY
FIELD, C, SE,NTON
DAVIO'BUTl.l:::R
J.M!CHAELF'ARLEV
WARREN 't.. TOMLINSON
eiFlUCE,T;SUELl.
OON C. e:TTER
~--..,
-
HOLLAND &. HART
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
JAMES T. MORAN
HARRY L.HOBSON
KENNETH O.HU.SBARO
ROS,ItRT C VEFI'SC,HVR,E
GORCO,1iI G. G,R:e:INE:R
ROSERT ~H'OURHAM; JR.
WIL(IAME."MURANE
L.WILl.IAf,t-SCHf,tIOT,JR:
JAMES'P.LINO,SAY
EOWINS.KAHN
SAMUEl. P.GUYTON
JOHNS. CASTE,LLANO
OENNIS:M,.JACKSON
RO_BE"RT E,,8Et>lSON
IUCHARO'M,KOON
CHARLE,S T. B,RANOT
ROBl!RTT"CONNl!RY
HAf:IAOONSEATTY
ARTHURC.OAILY
JEFFREV,C.PONO
JOHN UNOE'M CARLSON
500 E:OU1TABLE: BUILDING
7 30SE:V E:NTE: E: NTH $ T R E ET
DENVER;COLORAOO 60202
RANOY L.,PARCEL
OAVID,G.PALME"R
M!CHAEL D,MARTIN
BRUCEW.SATTLER
RAUl. N.ROORIGUEZ
JACKL,SMITH
JOHN'O,COOMBE
EUGENEr.McGUIRt
SOLOMON N, BARON
TkQMASA. FAULKNER
ROBERTJ.MOIR
MAR,K ,R.LEVY
R. BROOKE JACKSON
PAUL T.,RUTTUM
BRITTON WHITE,JR.
WILEV E.MAYNE,JR.
FlIC,HARD T.CASSON
GREGORY A,EURJCIi
TELEPHONE AREAc.OOE 303 292-9200
CABLE AOORE$~ HOLHART,OE:NVER
MOUNTAIN PLAZA ,BUILDING
P.O, SOX 1126, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE '925-3476 AREA CODE 303
lrebrwury 12, U'JS
.~a iIf. ft.ll.r, Esq.
.up.. C$.'ky At\~y
Ci'Uy of AapGn
P.O. .Box V
Aspea, <:olor..o U611
1\e:
MpeD Vlll.aa SuM.iY:i.ld.c:m
Dear Sandy:
I am 4e11ye1'11l.9 'to yo. herewith for :J'OI.If: review
on Mbalf' of idle €J.t:y t.ho prOpellM SuMiYll111ic:m Avree-
meat: flllr ~ Villas hbdJ:riai.on. 1'1.1 be avaUahJ.e
11:0 <Use... wit:h YO. at:. an7 t.ime any 1YIlUi...~ whkh
you liea apparopd.lldzllh A ~ of t:he ~"ft: Agr__..t:
18 at.. 'beiDt' U~tt.ed to Oave lUlls for hi. COI1-
s1duaUen en beulf of itho Clq Bnga.eer~ E1epart:-
llIld.t:, and for O<IImplttillt:i.Oft of $Oat. ..t.1wlt.ttes for idle
oapiu1 ~b ducribed in Farap-aphs 1, 2 aa4
i of t:ho ......t:.
ftt. SuMi..,laer is haYinlJ u apprai aa1 prepared
of itho filir ..rket. ftJ._ of the ru la;n;l for ~e.
of GOIftJIUt:in, the ~ of the fC!>"Ir (41) pelt' eeatt
liediCat:icm ... the ctt.r~ and ia a1.. hoYiDt' III compet:eat:.
local ll.m&llcape:r prepare an e8t:JJlat!e of the luli.oping
.sta for :p~... of cG1llp1.ti~ Paragraph 3 of' t.he
AIIr~t.. we hope to hlllye _th of these UpX'es and
tho ..ppot:td.ag aoc~tat1<m to you and to Daye Ellis
for reY1ew by the taiddle of next: week.
If all gou well &'1: the fiMl n~ and Ioning
CCIlIImi..""t<m ~dag oa Fune.ry la, we wolW! lUG 'to be
in a posit:1cn to present. a ~le'tG4 hMiY.lstoa .ee-
CHR!STOPHE:RN.SOMMe:R
EOWAROM;.GILES
BRITT CAROL ANOERSO.N
ALAN E. BOLl!S,JR.
GERALD W,GRANOEY
STEPHENL:PEPPl!R
THERESAW, DOl'lStY
KENOA'Lt..T.SANFORD
THOMAS E.GtE30W
JANEM.ICHAE;LS.TALESNICK
S.WYATT'McCALLIE
L.TYRONE HOLT
WilLIAM M. B'URKE
JutRETAP, SMITH
ARTHUR,8.'PERGUSON,:JR
JAMESt.HARTl.EV
JAMES E. BOICOURT
'-'
/...-.i..
/""'\
.......
HOLLAND &HART
lil~ H. &t.u1~* I,..
.~ 11* 1t1l
'ap 'IJW
Milt. .. idle e1ty ~U .~ ~ F~ U U~.
'lhUks <<OJ: f"OU a.$1...".
Ve..:r ~$'
bthw:::6: DaLly
for ~un l ~'l'
A<m~_
BtlCu.
.u Kf'. J)&ft 212.1. (WI.,)
b. Yek~. tftl_y
h. "'14 !ll. .....-..U.;I:' (w/~)
M:r:. .1..... ~ tw/~)
H:r:. __rt Hi:tle!tell Cw/lll~)
1"""0
^
~~J,"
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
hold a public hearing on February 18, 1975, 5:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, to consider the final Outline Development Plan (PUD) and final
Subdivision for the Villas of Aspen, Inc. more particularly described
as follows:
A parcel of land situated in th~ SW~ of Section 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado,
being Block II of the City and Townsite of Aspen, the vacated
alley within said Block 11, and part of the vacated Eighth Street
northerly of the> northerly line of Bleeker Street, being more fully
des.cribed as follows:
Co~mencing at the intersection of thc notherly line of Block 5,
City of Aspen, with line 6-7 of tllC' Aspen Townsite as patented,
wh('!ncc Corner no. 6 of said ASDen rro.~-:nsite (a red sandstone in
place) bears N. 07' 38' OO"E. 1'086.23 feet; thence following the
northbrly line of said Block 5 S. 75009'11"E. 203.00 feet to the
point of beginning;, thence S. 14Q 50'49"W. 220.69 feet to a point
on the northe:r:ly line of said Bleeker Street; thence folloHing the
northerly line of said Bleeker Street; S. 7So09'E. 317.53 feet
to the southeast corner of said Block 11, thence N. 14~5l'E. 220.69
feet along the easterly boundary of said Block II to the northeast
corner therof; thence N. 7~~09'W. 317.54 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 1. 609 acres, more or less, excepting, however,
that certain O.OIO parcel of land in the northeast coiner ofsaTCi-
Block conveyed by the Villa of Aspen, Inc. to the City of Aspen
by that certain instrument recorded August 18, 1972, in Book 266
at page 37 of the Pitkin County Records.
Proposal is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and may be
examined by any interested person during regular business hours.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times January 23, 1975
~
_Regula:r. ~ee~~ng_____.____,,_,_.__.__-.,;..__.~spe!: __S: i ty . Counci 1
o~er 23, 1974
. -.,-...---.....--....-.........'. "'. .... ,..--.~ .--....-.--.---'---.
councilwoman Pedersen made amotion to direct the 'City Attorney to bring this situation
into line so that it does not by virtue af the line movement become a non~confarming
use; seconded by Councilman Walls. All.infavor, motion carried.
VILLAS
OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Attorney Art Daily presented a new, revised site plan to Council, an earlier plan having
been tabled a~the December 9th Counci~ meeting.
Art Daily sai~the Villas had conferred with their'architects,councilman Breasted, and
the planning Department on this revised site plan. The Villas had left 'only three units
near the corner of 7th and Hallam. All details of the plan wer~ gone over~ The plan-
ning Department recommended that.the site plan be accepted. Councilman Breasted indicated
he felt this plan was acceptable. . ~
Mayor Standley asked t\lE! Villas what they found objectionable to the plan Breasted "
provided. John Stanford, Planner, stated that Breasted's plan, was too massive and that ;1
Breasted had presented parking as an exteripr solution and the Planning Department felt
it should be within the confines of the structures. The position of the buildings and
the courtyard effect would cause noise and reverberation problems, problems with snow
removal, lack of sun.
v
\
t
r
r
;t
I
'f
Councilman Breasted said he felt the Villas plan was a fair compromise although he
still didn't like it much. He also disagreed that,the Villa plan was less massive than
his. Greg cole of the Planning Department explained to council he had done the actual
site plan review and had looked at all ,the alternatives. The plan presented left much
more open space on the corner (7th and Hallam); the internal parking solution was
better. This plan would place buildings 80 feet from the property line, this is a
significant increase from; 30 feet: and the Villas were dedicating approximately 2/3
of the site to open space.
John Stanford pointed out primary concerns of this site plan ,were to open up the corner
and to retain~s much of the natural vegetation on the site as exists at present.
Mayor Standley said he though Councilman Breasted's plan was a good clean, innovative
solution to ,the problem.
Attorney Dailyreiterated that the architectural firm, the Planning Department, and the
p & Z all reached the decision that this was the best site plan for this site. Council-
man Breasted said he didn't think the plan ~ad much imagination but would go with the
plan because the Villas had made an attempt.
Councilman Walls moved the Council approve the Villas plan: seconded by Councilwoman
Markalunas.
I
I.
I
\
!
,
~
r
Councilwoman Markalunas said she felt there should be no parking. around the site on
Seventh street and Hallam street.
A question was called. All in favor with the exception o! Councilman Behrendt and
ftayor Standley. Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER
1) City Manager.Mahoney told'Council he had addressed a memorandum to City Attorney
Stuller and Building Inspector Clayton Meyring reference enforcing the building, zoning
and housing codes.
2) Mahoney read a letter from Congressman Jim Johnson telling the Council that he
{Johnson) was still working on getting home mail delivery. CouncilrnanBehrendt asked
'Mahoney to check the sale of the post office land to see if it was conditioned on
door~to-door delivery.
Councilwoman Markalunas asked Mahoney if any progress was being made on the land
exchange. City Attorney Stuller said King would be here in early January with an
offer of reasonable value.
Home mail
delivery
Post Office
land exchange
CouncilwomanHarkalll,,~lS inquir~d when Mahoney would have an appraisal on the Midland Midland 1anq.
land. Mahoney said he w;)~waiting for an estimate of what the appraisal would cost.
3) Mahoney asked Council for approv~l of the appointment of Lois Butterbaugh as Finance.'. Finance Directo
Director to replace Don Rogers.
Councilman Walls made a motion to approve Lois Butterbaugh as Finance Director:
.seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilm~n Walls moved to have City Attorney Stuller draft an ordinance giving
the Finance Director a s~lary of $22,000 ayearj seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
All in favor, motion carried.
4) Mahoney told Council the staff had ~cen ~0rking on the bus lease but due to a
techni.cality, \v" didn1t have it yet. City Attorney Stuller requested a continu.:lncc
o:fthi:; .'1qenda item until Friday, Ddcember 27, 1974, at 5 p.m. for a rC.:lding of the
bus l~~~ic. .
1
.
1""".,
~
s2)ee"';77.6er- ~'/ /'777"-
O~lullcr ~, 19711
Aspen City Council
Aspen, Colorado 81611
~G
Re: Proposed 52 Villa Condominiums
at West Entrance to Town
on Highway 82
Dear Council Members:
I live across from the Villa of Aspen and the Villa Condominiums at the
corner of 8th Street and West Bleeker. The property is owned by Miss Anna Borgeson
and Mr. JOe Borgeson. I have discussed the following comments with them about
possibly new units being added to the Villa Condominiums and they are in agreement
with what I say in this letter.
1. We are opposed to any more condominium units being built by the Villa
because there is already too much traffic and too many cars bej~~ked in this very
small and limited area out here.
The block the Villa plans to build the proposed condominiums on is bordered
on two sides by the extremely. h~avyy- travelled Highway 82 and there is only one
short block of West Bleeker which can be used for access and parking. This is already
being used by the present 38 units of the Villa Condominiums, and we think the satu-
ration point has just about been reached.
We think multiple family, high density zoning is wrong for this area because
it is cut off from the town completely by Highway 82. Traffic has increased so much
(see attached clipping) that access to the highway has become extremely difficult and
is becoming more difficult every year as the traffic increases.
Also, another group of large, khaki colored, unattractive buildings is going
to detract from the appearance of the entrance to our town which has already been
very much hurt by the present Villa Condominiums. We think the lawn in front of the
present Villa Lodge should be made a greenbelt to keep some open space here.
2. We do not think the Villa should be allowed to build anything more on
their property here until they have added to their present parking lot enough space
to accommodate the vehicles belonging to their Condominium ownees and tenants which
are being parked year round in 8th Street. The street is clogged with their cars,
jeeps, trucks, etc., all the time and has been ever since the present condominiums
were buil t.
3. We want 8th Street between Main and West Bleeker opened up to its full
-
-,
Aspen City Council
- 2 -
October 8, 1974
75 feet and the landscaping placed on the west half of the street removed.
4. We do not think the 46 parking spaces planned for the new units are
nearly enough.
5. We do not think it is fair to put another entrance to a parking lot or
another parking lot directly across the street from the Borgesons' home on the north
side as they already have a parking lot on the west side of them with the entrance
directly opposite their house.
6. Fireplaces. All the present 38 units seem to have fireplaces and~ do
.;?(;,
not think they should be allowed in the proposed ~ new units if they are constructed
as the air pollution caused by the wood smoke as well as the cars is so bad out here.
Sometimes we can hardly breathe outside at night because of the wood smoke.
7. Dogs. The present Villa Condominiums are overrrun by dogs. They fight,
howl, and attack other people's pets. They are allowed to run around freely and leave
their droppings allover other people's property. To build more units means instead
of one dog pack, we will have two dog packs.
I find it hard to understand why building permits are still being issued for
condominiums in the city of Aspen when the State Department of Public Health has advised
the city government that the air pollution problem is so bad that at least 88% of the
present number of Cars and 35% of the present fireplaces should be eliminated from the
town in order to meet minimum air air standards. Articles about Aspen's air pollution
have appeared in newspapers allover the United States. It would seem the health of
the people who live in Aspen is of very little importance to city employees and offi-
cials.
Respectfully submitted,
~ .. ,-;:::::,
:/..~?.... '" I =. ~~=-'"
(Miss) Bernice Bonds
1ew (?;~ /-M71 ~
J;!e Borgeson '
,'v '
/, T: /. "
''''';.''k,-.'),''2..~ 7~" <-j'.k:.:,,;;...cr?-1.....
(Miss) Anna Borgeson
P.S. There is so much land just outside of town and I am sure many people who own
property out there would love to have condominiums built on their land. While I would
-
.-
Aspen City Council
- 3 -
October 8, 1974
not like to see them sprawling allover the landscape, it seems to me a shame to ruin
the town when some of them could be built out there. A large Safe way or other super-
market could be built to serve them and also Snowmass at Aspen, and a post office put
there for their convenience. It would also be more healthy for children since the
air pollution is so bad in town.
I also think that every effort should be made to make Snowmass at Aspen more
self sufficient where all types of services are concerned as this would help to reduce
traffic entering Aspen every day.
bb
L"~ ~~,.)~~ ~~~~
Clipping from Aspen times of October 3, 1974
....,.,'-"-..;0-:,,.,
f"""'"
^
CIT
PEN
box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Review of Villa of Aspen Site Plan (12-12-74, Revision)
DATE: December 18, 1974
The enclosed site plans attempt to solve the problems of the Villas
ODP as stated by the City Council.
An 80' open area has been added to the corner of 7th and Hallam.
The Planning Department feels this is adequate to accomplish the
openness at the corner without crowding the complex of units. For
comparison purposes, the open space distance is about the width of
City Hall.
Our major problem with this plan is the location of the swimming
pool. We feel that it's location presents an attractive nuisance
and potential hazard due to the potential pedestrian traffic along
82. Supervision of the pool would be more difficult, and the location
encourages use by nonproperty owners. We recommend~shifting of the middle
cluster to enable placement of the pool within the complex.
The parking count is adequate; the code requires 1.5 cars/2 bedroom
unit which totals 39, and the plan shows 41. We would like to sug-
gest landscaped corner islands rather than open parking stalls at
the entry point into the major east-west parking element. This
design situation would prevent tight cornering around parked cars
-'-' ',,>---.-
1"".
^
MEMORANDUM
City Council
December 18, 1974
Page Two
where potential damage could result and would also break up the
parking area with more landscaping making the project more visually
appealing. The three or four lost parking stalls could be relocated
in the entry drive at the expense of losing existing trees or perhaps
further study could reveal a better solution. We generally feel
that the internal parking solution is more appealing than the peri-
meter solution from the city's standpoint, because it is not visible
from outside of the project.
The Planning Office recommends a meandering detached 5' concrete
sidewalk within the additional 12.5' right-of-way setback which
could follow the grade of the indicated berming (not to exceed 5% grade).
The landscaping plan of 12-6-74 appears adequate as presented pro-
vided berms and tree locations are adjusted to allow for the required
inclusion of the meandering walkway. We encourage also the curved
walkways along Bleeker and the bikeway on the west lot line. We feel
that these suggestions offer the applicant a more exciting solution
to the standard requirements of sidewalk design.
The Planning Office feels the importance of this corner site as
an entrance into Aspen dictates special considerations for this
project. A suggested sketch plan including these revisions has
been drawn up by the Planning Office and is included for your review.
,..."
,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: Villa's Outline Development Plan
DATE: December 4, 1974
The Villa of Aspen, Inc., presented an Outline Development
Plan (ODP) for Block 11 of the Original Townsite to the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission. The property to be developed
includes the vacated portion of Eighth Street between Hallam and
Bleeker and the vacated alley parallel to and between Hallam and
Bleeker and bounded by Seventh and Eighth. The vacation of
Eighth Street and the alley in this area was approved by City
Council on 18 March 1957 by Ordinance #1 and 14 August 1972 by
Ordinance #14. The zoning for this tract, as approved by the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 8, 1974, is
Residential-Multi-Family (R-MF), Mandatory PUD.
Preliminary density calculations indicated that the 1.6 acres
(69,696 sq. ft.) would support thirty-two (32) 2/bedroom units and
require forty~eight (48) parking spaces. The Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission upon a favorable recommendation of the Planning
Office approved this density for the Villa's tract. However,
subsequent research has revealed that Section 24-2.5 "Zoning of
Vacated Areas" of the Recommended Zoning Code states, ". . . that
in determining density for development, there shall be excluded
from the calculation of allowable density those areas of the de-
velopment tract acquired by vacation." Therefore, the amount of
land available for density calculations is 54,000 sq. ft., resulting
in an allowable density of twenty-six (26) 2/bedroom units.
,.....,
/""'I,
MEMORANDUM
City Counci 1
Villa's
December 4, 1974
Page Two
On September 17, 1974 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
without consideration of the provisions of Section 24-2.5 of the
Recommended Zoning Code, found that the standards of approval as
required by '24-10.1 (b) 2 of the Zoning Ordinance had been met and
recommended approval subject to satisfaction of all subdivision
requirements.
The Commission's findings are as follows:
1. The tract of land proposed for PUD development is in
one ownership.
2. The area under consideration constitutes 1.6 acres
(69,696 sq.ft.) and is designated R-MF Mandatory PUD.
3. The development includes open space for the mutual
benefit of the entire tract.
4. The project is designed to accomodate the allowable
density in a manner that preserves the privacy of the
owners and provides some feel ing of openness at the
west entrance to the city. A setback of 37~ feet
from existing Highway 82 has been agreed to on the
north and east sides of the tract. The existing curb
cuts on Hallam Street will be closed on the applicants
property.
~
I" .
,1""'\
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Villa's
December 4, 1974
Page Three
5. The project is in harmony with some of the surrounding
existing neighborhood and is felt to be consistent with
the Planning and Zoning Commission's concept of develop-
ment along Highway 82.
/
AS EN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dated this 1 day of 1"....~~,
1974.
~.
~
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby gi Aspert City Council shall hold a
public hearing on Pecember 9, 1974, 5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers,
to consider the Out Plan for the Villas of Aspen,
Incorporated Subdivision more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land situated in theSW~ of Section 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado,
being Block 11 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, the vacated
alley within said Block 11, and part of the vacated Eighth Street
northerly of the northerly line of Bleeker Street, being more fully
described as follows:
COllli~encing at the intersection of the notherly line of Block 5,
City of Aspen, with line 6~7 of the Aspen Townsite as patented,
whence Corner no. 6 of said Aspen Townsite (a red sandstone in
place) bears N. 07 38' OO"E. 1086.23 feet, thence following the
northerly line of said Block 5 S. 75 09'll"E. 203.00 feet to the
point of beginning, thence S. 14 50'49"W. 220.69 feet to a point
on the northerly line of said Bleeker Street, thence following the
northerly line of said Bleeker Street, S. 75 09'E. 317.53 feet
to the southeast corner of said Block 11, thence N. 14 51'E. 220.69
feet along the easterly boundary of said Block 11 to the northeast
corner therof; thence N. 75 09'W. 317.54 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 1.609 acres, more or less, excepting, however,
that certain 0.010 parcel of land in the northeast corner of said
Block conveyed by the Villa of Aspen, Inc. to the City of Aspen
by that certain instrument recorded August 18, 1972, in Book 266
at page 37 of the Pitkin County Records.
Proposal is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and
may be examined by any interested person during office hours.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times November 21, 1974.
.'......""...O....,..~"<O,., 'N_'''.^_,,~_~ _ '''__''___"'~'.,"<"__~_._"_,~._._._,,..._
.. - .-...__.._.~._.-._"-.-.>-ff"..
1""'\
~
. ,"""~".'-, ^._--^'".....'"~-'"'''"'-,-.......,.~-,,,'''
Additional language for Aspen Villas Subdivision Plat
NOTICE TO ASPEN VILLAS UNIT PURCHASERS: The City of
Aspen Zoning and Building Codes prohibit the use of
the basements in Aspen Villas units for bedroom purposes.
/:......
. ..
1""'0
1""'\,
10/22/74
TO:
YANK MOJO
DAVE ELLIS~
FROM:
RE:
Aspen Villa Preliminary Subdivision Plat _
Engineering Department Comments
The following are items which should be changed or added
to the plat:
1) Domestic water supply will be adequate but fire
protection should be increased by adding a new fire hydrant
in the vicinity of the northwest property corner and the
existing hydrant at the southeast corner should be replaced
with a higher capacity hydrant.
2) A drainage plan will be required showing how the rate
of runoff from the developed site will be maintained at
the historical rate. This might be accomplished by roof
top retention, on-site ponding, drywell capacity or
a combination of these.
3) Street improvements required should include sidewalk
on all three streets abutting the property; new curb and
gutter should be extended west on Bleeker and the existing
curb cuts on Hallam closed. Bleeker Street should be
improved to an all weather seal and chip surfacing immedi-
ately, and a committment should be required to join any
future improvement districts. An easement will be
necessary for sidewalk at the corner of 7th and Hallam.
4) The on-site parking appears reasonable with a parking
space to bedroom ratio of 3:4. However, the on-street
parking capacity is already limited and will be worsened
by more development. A major part of this problem
results from the fact that the earlier Villa project was
required to construct a berm in the Eighth Street
right-of-way creating a roadway too narrow to accomodate
curb, gutter, and sidewalk as required. The entire area
will be affected by the new development and the berm
should be removed and the ditch relocated to allow for
the proper street improvements before any new
construction occurs.
5) The site plan does not show all the large trees along
the ditch which would be damaged by construction within
10 feet of the west property line. Some of the trees are
growing outside the boundary of the present project, but
have a spread which encroaches 15 to 20 feet over the
property line. The primary concern is the building in the
southwest corner. The second level overhangs should not
encroach into the trail easement either. In conjunction
with Ordinance 47-1974, a much more detailed landscaping
plan should be submitted indicating which existing trees
.
/:
..-"
,,-..,,
will be preserved in addition to those along the ditch.
The planting program should give some variety in type
and size of trees and shrubs as now exists.
6) The trash areas should be located so that the front
pick-up type trucks can operate without removing
parking spaces.
".-...
...tr
/~ :~
,
,1
,.<('~!"~,
"-'.
"^'.
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen .coloradO.8l611 hox v
,.,:.,.,
(
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
a'd:? /7-<?V'/'~
The City of Aspen hereby ~lectric
service for the project under 0 ~i IG
review listed below. s.c"a:blC,,)I &taJ
~ (l A '~
l~
-
Thomas Maddalone
Electric Department Director
'd'~
I~ OC:"- 197(
!fjP
....,. ,.:.-~
r--
"
,'1
SUBDIVISION PLAT CrlliCK
FORN . et /".1
Dat~ !If-1i-
'Gentlemen:
,
Accordingrto the procedure set Eortp in the City of Aspen
Subdivbulon Regulations, any tract 'ofpland 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 ne~essary sl~etching reconnuended
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-
:::::::: no la:,r ::an seven. (7) da" from theeb:ve. da~e';i;)
u^, .. 4~~~~...
-----------
t/; !kJ(~ ,JL-
\)
\
fi,jIt
"
I""
,.../
r-.
~_f
SUBDIVISION PLKf CIlliCK FO:tl1
Dat~ 9-/7-),/
'CeIl,!;::l-eInen:
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 compQny may inspect the plat and the
site, malcing comments, concerning the placement of ease_
ments, etc., and where necessary slcetching 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 (1) days from the above date.
Remar~s:~_-A-""
~~a-o~~r~a~.~
~~~P~7cft~,~ :JJ~/f~ c','
-17 .
' ~ ~ ,~~~~-4 cq~~~~~'
~~-~,\, ~
. ,,-<,,~ . ~ -<-v1. . -W- ..
r~~~~~ ~~'~I'.-0
w^4 ~---'~ 4~~,~~-/;
~~(J~~
~m.7JJ~.
')
\
G~-
,
, '
,...'-'
r-, ,""""
' ,
SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FOill1
Dat~91/7k.y,
. .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 "7ith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
This form, with attached copy of the plgt is provided so
that each utility company may inspect the plat and the
site, mal,ing comments, concerning ,the placement of ease_
ments, etc., and where necessary sl,etching recorrITnended
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.
Remar~s: ~.:... ~~d:L.-....r a .,'" --1' ............:
," rJ
A ~ '.
~I ~-~, J- C ~J?.-ufl. ~ ~ ~~. ,
~...--;'"" ~--~'_ C!!.._ -.J.- ~~.I~...,,-:t:;:X?:-~_
~'~~-'Zf
~-
:-L ,...' '.., ,'.', ,
~fs~~i~
~--< '--'
1 ,
~wJ.~
,
..,e..-,~"'-"'-
......"',
- .
(1,'1:
-~--~
'"
SUBDIVISioN pLA'I CHECK FORM
Date
According ~ to the procedure set forth :ill the City of.. AsPen
Subdivision Regulations, anytl:8Ct of land divided ,into
!:Wo or more lotS 11\\1St be divided in accordance 'With said
subdivision Regulation for tb.e City of .Aspen.
This form, 'With attached copy of the plat is l'rovided so
that each utili.tycODJPany 1SJB.Y inSpect..the p1:at and the"
site, 1SJB.king c()tllllleIlts, :concerning the p1:a.cement of ease-
1ll-.1:S, etc., and where necessary' sketchingl:e.c~dea
alterations on_~ copy of the p1:at.
This form and the 8CCompanYingcopyof ,the p1:at lIlU'St be '
returned to the ,City of AsPen ?lanningand zoningCOlll-
lllission no later than seven (7) days from theaboveaate.
_, ~. ..d.J .~... :#c!6".
'70 ~f~~j~
- /~-- ... ..
Gent1:emen:
~
.~~
o /
'. .
.-....
,......,..",
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
Box 300
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Richard W. lee
superintendent of schools
17 September, 1974
Aspen Planning & Zoning
Box V
Aspen, Colorado S16ll
Gentlemen:
With regard to to preliminary outline development plan for the
Aspen Villa Subdivision to cover the entirety of Block II in
Aspen, an impact will be experienced by the school district in
terms of additional students. This reinforces the need for the
Planning Commission to give serious consideration to possible
school expansion and the necessity of additional school sites.
Sincerely yours,
p
,
01-u<--
t~())
(chard W. Lee
Superintendent of Schools
Ib
tel. 303-925-2972
.
,...-..,
...-"
/'
.'
September 17, 1974
. Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Color~do 81611
Gentlemen:
r live across. from the Villa of Aspen 8-.'ld the Villa Condominiums at the
corner of 8th Street and West Bleeker. The property is owned by Miss Anna Borgeson
and Mr. Joe Borgeson. r have discussed the following comments with them about the
possibility of new units being added to the Villa Condominiums and they are in
agreement with what,r say in this letter.
I .
1. We arf opposed to any more condomin7uNnits being built because there
is already too ~h traffic and too many cars in this very small and limited area
out here. '
2. We do not think the Villa shculd be allowed to build anything more on
their property here until they have added to their present parking lot enough space
to accommodate the vehicles belonging to their condominium o~ners and tenants which
are being parked year around in 8th Street. The street is clogged with t;,eir cars,
jeeps, trucks and. campers all the time and has been ever since the present condominiums
were built. ~
'.
3. lie do not think the 48 parking spaces planned for the ne\1 units is
.
nearly,enough.
4. We do not think it is fair to put another entranm to a parking lot or
,
another parking lot directly across the street from the Borgeson8' home as they
already have a parking lot on the west side of them with the en;'rD,l1.ce just opposite
their house.
5. Fireplaces. All the present 45 units seem to have fireplaces and we
do not think they should be allowed in the proposed new units as the air pollution
caused by the wood smoke as well as the cars is so bad out here.
r find it hard to understand why building permits are still being issued
for condominiums in the city of Aspen when the State Department of Public Health
has advised the city government that the air pollution problem here is so bad that
at least 88% of the present number of cars and 35% of the present fireplaces should
,.-"
,-"
21~Dn~g and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
- 2 -
September 17, 1974
be eliminated from the to~n in order to meet minimum air standards. Articles about
Aspen's air pollution problem have appeared in newspapers allover the United States.
It would Seem the health of the people who live in Aspen is of very little importance
to citY,employees and officials.
Respectfully submitted,
/R., '.---:=
, /ccx;..-J.-'n-c c<..-' ')(~rC:<Z-"
(Miss) Bernice Bonds
t!2:::L
~7nc"-": i.3?~-zc/~~?
,<
(Miss) Anna Borgeson
.
~'
/
',~
,-"
.
I have attached this rough sketch so you can see the location of the Borgensons'
property in relation to the Villa's property.
j/; / la
(lon de; /?? /'4/V~ S'
v "
~ t:
10 '1..
~~~ ()
~ J..'\J
~ ~
w
5<: 7N
)
~
j:::.
f III Sfree~
.
",
.
I/; //J 0 f-
:A SJ::> ~h
;8orteSOh S
\
\l;
~
ill
~
~
/,(LOeQl"L~C>h 0";::-
/
'pr""~o oS eO'" -'7t?U/
(!'o/?ao ,n?//?/&/n7
t/ /? / /-s)
~
~
"
'13 c;V a y/.N'7
L?lc/'1e.
~
'"
7 /"/1 07"r~<pr (I../'f~ k/c77 tf'd)
, r
---
'.
\ \
~
<\,
~
f\
~
"
~
{
,......,
~,
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: The Villa of Aspen Townhouses
DATE: June 18, 1974
Request is to remove existing lodge and construct 29
new condominium units on 69,700 sq. ft. of lot area.
Mixed Residential Land Use District
Recommended zoning: Lodge PUD & Multifamily PUD
Considerations:
Major revision of site plan is recommended due to:
Highway Dept. requesLfor l2\' I on Hallam and on
7th Street.
25' set back should be observed on a State Highway.
On site parking plan must be revised; continuous curb
cuts are not permitted
All units should access on to inner court; entrances
on highway would encourage stopping and parking in a
/' highly congested area.
Excee~~~~~ended density by 3,440 sq. ft. or 1 3 bedroom
unit.
Covenant deeds for long term rental ( 1 yr.).
(4/651 2 B.I.
---.------B~'...;,<DlI;jC INSPECTlONDEPARTMI"'\T
r:I CITY OF ASPEN - COUNTY OF PITKIND, CL>,-ORADp. n-"
")'..,.""i:::",,",f
.~ < ~., c')
~~.__. -
W
ADDRESS
OF JOB
2'07 7th Street - Villa of Aspen Townhouses
GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT
WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY eUIlD1NGINSPECTION DEPARTMENT THISPERMtT AlJTHORIZESTHE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW.
CLASS OF WORK:
OWNER
NAME
NEW CE
,
Villa of
ADDITION 0
ALTERATION 0
Il.EPAIIl.O
MOVE 0
WRECK 0
Ae;pen, Il'lC.
ADDRESS
Box
679
LICENSE
CLASS
PHONE 3451
LICENSE
NUMBER
ADDRESS
SUPERVISOR
FOR THIS JOB
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
SURVEY
BY
"
01
l-
V
<(
'"
I-
Z
01
V
INSURANCE
NAME (AS LICENSED) Shaw Construction
A
123 S. Kalamath. Denver, CO
PHONE
744,..1454
o
NAME Geo. Shaw
DATE CERTIFIED I
,
LOT NO. Unplatted BLOCK NO.
ATTACHED 0 DESIGN
BY
11
ADDITION Townsite
A
PE
Lie.
NO,
DEPTH
BElO.......
GRADE
I HEIGHT
I (fEET).'
U:'J,~. 81 GARAGE
,
NO.
STORIES
TOTAL
UNITS
OCCUPANCY
GROUP
AREA (S.f.'
AT GRADE
THICK 0
SLAB
CONC. 0
MAS'V 0
CAISSONS ',0 ROOFING
& GR. BEAMS MATERIAL
I
FIRST
FLOOR
'"
l-
v> CEILING
0
...,
ROOF
SINGLE 0 ATTACHED 0 TOTAL
DOUBLE 0 DETACHED 0 ROOMS
SIZE SPACING
TYPE
CONSTR., "
DIV.
I ~IRE
ZONE
BASEMENT
SPAN
AGENCY
AUTHORIZED
BY
DATE
Z
01
~
01
'Z EXTERIOR
j.~~~CK~~~~
01
...
EXTERIOR
FOOTING
SIZE
BUILDING
REVIEW
ZONING
PARKING
,
PUBLIC HEALTH
" ,
, MASONRY
EXTERIO" THICKNESS
AI ALL STUD SIZE
r"r &. SPACE
iEMARKS
ABOVE
1ST FLR.
ABOVE
2ND FLR.
ABOVE
3RCl FLR~
ENGINEERING
ABOVE
ISTflR.
ABOVE
2ND. FLR.
ABOVE
3RD FlR.
?9 nn5t townaollses,
? "1'l"; ~ no";'
,
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925.72.36
FOR All WORK DONE UNDER ,'!"HIs PERMIT THE PERMITTU ACCSPTSFUtlRES?ONSIBllITY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUilDING CODE, THE COUNTYZONINGRESOlUTlON OR CITY
ZONING ORClfiANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS ORCITYORDIN-ANCES WHICHEVER
APPLIES.
SEPARATE PERMns MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS,
SW,IMMING POOLS AND FENCtS.~ .
:PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED.
REQUlRfDINSPECTtOHS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE'WORKING DA.YIN ADVANCE.
ALLf!NAL Il<~SPECTIONS SHALLB!. MADE ON ALL ITEMS Of WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED;
THIS BUilDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTlLACERTIFICATE OF~C~CY HAS BEEN 'ISSUEO~ 0
s:~R~tiu~E~~~Y7'OlATI~~/);;"NING SAM~
APPLlCAN-{/~'"'2r.....;'~~~~~(. ,APPROVALBY
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE IJ .ECElPTS CLASS
WHEN VALIDATED HERE )i.
VALUATION
, OF WORK $890,880
PLAN T P "..." TOTAL FEE
FILED .....".
DOU8LE ICHECK 0 .$1287.00 "
FEE 01 CASH 0 836.55 pI c~
BUILDING DEPARTM'I':1'<?-:Y;-5-5
. DATE
AMOUNT
-18-74 278-74
1""\
~
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
CHAS. E. SHUMATE
.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OF' COL.ORAOO
DIViSiON OF HiGHWAYS
E. N. HAASE
CHIEF ENGiNEER
i V";"
,\\._~
. ",~^.."..,'"
OISTRICT 3
R. A. PROSENCE
DISTRICT ENGINEER
P.O. BOX 210"/-606 SO. PTI"\ ST. . GRANO JUNCTION, COL..O. 61501 . (303) 242.2662
,"',.,,,.......,. .~
City fof A5'Oen
- ),.--
.I
),1':) ,!
May 3, 1974
It,.
,
-;:t.."
Mr. Herb Bartel
City/County Planner
P. O. Box V
Aspen, CO 81611
.
,
.,
ir .~,
1__..__- .'"'.., ... ',..,
l-"""'""""''''''.._."....l''''''..""L,.'''.".,ir..~
We have studied the development plan for Villa of Aspen
Townhouses at the corner of 7th and Hallam and request that
you consider requesting sufficient additional right-of-way
dedicated to public use so that all streets carrying sa 82
have the 100 foot ROW found along Main Street.
Dear Herb:
We appreciate your continued cooperation.
Very truly yours,
E. N. HAASE
CHIEF ENGINEER.
BY
R.A. PROSENCE
DISTRICT ENGINEE,,~
RAP:lmw
CC: file~
,,<-"',--0:.......:00
f"""'\
.~,
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, 81611 hox V
MEMORANDUM
TO: DICK PROCENSE
FROM: HERB BARTEL
DATE: APRIL 26, 1974
ENCLOSED IS A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED VILLA
EXTENSION. ALSO MARKED ON THE MAP IS THE FOREST SERVICE PROPERTY
AND THE CITY OPEN SPACE. I HAVE AN ARROW MARKING A RIGHT-OF-WAY
THAT I AM NOT SURE IF IT IS PUBLIC.
I AM INTERESTED IN YOUR COMMENTS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS
FOR HIGHWAY 82 ON HALLEM AND 7TH AVENUES PER OUR TELEPHONE CON-
VERSATION THAT WE HAD 4-26-74.
ENCLOSURES: MAP HWY 82 SECTION SI-IOWING ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
SITE PLAN OF VILLAS EXPANSION
NOTE: ALSO SENT COPY OF DELEUW, CATHER DRAFT REPORT ON URBAN MASS
TRANSPORTATION GRANT APPLICATION.
f'
,
.
[
I
,
(
!
,
.. ,~ ""
,.....
,....."
PO,
02".UfI
... Subject Site
. City Open Space
.. Forest Service
.
i
.'
~
-~. . ~.h~~fIO/ll. COLO
"'" oOoIOfO tv~.. .
-
f'
r
l
~
1
r
1C,t,1,,( '.0100' J
COtlTQuII 'lfTllN"L'
.'ooOO~"I.
. f~
I
.
I'
,.
.'
I
!
~
.-
''"''''\
- :;;;.
.#
February 1. 1974
Mr. Arthur C. Daily
Hollalld &: Hart
P. O. Box 1128
Aspen. Colorado
Dear Art.
I regret that a misunderstanding has arben relative to the
access ROW for the Villa's, Phase II subdivision application.
It is the understanding of this office. from the memo sub-
mitted with the Villa's Ordinance 19 presentation and from
a telephone conversation with you that. although the Villa's
does not currently have an access easement of 24' required
for the project by the city engineer and the P &: Z Commission.
the necessary ROW would be forthc,oming. This office was in
agreement that for purposes of subd:l.vision it would not be
necessary to show evidence of such easement at that early
stage of the procedure.
This is the situation I represented to Mr. Daggs at the
time he telephoned this off:l.ce to inquire about the status
of the Villa's, Phase II application. I cannot. at this
time, speak -for the P .so Z, but I beUe'\l'& their understanding
to be similar, and I shall request a confirmation from them.
I.
I should take this ,opportunity to anticipate any future
ambiguities that may arise relative to access requirements
"subdivision. It is thepor~ = :his office that: t:he'! _
,necessary ft"....."s easA"'~~'~!l~~: '." '.J:;f'~jl~~n
the ifiime of ,final ,plat cons'l'a.ratmn, and that it would be" .,.~~.
, ",~," ~,.' l( , ...,~,.~-,4' "".",. ,
vd: I" ,l- ., gf'
(YAY \:> :<-,. . " ..
.o,.J a \\'," '1Y" ii/. ,~
, "V"" ',/r 0 'f'l
. i'V' t,' ,"Yo ~, "'~;6
,w ,it, vr ."
/" \,'" ,\Jr', ,I)..\}., l~,,'
v{l ,A~.,y"yNtt ,Xi;? r / f Y
""~ ,Y,~lf1\ n r~,I V,i"1\.
" I! V"l \), .IV I, 'i'
~ :,'. . t
V - \ t
"i
- ../'
~\
-
page 2
Daily
a violation oftne subdivision regulation to approve a final
subdivision plat in the absence of fOl'11U!ll evidence demonstrating
that the subdivider is in possession of an easement for
adequate ROW .In a Planning Office cODIIIlentary on Engineedng
Department recOllllllendations for the P '" Z COI!IIn:Lssion, dated
November 20, 1973, a 24' access easement was listed as a
condition of final plat approval.
This office will keep the P '" Z closely info~d relative to
this matter and will transmit to you any considerations
they may have. Please contact us if you feel that any further
clarification is necessary.
Your truly,
Donna Baer
Planning Office
DB /llk
cc: Mr. James K. Daggs
Mr. Ronald H. Windemuller
Mr. Bruce GUlls
~
1""'\
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOSIAH G. HO~lAND
STEPHENH.HART
JOHN L.J.HART
WilliAM D.E:MBRE;E,JR.
JAME;Sl.WHIH
PATRICK M.WESTrELDT
CLAUDEM.MAER,JR.
ROBERT P. DAVISON
JOHN FLE;MING KELLY
fRANK H.MDRISON
WILLIAM C.McCLEARN
JAYW.TRACEY,JR.
JOHN ALLEN MOORE:
BEN E.CHIDLAW
JAMES E.HEGARTY
FIELaC.BENTON
DAVID8UTLER
J.MICHAELrAFlLEY
WARREN L.TDMLINSON
BRUCE:T.BUELL
DON a.ETTER
JAMES T.MORAN
500 EQUITABLE BUILDING
730 SEVENTEE:NTH STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
HARRY L.H08S0N
KENNETHO.HU88ARD
ROBERT L.VER SCHURE
GOFlDON G.GREINER
ROBERT H.DURHAM,JR.
WILl.lAM E.MURANE
L.WILLIAM SCHMIDT,JR.
JAME:SP.LINOSAY
EDWIN S. KAHN
SAMUEL P. GUYTON
JOHN S.CASTELLANO
DENNIS M.JACKSON
ROBERT E. BENSON
DONALD Q. KINONEN
RICHARD M. KOON
CHARLE5T.8RANDT
ROeE:RT T.CONNERY
HARADON SE:ATTY
ARTHURC.DAILY
JEFFREY C. POND
JOHN UNDEM CARLSON
TE:LE:PHONE AREA CODE: 30.3 292-9200
CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER
MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING
p, O. BOX 1128, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELE:PHONE: 92S~3476 AREA CODE 303
January 30, 1974
Ms. Donna Baer, Planning Administrator
Aspen Planning Office
City of Aspen
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:
RANDY L.PARCEL
GRAHAM M.CLARII,JR.
DAVID G.PALMER
JUDITH BONNIE KOZL9FF
MICHAEL a.MARTIN
RAUL N.RODRIGUEZ
JACKL.SMITH
JOHN D.COOMBE
EUGENEF.McGUIRE
LINDELL L.GUMPER
Villa of Aspen Townhouses
Phase II
Dear Donna:
I would appreciate a response
December 19, 1973 concerning the
covered by the drainage study to be conducted
McLaughlin Engineers in connection with
to my
factors
SOI-OMON N. BARON
THOMAS A.FAULIINER
R08ERT J.MOIR
MARIIR.LEVY
JEANNETTE P. MEIER
R.BROOIIE JACKSON
PAULT.RUTlVM
BRITTON WHITE,JR.
WILEY E.MAYNE,JR.
letter to you of
which ought to be
by Wright-
the captioned project.
Very truly yours,
~
Arthur C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
ACD:mm
cc:
Mr.
Mr.
Ronald H. Windemuller
Richard Wilde
.".,/'
",""
JOSIAH G;HOLLAND
STEPHENH.HAI'lT
JOHN L.J.HAI'lT
WILLIAM D.EMBREE,.JR.
JAMES L;WHITE
PATRlcKM.WESHELDT
CLAUOE M. MAEI'l,JR.
ROSERT p, DAVISON
JOHN F'LEMIN9KELLY
F'RANK H..MORISON
WILL1A'M.C;-M~CLEARN
JAY W.TRACEy,JR.
JOHN ALLEN MOORE
BEN.E.CH'IOLAW
jAI<ol'ESE.'HEGA,RTY
F'IELD. C. BENTON
DAVID 'BUTLER
J.MICHAEL'F'ARLEY
WARREN L.TOMLINSON
BRUCET.SUELL
CON D.ETTER
JAMt:S T. MORAN
-
-
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HARRY L.HOBS.ON
KE.NNETHo';.liUBeARO
ROBeRT'L.VER SCHURE
GORDON G,GREINE,R
ROBEI<T H;'OURHAM,JR.
WILLIAM E.MURANE
l..WILLIAMSCHMIOT,JR.
JAMESP,LfNOSAY
EO,WlN,'S.'KAHN
SAMUELP.GUYTON
JOHNS,CASTELLANO
OENNrSM,JACKSON.
R:6eii:RTE:aE:~SON
OONALO.O.J(INON.E:N
RICHARO'M.,KOON
CHAR:LE:~T.e,RA'NbT
ROa,E:.F<T .T. CONNERY
HARi\;OONBEATTY
ARTH'lJR C.CAI.LV
JE:FTREVC,~OND
JOHN UN,OEMCARLSON
50.0 EQUITABLE-BUILDING
730SEVENTEENTHSTR E ET
FlANOY L. PARCEL MAFlK R. LEVY
DAVID G.. PALMER R. ElROOKE JACKSON
JUOlnfSONNIEKOZLOF'F' PAU.L T. R,UTTUM
MICHAn O.MA'RTIN ElRITTON WHITE, JR.
ElRUCE W. SATTLER WILEY E:. MAYNE. JR,
RAUL N. ROORIGVEZ FlICI-IAFlO T. CASSON
J~CK L. SMI,\H GR'EGORYA. E:URICH
JOHNC.COOMSE CI-IRISTOF>HER N,SOMMe::FI
E-i..fGENE,F'.'M'~GU~RE EOWARO M. GILES
LfNOE:L"LL. G:\lM,PER ALANE, a,OLES, JR.
SpI..:OMON,N.BAR.ON GEFlAL.O W.GFlANOEY
THOMA'S A.F'AULKNEFI STEPHEN L.PE:PF>ER
ROBEFlT J. MOIFl THE,RESA W. CORSEY
DENVER, COLORADO S0202
TELEPHONE AREA CODE 30.3 29:2-9200
CABLE ADDRESS HOlHART"OE:NVER
MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING
P. O. BOX H2S, ASPEN, COLORADO SI6fl
TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303
JanuAry 30. 1974
!iiI'. k'uu Glnb. Chatman
Mpen Plaming sad ZOD.iAg ~bdCl:a
P .,i2!. JcJt V
A$pu. 1::0101'$40 1$1611
l'!lt: Villa o:t Aspen TOWD.mmsu ~
Phase n:
VtiJ' llnuee:
Jia Ilaaill' a.Ueli m4 rutaft.y to ehec:k Oil .. statG~
lI:leat Ilia_It 'to aim 1>1 ~D.aa bel' to the .flect tbat t~
Villa M$ b.en l'e''tGlMlaUng to tJ;;l/I P1a=bg ~ ZO:Gbi
Cum1nloll. in c:oaHcrUon witb the c:a~tiGllI." $D.Mlv1si1m.
that .11. 0.. &1"'"1 ~l'al\ud ilu:C:'il'$$ ,en1lut!OD. fot' tho
i'lwUUt II pToi"' lleroU tltuil pOrUQll of the vrlvate rOl1d
whieh U<<1. OD. bll prop.rt;r. I <<viud Jim. that th;l, WIUl
dlllply aet ta. cAse, ~ ,avitl hia th& haekf~4 01\ how
this mattM' &1&$ ilte.1.\ pre.enUd to tJ;;. eo_ adon. While
it uy w11 lrIa WiUlHnsary. 1'1i like 'to take thb oppor.
tD.atty tQ sat OD.t olMl:e ag4\U tl1Ie IItUlU of tM aelll.6$1I
road dt_a'tioll..
Severd dia~nu.doa$ W~n had la:5t spring witb Jim,
the IIp.hot _f which was that Ji. &4W ~f) $(Ul.4) in aego.
tbti11l flIoM$Tniag an faS$lINnt un1::11 0. aGceu road had
b... d..:aiiile.;l wlAtu wu IillUdactery t:o th. City. iI1
th. 'I'veat f1:a.a1 ae@.1S aj;>''lf1IIval is eVQtually obtaiaed
fl'. tl1.e City. the VU14 lIW.$t sun make M offer tit
J1a wMch he d..lllill aClloptab1e. $hllluld Jim deCide not
to g:nmt an lIl"'SMWmt 1. aa)' usc. th$ VUla.ts ody al~
tflra4t.lve wUlb. t. 4tt.,t to CO"ll a pdftte ril:ht.-
of-waf OT.1' the nadWa1 ~Mn tlw _l~nt domaill $tatl.ltos.
Not tm1y ba,th$ VUla _d~ no a:u...,t to disguise
this dt\l&Uoa. it hu 5<$"01'41 t1lll0. pl!lhUd Ol.lt the
pYcbllllm en its om\. initiative. It; is my r.t.loll~don
-""'....
-
~.,
HOLLAcND8: HAcRT
..-<;,
:141'. inlee 61111$
J4\JlWll17 30. 1174
Page Two<
tiul't the mattAU' \ft.$ mO$t fUlly db~",e6 ~,olle of u&
f;i~&t. (;..1$$10;1 heMing. oa the illW~\l't$1(j~ ap"l-l(:a~1on.
\filM 1 'eU.. J4~k J(i-sakw *,~uiX'" its .tfl t~. ll1Ua 's
d~ht to, U$e th~ 1"0$4. Iuio~ J''d at that
time that Jim Daggs, was WIl.wi;1lilltg $S a diht-
~:t"l(fJlY <@UO$5 lI-b 1aoo u~Ul Chy, ~d b0'en
iil'btaiae,d, and that _ Vl1.1l.\ wit,S: : . ,seeking
aPPF~\I'd ,# ,tei ita al;<llihing ~"lil'ary ea.llftlllat.
.l'Jq _. Fi'Jud:ic:ed by (lUX' p~nd"t.B 1n'tkb
l/inau-e'f. Ud thno w~nl"e ft. ()\)jeC::-U:onio to the PJ'opost)d
appt"o$Clt.
, . ~~~$,.1'i:Il.~t-lr:., & wr,11t1tllln, OI.r~.,~nu 1$ ~~~~I!\t
Pre$oa't4tl'on WIlI.$ pnp&~ ~$uk.u:t~ to tlle lkd1nneo
Ut, C~4i't'tM, ani an up,-datilid. VoiJ'd~ thflJ'M! 11'3$ tblllJ'lfdter
lill\tj,)mitted to to C9lIl)Ilbsion as n. whole" Bc1J~h ot those
i'ie.l'l.D't4U~l>' iUte that wl~Ue the on11 &9'ailalllb. 4<:;C'fJU
is O'l1'tU'th4.1 e:dst1nS pcdvltte r.a4 from the ~ewerlW.usl!l
loa4, "the fl&clG$Sary. l1Ul'SeIM!tlt oVierBueh i>cl'ivlite :toad
cannot be o~u.1ne4 unUt 'the, Se n 1I:'0;..,t has been
it ,vei j)y t1uI C:hy. and 1.t.' . t, . t-ei!, that
,. .,
I'1ll db;1ppol:nIi..d tlUlt J~ Daggs W1lsJIV&.nlliU~h llin
~ e.onews:!. Illl"re,ssien".$ ine .WtlMVe aea.ltw1th~n'1l!l.,1n
, . dfalth 1U1~ have proceeded whh t.\U'C1ty eXll.cUy.as
" . ~PE!C~MW. wculld.. 1h1l> pr.oj eet' ,is,: ltK.lmtel"ing
e%iOUih dUfieulty Q :l:t 1:&. I,Utl! deli"'"O$' 'M"1ll:1~fr*
$'t&~1\I;$ at th.b$t~fI. Xl you ~ond,1U1", it lUICe$Sat)'
or 4JIp'l.':Clprla1:e, I'ffOU;ld' llfPTeda1:e ;y~t ~1tel.ll.t'inl this
ltl'tftlt Uentl tihe fttber ,,~wTS of thlte~\Jl1Iltoa.
s~'m.'1f".,~:,,'1"',,*
, ~ .
r C. 11>,
lJr LiOtlJl.ND ~ HART
ACfh_
ec.:
tfl.' .
lil:r
,.
litl'.
jIU.
JI1UU$ 1(. naflS
ItoQld U. W nl\luul1er
Jaos. n..'s..r
hnna hft
"...\
.""'"
~!fl~ f): ~~
-G',,"~.{~~
~.:x:~
~~
~~ ~.16'1,f-~~ J'/6'//
303 925-4290
January 29, 1974
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Post Office Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
Re: Villa II Project
I learned from Ms. Donna Baer of the Planning Office on Friday,
January 25, 1974 that Mr. Ron Windemuller had represented to you and
the Planning Office that he has my permission to use a private road
across my property as access. to his Villa II Project on Castle Creek.
The purpose of this letter isto inform you that he does not now have,
nor has he ever had permission to use my property for access to this
project.
I have been contacted by Mr. Windemuller regarding use of my
property for access on two occasions. On April 26, 1973, he re-
quested permission explaining that he had not realized that he did
not have the right to use an existing private road. He was denied
permission. On June 20, 1973, he and his attorney, Art Daily, again
requested permission and when again denied permission he threatened
litigation to gain the right. It was made unmistakably clear to him
that even with the threat of litigation he still did not have my per-
mission. At both meetings requesting access, he made cash offers which
were turned down.
I have not had any discussions with Mr. Windemuller since June
20, 1973 and as i.ndicated above, there could not have been any direct
Or implied agreement on my part for him to use my property for access
w~ph or without approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I will be happy to meet with you personally to further clarify
this matter.
Very truly
cc: Ms. Donna Baer./
JKD:pap
Hand delivered on January 29, 1974
,
\
.-----
:;
-
"
January 4, 1974
Art !>aily
P.O. Box 3629
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Art:
E1e1l1ents of the drainage study for the Villas, Phase II
site required by the Engineering and Planning DepaX'tments
are understood by Wrigbt-McLaugblin Engineers who did the
8X'ea wide study of the Aspen drainage basin.
They will apply to the Villa project the concepts developed
in their report, Urban Runoff ManaJltment Plan, August 1973.
Sincerely,
,J2c3/u~
Donna Baer
Planning Office
DB/bk
~
,.....,
MEMO
To: Planning & Zoning
From: Bill Caille Fire Marshall
Re: Villa of Aspen Subdivision
The Fire Dept. and myself both concur that in good
faith we must disapprove this conceptual plan because:
1. There is no access to the back of these buildings.
2. The complete roadway must be a minimum of 24 ft..
3. The turn around area of 50' is at a bare minimum
and must be kept clear of parking and snow.
;..'"
,~
,,'
-,
t"-
!"""
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
JOSIAH G.HOLLAND
STEPHENH.HART
JOHN L.J. HART
WILLIAM D. EMSREE,JR.
JAMES L.WHITE
PATRICK M.WE:STFELDT
CLAUDE M.MAER,JR.
ROSERT P. DAVISON
JOHN FLEMING KELLY
FRANK H.MORISON
WILLIAM C. McCLEARN
JAY W.TRACEY,JR.
JOHN ALLEN MOORE
BEN E.CHIOLAW
JAMES E.HEGARTY
FIELD C.SENTON
DAVID SUTLER
J.MICHAEL FARLEY
WARREN L.TOMLINSON
8RUCET.SUELL
DON D. i::TTER
JAMES T. MORAN
KENNE:THO.HU88ARD
ROSi::R'T L.VI::R SCHURE
GORDON G.GRi::INER
R08ERT H.DURHAM,JR,
WILLIAM C:.MURANC:
H.GREG.ORY AUSTIN
L.WILLIAM SCHMIDT, JR.
JAMC:S P. LINDSAY
EDWIN S.KAHN
SAMUELP.GUYTON
JOHNS.CASTELLANO
DENNIS M.JACKSON
R08E:RT €:.SENSON
DONALD O,KINONEN
RICHARD M.KOON
CHARLEST.8RANDT
ROBERT T.CONNE:RY
HARADON SEATTY
500 EQUITABLE BUILDING
730 SEVENTEENTH ST~EET
ARTHUR C. DAilY STEVEN M. HANNON
JEPFREY C. POND JOHN D. COOMS-E
JOHN UNDEM CARLSON EUGENE F. McGUIRE
BRUCE W. SATTLER LINDELL L.GUMPER
RANDY L. PARCEL SOLOMON N. BARON
JOSEPH N. DE RAISMES ROBERT J: MOIR
GRAHAM M. CLARK, JR. MARK R. LEVY
DAVID G. PALME'R: JEANNETTE P. MEIER
JUDITH SONNIE KOZlOF!'" R. BROOKE JACKSON
MICHAEL D. MARTIN SRITTON WHITElJR.
""ALTER W. GARNSEY, JR,
RAUL N. ROORIGUEZ
JACK L.SMITH
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 292A9200
CABLe:: ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER
MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING
P. O. BOX 1128, ASPEN, COLO~ADO 81611
TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303
HARRY L.HOSSON
OF COUNSEL
December 19, 1973
Ms. Donna Baer, Planning Administrator
Aspen Planning Office
City of Aspen
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Dave Ellis, City Engineer
City of Aspen
P.O. Box V
Aspen, COlorado 81611
Re: Villa of Aspen Townhouses-
Phase II
Dear Donna and Dave:
As you know, the captioned project received preliminary
subdivision plat and stream margin approval from the Planning
and Zoning Commission on December 18, 1973, subject to an
acceptable report on the project being received from Wright-
McLaughlin Engineers. The Villa wishes to order the necessary
study as soon as possible, but wants to be certain that all
factors which the City deems important are covered by the report.
We would therefore greatly appreciate it if the two of you would
pool your thoughts on the matter and send us a letter detailing
the City's requirements with respect to this study.
Thank you for your assistance.
ACD:mm
cc: Mr. Ronald H. Windemuller
Mr. RiclRrd Wilde
verY~~o ~,
~ <
Arth r C. Da y
for HOLLAND & HART
r~
.
~.
f/:'~:!"1
f" "'~
C IT);:(,'vw,X'S PEN
aspen ,c:blo:itado, 616,i1 box v
'" .,'4
lt0 -. ,'" '~'l~Zi~
'" ~~
~
,
'",
Dec. 13, 1973
Mr. Rich Wilde
Tri Co Management, Inc.
P.O. Box 1730
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Re: The Villas, Phase II
Dear Ri<;:h,
It is and has been the opinion of the Engineering Depart-
ment that the 24' wide roadway is more than adequate for
egress and ingress of the residents under normal conditions.
However, it was my impression at the p&Z meeting that the
major concern was in regard to problems which may be caused
should delivery trucks, cars, or other obstacles be parked
/ in this 24' wide roadway. Emergency vehicles would not then
have adequate access to the site, and possible traffic jams
of normal vehicles could also be caused. One solution to
this problem would be to widen this access road to 28'
(The minimum for one lane of parking and two traffic lanes).
I realize that the physical conditions make this solution
somewhat costly, however, the City and P&Z Commission are
in an obligatory position to attent to the public safety
irrelevant to the cost.
. In reguard to a previous memo requiring a 45' center line
radius on the curves into and out of the cul-de-sac, I stand
corrected. The required radius is 38' as you properly stated.
Cordially,
c;R Dd D~
Ed Del Duca
Assistant City Engineer
EDD/dc
'.
"'J'~_,..;:'f.
~
aspen ,c
PEN
box v
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Engineering Department
REGARDING: Villa of Asp en Subdivision, Phase II Preliminary
Plat resubmission.
DATE:
November 20, 1973
1.) Condition of Final Plat Approval
2.) Okay
a) Centerline of turnaround must have a
45' minimum radius
b) Turnaround must be posted "no parking -
fire lane", but must be maintained
and kept clear of snow
3.) Okay - Relocate northerly fire hydrant
4. ) Condition of final plat approval.
5.) Condition of subdivision improvement agreement.
6.) Condition of subdivision improvement agreement.
7.) Okay
"~,.,, .:....
CIT
aspen,
,-"
~
PEN
box v
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Planning Office
SUBl1ECT:
Villa, Phase II Subdivision Requirements
Preliminary Plat resubmission
DATE:
November 20, 1973
1.) Stream Margins determination okay subject
to Wright-McLaughlin approval.
Preliminary Plat
1.) Access and circulation subject to 24'
easement (see Engineering recommendation)
Plan and profile of road - okayed by Engineer-
ing Department
Okay subject to Engineering Department
recommendations.
Workable circulation plan - Not satisfied.
Cribbing on parking lot.
Relocate two parking spaces to save large
cottonwoods.
Show pedestrian easement on private access
road.
2. ) Trail
Show trail along entire south boundary of
property.
-
~
Memorandum
Planning & Zoning
November 20, 1973
Page Two
2.) continued. . .
Along private road (see page one)
3.) Park Site
Acreage should be 1.89 acres to include park.
House to be removed and park site to be land-
scaped and maintained by developer.
4.) Okay
See Engineering requirements.
5.) Condition of final plat approval.
6.) Okay
7.) Okay
Adjacent property is no longer under option
by the Villas.
Ownership must be clarified.
Appraisal submitted to satisfy 4% cash dedication.
Ordinance 19 Recommendation for approval (11-15-73) subject
to:
/a)
/b)
satisfying all subdivision requirements.
Deed covenants restricting rental leases to no
less than 6 months.
~c) Developer should attempt a separation of
building facades to reduce appearance of bulk.
~
-,
November 5, 1973
MEMORANDUM
TO: HERB BARTEL
FROM: SANDY STULLER
SUBJECT: VILLAS OF ASPEN APPEAL
Herb:
Attached are copies of Art's materials and my response in
the Villas appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The hearing is
set for 3 p. m. on Thursday. Would like you to come if you
feel you would like to argue the planning considerations.
Reference is made to situations in which city lots, under
the same ownership as adjacent lots, are conveyed: To preserve
the integrity of the process, perhaps we should require formal
exemption under section 20-10 of the Code.
SMS:mw
.. '~.'- .~.
~,
I'""",
November 5, 1973
MEMORANDUM
TO: MEMBERS OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FROM: SANDRA M. STULLER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VILLAS OF ASPEN
You have received the written materials submitted by Art
Daily on behalf of Villas of Aspen. In response I ~~ hereby sub-
mitting counters to his arguments which I hope you will read
prior to the hearing on Thursday. We both appreicate that
making such determinations are difficult, so I hope to make this
memorandum and my presentation as clear as possible so that the
issues can be clearly presented.
Factual Background
Prior to March of 1972 all of Blocks 5, 6 and 11 and the
North Texas Mill site belonged to Ralph Curton and Howard Lee.
On March 13, 1972, they conveyed all this interest in two parcels
to the Villa of Aspen, Inc. The parcels consisted of
a. parcel one: Block 11, the vacated alley and a part of
the vacated Eighth Street; and
b. parcel two: Blcoks 5 & 6, a part of vacated Bleeker
Street, a part of vacated Eighth Street, vacated alleys,
and the North Texas Mill site.
The conveyances were by metes and bounds description. On August
14, 1972, the Mill site and the west ends of Blocks 5 and 6 were
annexed. In October of 1972 a condominium declaration was filed
covering that parcel designated above as parcel two. During 1972
the Code included the following definition of subdivision:
"Section 20-2 (a) Subdivision. A Subdivision is a described
tract of land whi.ch has been divided into two (2) or more
lots, tracts or parcels, anyone of which is five (5) acres
or less in area for the purpose, whether immediate or future,
""'"
""'"
of transfer of ownership for building development or for
street use by reference to such subdivision or a recorded
plat thereof. (b) Subdivider. The person including the
owner, or agent for the owner, dividing or proposing to
divide the land so as to constitute a subdivision to be
shown on a recorded plat."
It is the City's contention that the March, 1972, conveyance
constituted a subdivision as described by the Code at that time.
It is worthy of note that all alleys in Blocks 5, 6 and 11 had
been vacated, as had Eighth Street (which lies between Blocks
5 and 11). I would like to counter Mr. Daily's arguments out of
the sequence in which made, if you will bear with me.
Counter to Applicant's Contention that City Building Inspector
Has No Authority to Deny Building Permit Application on Ground
That Subdivision Law Not Complied With.
In support of his argument Mr. Daily cites State v City of
Tacoma 385 P2d 372(Washington 1963). In Tacoma the applicants
purchased two lots from an intended large subdivision prior to
plat approval. The court held that the subdivision regulation
cannot be interpreted to allow the city "to visit the sins of
the grantor upon the grantee.. ,.. Both the provisions for
fixing a penalty and granting injunctions in the foregoing
(subdivision) statute are directed against the owners of land,
or his agent, who transfers or sells it before the plat or map of
the subdivision in which it lays has been approved. They are not
directed against a bona fide purchaser, and a failure of the grantor
to comply with the planning statutes and ordinances does not give
the city grounds to refuse his bona fide grantee a building permit."
This is certainly not the case here. For some unexplained reason,
Villas took title to a single tract of land in two parcels,
condominiumized one tract and retained the other for its own
j_mprovements. I think a case more in point is Pratt v Adams,
(2)
~
--
r
I
I
\
I
t
\
~
I
t
f
1
40 Cal. Rpt 505 (Calif. 1964), which concerned two married couples
who purchased 46 acres of land, and to avoid the subdivision
requirements, took title as jOint tenants, conveyed to four
other couples as joint tenants, and then commenced a partition
action to have it divided among the 12 married people involved.
Each person then divided his or her parcel into four parcels.
(Note partitions by order of court are usually exempt from the
definition of subdivision and the regulation here defined subdivision
to include only division into five or more parcels). The time
between the purchase of the single parcel and the ultimate
division into 38 took about four months. During these maneuvers,
the local planning commission was holding hearings on rezoning
the land, considering a single family - three acre minimum
district. The rezoning was enacted. However, the county code
provided also that a rezoning could not affect the right to
build upon a lot providing "such was a separate lot or parcel
of record or shown on a map of a recorded subdivision on the
effective date."
The original lot owners then made application for building
permits arguing the rezoning did not affect their property.
The permits were denied on the argument that the procedure followed
was in violation of the local and slate subdivision regulations.
The court upheld the refusal stating:
"This is not a case in which a building permit has been
denied because of some old violation of subdivision laws,
possibly done by predecessors in title to the applicant;
it is a case where the permit is sought as the culmination
of a plan to circumvent the law by one of the planners.
The courts will not assist, by equitable process, the
fulfillment of this plan."
Here, the Villas took title, to what was before a tract held
in single ownership, by a single deed conveying the tr.act. in two
parcels. The Villas then conveyed one parcel to a condominium
(3)
.-,
-,
association within seven months. In the summer of this year
Ordinance 19 affected the balance of the Villas property. The
Ordinance excepted permit (as this was) applications pending
but a permit is not deemed pending unless all subdivision require-
ments have been satisfied (if any are applicable to the project)
on the effective date of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Villas
of Aspen, Inc., is in a situation not unlike the permit applicants
in Pratt, i.e., only if the subdivision requirements are held
not applicable to their property will a land use regulation
(Ordinance 19) be deemed to affect their intended use.
Counter to Applicant's Argument that Subdivision Regulations Are
Not Applicable in the Present Situation.
The thrust of Villas' second major argument is that inasmuch
as Blocks 5, 6 and 11 have already been designated as such on
an official city map, any conveyances in which they are kept in
tact cannot constitute a subdivision of land. In sum, the appli-
cant states "There has been no modification of or interference
with the land divisions created by the city, and thus no further
division has taken place."
Let me note, first, that there has indeed, in the history
of this tract, been "modifications of....the land division created
by the city" inasmuch as Eighth Street and all the alleys have
been vacated.
Consequently, one of the most important functions of an
official map, that is, to cause dedication of land for public
access, has been negatived.
But more importantly, I do not think Villas' theory will
survive comparison with American case law. Courts have several
times discussed the issue as to whether or not the selling of a
lot or lots in an officially recorded map consti. tutes a subdivision.
The Courts' reasoning should be helpful here.
(4)
1""'\
1""'\
In Loechner v Campoli, 231 A2d 553 (M. J. 1963) plaintiff
attempted to sell two of five contiguous city lots designated
on a January 1900 city map. She argued that the existence of
the mapping made inappli.cable the subdivision requirements of the
city as once a map is filed the individual lots never lose their
separate xentities regardless of how many contiguous lots remain
in or are assembled into one ownership. The Court disagreed:
"This reasoning ignores the differences in purpose of the
two acts. The objectives of the Old Map Act and the Sub-
divisiOn Act are completely different. The history basic
purposes of the Old Map Act were.. ...(a) to provide a
method for officially filing maps so that future conveyancing
instruments might refer to a parcel of realty by reference
to the lot numbers as delineated on the map and (b) to set
forth sound engineering standards for maps so filed so as
to avoid surveying errors. On the other hand, concerning
(subdivision regulations), they were designed to afford
municipalities desiring the advantages of their provisions
to enact comprehensive regulatory standards which would
facilitate sound and orderly future municipal growth along
preconceived lines, in short, a planned community growth."
The Court found that the Old Map Act was subject to subsequent
valid exercises of the police power in zoning and other land use
controls. In accord is Ryan v Woodridge 231 A2d 562 (N. J. 1962),
Lake Intervale Homes v Parsippancy-Troy Hills 147 A2d 28 (N. J.
1958) .
The State of New Hampshire has taken a like position in
Blevens v Manchester 170 A2d 121 (N. Hamp. 1961). The landowner
had from 1936 to 1956 acquired land all of which had been sub-
divided into lots with the city surveyor's or engineer's approval.
Sales were made with reference to the recorded plat. Subsequently,
subdivision regulations were enacted and the city attempted to
(5)
,lfI.fIt,\
,-,
apply them to future sales by the landowner. The Court sustained
the city:
"Statues regulating the subdivision of land seek to promote
the orderly and planned growth of relatively undeveloped
areas within a municipality. Planless growth and haphazard
development accentua~municipal problems in a demand for
streets, water and sanitary services which have a direct
relation to traffic s~fety and health. The subdivision
of land has a definite economic impact upon the municipality
and hence the regulation of subdivision activities has
been sustained as a means by which the interests of the
public and the general taxpayer may be safeguarded and pro-
tected. Since the subdivider of land creates the need for
local improvements, it is considered reasonable that he
should bear the cost rather than the municipality and
the general taxpayer..... The subdivision law and ordinance
apply to all of plaintiff's lots shown on their recorded
maps which are unsold and any conveyed after the subdivision
ordinance was approved by the city. This is not a retrospec-
tive law."
Lifewise is Toothaker v Billerica 193 NE 2d 582 (Mass. 1963).
Consequently, ,I feel there is enough case law to support a
demand for satisfaction of subdivision requirements when any
city lot, formerly under single ownership with adjacent lots, is
conveyed. However, as is evidenced by the letters to Ken Hubbard
submitted by Art Daily, in the case presented by Ken this office
did not require compliance with subdivision regulations for the
following reasons. Such transfers concern lots on existing
streets in a developed neighborhood. In such cases there can be
little basis for apprehension either that the purchaser will be
bilked into buying a lot which is unusable for lack of improvements,
or that the city will be forced to install major improvements.
The character of the neighborhood is fixed so it cannot be
materially affected by this technical subdivision of the land.
(6)
... , ~ .
1""'\
~
However, none of these protections exist when a large parcel
is conveyed, consisting only partially of city blocks and lots,
when adjacent streets and alleys have been vacated and proposed
development will have a major impact on the community. It is
submitted that in such cases the intents and purposes of
subdivision come into play and demand compliance with ChapteT
20 of our Code.
Response to Applicants Contention that City is Estopped From
Requiring Compliance and that Application of Subdivision Regu-
lations Would Deny Applicant Due Process and Equal Protection
of the Laws.
These arguments lend themselves to more casual presentation
and the City's response will be made orally at the time of hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
.,.,....,
"......",
.
EXHIBIT B
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF APPEAL
I. Factual Background. By Deed recorded March 13, 1972
in Book 261 at page 927 of the Pitkin County records,
Appellant herein (The Villa of Aspen, Inc.) acquired title
to approximately 5.719 acres of land comprising Blocks 5,
6 and 11 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, the part of
vacated Eighth Street lying between said Blocks 5 and 11,
the vacated alleys in all three of said Blocks, and the
North Texas Millsite, U.S.M.S. No. 3288. At the time of
acquisition, the only improvements on the subject property
were the existing Villa of Aspen motel complex, the three
principal structures of which are situated upon Block 11
and extend Slightly more than halfway across the vacated
portion of Eighth Street which lies between Blocks 5 and
11.
During the summer and fall of 1972, Appellant processed
the annexation to the City of the North Texas Millsite.
As a condition to the annexation, the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council required that Appellant
submit a detailed site and landscaping plan for the townhouses
condominium project which was proposed for Blocks 5 and 6 and
the to-be-annexed Millsite, carefully reviewed such plan and
required that a number of modifications be made. The
Millsite was then formally annexed to the City, and the
land rezoned AR-l Accommodations - Recreation, on August
14, 1972, subject to the condition that the condominium
project be constructed in accordance with the site and
landscaping plan on file with the City Planning Commission
and Building Inspector. It should be noted at this point
r~r-"
i
-
,--.
f""'\
that while it was clearly understood by all parties throughout
the annexation proceedings that the adjoining Villa of Aspen
motel property was owned by Appellant, and that the con-
dominiumizing of the lands depicted on the site plan would
eventually result in title to such lands being held by
persons other than Appellant, at no time during the pro-
ceedings was there any suggestion that Appellant's eventual
transfer of title to the units might constitute an act of
subdividing. Both parties were familiar with the subdivision
regulations, and both obviously felt that they were not
applicable.
It might also be noted that simultaneously with the
annexation of the Millsite to the City, Appellant delivered
to t~i~, - at the City's request - a deed covering .01
/ '\ .
acrel of land in the northeast corner of Block 11, to be used
for ~ softening of the curve at the corner of Seventh
Street ~State Highway 82. The City did not require
compliance with the subdivision regulations in connection
with this transaction either, nor was any exemption from
such regulations obtained.
On October 24, 1972, the Condominium Declaration for
the Villa of Aspen Townhouses was recorded in Book 261 at
page 81 of the Pitkin County records, and Appellant proceeded
to sell off the subject units. At the present time, all of
the units have been sold, almost exclusively to permanent
residents of the Aspen community.
Moving now to the immediate controversy, on June 25,
1973 Appellant applied to the City Building Inspector for
a building permit to construct a project known as the Villa
of Aspen Conference Center on the site of the existing
Villa of Aspen motel, which site is~more fully described
on Exhibit A attached to this Application. The proposed
-2-
F'l
,
I
!
t...
^
,...."
project is designed to replace the aging, and in recent
years economically unfeasible (too few units) Villa of
Aspen motel with a larger, more modern motel structure
which will also offer conference facilities. The plans
complied with all current zoning regulations, and because
of their complexity were forwarded by the City Building
Inspector to the International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO) in Whittier, California, for Building Code review.
During the waiting period, and even as late as the second
week in August, the Building Inspector continued to advise
Appellant, it's contractor (George Shaw) and it's architect
(Russ Pielstick) that the building permit would issue as
soon as the ICBO plan check was received and any plan
corrections recommended thereby were made.
By letter dated August IS, 1973, however, the Building
Inspector informed Appellant that its application for a
building permit was being denied on the grounds that
(a) the ICBO report indicated that certain aspects of the
plans would have to be redrawn, and (b) it was the opinion
of other Departments of the City that the City subdivision
regulations would have first to be complied with (and that
a letter would follow from the City Attorney substantiating
this latter ground). A copy of this August IS letter is
attached hereto for your reference as Exhibit C. Subsequently,
by letter dated September 6, 1973 (copy attached as Exhibit
D), the City Attorney confirmed the City's position that
Appellant would have to subdivide the property before a
building permit could be issued. For the record, Appellant
and the City have agreed that the date of this latter letter
(September 6) is the date from which the appeal deadline is
to run in the present case.
Finally, on Wednesday, September 26, 1973, the undersigned
-3-
rV"
r
;,
i
i
I
r .~'
^
1""'\
representative of Appellant was advised by phone by the City
Building Inspector that after further consideration of the
plans originally submitted by Appellant, his office has con-
cluded that such plans were in fact a legitimate submission,
representing a sincere effort to comply with the Building
Code rather than merely an attempt to file before the
effective date of Ordinance 19 (passed a month later on
July 24, 1973), and that the building permit application
will not be denied on the ground that plan corrections must
be made. Most of such corrections have already been sub-
mitted to the Building Inspector, and he has further advised
the Appellant that as soon as all Code requirements have
been satisfied, he will issue a letter rescinding the
portion of his August 15 letter which denied the application
due to plan correction requirements. As a result, the
present appeal concerns only one aspect of the Building
Inspector's decision: Whether compliance with the City of
Aspen subdivision regulations is necessary before a
building permit can be issued for the subject project.
II. Summary of Appellant's Arguments.
Appellant will argue that on anyone of four distinct
grounds, it is not necessary that the City subdivision
regulations be complied with before a building permit
can be issued.
A. The Git~ SubdiVision Regulations are Not
, ApplJ.ca leln the Present Slt\1atlon.
In October of 1972, when the first townhouse was sold,
the term "subdivision" was defined in the Aspen Municipal
Code in the following language:
"Section 20-2(a) Subdivision. A subdivision is a
described tract of land which has been divided into
two (2) or more lots, tracts, or parcels, anyone of
which is five (5) acres or less in area for the
-4-
F"
I
\
I
i
I
I
( '"''
"
~
,-..
purpose, whether immediate or future of transfer
of ownership or for building development or for
street use by reference to such subdivision or a
recorded plat thereof."
Obviously, the fundamental requirement of this definition
is that there be a "division" of land. And yet in the
present case, the property ~ already divided. Under the
authority of Ordinance No.6 (Series of 1959), the Official
Map of the City of Aspen was prepared by Buck Buchanan
(then County Surveyor) and recorded, on December 16, 1959,
in Drawer A of the Pitkin County records bearing Reception
No. 109023. The effect of this recording was to formally
plat the land within the City into the lots, blocks, streets,
alleys, parks, etc. shown thereon. Blocks 5, 6 and 11 are,
of course, a part of this officially platted area, and it is
obvious that such platting effectively diVided the land
involved into such Blocks 5, 6 and 11. In other words,
the land which is the subject of the present controversy
has been formally divided for many years, and has been
consistently treated as such by the City for purposes of
general property taxation (see Exhibit E) as well as
special assessments (see Exhibit F).
How, then, can it be argued that a "division" of land
has occurred in the immediate situation? The boundary
line between the now-condominiumized land and the motel
property lies within the vacated portion of Eighth Street
between Blocks 5 and 11 (approximately nine feet West of
the centerline of said vacated street), and leaVes both
'of 'stich 13loc'ks'c'omplet'ely il1tact. There has been no
modification of or interference with the land divisions
created by the City, and thus no further division has
taken place. And without a "division" of land, the sub-
division regulations are not applicable. Appellant has
(
-5-
~'",~:'7''''''~_'U~
IF'
f
(
~'
,
I
t ..,
,'-"
,-"
done nothing more than hundreds of other landowners within
the City have done in the past - he has taken two (or more)
contiguous, officially platted parce~s of land, sold one
of such parcels and retained the other for future sale or
development. In not one single instance since the adoption
by the City of subdivision regulations has such a transaction
been deemed within the purview of the subdivision regulations.
In fact, on the same day (September 6) that the City Attorney
delivered to Appellant her opinion that it had committed an
act of subdividing, she forwarded an opinion letter (copy
attached as Exhibit G) to an Aspen attorney to the effect
that the sale of one or more City lots which are part of
a larger parcel of lots all under single ownership does
not constitute subdividing under the City subdivision
regulations. Yet where is the distinction? Except in
terms of size, there is no difference whatsoever between
separating the ownership of two City blocks, and separating
the ownership of two City lots. Both blocks and lots con-
stitute parcels of land which have been officially diVided
by the City, and neither can now be treated as "undivided"
for purposes of the subdivision regulations.
In sum, the subdivision regulations have never before
been interpreted as applicable to land already officially
platted into lots and blocks, and there is no justification
for the City's adoption of a contrary position with respect
to Appellant. Indeed, the language of certain portions of
the subdivision regulations themselves strongly suggests
that they werEl" not" "intend"ed to apply to property already
so divided. Por example, in the definitional section,
the following descriptions are employed:
"Sec. 20-2(d)" "PinaTplat. A final plat is a
map or chart of the subdivision . . . marked
-6-
/
rl
!
,
,
i
'- .,
,
i
I
~
~
1""\
,,,,",,
on the ground so that streets, alleys, blocks,
lots, and other divisions thereof can be l.dentified."
(Emphasis added).
"Sec. 20-2 (i) Lot. ' A portion of a subdivision
used or intendea-for-use as a unit for transfer
of ownership or for development." (Emphasis added).
The term "block" is not defined, but obviously it too
would be considered "a portion of a subdivision." The
clear implication is that land previously platted into
lots and blocks has' 'aTre'a'dy been subdiVided wi thin the
meaning of the City subdivision regulations.
Further support for Appellant's position appears in
the Colorado statute which constituted the authority for
the City's recording of an official city plat at the time
such recording was accomplished. Section 139-18-9 of the
1953 Colorado Revised Statutes provided (and the current
version thereof still does provide) that:
"Upon the filing of any such plat in the office
of the recorder of the county, the boundaries of
contiguous 'divisions 'of land . . . upon any such
plat shall be determinedaiiir settled as indicated
in the plat. ' AU the other matters indicated u\,on
, 'said Pia~shalroeaeemedbindmgUpo~the partl.es
'iiCYri'ow egmgsuch plat" (Emphasis a dear.
The subject property has been oficially platted by the
City as Block 11, City and Townsite of Aspen, and the City
is bound by such designation and cannot now treat such land
as undivided for purposes of the subdivision regulations.
While Appellant believes that the foregoing rationale
completely resolves the present controversy, it deems it
appropriate to outline briefly three further legal arguments
which will be raised in the event some basis is found by
the Board to justify the application of the subdivision
regulations to the present case.
B. 'Even 'if SubdiVision Regulations A\,licable,
' ()1'ty Estopped from ReqUl.rl.ngcomp~l.anceat
"i:h1s T1me.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel has long been applied
-7-
r'
!
i
, %
i i
I .
t., '
,-.,
,-,
by the Colorado courts in situations where compliance with
certain statutory requirements would result in obvious
injustice to the private parties involved. The basic require-
ment of the estoppel doctrine is good faith reliance
by a private party on acts or representations of municipal
authorities, to the detriment of the person claiming the
estoppel. In the present case, even if a division of land
(within the meaning .of the subdivision re.gulations) is
found to have occurred by this Board, such division took
place in October of 1972, and it was not until August 15
of 1973 that the City notified Appellant that this division
was going to be. treated as an act of subdividing. In
consequence, Appellant naturally assumed that subdividing
would be unnecessary for purposes of obtaining a building
permit for the new motel, and took a number of costly steps
in reliance on such City action. Two sets of architects
were retained, and extensive building plans and specifications
and architectural renderings prepared. A major contractor
was retained, whose fall schedule was substantially designed
around the proposed project. Financing was extensively
negotiated with major lending institutions around the country,
and certain preliminary arrangements entered into. Normally,
of course, where subdividing is required the subdividing
process is substantially completed before the foregoing
activities are seriously undertaken. In addition, in reliance
on the several representations made by the City Building
Inspector during July and August to the effect that only
plan corrections stood in the way of a building permit,
Appellant placed a large steel order (steel supplies being
relatively short), on which penalties must be paid if
delivery is not taken.
All of these actions were taken in good faith reliance
-8-
/
r~'T
t ~'
I'
,
f #,
l ~
t ~:
("",, .
~.
1---
C.
to
and
The United States and Colorado Constitutions provide
that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law." In addition, the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits
a state (or any political subdivision thereof) from denying
any person the equal protection of the laws. In the
present case the "due process" and "equal protection"
-9-
r-l
I
I
i
I
r
(.,:.~"..-
,
&:
lij.
1
if::
~
~
adoption of the subdivision regulations that the City has
attempted to apply such regulations to a severance of land
titles along officially platted lot or block lines. Indeed,
on the evidence of the recent City Attorney opinion letter
pertaining to sales of lots (see Exhibit G), it may also
represent the last such attempt. No clearer case of selective,
discriminatory, non-uniform application of the laws of this
municipality could be posited. The City subdivision laws
cannot constitutionally be applied in this manner.
D. . eit
en
u
. Buildin
Ul In
lVlSlon
.
Even if the subdivision regulations are held to be
applicable in the present situation, the Building Inspector
cannot legally deny a building permit application on the
ground that such regulations must first be complied with.
Neither the Uniform Building Code (as adopted by the City)
nor the City Subdivision Code contain any. authority for the
denial of a permit on this basis. On the contrary, the
Subdivision Code sets forth criminal penalties for failure
to subdivide, and. such penalties cannot be enlarged upon by
the City in its discretion.
Section 7-5 of the Aspen Municipal Code defines the
responsibilities of the Building Inspector in the following
language:
"The chief building inspector shall be responsible
for the enforcement of the building code, the
electric code, housing code, plumbing code, all
special hazards codes which may now or hereafter
be adopted, and the zoning code of the City."
No reference is made to the Subdivision Code, and such code
simply not his responsibility. Similarly, the Uniform
Building Code provides that when plans conform to the zoning
.regulations and meet the requirements of the building code,
a building permitshalI be .is.su.ed. The Building Inspector
-10-
.,.,
". _T."","_.""~V'._''''''''~.''''''
',-,
r-'T
Ii!.
~' .~ .
i .
f ~
1;,. ,
,lh,. ;;
,-,.- .>,
.
. '
~.
.~
has no discretion to refuse a permit on grounds nowhere
mentioned in the laws under which he operates and from which
he draws his authority.
While the Colorado courts do not appear to have con-
sidered this particular issue, the Supreme Court of the State
of Washington handed down a decision in 1963 (State v. City
of Tacoma, 385 P.2d 372) in which the facts were so closely
analogous to those in the present case, and the reasoning
so similar to that set forth above, that a copy of the
decision is being attached hereto for the convenience of the
Board as Exhibit H. In effect, it is Appellant's argument
that even if the subdivision regulations are somehow found
applicable to Appellant, the Board must reverse the Building
Inspector's denial of Appellant's permit application, on
the ground that the.Building Inspector acted beyond the scope
of his authority in denying the application due to failure to
comply with the subdivision laws.
II 1. 'PTea of Appe11an t .
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully
requests this Board to reverse the decision of the Building
Inspector denying Appellant's application for a building
pe.rmit on the grounds that the City subdivision regulations
must first be complied with, and order that such permit be
issued upon compliance by Appellant with all building and
zoning code requirements in effect at the time such applica-
tion was filed with the Building Inspector's office.
Respectfully submitted this '-~~dayof October, 1973.
The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
Hart,
cc: Mrs. Ellen Harland,
Chairman, Board of Appeals and Examiners
-11-
n'
t '"
, t
i~;
;
):. t
rc""
"
~
1""\
.....
.. ~~4a~
. APPEAL TO BOARD OF APPEALS: m ~GNERS.
October 3. 1973
.City of Aspen
Date
The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
p.OCasoxN&19.Aspen,C010.
Appell'" Villa of ASpen, IllC. Address same
Block II, the .vacated alley witbin said Block 11.
Owner and a out of vaca~.p.th Street, City &:
!9!fti~ ~ ~t'~e particularly described. CIl. Bxhibit A.
(Street & Number; Subdivision; Block & Lot)
Building Permit appliciltion and prints or any other pertinent data
must. accompany this. application, and will be made a part of Case
No.
The Board will return this application if it does not contain all
the facts in question. .
.
Description of proposed exception showing justification (use reverse
of appeal if nec~ssary):. ..... ..... . . .. .. /
See Written Statement in S\1ppo",t'of Appeal attacbedhereto as Bxhibit
B a.nd made a part of this llppUcat1on.by this reference..
The V111a ofAs~n, Inc. ,by .
tftfJPjey. 9&11Ip63{1I1R!~and & Hart,
s,gn.d~~t
Provisions of the building code requi ng the Building Inspector to
forward this application to the Board of Appeals and reason for not
granting permit.
Signed
Date permit rejected
Application filed
Mailed
Status
Decision
Date of Hearing
Date
Secretary
~
~'
~..
"'>
^
>-"
ft;d
-
EY,f//d/r- CF
~::'lIl
i,
f,~.IJ.
" <'Sf
"4f.
,.!'\; ""'~?4
.,..,~
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, 8161; hox v
\, . r.......~. ....l
"" 'I. " ..'-~
...,..........., ..H"'..'-;\_~
---~ '~..
...
, September 6, 1973
, Kenneth D. Hubbard, Esq.
Holland and Hart
P. 0; Box 1128
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Alton Beck conveyance
Dear Ken:
I returned your call late Tuesday and found you
were attending the P & Z meeting.
My apologies for an unclear response.
The case law on this point is diverse but since there
is no opinion from the Colorado appellate courts we feel
free to exercise our perogatives, at least with respect
to the Beck sale, and indicate that we do not feel that
the sale of one or more city lots which are part of a
larger parcel of lots all under single ownership constitute
subdivision. Your letter addresses two alternative meanings.
The first we would not consider a "division" so as to even
bring subdivision regulation into play. The latter we
would also exclude as not, at least as far as the Beck pro-
perty, within the concerns of subdivision regulation.
I trust this will resolve the issue.
Very truly yours,
SMS:mw
,. ,
~~V
Sandra M. Stuller
,City Attorney
cc: FredWooden
Clayton Meyring
. ,
...
^
1"""\
~
~
~
,
.f~.
," :~,~......
CITy"OF')jtS PEN
..
aspen ,colorado, 81.6!~ box v
~~.:. . ;i\"'..,:..A. ;.!;;;;-~~
.-~~
August 31, 1973
Ken Hubbard, Esq.
Holland and Hart
Attorneys at Law
. P. O. Box 1128
Aspen, Colorado
. Re: Sale of lots within
townsite
Dear Ken:
. Thank you for your patience in waiting for thts response.
I have spoken with the planning office and the building'
inspection office concerning the requirement of compliance with
subdivision regulations in the event of sale of lots within the
City and Townsite of Aspen, which lots have previously been
designated as separate lots of blocks in a recorded plat and
have been under single ownership.
It never has been the pOlicy of the city, nor is there'
great legal basis for asserting, that the sale of such lots
constitutes subdivision either within the intent or wording
of our subdivision regulations.
, .
I hope this statement is of some help.
'.
(
Ve~y ~ruly yours,
~
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
5MB :mw
.'
cc: Nick Falasca
Fred Wooden
Clayton Meyring
""
.,-'
,,'"
^
('1-\
tl:::l:1
E A:' 1:/>8/,r- .d
a:."!:'.:!'il
.I
L ".~
.
t,
tt~.
/'-""";,..
.. "'"I"~~
I," "" <>" ,...
CITY"'OF'RsPEN
'if
aspen .colorado. 8.16,1) box v
" " , " .....~
"Vo<~" ~,,',/'.:;;;.i;ti
......,.
September 6, 1973
HAND DELIVERED
--,
Arthur Daily, Esq.
Holland and Hart
Attorneys at Law
P. O. Box 1128
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Villa of Aspen, Inc.
Permit Application
Dear Art:
History
The title search of the Villa property indicates this suc-
cession:
1. In April of 1958 title was quieted in Olivia and Van
Sickle with the decree convering this property:
"The above tract is also known as Lots D, E, F, G, H, I,
N, 0, P, Q, Rand S, Block 5; LotsE, F, G, H, I, 0, P,
Q, Rand S, Block 6; Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K,
L, M, N,. 0, P, Q, Rand S, Block II, Aspen Townsi~e and
East and West Alley between Hallam Street and Bleeker
Street from west line of Seventh Street to city line, all
lying in Blocks 5 and 6, Aspen Townsite, East and West alley
in Block 6 lying west of west property line of Eighth Street
and running westerly to the city limit line. Also Bleeker
Street to the west city limit line of Aspen ,Townsite. Also
Eighth Street from the north property line of Bleeker Street
to the south property line of Hallam Street. Also the Horth
Texas Millsite, M. S. #3288."
2. In 1963 Howard Lee acquired title to the property by
virtue of sheriff's deed with essentially the same description. .
3. On January 12, 1970, there was recorded a deed conveying
an undivided 1/2 interest in the same property to Ralph Curton,. Jr.
This is recorded in Book 245 at page 913.
.-
-
.
^
1""'\.
....-
.~'-
....
Arthur Daily, Esq.
September 6, 1973
Page 2
4. Ralph Curton, Jr., and Howard Lee conveyed two parcels
to the Villa of Aspen, Inc., by deed recorded March 13, 1972, at
Book 261 and Page 927. The two parcels consisted of:
a. Block 11, the vacated alley and a part of the
vacated Eighth Street, and
b. a second parcel consisting of Blocks 5 and 6,
a part of vacated Bleeker Street, a part of vacated
Eighth Street, vacated alleys, and the North Texas
Mill Site.
The conveyances were by metes and bounds description, in addition
to the lay description.
5. The Villa of Aspen, Inc., then recorded the Condominium
Declaration for Villa of Aspen Townhouses in October of 1972. It
appears that the area concerned with was essentially the same as
in paragraph 4b, i.e., parcel two in the 1972 deed, though I
cannot tell at this point whether they are identical. This will
warrant review by the city engineer. There have been, subsequent
to the recording of the Declaration, numerous conveyances to
individual condominium owners.
The issue, the, as I see it is whether the dual transfer
to the Villas in 1972 and the subsequent condominiumizing of
one of the parcels constituted a violation of the subdivision
regulations which, in 1972, provided:
"Section 20-2 (a) Subdivision. A subdivision is a
described tract of land which has been divided into
two (2) or more lots, tracts~or parcels, anyone of
which is five (5) acres or less in area for the purpose,
whether immediate or future, of transfer/ownership or ic~
for building development or for street use by reference
to such subdivision or a recorded plat thereof.
(b) Subdivider. The person including the owner, or
agent for the owner, diViding or proposing to divide
land so as to constitute a subdivision to be shown on
a recor~ed plat."
It is my understanding that the Mill Site and the west
ends of blocks 5 and 6 were annexed on August 14, 1972, i.e., after
the dual. transfer to Villas, Inc., but before the condominiumizing
~f parcel two. Section 20-4 requires compliance with the subdivi~
sion procedures before dividing any tract of land within our cor-
porate limits into two or more lots if anyone is less than five
...
<
^
1""'\.
~
'0
,."
.j
Arthur Daily, Esq.
September 6, 1973
Page 3
acres in size. I think we can agree with all of the above pre-
mises and data and proceed from there.
Legal Principals
There are, I think, two basic issues presented by this fact
situation:
1. Is parcel "one" a city block; and if so did
2. the 1972 dual transfer or the sale of the first con-
dominium on parcel one constitute a divis~on of land
within Section 20-2 (a).
As to what constitutes a block the only Colorado case even
discussing the issue is Town of Cherry Hills Village v Shafroth
349 P2d 368 (Colo. 1960) in which the court said that for the
purposes of the disconnection statute land is deemed platted
into lots and blocks when it is divided into tracts which are
surrounded and intersected by streets which have been dedicated
to the public. Query whether the vacation of the Eighth Street
dissolves the delineation of the plot as a block.
As to the second question: I can find no ca.se in which the
issue posited was whether a division of land is not a subdivision
because one parcel constituted a city block. The point of time
of the division does no~ seem to help in the determination. If
it was at the time of the 1972 deed, part of the land in parcel
two was not within the city and could not be affected by Section
20-2 (a), but part of parcel two was and subdivision might have
occurred with the intent of future transfer of ownership. On
the other hand, the concept is often stated that, unlike normal
subdivision, the mere recording of a final plat for condominiums
~oes not automatically convert a single parcel into separate
condominium units and must be at least one condominium unit con-
veyed to convert the single parcel into units, County of Los
Angeles v Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 83 Col. Rpt.
740 (Ct. App. 1970). Consequently, if the subdivision, if any,
occurred when the first condominium was sold, all property was
within the city and subdivision regulation.
Again, if parcel one is deemed a city block does this affect
the division of the parcel so as to exempt the process from
subdivision regulation. All definitions of subdivision describe
it in terms of the division of a larger parcel into smaller ones.
No case discusses the issue in terms of parcels containing city
blocks. The courts have gone both ways on the question as to
,
.
~
'^
ti'lli
.
..n
Arthur Daily, Esq.
September 6, 1973
Page 4
whether sale of lots within a block, formerly all in single
ownership, constitutes subdivision, and the cases consequently,
are of little help.
Art, I would appreciate your help in resolving the matter.
Unless I can locate some authority that excepts the parceling of
tracts when city blocks are involved, I will have to apply
Section 20-2 (a) as it reads, i.e., that the division of a tract
which until 1972 was conveyed as a single parcel, constituted a
subdivision.
Very truly yours, .
SMS:mw
~
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
cc: Donna Baer
Clayton Meyring
A
~'........'
,-,
..
EXHIBIT A
'.
A parcel ofmnd situated. in the swi of Section 12, Township
10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County,
Colorado, being Block 11 of the City and Townsite of Aspen,
the vacated alley within said Block 11, and part of vacated
Eighth Street northerly of the northerly line of Bleeker
Street, being more fully described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the northerly line of Block:
5, city of Aspen, with line 6-7 of the Aspen Townsite as
patented, whence Corner No. 6 of said Aspen Townsite (a red
sandstone in place) bears N.07038'00"E. 1086.23 feet; thence
following the northerly line of said Block 5 S.75009'11"E.
203.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence S.14050'49"W.
220.69 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Bleeker
Street; thence following the northerly line of said Bleeker
Street S75009'E. 317.53 feet to the southeast corner of said
Block 11; thence N.14051'E. 220.69 feet along the easterly
boundary of said Block 11 to the northeast corner thereof;
thence N.75009'W. 317.54 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 1.609 acres, more or less; excepting, however, that
certain 0.010 parcel of land in the northeast corner 01 said
Block conveyed by The Villa of Aspen, Inc. to the City of
Aspen by that certain instrument recorded August 18, 1972,.
in Book 266 at page 37 of the Pitkin County records.
~,
~
<~
.
^
1""'\
t~
~t
(';'1.~""c~
F .:51f'?J
/"" .'''':,,''!''-m.
lllf;f;;' '; ''''X:::;':'>~
CITY(()F KSPEN
aspen .c~lolltado, 81~i~ hox v
, '<.,"
'~""'" ,'-""~':P
....."I<>''''""4V,>j;,4..~
August 15, 1973
Ron Windemuller
P.O. Box 679
Aspen, Colo. 81611
RE: Villa of Aspen Conference Center
Dear Mr. Windemuller:
The building department is in receipt of the plan check
of your project by the International Conference of Build-
ing Officials (ICBO), a copy of their comments being
enclosed. There were 25 separate objections but numbers
18(f) (4) and (g) indicate that your plans must be redrawn,
at a minimum.
In addition, it is the opinion of the planning department
and the city attorney that you must comply with the city
subdivision regulations before a permit can be issued.
An abstract of Chain of title has been ordered to sub-
stantiate this position and you will be notified by the
attorney's offic€,! of the exact reasons for required com-
pliance with Chapter 20 of the municipal code.
For the above reasons please be advised that your applica-
tion for a building permit has been denied.
Very truly yours,
00.. +-t }-:::}. r .. '9
\},f/V\K\)i'V\ J'\ J r L~/",\.-v,,\ \..
ClaytQll H.. Meyn.ng i\
Chief Building Inspector '
cc: Shaw Construction
Russ Peilstick
Herb Bartel~
Sandy Stuller
CHM/dc
,
.
p
0'.-".
;/
,....., "",
,lj.,'.. "
~;,'J', ':: '
';"\',.', ,,:..;'
Y;,,\ '. . .,,;
,....
,....,.... ....:.<,-
-"/"",'
OFFICERS
. PRESIDENT
EUGENE B. PESTER
DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
POMONA, CALIFORNIA
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT
NEWELL, POCK
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
SECOND, VrCE-PFlE:S ICENT
JACK D. WHITE
BUILDING eoeE ENGINEER
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
TREASURER
VINCENT R. BUSH
SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING
VERNON, CALIFORNIA
.JUNIOR'PAST PRESIDENT
PERRY C. TYREE
REGIONAL BUILDING OFFICIAL
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
T, H. CARTER
5360 S. WORKMAN MILL RD.
WHITTIER, CALIFORNiA
MANAGING DIRECTOR
JAMES E. BIHR
'<360 S. WORKMAN MILL RD.
WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA
DIRECTORS
GAYLORD C. DOWD
DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS
KALAMAZOO,.MICHIGAN
DONALD A. ERICKSON
OIRE:CTOR
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
M!NNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
BILL P. HORN
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
PIERCE COUNTY
TACOMA. WASHINGTON
ROBERT B. FELDNER
SUPERINTENDENT OF
CENTRAL INSPECTION
WICHITA, KANSAS
CHARLES R. HINKLEY
CHIEF BUILDING,INSPECTOR
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA
VICTOR L. TAUGHER
BUILDING OFFICIAL
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
HAYWARO, CALIF'ORNIA
VINCENT R. BUSH
;UPER1NTENoENT OF' BUILDING
VERNON. CALIFORNIA
DICK T. JORDAN
DIRECTOR
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
AUSTIN, TEXAS
FLOYD G. MCLELLAN, JR.
DIRECTOR OF' BUILDING
AND SAFETY
COUNTY OF ORANGE
SANTA ANA, CAL.IFORNIA
~.
;~
International Conference of Building Officials
5360 50UTH WORKMAN Mill ROAD
.
WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601
.
(213) 699-0541
August 10, 1973
OFFICES OF THE:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
T. H. CARTER
MANAGING DIRECTOR
JAMES E. BIHR
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
D. R. WATSON
c.. H. Meyring
Chief Building InSPector
City of Aspen
Post Office Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Plan Check No. 8897
Project: Villa of Aspen
Conference Center
Address: 207 North 7th
Type of Construction: V _
Occupancy Classification:
Fire Zone No. 3
Stories: Three
Floor Area: F-l - 6,672 Sq. Ft.
F-2 - 6,587 Sq. Ft.
H 40,260 Sq. Ft.
B-3 - 11,908 Sq. Ft.
Occupant Load: 707
1970 Uniform Building Code
Seismic Zone No. 1
One Hour
H/B-3
Dear Mr. Meyring:
Data for the above project has
with the Uniform Building Code
lows:
been reviewed for conformance
and our comments are as fol-
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. For the purpose of plan review this building has been sub-
divided into three separate portions; each hotel wing and
the "lobby-dining-banquet" wing is considered as a sepa-
rate building. This allows the structure to be treated
as Type V - one-hour construction.
2. The parking area.is classified as an F-l Occupancy since
it is approximately 3,320 square feet in area.
NONSTRUCTURAL COMMENTS:
1.
Unobstructed yards of 26.5 feet should be maintained On
two sides of the "hotel" wings for area purposes. Section
506. This should be filed in your permanent records for
future reference.
~
~.
"-
"
-2-
2. A three-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation in conformance
with Table No. 5-B and Section 503 is required between the
parking area on the ground floor (F-l) and the adjacent hotel
units (H). Note that this occupancy separation includes thebal-
conies above the parking area. The floor-ceiling assembly and
the walls around the parking area do not meet this requirement.
3. Since all three portions of this building are classified as Type
V one-hour construction the requirements of Table No. l7-A should
be met. It is to be noted that the exterior walls do not comply
with the one-hour fire-resistive requirement for walls.
4. Folding partitions should comply with Section 1705 (b). See
third floor banq11et rooms, plan Sheet No.5.
5. Enclosures for floor openings.should comply with Table No. l7-A
and Section 1706. Note that stairway walls should have a m~n~mum
one-hour fire-resistive rating. The wall section shown should be
justified as complying with this requirement. The same comment
applies to the elevator shaft. The elevator doors should be
labeled one-hour fire-resistive assemblies. See plan Sheet No. 11.
,
6. Anchored veneer over 20 feet in height should be supported with
noncombustible corrosion-resistant ledgers at a maximum Of 12 feet
on center above the 20-foot height. Section 3006 (b). Details of
chimney showing compliance with this requirement should be provided.
7. The use of lightweight concrete flooring in the H Occupancy should
be justified as an alternate material for a fire-resistive floor-
ceiling assembly unless it complies with a specific research rec-
ommendation.
8. Nonabsorbent finish and backing for toilet room floors, walls of
toilet compartments, and walls around urinals should conform with
Section 1711 (a). This includes hotel toilet rooms since they
are not considered dwelling units.
9. Shower stall walls should be finished with a hard, nonabsorbent
surface to a height of 6 feet. Section 1711 (b). Fiberglass or
other prefabricated finishes should be covered by a research rec-
ommendation or complete justifying data under Section 106 should
be submitted.
10. Doors and panels of shower and bathtub enclosure should comply
. with Section 1711 (c) and (d). The thickness of glass should be
specified.
,-...
i__
.
'.
-3-
11.
The steel
which has
Sheet No.
columns should be protected With fireproofing
a minimum of one-hour fire-resistive rating.
7 and Table No. l7-A.
material
See plan
12. Envelope ceilings should satisfy the following conditions. Sec-
tion 4303 (b)-6. See plan Sheet No.7.
(a) Columns should be individually fire protected.
(b) Duct and outlet openings are limited to 100 square inches in
each 100 square feet of ceiling area and s.hould be protected
with approved fire dampers.
(c) Electrical outlet boxes should be of steel and not greater
than 16 square inches in area.
13. Acoustic tile and the suspension system used in the envelope
system should conform to a specific research recommendation.
.
14. The lobby-dining and banquet rooms should provide minimum circu-
lated air of 15 cubic feet per minute per occupant. Section 605.
.
15. An approved, conspiclJously marked, outside gas shutoff valve is
required if gas is to be used in the bUilding. Section 708.
16. ~echanical ventilating system in baths of hotel rooms should pro-
vide five air changes per hour directly to the outside. Section
1305 (a). Fan capacity should be specified.
17. Every guest room should have comfort heating facilities meeting
the requirements of Section 1311.
18. Exits:
(a) The two stairways adjacent to the two-hour area separation
wall should have exiting on the ground floor leading directly
to the outside. The exiting plan shown on Sheet No. 3 does
not comply. Section 3308.
(b) Occupant load signs are required in the dining and banquet
rooms. Section 3301 (j),
,-"
^
".
-4-
(c) Since no details regarding exit door hardware has been
submitted the following comment applies: Exit doors
should be openablefrom the inside without the use of
a key, special knowledge, or effort. Section 3303 (c).
Note also that surface mounted flush or surface bolts
are prohibited. Automatic flush bolts are allowed on
pairs of dOors provided the door with the flush bolt has
no knobs or surface mounted hardware and the unlatching
of any leaf requires only a single operation.
(d) Doors piercing the two-hour area separation wall should be
minimum labeled one and one-half-hour fire-resistive assem-
blies. This applies to doors 101, 105, 126, 203,216, 303
and 310. See plan Sheets 3, 4 and 5 and Section 505 (c)-I.
(e) Interior openings into corridors should be protected as
set forth in Section 3304 (h). Twenty-n!inute rating for
door assemblies requires compliance with a specific re-
search recommendation or a labeled fire assembly. All
doors opening into the corridor should comply.
(f) Stairways should be enclosed as specified in Section 3308.
1) One-hour fire-resistive walls are required.
2) Only exit doors are allowed to open into exit enclosures.
3) Doors should be labeled one-hour fire assemblies with
additional requirement of maximum 4500F temperature rise
above ambient after 30 minutes of fire test.
4) Exit enclosures should include a corridor on the ground
floor extending to the exterior. Fire-resistive con-
struction should be as required for the exit enclosure,
including protected openings. Only exit doors are per-
mitted to open into the corridor. See plan Sheet No.3.
The exiting condition shown on his sheet does not comply.
.(g) The second exit from the H Occupancy is by means of a hori-
zontal exit into a discharge area. From this area two comply-
ing means of egress must be available to the occupants without
relying on additional horizontal exits. Section 3307. This
condition does not exist on. the ground floor. See plan Sheet
No.3. Furthermore note that exiting through the "conversa_
tion pit" is not permitted by the Code. See Nonstructural
Comment No. 18 (f)-4).
."......"
;0...,
.
.
,.5-
(h) Exit signs should be provided in conformance with Section
3312 (b) and (c).
(i) Panic hardware is required on exit doors serving Group B
Occupancies. having an occupant load of more than 100. Sec-
tion 3316 (a). In lieu of this, doors should have no locks
or latches.
19. Venting is required for elevator shafts extending more than two
stories. Section 1706 (d). The larger of 3-1/2 percent of the
shaft area or 3 square feet per elevator should be provided.
See plan Sheet No. 11.
20. Roof drainage should be conducted under the public sidewalk.
Section 3207 (e).
21. Overflow drains having the same size as roof drains and on inde-
pendent drain lines are required. In lieu of this, overflow
scuppers three times the size of roof drains should be installed
in parapet walls. Overflow system should have inlets located
2 inches above the low points of the roof. Section 3207 (c).
22. Chimneys should comply with Section 3702.
23. Fireplaces should comply with Section 3704.
24. Glass and glazing should comply with Chapter 54. Type and thick-
ness of glass should be specified.
25. Glass and glazing in sliding doors should comply with Section 5406.
The structural portion of this review will be forwarded to you as soon
as it is completed. An invoice covering the plan check fee will be
forwarded at that time.
Please feel free to contact us if there are any questions.
~
TJK:BNH:hb
T. /J. Koyamatsu
~ief Plan Check Engineer
...., ~_ll,
~.
aspen ,c
PEN
box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Villas, Phase II Subdivision Requirements.
Preliminary Plat Considerations
DATE: July 18, 1973
1. Stream Margins Determination.
Specific design protecting river from proposed
paved parking and road.
Preliminary Plat
2. Access & circulation (Planning and Zoning must
approve private roads 20-7 S.d. and 20-10 a.)
24' road. Plan and profile for the road.
Turn around at the end of private road with a
radius of 65'. Requested by the Fire Chief.
Workable circulation plan that provides for
service vehicle access and meets the problems
of paralleill parking on the roadway.
Pedestrian easement on private access road.
2. Trail
Possibly located through the proposed park or along
south boundary.
Along private road. (see above).
3. Indicate park site.
Will existing structure be removed?
~
~
4. 8" water line and two. fire hydrants in private
access read.
Requested by Engineer and Fire Chief.
5. Agreement (with Metre San) to. jein a future sewer
cellectien system. Requested by Metro. San.
6. Mere cemplete indicatien ef existing trees and
vegetatien.
7. Develepment censideratiens fer adjacent preperty.
-2-
"" __.~tt_
~
'._'./""---~
^
RECORD OF PfWCEED!NGS
100 LoavGs
fr~ _~ ~~~~..::...:.::..___~_________-_-______~_-___ -------;:;:;--=-=--_-==...=:._~_;:_--------::-- ---;;--~-- -- -:::==---~-=-
July 17, 1973
. Aspen Planning & Zoning
Regular Meeting
Hibberd stated that he and Ellis had
$8,000 for the cost of revegetation.
further stated that he had consulted
architect for advice on revegetating
agreed ",on
Hibber'd
a landscape
the project.
Charles Vidal arrived.
Con1mission agreet to meet at 4:00 p.m. for a field
trip at the Durant parking lot before the meeting
on Thursday.
Hibberd stated that he would like the Co~~ission to
come to agreement on Thursday whether or not he should
do the entire project as one subdivision.
Jenkins suggested the possibility of building their
own reserve tank as one alter'native to the problem
of water.
Gillis stated that the Commission had taken a field
trip to the site of the project. Sited three major
problems: (1) Need an adequate cul_de_sac; (2) If
they do provide one, they would be too close to the
river; (3) the problem of access.
Villa Phase II
\J
Jenkins stated that there was no space between that
piece of property and the next, an no space in back.
;rhe Planning Office found that the parking and cir-
v/culation were generally inadequate. Ms. Baer stated
that the backing space is the bare minimum, and
would create a major problem with snow and/or plants.
Developer stated that there would be a park that
would cover 1/3 acre. Also stated that the pro-
ject would also provide two. parking spaces/unit.
At this point the Comnlission listed there appre-
hensions with the project:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Must provide an adequate cul-de-sac.
Must provide a plan for an easement.
Question circulation for fire and emergency
vehicles.
Tooclbse to river (6' frrnn high water mark
of this year).
Pollution _ possible eliminated with ade.
quate curbing.
Improved spacial relationship with peri-
meter neighbors.
Question total effect on read coming dmm
to bridge.
Evaluation of density by Planning & Zoning
Corn.mission~
<.
~,
f"'\
^
BECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
;::;d.~i~.~~,~~=-~?~__,____._----
--~--- ---.".-.-
Regular Heeting
. Aspen Planning & Zoning
July 17, 1973
,
(9) Willard Clapper not satisfied about cut at
bridge _ feel Mr. Clapper should comment.
(10) Would like a public pedestrian access.
(11) Would like to see the possibility of a
trail through the property.
Bay Street Estates,
Jack Hiller -
Stream Hargin
Requests
Hs. Baer stated that the Planning Office is satis-
fied with the stream margin requests.
Vice Chairman stated that he was concerned with
any density which would effect the balance of the
greenway. Felt the increased density would affect
the river.
Jack Jenkins stated that if all the lots were de_
veloped to that extent, the area would be unlivable.
Should be looking at the long_term solution for
that are~.
Area resident George Hansfield stated that there
are ..increased problems with parking and density
with duplexes. Did not feel the problem ,vould
be as great with single-family dwellings.
Developer of Bay Street Estates pointed out that
this would not be a typical duplex. There would
be separate ownership for each side of the duplex.
At this point, Hiller's attorney stated that they
were just to be discussing the stream margin re-
quest at this meeting.
Remo Lavagnino, another area resident, stated'that
he felt that the building of these duplexes would
affect the stream margin request on the grounds of
increased density. Felt it would affect the stream's
important natural feature.
It was pointed out that the Commission has
to make their decision. Commission agreed
this discussion. until Thursday, July 19th.
act on the requests at that time.
30 days
to table
Would
As there was no further dis.cussion, Barbara Lewis
moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by
Bryan Johnson. All in favor, meeting adjourned
at 7:15p.m.
..J /;:/ '~-p;;:
, ,..' - ,. _ /, ,_ "it. <
/' (<_\-:.:'/ ("; : /:1')\1., ,-' 7.' ,/
, ,- ',. -. - .~
Igcrtary (1'
c-.-- . "''''
1""\
Aspen Planning & Zoning
.,.-""
July 17, 1973
CONSIDERATIONS FOR VILLA PHASE II
1. Must provide an adequate cul-de-sac.
2. Must provide a plan for an easement.
3. Question circulation for fire and emergency vehicles.
4. Too close to river (6'. from high water mark of this year).
5. pollution - possibly eliminated with adequate curbing.
6. Improved spacial relationship with perimeter neighbors.
7. Question total effect on road coming down to bridge.
8. Evaluation of density by Planning & Zoning Commission.
9. Willard Clapper not satisfied about cut at bridge -
feel Mr. Clapper should comment.
10. Would like a public pedestrian access.
11. Would like to see the possibility of a trail through the
property.
1""'\
^
v
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
1'011'" ~~ C. F.. i'lOfCKEL a. 9. &- L. co.
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
July 10, 1973
\
phases would
\
Yaw estimated that to complete these two
take from 3 to 5 months.
Suggested that subsequent phases would include per-
formance criteria, master plan, legislative planning,
growth strategy and individual design strategy. Yaw
suggested that one result of the inventory phase
could be a physical model that could be used for
visual aid and experimentation with view corridors,
planes, etc. New builders could be" required to pro-
vide model of their building to set in the City's
model.
Charles Vidal left the meeting.
Herb Bartel suggested that the next step would be for
the Planning & Zoning Commission to make a specific
recommendation to the Council fora budget decision -
financial arrangement to cover the first two phases.
Greenway Plan
Resolution
Herb Bartel stated that the plan presently does not
represent precise boundaries in the case of the Green-
way or trail system. Suggests implementation so as
not to disturb the activities of the Institute or
the Center for Environmental Studies. The P & Z
previously adopted the Greenway Plan, and this would
be a clarification Resolution.
i
~
!;
Barbara Lewis moved to adopt the Greenway Plan Reso-
lution. Seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion
carried.
IVilla phase
Preliminary
II-
Plat
Vice Chairman Gillis
Preliminary Plat for
,
opened the publichearin~
the Villa Phase II.
on the
Jim Reser of Tri-CoManagement was present along"with
Ron Windemuller, the developer, and Art Daily, the
attorney representing the project. " "
"" "
Reser pointed out that the Comniission had previously """
asked him to return with. further information on the
project. Stated they were to" bring the topography
up to the top. of the hill. (1) The access road will
be 24' in order to gain the easement, and; (2) would
make grade changing when bridge is finished if re-
quired.
City Engineer David Ellis submitted a memorandum to
"the Commission with the following recommendations:
1) An access easement ot 24'minimum width (clear
roadway width) needs to be provided from Power
Plant Road to the subdivider's property. The
easterly embankment on this easement will re-
",.,..'~,.":~,,..
.;"~';"-:"
,-_."".~..'
~
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM jl C. y, H~ECKE~ 9. a. a l. co.
Regular Meeting
. Aspen Planning & Zoning
July 10, 1973
quire a retaining structure.
2) A cul-de-sac or turnaround must be provided at
the end of the access road. The minimum turning
radius for a single unit truck is 45 feet.
3) Water supply should be from 16" ~ine in Power
Plant Road. Fire protection will require an
8" line with 2 - 6" fire hydrants (16" line is
presently under construction).
4) Buiiding and site plans shall be submitted to
Wright-:-McLaughlin Engineers, at subdivider's
expense, for recommendations on storm water
drainage and retention. Recommendations should
be received before submittal of final plat, and
incorporation of recommendations should be .a
cond~tion of final plat approval,
5) subdivider or his successors in title shall agree
to join any future storm drainage improvement
district or street improvement district including
paving, sidewalk, and curb and gutter.
6) subdivider or his successors in title shall agree
to participate in future improvements to Power
Plant Road from Castle Creek to West Smuggler
Street.
,
,.
7) All property corners should be set and it would
be desirable to have the build ing locations staked.
Tri-Co Management has previouSly agreed to add
additional topographic information such as slope,
vegetation, property lines and road and bridge
loe at ions which do not show on the preliminary
plat.
,
Art Daily stated that at this time they would like
to have preliminary approval; Donna Baer stated that
this was also a stream margin reqest and t~ the
report from the Corps of Engineers was on its way.
Bruce Gillis suggested that the Commission
a field trip in .order to review the site,
was decided to take the trip.onWednesday,
at 5:30 p.m.
take
and it
July 11th
Fire Chief Willard Clapper stated that the project
had an access problem. Would like .to see a 65'
radius for turn around.
-
!
Donna Baer submitted a letter of opposition from
Bruce BergerCand read it to the Commission.
.
::""~,"I,I,,, "" " ,'~' ~t.-:Z~';";-'~'n:;'~,::t;:'i.;;;ri~?:J~;:"..:.",;;:>,~~:~~)~,i"::'~l>':;;;~;J!'~:'t~{;;,;,',L,'~i~~~i,::t;2'.;,";'''i:\':;':0i~::;c;:;7l:._~:c,:3',7
. ,
~
.~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
'00 Leaves
~OR~ lG C. F. 110[CIt;H a.s~ a. I.. co.
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
July 10, 1973
Bay Street Estates -
Preliminary Plat
There being no further comments, Vice Chairman Gillis
closed the public hearing. \.
Vice Chairman Gillis opened the public hear~ng on the
Preliminary Plat for the Bay Street Estates.'
Donna Baer stated that this was also a stream margin
request.
Developer stated they wanted to build a Victorian-
style duplex, 1600 square feet/unit, 25' high. It
would be permanenthousing with separate ownership.
City Engineer David Ellis submitted the following
recommendations to the Commission:
1) The major problem of the area. is the inadequate
existing right-of-way. Dedication of land to
provide for a 60' wide right-of-way will be
required; this will amount to a strip approxi-
mately 20' in width along the frontage.
2) The subdivider should be required to enter into
a covenant running with the land to join any
future storm drainage district or street im-
provement district, including paving, sidewalks,
and curb and gutter.
3) The building design and/or site plan should
incorporate the capability for storm water
retention.
4)
The landscaping plan should essentially be the
protection of existing trees and shrubsl This
can be provided for on the'landscaping.notes
included on the plat.
5)
Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District must
be assured an easement for the existing sewer
if they do not already have one. This would
apply to any other ~xisting utilities.
Fire Chief Willard Clapper stated that access is
a problem and there is no turn-around available.
Commission agreed to take a field trip to the site
of the Bay Street Estates on July 11th after the
trip to the Villa.
Ms. Baer submitted an engineers' report and stated
that there appeared to be no problem with the stream
margin request.
."
Remo Lavagnino; a property owner in Oklahoma Flats',
stated that he felt that if the Commission allowed
this exception, they would be undermining the
proposed zoning changes.
'---------. -",- """-,_._-,----~.,-_.._~_. /
. ... '.. , ~"'m"'" " .. ,.,,~,.~ -.. ..,.. .. _'" ../
...~_.
^
^
~
6')-! .
MEMO
TO: Bruce Gillis, Acting Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Dave Ellis, City Engineer
RE: Villa of Aspen Subdivision Phase II) - Preliminary Plat
DATE: July
1) An access easement of 24' minimum width (clear
roadway width) needs to be provided from Power
Plant Road to the subdivider's property. The
easterly embankment on this easement will re-
quire a retaining structure. .
2) A cul-de-sac or turnar6und must be provided at
the end of the access road. The minimum turning
radius for a single unit trUck is 45 feet.
3) Water supply should be from 16" line in Power
Plant Road. Fire protection will require an
8" line with 2 - 6" fire hydrants (16" line is
presently under construction)..
4) Building and site plans shall be submitted to
Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, at subdivider's
expense, for recommendations on storm water
drainage and retention. Recommendations should
be received before submittal of final plat, and
incorporation of recommendations should be a
condition of final plat approval.
5) Subdivider or his successors in title shall agree
to join any future storm drainage improvement
district or street improvement district including
paving, sidewalk, and curb and gutter.
6) Subdivider or his successors in title shall agree
to participate in future improvements to Power
Plant Road from Castle Creek to West Smuggler Street.
7) All property corners should be set and it would
be desirable to have the building locations staked.
Tri-Co Management has previously agreed to add
additional topographic information such as slope,
vegetation, property lines and road and bridge
locations which do not show on the preliminary
plat.
'.
.....,''-
l''''''\ .
Aspen Planning & Loning
. t""'\
July 17, 1973
CONSIDERATIONS FOR VILLA PHASE II
R ~R, ,rO
1. Must provide an adequate cul-de-sac.
2. Must provide a plan for an easement.
3. Question circulation for fire and emergency vehicles.
4. Too close to river (6' from high water mark of this year).
5. Pollution - possibly eliminated with adequate curbing.
6. Improved spacial relationship with perimeter neighbors.
7. Question total effect on road coming down to bridge.
8. Evaluation of density by Planning & Zoning Commission.
9.. Willard Clapper not satisfied about cut at bridge _
feel Mr. Clapper should comment.
10. Would like a public pedestrian access.
11. Would like to see the possibility of a trail through the
property.
-
,~
DEP4RTMENT OF THE ARMY
SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, CORps OF ENGINEERS
650 CAPITOL MALL
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
---. , ""'-, ""
Ms. Dolllla Baer
Plaun:Lng Office
Box V
Aspen. Colorado 81611
-
Dear Ms. Beer:
""" .. .. "pl, ...... " '... "" .......' ,., 'lood ""....,.....
the Aspen area. We are :Lnclosing a preliminary map shOWing the areal
""n< ., fl....... " c..". ..... __ .. -., _ <".. .." '. ".
"'. .... -.. .. &1... "'-au.. "_.. __ "'" C. 'lood
- · ""-, of _ .f _, _ .. '" _. " ... ..."...
- " -.....".. .., 9Oa<). "',_.............. _,.. ,..
la_ I>u" _..... '-. ,_ ""j..., Flood. .. ,_ hoj...,
Flood is a IBUch larger but less fZ'e<fQent flood than an Intermediate
-- Flood. ...." ,_ ~ ....... ... '_.. ...."
........ .....,.... <" <boo, ... f100da '" ... _ ..., <<.." .." '."
are also :Lnclosed.
., """ ... ...... ""-,... ""-' b, .."",....'" .. _ __ .......
... ...... ....-... .. ..... - .., '-.. - .. ..... '" ~....
"'.. ... Flood PI"" w...",.. _" '"' _. .."" "".., "...,....
""""'.. b, -....... __ '" _, ""'u <be '""" .. .....l1ab.<.
Sincerely yours.
2 Ine!
As stated
Ai'
jvtL. .
GEORGE C. DDELz.
. Chief. Eng:Lneering Division
AIR MAIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SACRAMENTO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
650 CAPITOL MALL
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95S14
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
SPKED-R 9 July 1973
Ms. Donna Baer
Planning Office
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Baer:
This is in reply to your 25 June 1973 request for flood information in
the Aspen area. We are inclosing a preliminary map showing the areal
extent of flooding on Castle Creek expected to occur near river mile 0.75.
The area shaded in blue represents an Intermediate Regional Flood (a flood
having a frequency of occurrence of about once in 100 years on the average
though it may occur in any year). The area shaded in red delineates the
lateral limits expected from a Standard Project Flood. A Standard Project
Flood is a much larger but less frequent flood than an Intermediate
Regional Flood. Water surface profiles showing the approximate water
surface elevations for these two floods in the area near river mile 0.75
are also inclosed.
The above information is based upon the studies made to date in connection
with the Flood Plain Information Report for Aspen. Water surface elevations
should be considered preliminary in nature until the report is published.
We trust the above information will be satisfactory to your present needs.
Sincerely yours,
2 Incl
As stated
jvll. Ab.
GEORGE C. DELL
. Chief, Engineering Division
July 9. 197:;;
To the Aspen Planning and Zoning Oommission;
lleClU.lse of its position at the ent.rance to town. and DeclU.lse it would be
situated. on land .that i;, unstable and steeply pitched, I 8IIl stro~ly
opposed to PbaHl;' of the Villa Townhouse project.
I believe the OOllllllission should also take into consideration the fact
that Phase I of the project has alreeAy radically increased the density
of what has been essent.ial1,y a single c!,welling neighborhood. and that
plans currently exist to 'replace the Villa of Aspen with another project
which would further inc~se the density. If we wish to preael've at\)'t.hing
of the em.rance to what.... once a Victorian town. or the l.m-eg1'ity of
the Cast.le Creek bottomlands, I believe the line must be held on projects
of this nature.
s~re1Y. . /f/ ~~
~ /' r
BruceN. Berger l /.
901 West Main
Aspen
-
-------------
~
,~
LEGAL NOTICE
/----.
Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Comnlission
shall hold a PUblic hearing on July la, 1973, City Counci~ Chambers to
consider the preliminary plat for Villa's Tmmhouse, Phase II located
and described as follows: In the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township la,
South, Range 84 West of the 6th PM, being a portion of that part of
the North Texas Millsite, M. S. 3288, in the Villa Annexation of the
City of Aspen, COlorado, of August 14, 1972.
Plat is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and may be
examined by any interested person or persons during office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen TOday, July 4, 1973
'" ,~. ~ ~
1""':
Denver Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Bruce Relkin
Royalty Controls Corp.
10 Columbus Circle
New York, N.Y. 10019
Kris O'Conner
Box: 4181
Aspert, Colorado
Ole V. & Karen K. Ebbesen
1905 Sinuns St.
Lakewood, Colo. 80215
Nils Bertil & Fredricka Dahlander
Box 1881
Aspen
Robert W. Woods
850 Sutton Place
Whichita, Kansas
Chris T. & Terry L. Chacos
David B. Batterson
Box 4313
Aspen
R.H. Windemuller
c/o The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
Box 679
Aspen
Copland,Finholm,Hagman &Y~, Ltd.
Box 2736
Aspen
Martin H. & Sharon Kahn
Box 3386
Aspen
Craig Teter & Asgier Christiansen
Box 5163
West Villa ge
Stephen H. Casey
1015 Elm, Suite 2102
Dallas, Texas 75202
Neal C. Groff
234 Columbine,
Denver, Colo.
Suite 300
80206
Thomas J. Rudder, D.D.S
T3:rZ, Waverly
Grand Haven, Michigan
Herbert Fredrick & Lila M. Bartel
Box 3914
Aspen
Harvey Block
4924 9th Ave.
Brooklyn, New York 11220
Robert F. Starodoj
Box Q
Aspen
'^
James T. McCullough
c/o Betty Curtis
Box 3345
Aspen
Jean Paul JafIifier
Box 3704
Aspen
~
Adjacent owners to Villa Phase II.
Betty Jane Harbour
Box 73
Aspen
Robert S. Bogner
Stephen M. Sherlock
Box 3084
Aspen
Eleanqr Berger Bealmear
Box {I.~8
Aspen
Bruce Nicolas Berger
Box 482
~en
Estate of Michael Marolt
c/o Mrs. Opal Marolt
Box 423
Aspen
Jacobus Adriaan DePagter
Johanna Suzanna Margaretha DePagter
Box 182
Aspen,
Edward C. & Muriel F. Ganz
Box 562
Aspen
Munro L. & Marion Neil Lyeth
Box 1001
Aspen
Luda C. Gelas
Box 1222
Aspen
Richard t. Doyle
3711 East Ledge
Austin, Texas 78731
J. Bernard & Lena Maye
Box 703
Aspen
R.H. Windemuller
c/o The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
Box 679
Aspen
Frank Mezek, Jr.
Box~480
Aspen"'/
,>j.;:.....;;:' "<'>?.i',<:,;"
""""
Philip A. Merten
Box 2869
Aspen
John & Catherine Doremus
c/o Coremus/Fleisher Co.
Box N-3
Aspen
Harold A. & Beverly Haddon
South Oakland Circle E.
Denver, Colo. 81611
Betty Di Bartolomeo
26612 Ridgefield
Warren, Michigan
Jack A. Bosgraaf
174 Crescent Dr.
Grand Haven, Michigan
John T. Kelly, Jane A. Kelly
George J.M' Kelly, Harriet H. Kellj
c/o Colo. West Title Insurance
Box 3078
Aspen
Thomas Waltner
Box 3612
Aspen
Thomas & Patricia Trott
Box 1994
Aspen
Peter & Nancy Van Domelen
c/o General Delivery
Aspen
Thomas P. Grey, Donald H. Engen,
Fredrlck Richards & Jolin R.
Freudent
907 11th Ave. South, Apt.14
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Paul Fischer
Box 2108
Aspen
Nancy Lee Hines, Earl.R.Wickham
Eleanor A. Wickham
Box 4564
Aspen
Donald L. & Sandra E. Simpson
Box 3094
Aspen
,t;,~
/' ~~
L~ ..
f-t 2- ~
'fJ~K
'i-Ie) -7 J
^
;
SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FOPJ1
Dat~ . b - Z c; - 7 <3
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 reconullendecl
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:.J) lVo-cd~ --Zf.A "o_7~"" ~-'-v~
R'( /n~ .r/-<J-W->-7 .--d~ 42.A~ ~,-",,,/-f--
o '-;/--/1 J /) .?/ ~
~r iY~L~~
~m~ 7d--()~~ ~ ~~
,~-P~~~d~~1-
~ eX-.--<- "hp A ~,/,,~~ ~
~a~ vJ~~/(}~();/rif~
~~ ~kCJc .6'(Jfr~
~ ~at-~~~o-(~
~r~~e~
caJ~f~
~cJ~r~
~
~
1""'\
aspen ,c
PEN
box v
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Clerk
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: The Villas Town House, Phase II, Subdivision
DATE: June 29, 1973
Please schedule and advertize the Villa's Townhouse, PhaseII
Preliminary Plat 'for Planning and Zoning's meeting on July 10.
The applicant has already distributed plats for referral.
Legal description as follows:
In the SW ~ of Section 12, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West of the 6th PM, being a portion
of that part of the North Texas Millsite, M.S.
3288, in the Villa Annexation of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, of August 14, 1972.
~
~/J/1}
List of adjacent ownership is attached.
l
;.......,
/"-
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Clerk
RCM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: The Vi.llas Town House, Phase II. Subdivision
DATE: June 29.. 1973
Please schedule and advertize the Villa's Townhouse, PhaseII
Preltminary Plat for Planning andZo~ng's meeting on July 11.
The applicant has already distributed plats for referral.
Legal description as follows:
In the SW ,t of Section 12. Township 10 South.
Range 84 West of the 6th PM, bei118 a portion
of that part of the North Texas Millstte, M.S.
3288. in the Villa Annexation of the City of
Aspen. Colorado. of August 14, 1972.
List of adjacent ownership is attached.
-.,.
"'"
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO: 1
Box 300
Aspen, Colorado B 1611
Richard W. lee
superintendent of schools
26 June, 1973
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
c/o Planning Office
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
We have received a copy of the Preliminary Plat of t he Villa of
Aspen Townhouses: Phase 2. The Aspen School District is con--
cerned : from two standpoints: 1) the safety of school children in
going to and from schodl; and 2) the provision of school sites
as expected under subdivision regulations. The plans as shown
do not make these provisions.
We feel that a definite plan of requiring subdivisions to either
contribute land or money for school sites should be established.
Sincerely yours,
/1d0~w. ~
1 :::rd W. Lee
Superintendent of Schools
RWL:lb
Enclosure
tel. 303-925-2972
J>
SPEED
TO Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
LETTER@
FROM Aspen liletropoli tan
JJlstrJ.ct
Box ::>R10
Aspen Colorado
Sanitation
Villa Townhouses Phase 2
SUBJECT
-NO. 98: to FOLD
DATE
The Aspen Metropolitation Sanitation District has
MESSAGE
June 26
Plant and
19-13-
Trunk line capacity to sewer lIlhis area. The Villa Townhouses
Phase 2 should be required to enter into a Collection Systems
Agreement with the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation
this request is granted.
Sec.
SIGNED
REPLY
DATE
19_
NO. 9 FOLD
_NO. 10 FOLD
SIGNED
iJ "SNAP-A-WAY" FORM 44.~02 S PARTs
iJONES COMPANY.@ 196! . PRINTED 111I U.S.A.
RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY
1272
.~_.---,-----'---"-'-"'-'----
...
I
~
i
I
*i
!B
iB
?]
AS ~)t~~ ~<;~OIVt~U~\ ~
~
~~lt2f~\tA'lTS o~ tv\U~{)AC a
COl?~ . SfC. '20-4. i A.M ~wiU.I
1V~Mrro~b 2. ~~ 01= '1B:f I
P U i 'IL e
-=rlDVN ~ 1- P~E 12"F012.. II
, I
P~~t0 AT A- ro~1C- \t&N4tJ~ I
~fOU- ~ ~~ ~l.J\..t.J~l~~ i~l~
~~~ bt-J 0JLY3, ((J)73, ;
I 6
~
~
l'!
I ANSWERED BY
~'ftA-N~I~h mta:..
..QLTY ()P NlOfJ./.
BQY Ii / ~~
Y.\0473
1""'\. 1"'\
TRI-CO Management, Inc.
Planning. Design. Surveying. Engineering. Construction
and Management of Land
Box 1730
Aspen
Colorado 81611
303.925.2688
June 19, 1973
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co.
Box 2059
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sirs:
As required in the subdivision requirements of the
municipal code, Section 20-4, we are herewith trans-
mitting a copy of the preliminary plat of The Villa
Townhouses: phase 2 for presentation at a public
hearing before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on July 3, 1973. Please transmit your comments or
suggestions to the Planning Commission on or before
that date.
~yr;;:k
James Breasted
~I
cJ~~~~~~.~
LJ.YX ~CUJ- d- ~ ~ (
cJ w ~~:--?:;;T4d ~A~~~<:h"1
e~JfA~~or~-.. /~~
~ ~~ ~~ &IZ-~.-z;~.~
(3) 8~;J~~ w~tJ~.:t~
~d:/o-r.~L*I/ ~ ?n-e.Z-~4.J!"-,f~.
~(rJ~~
A S"b,ldi,ry of Td,o C"''''ff:' ~::?:~ 14-
dob
-----
IF- " 1--
'j J
.
(.)
0,'
.....::...
~
~r::-:;(\.:::": :;.; OfFI~E.
"" .",~" ',< CITY CLE.R!o;
..., "". ,'..J. I:.
.,~..- K', ;;, ~ ~
"....' ...... [" c;:s:;
'~,;Z..I y
,,-..,
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
We, the undersigned, being landowners within the
exterior boundaries of the territory hereinafter described,
do hereby respectfully petition the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, to annex said territory to the City in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 139, Co1oredo Re-
vised Statutes, 1963, as amended, and allege as follows:
1. That it is desirable and necessary that such
territory be annexed to the Municipality.
2.
CRS.1963, as
exist or are
That the requirements of Sections 139-21_3,
amended, and 139-21_4, CRS ~963 , as amended,
met.
3. That the signers of the Petition comprise the
landowners of more than 50% of the territory included in
the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and
alleys.
4. That the legal description of the area to be
annexed is as follows:
A parcel of land being part of the North Texas Millsite,
M.S. 3288, lying Westerly of and contiguous with line 6-7
of Aspen Townsite, more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said North
Texas Millsite whence corner No.2 of said North Texas
Millsite bears N07038'E 1.06 feet; thence following said
Easterly line S07038'00"W 470.10 feet to corner No. 1 of
said North Texas Millsite; thence following the Southerly
line of said North Texas Millsite N74030'00"W 245.85 feet
to corner No. 4 of said North Texas Millsite; thence fol-
lowing the Westerly line of said North Texas Millsite
N15030'OO"E 37.00 feet; thence N25014'25"E 93.62 feet;
thence NllolO'19"E 209.87 feet to a point on the Westerly
line of said North Texas Millsite; thence following said
Westerly line N15030'OO"E 128.15 feet to corner No.3 of
said North Texas Millsite; thence follow.ing the Northerly
line of said North Texas Millsite S74030'OO"E 1.98 feet;
thence S09005'27':W 9.10 feet; thence S80054'33''E 2.00 feet;
..,
'.....,..
.
, ~
~..o
~, 0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND OWNED
... ~ ..,
thence S09005'27"W: 3.30 feet; thence S80054'33''E 18.05
feet; thence N09005'27"E 3.30 feet; thence S80054'33''E
9.15 feet; thence N09005'27"E 5.82 feet to a point on
.said Northerly line; thence following said Northerly line
S74030'00"E 70.75 feet; thence S14019'48"W 0.38 feet;
thence S75040'12"E 26.25 .feet; thence S14019'48"W 17.10
feet; thence S75040'12"E 34.90 feet;thence N14019'48"E
17.10 feet; thence S75040'12"E 6.10 feet; thence S14019'
48"W 2.25 feet; thenceS75040'12"E 12.11 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.214 acres, more or less.
This Petition is conditioned upon the above-described
land being rezoned AR-l effective as of the date the
land.becomes a part of the City of Aspen.
The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
~~~~
~~~~
By: Ronald H. Windemul1er, President
OHNERS NAME
p.o. Box 679, Aspen, Colorado 81611
MArLING ADDRESS
M"~?? 1 q7?
DA E 01<' SIGNATURE
.~
.~
~:::~
Ee~/g//- c
Ib:"
"-~~".,
"-.--..-
~~"''''~'''S c,'.:.I"'~
~'''''''J';:. ,>' tl...~,
..~~t'.n C .. -.
.. Il..;~l .~vnaY,
C
C{".!C{~d,-
"
I . ~ '.
.-1. ..e4--.....'"'..:;n~ . '.
...,.!,~.",.,~ ..,'A -: J .-.... . S f;,J~^
........".......,...l'.....~...~............u...'.....o-.......:..
"."0_"
"r .. -:,", ;"i/'
it.: :;.;..<_"!:h l'
....;.zcl of
.
<") j
.. )-./.., ., '., / .,.,
As""n Cola '-' ,.. - .. ~ :.-; < 1
.." . ..........7"..............................'..'.."............. 972
(]1' l . .. -
1fh:-.dJ., :2-7 Mr-b..-/'r;udluJ
(~U/~
--- "..
[lJ-"'c;-";,
'-~ /,,~?,:.
First Half l
/S~cond l1al1
4. FII!U
1/5"1 :::C~ MXES or
1971
W -t- ~~~d.~ /) -
~iJ 1/, ~-Iv /J t.~ ~; "tt J S
.~. 6; ~~. S''1f >]~~~ ~~
~gf ~r~"'Y",
l ~~ -dM2Z:~~,;f;P .J _'74t.
j'-;t- .. ) ~1..A":> . "A-. <;r/ ~/J.... J
UMM-u...v !J;t:;.~"'"~ -1-, '-';jV //der~,.,....
~~ /]d;// ~ '<
~
,
DISTRICT CODES TAX INTEREST TOTAL
Co. "red. Animal- Fund I
.. I -
Sro'cPred. Animal Fund
Co. Cost of Advertising 1-
- --- I
,-
,-
f
, . I-
.
. i-
!
. . ,-
-- __1__
'.- !
.. ,.
r . I
.. j-
'. 17
-. ,'<",: TOTAL 5'i-:37
'.- - .- ...... .. . ~:. . ~S"
.. - . -
..
, ".
I
", ....
... ..
.-
". '-,~
......
,-',"
,".",-
'.
....
-.
:".,:-', .....-,.
..~
Plecse Examine Receipt
Anef See That All Pro pert I
Is listed
Valuation of Reel Estale - $..,...................._
Valuation of Mines - - , _ $.,.....,............_
Vaiuation of Personal Prop. $..........................._
.
.. -~
~-:-.. H!l!N.1.oiiDEL;.T;;;;~;;;;riijki;-~-;;~tY._-
,:>';7"~-::'O" ;""~'?j:";j;~r~~,~..-.~.~'../....;..:,...........,_..'-;.!.....~...........~....,.,~...:.:_.,.,....:....,...'..;......~.....i...,. - -
0.. -:-. '0 ,., " '.:.......~. .;.:,i~,.::.r.F.::..:..~...~ " ", .':.:':~.:. ':.""~ '~''-.'~-,' '. "~
.,,~ ..:.^ :"":::.'~~'\.::::.~ t., ," ". ."
.\:..:~..-~..:~.:~.:i:~r'::,:G...'..;:,~:;:;.. ~.::.,~..:..~. ".,.-;" >..:,..~~':(.?.' .:.-:., ~
.<,: '; " " ...::;,'..:,.;D~?~:?~..;:;:, '-,.: ';;'.:i
..' .... ." '.:~~.~,....._ '. :.,". ..........~:-: ',:.""?. '.~.;~' ::-..:r.....'::~'..;::.';Iq
.~ ~~'c;,.G.',\'
^
/-,
~
.....' ---,~
--..-
E.e#rL?/r r
~~
"
t,
t,~!~.
l' ,"'$""
,/". .,,""-"\
CITY'~'OF ASPEN
'aspen ,coJorado, 816'1" box v
......., ,'",,;q
"-.~-"'~,-~,..
May 20, 1971
Holland & Hart
Attn: Art Daly
Box 1128
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Mr. Daly;
Basic Street Assessment for Improvement Dist. #67-1, Acct. #94.
Original Owners: The Clinton Company
603 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minn. 55402
Legal Description:
Blk 5, 18.5' of Lot D,
all of Lots E,F,G,H,I Frontage
Vacated portion of 8th St. "
BIk 11, Lots A thru I "
BIk 11, Lots I & S Side
'Vacated Alley on 7th St. "
168.50'
75.37'
270.00'
200.00'
20.00'
$1,348.00
602.96
2,160.00
1,200.00
120.00
Total Assessment $5,430.96
Improvement completed on Oct. 15, 1967.
Assessment payable in 10 installments of 10% of the original
assessment plus 6% of the unpaid balance per year.
1st Payment was due on June 1, 1968.
Bond Redemption began on June IS, 1968.
If you have any further questions, please call me.
.'..,
"
" /. ....
L7L~
Dennis Veeder
Director of Finance
-.' ~
. -
to
~
{'
~.:ti
ZI::>,i
lO'(t::o.ftj
i........~
~G!
~\J
f;E
-t
, mil
~t~
t:i
~~
~z
q-
,
~
;,:;
;Ji.
.. - lIIIf
..
"
~
~
m
~
.... "'0
'O~ ~
~~-~
'" ~<::)
"'Q~
~m
<:."
m
~
ttt
Z
~
OUTLINE SPECIFICA TIONS
FOR
ASPEN VILLAS
26 - 2 BEDROOM TOWNHOUSES
ARCffiTECT
Swart & Associates, Inc"
1014 S. Beacon Blvd.
Grand Haven, MI 49417
Telephone: 616-846-4560
CONTRACTOR
Shaw Construction Co.
123 S. Kalamath
Denver, Colorado 80223
Telephone: 303-744-1454
PROJECT ARCffiTECT
James W. Swart
Colorado Registratio
~'
,72181
--.:::,
~-
-, '-.,>-",-'
1. General Notes:
A. All'work shall comply with all state and local codes,
ordinances and regulations. If a code or ordinance is not
in effect, "/ork shall comply with the latest edition of the
Uniform Building Code and in strict accordance with mfg.
recommendations.
B. All work shall be performed in a first class workman-
like manner using only new material and e(r~\pment.
C. Material and c::i'.:pment other than that specified will
be considered if it is of equal quality.
D. The property shall consist of the following:
(1) 26 - 2 Bedroom Townhouses.
(2) Adequate parking spaces will be provided as
shown in plans.
2. Site Work:
A. Site work shall consist of properly grading the
property to ccnform with the building, parking and driveway
requirements. Grades and slopes shall be established
in accordance with the grading plan. Fill under paving
and under building shall be material locally available and
approved by the Architect as suitable for the use and com-
pacted as directed.
B. 'Paving base shall be approved local material compacted
to a minimum thickness of 6" as required. Asphaltic con-
crete weathering surface shall be a minimum of l-i" thick,
hot plant mix, thoroughly rolled and compacted. Contractor
may llse 4" thick 3000 PSI concrete on grade in lieu of above.
C. Walkways shall be 4" thick natural concrete: with a
textured broom surface.
D. Landscaping shall include grass, plants and shrubs in
keepi.ng with the c1im~te and neighborhood, and as per
landscape schedule.
72181
-1..
3. "1 lldings:
p.. Foundations shall be standard concrete footings with
reinforcing except where soil conditions require special
design.
B. Ground level floors shall be 3i" concrete over. 06
polyethelene .on comF~.cted sub- grade, of clean earth fill.
C. Exterior walls shall be concrete block Or 3000 PSI
concrete wall.
D, mterior walls shall be 2 x 4 studs at 16" O. C. with
i" taped drywall both sides. See plans for party walls,
i:rlsU:lation and location of 2 x 8 stud construction.
E. F',loo.r constructi'?l1?~.<<g.e.~ finish flooring per plans on
i" underlayment on 578" p1'ywood on 2 x 8 #2 or better douglas
fir joists on 16" O. C. (Contractors option i" T. G. Plywood
in place of 5/8" plywood and i" underlayment).
F. Roof shall be 15 year built up roof with 2 year
guarantee on 5/8" plywood on 2 x 10 #2 or better douglas
fir joists on 16" O. C. (Contractors option 20 mils thickness
of Carboline Roof- Flex Elastomeric roofing on 43# base sheet
on Plywood as per manufactures direction for all flashing.)
Contractor shall submit roof spec and guarantee for
Architect's approval.
G. h2ulation shall be 6', b?.tt in roof and floor overhangs,
4" batt in all ",,,,t!'iri<?r,...w<<lls . Seepl;a,~s'f'o'r 10 <,;.i.\.ti9/l.of
4" batt in interior walls.
H. Windows and glazing shall be as per material list on
sheet 5 of plans.
I. Sliding doors shall be .A rcadia alum. doors with
screens and insulated tempered glass.
:-.' --,.-
"
.
J. Walls shall be stained rough sawn trim as per elevations
and stained textured III plywood on wood studs as per wall
sections.
K. Stairways shan be rO'lted and glued 2 x 12 treads and
stringers capable of supporting 100 lbs. per square foot.
L. Decks shall be 1 1/4, x 4 redwood vertical grain on
extended joists with 1/4" spaces between. Secure with
coated screw type c:l~c:knails.
M. Exterior doors shall be solid core wood,aJl interi.or
doors shall be 6 panel pine doors. All to be stained pe'r'
color schedule.
N. Basement \'IindoW;s shaUDe alum. vents with insulated
....".......,. "",.,' ~;'"'.'''>.!.:T:':i~~'''"''~"''''''' "".~"",,:' """",,, ,',':" ,
glass, L: per unit, located by contractor with Architect's
approval.
O. F ire places shall be submitted to- A rchitect for
approval.
F. Smoke sta.cks'i,lhaU Jre."<iouble metaLfntIy approved
by all codes, installed with sufficient spacing from
combustibles.
4.
Interior Fini.h"s
A. An Roorrrs e~cept ashete in'~1t~'~:hO~ed
1. Carpeted floors with vinyl base.
2. Walls~" drywall taped and spackeled smooth.
Painted with compl'ete coverage.
,3. SpraYl':,d textured dry wall ceiling.
B.
Kitchen and entry way
1. 1 x 2 thin set ceramic tile floors with gray
grout and vinyl base.
2. Walls~" drywall taped and spackeled smooth
Paint with complete coverage.
3. Sprayed textured dry wall ceiling.
4. Counter tops low glare plastic laminate on 3/4"
exterior plywood with 4" splash.
/
C. Baths
1. 1 x 2; thin set ceramic tile floors with gra.Y"
grout and vinyl base. "
2. Walls~" drywall taped and spackeled Sm06j:l!:.",':'
Cover with 16 oz. vinyl wall fabric excep'f'ti:1bC;::"
well, 3 sides shall be 1 x 2 ceramic tile onJ
water proof drywall from tub to ceiling.
72181
- 3-
J. Walls shall be stained rough sawn trim as per elevations
and stained textured III plywood On wood studs as per wall
sections.
K. Stairways shall be rOllted and glued Z x 12 treads and
stringers capable of supporting 100 lbs. per square foot.
L. Decks shall be 1 1/4 x 4 redwood vertical grain on
extended joists with 1/4" spaces between. Secure with
coated screw type de,cJ<:. nails.
M. Exterior doors shall be solid core wood, all i.;xteri.or
doors shall be 6 panel pine doors. All to be stained per
color schedule.
N. Basement windows shaH be alum. vents with insulated
'~,", ;. . ' .:'......,'.;,~.~:,~.,,;I'""',.,~"',;,' ~.N"',C.,~'.,,' .". ';:"
glass, Z per unit, located by contractor with Architect's
approval.
O. Fire places shall be submitted to- Architect for
approval.
F. Smoke sta<:ks.SlraU. be- double metalf.utly approved
by all codes, installed with sufficient spacing from
combustibles.
4. Interior Finishc,?
}. All Roorps except as here i;;!ifte'i"noted
I. Carpeted floors with vinyl base.
2. Walls~" drywall taped and spackeled smooth.
Painted with complete coverage.
-,,3.. SpraY,cd te;<tured dry wall ceiling.
B. Kitchen and entry way
1. I x 2 thin set ceramic tile floors with gray
grout and vinyl base.
2. Walls~" drywall taped and spackeled smooth
Paint with complete coverage.
3. Sprayed textured dry wall ceiling.
4. Counter tops low glare plastic laminate on 3/4"
exterior plywood with 4" splash.
C. Baths
1. I x 2 thin set ceramic tile floors with gray
grout anCl vinyl base. ._
2. Walls~" drywall taped and spackeled smqGth~:: _
Cover with 16 oz. vinyl wall fabric exceptfu~::C:-C:
well, 3 sides shall be I x 2 ceramic tile on ~-_~ --
water proof drywall from tub to ceiling. .::. .-:.-.=.,
72181
- 3~
3. Sprayed textured dry wall ceiling.
D. Basement
1. Floors sealed concrete.
2. Ceiling exposed joists except textured sprayed
drywall drops where necessary.
E. )Ill wood stained and sealed as per sample approved by
P rchitect.
5. Plumbing
P,. Make all plumbing connections to equipment.
Provide hot water system to provide immediate hot
water to all fixtures, obtain approval for hot water
heater performance and size from Prchitect. Provide
one freeze proof hose bibb per living unit, (26 total).
Lav'atories, water closet s and tubs shall be vitreous china.
Shower shall be approved by Prchitect. Sanita,ry
drainage may be plastic but must meet local code.
Potable water system shall be type "L" hard drawn
cOpper except water lines installed underground shall
be type "K". Roof drains shall be copper.
B. Plumbing fixtures shall be equal to that manufactured by
Crane, Pmerican Standard or Kohler. Cast fixtures
shall be approved by the P chitect.
6. Heating
A. Each living unit to have it's own forced air gas
fired central heating system with ducts and registers
per plans. Ducts and furnace must be sized to main-
tain a minimum of 700 temperature throughout unit.
System shall be complete with Ppril air humidifyer
sized to meet demand.
B. Instal metal stacks per code and size to meet
requirement of furnace, hot water heater and
fire place.
C. Furnish and instal fire place of des ign approval by
Architect.
D. Provide and instal all gas piping and stacks for
hot water heater.
""--
-- 7 z:tS-:1f:
-- -4~
7. Electrical
p.. P 11 electl'ical work shall comply with city,
county and/or state codes having jurisdiction and
with the latest ed;'"),,, of the National Electric Code.
Pll materials shall be new and comply .with the
IINational Electrice..l ManvJacturer's P,.ssociationI1,
"American Stand.a~_"d.s fssociationll, and "Underwriter1s
Laboratories". l,1?ke all electrical connections
to equipment furnlshed by others. Furnish a complete
fixture laYOt,t a'Cld cut for approval by P rchitect.
Provide servlc€ 2nd all exterior lighting.
"-
-"""----
>-
n :r81
,,5-...
,-.,-,._,..,'"
~2,040.00l
u,360.00
2,625.00
1,400.00
1,155.00
975.00
1""\
I""\;
TRI-CO Management, Inc.
Planning. Design. Surveying' Engineering. Construction
and Management of Land ]?( C h WJdif
.----
Aspen Villas - Landscaping Cost Estimate
Landscaping Plan - Swart & Assoc.
1. Berm - Construction, Material, Shaping
11,000 s.~. @ $2~50/c.y.
2. Area Preparation - Raking, Cleaning
30,000 s.f. @ $200/acre
3. Loam - Spread on Site, 2" Deep
28,000 s.f. @ $3.50/c.y.
4. Sod - 28,000 s.f.,@ $0.15/s.f. + $225
5. Plant
Material, Delivered and Planted
34 Honey Locust @ $60 each
56 Spruce @ $185 each
35 Crab Apple @ $75 each
35 Euonymus @ $40 each
21 London Plane @ $55 each
2000 Buglep lants (Ajuga)@ $1. 50/s. f.
....Af<.Hrk
r~IW[lu71'F<<-'"'
6. HOlding Pond - 430 s.f. @ $2.25/s.f.
7. Play Areas - Wood Chips
1,500 s.f. @ $1.50/s.f.
8. Engineering, Overhead _ 10%
9. Contingency - 10%
TOTAL
A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation . Offices througllout the West
Box 1730
Aspen
Colorado 81611
303'925'2688
$ 2,050.00
150.00
600.00
4,425.00
18,555.00
970.00
2,250.00
2,900.00
3 , 19 0 . 00
$35,090.00
~;:*
!(:~'
~
~
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE
VILLA OF ASPEN WITH 29 TOWNHOUSES
1. Pertinent Background
The Villa of Aspen has been a landmark motel in Aspen for many
years. It consists of three buildings, two of which house 20
rental units each, for a total of 40 units.. The third building
houses the manager's quarters, lounge & office. The motel is
located On a prime piece of property bounded by Hallam Street
On the north, 7th Street On the east, Bleeker Street On the
south, with the Villa of Aspen Townhouses Phase I On the west.
The significance of this motel and its location has commanded a
substantial land value. A value which has been increasingly
more difficult to support with the return from 40 rental units.
Maintenance On this old establishment has pas sed the point of
diminishing returns necessitating the consid'eration to replace
the building. with a more substantial structure.
In October of 1972 plans were initiated to turn this deteriorating
investment into a profitable operation. The architectural firm of
Swart & Associates, Inc. and the associate firm of Pelstick and
Roslack were retained to prepare plans for a new convention
center On this property. The substantial architectural and
engineering fees incurred for designing the new facilities was
an added burden to the already unprofitable Operation of the
Villa of Aspen. The architectural fees were expenses considered
by the owner to be a sound investment, with their decision to
design a building which would be in total agreement with the
existing building and zoning codes.
The design, as well as the working drawings, for the convention
center were substantially completed prior to information being
issued on Ordinance 19 regarding the re- zoning of the City of
Aspen. The completed working drawings and specifications were
then finished prior to Ordinance 19 deadline and were submitted
to the building inspector for a building permit. A year has
passed in anticipation of a permit to start construction of a
sound economic investment supported by the market demand
study made by the noted firm of Harris, Kerr, Forster & Co.
of Denver, Colorado and other principal cities. This study was
conducted at an additional expense to the Villa of Aspen. In
addition to the architectural, engineering and study costs, there
has been subsequent attorney fees incurred to determine the
-..
"
("*'\
~
- 2-
delay of a building permit being issued as well as the cost of
the plan review fee charged by the City of Aspen.
After reviewing Ordinance 19 and the Aspen Land Use Plan,
the owners of the Villa of Aspen decided to pursue a course
of action to provide multi-family housing in lieu of the proposed
convention center to be in keeping with the interest and direc-
tions of the City of Aspen.
II Land Area and Units
The land area contains 69,700 square feet On which can be placed
46 units of row houses at a density of 1,500 square feet per unit
as per the zoning code for multi-family districts for the City of
Aspen,
III Proposed Plan
Proposed as per the site plan and accompanying drawings are
29 townhouses for a density of 2,403 square feet of land per
unit with parking for 51 cars. This is far in excess of the one
parking space per unit required by code, but will assure total
off street parking as well as prov'ide for ample site storage of
snow, without a reduction below the minimum required number
of parking spaces.
The maximum height of the structure will be less than the 25
foot maximum allowed per code. The set backs will be in excess
of the 10 foot for front yard and 5 foot for side ya;rds.
The project will consist of 8 - 3 bedroom units of 1,152 square
feet, not including the basement and 21 - 2 bedroom units of
1,024 square feet, not including the basement. Private
conversation courts have been designed both at the front and
rear of each unit, thus creating outside spaces for individual
and l'amily activities. The enclosed court, created by the
grouping of the buildings, will establish a play area for the
children which will give the parents the security of knowing
their children are isolated from the busy tourist traffic On
Hallam and 7th Street. It is obvious more units could be
included at a lower land cost per unit making for a more
viable, economical project, but at a great sacrifice to the
play area, the private spaces and the opportunity for games
on the spacious, asphalt parking areas. It is proposed that
landscape burns be created along Hallam Street to insure
greater privacy and a substantial noise reduction fror.n traffic
accelerating and braking while entering and leaving the City
~ -..
I'"
"""
.
- 3-
of Aspen. Such a project will provide the people of Aspen with
much needed housing. Housing which will be close to the
shopping centers, schools and will necessitate a minimum of
automobile traffic for the residents of the complex.
""'"
"""""
.,i,
...~rt
",~":':f
r' '.'T)I'~
CITY""'()FA'S PEN
aspen .cploJtado, 816', hox v
;. ~
' . ~ ~"". >. .;,,,~.i~:2;.~~
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sandy Stul.ler
r
FROM: Dave Ellis
RE: Villa of Aspen Subdivision
Attached is the condominium declaration of Villa of Aspen Town-
houses and a plat of the proposed Phase II. The entire property
(in red) is what is referred to as Exhibit "A" in the de<;:laration.
Phase I did not fall under subdivision at the time it was built.
Phase II is now being reviewed with a hearing date before P & Z
of July 10.
.
Donna and I feel that because of the wording in the declaration,
particularly Sec. 16, the entire area can be used for computation
of the 4% open space requirement as though they were submitting
the entire property. The developer has tried to make it appear
that Phase II is distinctly separate from Phase I. We would like
your opinion in the matter.
r
In addition, the City gave the developer the right to build 12
units after Phase I. This was done through the annexation agree-
ment (8/14/72).
If the proposed site plan or access is not adequate for these units.,
couldn't they be rejected irrespective of the agreement?
~~.
...."
r
~/
.A
(
~
.,-.."
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
VILLA OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES
pHASE I I
I. pertinent Background. Prior to the construction
of Phase I of the Villa of Aspen Townhouses project, the
North Texas Millsite property (on which all of Phase II
is located) was annexed to the City of Aspen, and the land
rezoned AR-l, subject to the condition that the development
proceed in accordance with the 48-unit site and landscaping
plan filed with the City at that time. The first. 36 units
were then constructed, and a Condominium Declaration placed
of record covering the entire townhouse property. The
Declaration recites that the completed project will consist
of 48 units, and the interest of each phase I unit owner
in the common elements is computed on the basis of 48 total
units. These units were then sold, almost exclusively to
permanent residents of the Aspen community, under contracts
containing representations that the com~ed project would
consist of 48 units. Amortization of land and other costs
over 48 units enabled the developer to market the Phase I
units at moderate prices. It is the purpose of this Ordinance
19 presentation, and of the subdividing process being con-
ducted simultaneously herewith, to complete the townhouses
development in accordance with the requirements established
by the City at the time of annexation and rezoning, the
contractual commitments previously entered into by the
developer, and such other development standards as may be
deemed appropriate by this body and by the City planning
and Zoning Commission.
On July 10, 197~, and again at a Study Session.on July
17, the preliminary subdivision plat for phase II was reviewed
e' ,..._~" ._....._'~m.~,..~__ .....
"r"-
~."
~^
by the Planning and Zoning Commiss ion. By Memorandum dated
July 18, 1973, the City Planning Office summarized the
recommendations of that Office and of the Planning Commission
with respect to the subject project. The Site Plan being
submitted herewith has been substantially modified in order
to comply with such recommendations.
II. Land ftrea and Units. The parcel of land being
subdivided for phase II contains 1.731 acres, or approximately'
74,865 square feet, on which will be placed 12 single family
townhouse residential units. This results in one unit being
developed for each 6,240 square feet of land.
III. Access and Circulation. Access will be over the
existing private road from the power House Road. This private
access road will be paved to a width of 24 feet, as required
by the City Engineer, and will be aligned, graded and cribbed
y
~
~ approved by the City, and it is therefore requested that all
~1"rSUCh approvals be expressly conditioned upon the developer's
~~ obtaining this easeme~
I
Circulation has been markedly improved, particularly
in accordance w.i th the profile attached to the Site plan
submitted herewith.~he necessary easement over such private
road cannot be obtained until the phase II project has been
for service and emergency vehicles, by the creation of a
complete turn-a-round at the end of the access road. The
~
fK
radius of this turn-a-round is 50 feet, a dimension already
approved by Fire Chief Clapper. Within the turn-a-round will
be a landscaped sculpture garden.
IV. Utilities. As requested by the City Engineer,
water will be supplied through an 8 inch line buried in the
access road and hook~d up to the new 16 inch line along the
-2-
r~
to
,-,
^
power Plant Road, and two 6 inch ~ire hydrants will be
installed near the units. Electrical and telephone dis-
tribution lines are already present on the property. A
sewer line will also be buried in the access road and will
intersect with the existing line in the power Plant Road.
The gas lines installed during Phase I were designed to
serve 48 units, and a main line was stubbed off at the
crest of the embankment above phase II. The distribution
line for phase II will be run underground down the scope
from this point.
V. Drainage. Curbing will be installed along the
roadway to channel runoff water. The final subdivis ion
~Plat will recite the agreement of the developer and his
~~. successors in title to join future storm drainage or street
~ improvement districts affecting the subject property.
VI. Playground. As a part of the Phase II development,
a playground will be constructed at the southerly end of
the subject property for the use o~ ,:}C children residing
in the Villa of Aspen Townhouses. ~' .
VII. Covenant Ensuring Long-Term Occupancy. In order
place a covenant in each condominium unit deed requiring
that leases be for a minimum of six (6) successive months.
VIII. Park Site and Trails. The area designated on the
Site Plan as a "Park Site" will either be added to the common
elements under the Condominium Declaration, or dedicated to
~ the City, if the City so desires, for the use of the public.
Since this parcel is still part of the County, it probably
ought to be annexed to the City if it is to be used as a
)
public park. The existing structure on this parcel will be
-3-
".,.,....,..,...-'~-'............,.-_._'."..-~-".,.._...."..._'_...>"_...
r
f'
I
I
I
(
~
,-"
removed by the developer before phase II is completed.
Public trails will be dedicated on the final subdi-
fJ't- vision plat (a) through the "Park Site", and (b) along
the Sout h 1:D undary of the subject property, both as shown
on. the Site Plan.
,
-4-
.,~~..,..,..,..----_.~..._-~,"-,....
J!"'~
I
I
~.
,-".
.~
.-. ,...-....
_.--..,,'
ASPEN VILLAS
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF PUD OUTLINE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION
1. Purpose of PUD Application. Under the exis-
ting zoning for the subject property, there is no re-
quirement that the proposed townhouses project be sub-
mitted as a planned unit development. Moreover, since
no zoning variances will be necessary, no meaningful
purpose would appear to be served thereby. Under the
City-wide rezoning plan which is currently being con-
sidered by the City, however, it is proposed that a
portion of the subject property be rezoned Multi-
Family, MandatoryPUD, and the City Planning Depart-
ment has recommended that the present subdivision
application include a planned unit development appli-
cation so as to resolve in advance any questions that
might arise if such rezoning plan is actually adopted
prior to final subdivision plat approval. This PUD
application is being submitted in accordance with
such recommendation.
2. Ownership. All of the land involved in the
instant application is owned by The villa of Aspen,
Inc., a Michigan. corporation.
3. Zoning and Density. At present all of the
subject property is zoned AR-l Accommodations Recrea-
tion - Urban, and 46 unlimited units would be permitted
upon the approximately 1.6 acres (69,696 square feet)
contained within said property. Under the Multi-
Family designation which is proposed for the property,
and the proposed related densities, 32 two-bedroom
l__
""""'.~
..-., .~
units will be permitted thereon. The instant appli-
cation is for 32 two-bedroom townhouse units, and
therefore falls within the use and density require-
ments of both the existing zoning ~ the proposed
down-zoning.
4. Construction Schedule. The applicant anti-
cipates that construction of the proposed townhouses
project will commence on or about April 1, 1975, and
be completed by November 1, 1975.
5. Water and Sewer. The water and sewer lines
which serve the existing 40-unit motel, manager's
apartment and swimming pool will also be used to
serve the proposed townhouses project.
6. Access. All vehicular access to the project
will be from Bleeker Street. The applicant will not
be directly responsible for improving existing roads
or highways which adjoin the subject property, but
will agree on the final subdivision plat to join any
street improvement districts involving the subject
property which may hereafter be formed.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August,
1974.
THE VILLA OF ASPEN, INC.
Arthur
as its
& Hart
By
-2-
.' '.' ~;, 0 .,~.., " ':". .
r------ -----,------:~:__~t~;_..--..------...-.
. \ ,: " ;J~:~:":::.:, "''':,', .
!;Ql':lERT ~. BCGNER. \\ . }:;;: "
On;P\.\b~ M ~1-ll:121 oc.ll \ ';:. . ; ". ,
eoX' coB4 \ i
AOPt;N ,
,
,
,
r----....
I 6\Z.
. ________J J>~~
~~
~. 8{li
~ ~.,./ / ~\~~
~F.:. ", . 'G'
~... > ~
......<< '''~;~
". ~,
~ ,
\. " '> .
\,
o , \
\
lJl \
111 ".
'A1 '.
~ "
(') r..
, "' \ \
Olb7'$00500 t;;.
nr i lCD}5"
~ "
;0 ,.
-< !
,
~ ....
:1 ~,'
~AoE 2 (/ ~ 8
.l'f:;,\ A<;RE6 .... l.8t AC."'t~f t .~ :8
/,., 12. UNITS \ ! ..., 0
. " . 0 . 0 I . _
DR~NAGE: CL,'RBINO wi1-L. Be PROVIDeD ()
T<),'CHANNe:t...''RUNOFF ASSHOWN~
; . ! i
;
o
o
o
. .'. . 0 .. T
'~~ ......- ----'.~ ___ Io--f ---+ ..-- ~.
o
o
E:>Q\~~ .
o
o
o
.....-....1- ---.....-- --. ~ -, ~ ~
AOOV\;'..
o
0
0 .
~7
A;qpt;:
0
OJI''o;t
lC\Sil\~.
r')lXi"~
Q-
~11l~~
=~81O
.;fJ_ ,...
"'-~-' '
- 0 6\
6l~ 0 -
-0 0
-.s:fQt:t'3:
\C)JlIi)Ifl
; '740 iCO" E. :
\ 70.7'f? .
, \ .
. \ \
\ b74o~Jc:o,E. 1.0B
'. oo;>>oDp'Q7"W'; 0.10
. . . 5~'~:,"E\ Qeo
'!'JCl9005' '27" W \ 'Z:>.30
~eo"B4'~3?l't;: .....IB.07
N90005~ Q7"~ '",.30
oW54"~:,"E. ~.15
NO'!;lo05' a7"E. 6,~Q.
" \ '\
~\. ~\
\ \,
\ C ....
\. ~ \.
'\. ~
... c.
\. "
\. 1-
~
~.:..,....
...
i
"
'.
\.
'.
.,
")
\
,
l,~I,,;,')t;'fo! \\/!..lP6S
".
, ;
~...-\
Z17~\
45 I;
J.'
---:~
. '.
Oi.
'~ j
0/
"fi
,
.' ,
/ '.
ZBrJRM
~b,/ .~/ /
1
l. ,,'
"1
........ I
l,p'
I
/'
'~/~~1:-..<: /
'/:;BoRN{"^ '_ I#d'
4'7 " '0 '
--rt-iv!
3B~\ !
~),.',.i j
. ',. et i........;.....:.
[" ;,' (~
10. ,
, '0": ./
...~.:
, ' ~
\ \ "~~"
: '~'..
.' ..;-.
il
'.
'~.dOI""11':.
" ,'. ~.
.:....':.'1./":.
l
t
'.' '" , ,'~ " '
". \.,'. .J;!,'
;.:~.,~~~~r:-l_'Oq
~ wr.r:..;~~ !:-
T \'rf":",~ Ili!o"" I ~ .. ~ ^ " .
V~i~1~N~'C,:.OWN~k .
''.~~~~~.~7;1 ...... ..~g.-^'~~Q
"(4 ',':' l;:'~ "'A"-nr"N ,.,.."./,",
:"~?';::",,~:~\:~,, , . vr-t:. I ~
: '. ,;~h;it~~':": " ", ~'." ,:~ o::""~' ,
.".,.".,::.. , :.:.MUNRO L,~
J'f~'\"}" 'p.o. eoXlCOI
;"";'.'''. "A~PEN """"1.<
:.t:,'l~::',"; .',' ./~
,'';., . '
:;. :c: :3 WDA c. GEI..J
oTREET, <[:.Y~::< . ~)%~
~ >~.. ,
. ",: 4 RC~DT. 0
.. "" ~7\ I ~T LE
.. ;:". AL>bTIN, TE)Gl
CORNER. NQ Co
o AbPEN lDWNbl~
RED 6ANDe.1ONE:. IN t:t.t>Ci:.
WALLAM .
....':'.,
,.:t'" '/';
".
o-
J
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
1
I
L_
.....
,,'
.
".0"",
\ r-
~i
It 1
'-I
\J
r:
I:
I:
I:
I:
L'
:l
IS' i I
0; 1
:i,,: I
_: 1
~ Gi Ll
.. 8 i
-- I
~. L
L_____
L.._
,.------,
I L_
7
"
\.
~
I
I
I
I
1
I
l :
--~-\- i
I'
17 I
l I
1
-.I:_\~';:\"~' ,':.
,I . 2::>
'I' .
1011: ~~"
. --:;.-f '. ...:
15
i
i
~
)> .
\ll !
~ cl
~ a)
r:-~'---"
>:j,
..
~
r---""
lB.
1
I
I
\'
I
..J
1
~~c
~;z,"
_{II
z'b'
J>
r-.~
\\
~
/~
/
/
/
<"
,
/'
/
/
.v
/!~?;::.
'rl~:l"
"<{;~r'f-':, . .
,:....)..: ,.
-}i";'t: .'
fi
,I
'L
'\'
"
,
\'
'\
--,--.,:::-.,---:.:::.>-"'--''''
Pl,..lAoE [ .
. Q,~ ACRE.':J
~ UHITS
'\
%
~
t
I
,
)
<.
. ,
, 11
24
r-I
1
I
\,
\
l
o
o
"1
;
N3d<;';i i
Zi<;:Sj Xo;:l .
.lJ !:l4l Vt-U.31:\'<t9Cj't1^l 'iNN'>': ffi f
l \0 i [. c:t:ll"::1V'd::10 N'<tv'1~ ~'i1r r
.. \ :~ \. \.... ............ ....././
.>:1"1' '''&'0'. \...
..... '~ .b-.. \.... " .....
t... . .0"'.... .........
I.' l , ......
!" :. \,
.0. '.
" ..~8i ~t
I, "~""'"O(fl''' i !: .W-:" ..............-.... .......... ./
" ., ", ..................
.0-.1 ....... ,: /: ,." ........ ...i
..........." .. ..... " '"
1<~/ -"'--/......-
~ ]; 1 i ..'
O " .., . . ....
.' ...,!.....: :.: ....
. . . ....
.....G'..........~.......... ...,.., if ,0/
" . ......... f,',\ .... ......
z. 0 ..' : , ". ><
- --../~. :' ') ....../ "",
,--y
........
o
~o
..5N1J~lxa 0
.'
/:'
./
/
....
, "
''''''
.....
.l
dl
. I
..... I
\
t
/"
/....
.,.'
.:...../.
I
?
.'
....
,
t
"
~.
"-~,'-'~ .', ",.".. -~..,";;";;;?-
..
,.
..:/
..../
..-
.......
, ~.
, ..~;........;. """',
\......_..:~::::.~.:.... i '.
....:.::..::~.~:~:...:::.)
.,....... ",
'~
"~,
'~
/f
,
,....,.... ". ....(~~:::.:;::~:.:-.:::..~~.:.;;.~}(........:;:f.'.
<f.' '.. .......6c;:.. " ...
..... -"',........" .' .' " . ...,' . .:.~....
. ......... ",.,.'
....... .
................
\ . . N3dS..(....
~ )._ u .../' <;L )(09
.' QrlOiilWH 3N<tr' )..1 I "ll!J
l
..'
.....
....
J.
'7'616 ""1 '2l3<;3(::1 ::i <;3V'l'i10
'NOlc:;]h'<=l3dffi A\t42:l30Nn 031^1ro:lCl3d
^3A~ Q131.:l1'tru.::J'v' N't ~N393(jd31':l
..L'v'1d c;\tU. 1'Vtil.A.::lIJlj3:> ^<il9~:I1'1 I
"3.L'v':)I.:fIJ.~;) ql2X)^:I^~oq.
....--------
,..,,-" ---.........
'" ......
," ....,
, "
/" ...,
I .-i-.-i___"
I ,.~ ........,..... "
I /'" .......,
/ '.." ///. """" ""
I . / "
, f If . '"
.1 / ^~
I ~ I ..".,
, () I t~ba<;V' ..10 N\':'r
I 1> I .
I .'0 I .
c$'ON I:;:J.LV.LS <XJVG!I0100 "<"'\;1M'.:!O-.LHQ~
---1..,..,.....1- - - -------
. ,.. '.
--.c-r--i---I~---.-----_..........._--:--
I I
, I
I I
, '
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I .
--"~~._~"""---....1~--"'~____~,-,-"
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I .1
1 I
I I l'
I I
I I
I ,
,k'\
: \
\
~'<t
Ja
;}
~d'l
"2t'1.lH! Y-'J.
~
!
\.
\,
\ .+'Z
:I
~
,..-.....-...~_.........-._--""
I
i~
if'\
!(\ L.
XJI(:jg /133':0!~ "3 llGVO
I j"1 I
.~ .
~--"---'~""'--"''''----''l' :i............~~-..:....'
) . !~:
~l().1
) ~x
~ :\
G\'\
o ,l
O U\l
~!
'''i
i
"I
-
.