HomeMy WebLinkAboutLanduse Case.ZO.Mountain Edge Sub.1982-ZO-1
.
,
~.:-
,-,.
,....,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
DATE: June 17, 1982
\
t
I;,
Lot Size:
1.42 acres (62,068 sq. ft.)
Lo~ation:
Zoning:
Background:
Applicant's
Request:
.
Between Garmisch and First Stre!!ts, Cooper and Durant Avenues
(formerly Koch Lumber Company)
R-15 (rezoning to L-2 proposed)
The Mountain Edge property was annexed into the City on
November 26, 1979 and was zoned R-15 on January 11, 1982.
When zoning the Mountain Edge property, both the P & Z and
City Council were reluctant to zone the property on the basis
of an indefinite development proposal involving an Rt4F or L-2
zoning. Both groups did, however, indicate a willingness to
consider a rezoning of the property in the context of a
specific development proposal and stated that they would
sponsor the rezoning application. Sponsorship would avoid
the twice a year date for such applications to be submitted
by private landowners.
The applicant submitted a conceptual outline of a proposed
multi-family project for conceptual subdivision review which
was discussed by P & Z at their regular meeting on April 6,
1982. P & Z tabled the item, requesting a more even split
between space devoted to free market units'and space devoted to
employee units. P & Z also requested more detailed information
from the applicant addressing the appropriateness of an RBO
zoni.ng and a 70: 30 project as determined through the review
criteria established in the Code. It is this amended Mountain
Edge application for conceptual subdivision review which
is currently under review.
The applicant is requesting conceptual subdivision and PUD
approval in order to construct 76 employee dorm rooms and
24 faculty/free market units. The dorm rooms are proposed as
housing for MAA students in the SUmmer and seasonal ski
employees in the winter. The faculty/free market units are
.proposed as a means to offset the construction costs of the
dormitory and to provide a continuing operation subsidy for
the dormitory. The free market units will be sold as condo-
miniums with deed restrictions limiting summer occupancy to
music school faculty members at a rate 20% below market rates
for similar units. Eventually, this project would require
a rezoning to L-2, an RBO rezoning approval for a dormitory
use and increased density, a GMP exception for the employee and
free mark!!t units as a "70:30" project (Section 24-11.2(1)) and
further subdivision and PUD approvals.
The amended Mountain Edge application diff!!rs from the original
appl ication in the total number of units proposed, the
employee unit/free market unit mix, the square footage ratio
of space devotedct-a" emp 1 oyee versus free market units, the FAR
and the percentage of open space provided.' These differences
are shown below,
l
"
,-.,
/""".
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page Two
June 17. 1982
Total Units
Employee Units
Free Market Units
Size:
Employee Units
Free Market Units
Sq. Ft. Ratio
Free Market/
Employee Unlts
Unit Ratio
Free Market/
Employee Units
FAR
Open Space
Referral
Comments;
-
Mountain Edge Application
Amended Application
May 5. 1982
100
76
24
Original Submission
February 12. 1982
95
68
27
300 sq. ft. each
1.450 sq. ft. each
300 sq. ft. each
7 @ 1.280 sq. ft.
10 @ 1.340 sq. ft.
7@ 1.450 sq. ft.
60%/40%
50%/50%
28%/72%
24%/76%
1.12;1
1.14: 1
65%
55%
As the table shows. eight employee units have been added in
the amended application while the free market units have been
reduced by three units for a total of five additional units
to the amended application. The total square footage has
been redistributed sothat approximately 50% of the space
provi ded is for employee units whil e only 40% was ori gi na lly
designated for employee units. The amended application does
not include a cafeteria or a request for the City to sell or
gtve City land at the south end of First Street for the
cafeterIa. The applicant has stated that the MAA will file
a request involving this land and the cafeteria as part of
a separate applIcation.
The EngineerIng Department review gave the following four
comments on the Mountain Edge Subdivision/PUD conceptual
submissIon:
1. The submission is missing information of all adjacent
lands owned or under option to the subdivider and deed
information addressing existing easements.
2. InformatIon needs to be provided on the relocation or
undergrounding of the existing power lines.
3. Parking problems would seem to be mitigated by the
prnposea underground facilIty. The proposed sticker pro-
gr4msBould De effective provided it can be adequately
....il)] :ced.
4. The app1itd;ft~~hould be required to obtain letters from
all utilittes as to the availability of service.
The Water Department ~nd.Aspen Metro Sanitation District have
no problems. at this time. with the proposed project.
,~
I,
,'-".
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUu . Conceptual Submission
Page Three
June 17, 1982
Planning
, Office Review:
.
.
During the original review of the Mountain Edge conceptual
application the Planning Office identified three major
areas of concern: 1) the short terming of condominiums,
2) high density and 3) the student cafeteria. The cafeteria
has been removed from this application and is no longer a con-
sideration. Additional information on the appropriateness of
an RBO rezoning and a "70:30" project was also requested.
The following is ,a list of current Planning Office concerns.
1. Short-terming - The current application will eventually
require a rezoning to L-2 where short terming of condo-
miniums is allowed. With the existing R-15 zoning short
terming is not allowed. The Planning Office feels that
short-terming is not an appropriate use for this parcel.
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan states that short terming
in this neighborhood should only be allowed at existing
locations. The Planning Office's current study of
lodging in Aspen indicates that this is still appro-
priate and that existing zoning provides an adequate
enough amount of lodge and short term condominium units
to provide for necessary growth. Preliminary survey
results do show that it may be appropriate to allow the
expansion of nonconforming lodges to meet the demand
for lodge units and to experience a moderate level of
lodge development through the growth management quota
system. Since lodge units needs can be met at existing
locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2
in a new location.
i
,
\'
Short term condominiums create substantial impacts on
surrounding areaS due to increased traffic, parking
probl ems and potential noi se problems. These impacts
should be considered in evaluating an L-2 rezoning and
a short term project on the subject property.
2. Density'- The, amended application increased the total
number of units in the Mountain Edge property from
95. to 100. This includes 76 dorm rooms (previously 68
rooms) and 24 free market units (previoUSly 27 units).
The Planning Office, as before, is concerned with the
htgh density proposed and feels this density is not
appropriate at this location. The Shadow Mountain
neighborhood has echoed this concern. One hundred
untts is an especially high density when compared to the
sIx units a 11 owed on the parcel wi th the current R-15
zonIng.
The applicant has estImated, based on the proposed
density, the'proje~ted popul?tion of the propsed ,
dormi tory to be 150peop 1 e in the summer '-two person'
occupancy) and 75 people in the winter '-single occu-
pancy). The traffi c, parki ng and noise impacts resulting
from the dormitorY population along with the impacts from
j;he!~'imJ~rketunits makes the density problem a serious
::7:',;';"'" ,.~....L\~tlDn.
'3:i:'t$D""'-'F!BIe:m...miJl9 Offi ce has no problem wi th an RBO
,;.~,;nsed:;::at'1:bi'slocation for the purpose of allowing
a'~~:~'li'1f! do question the appropriateness of
ilftRIID,'W.o!diiiin,a higher density at this location,
Sections 24-10.'S''1l.nd 24-10.9 of the, Code provide crtterIa
for evaluating RBO requests tncluding 1) compatibility
with the neighborhood considering design, bulk and
den5i~",.;2}.compliance with the purposes of a PUD, 3)
compliaacewith any adopted housing plans or goals,
4)geograpbic di spersa 1 of deed restri cted units,
'li')m'iriinii~ of environmental and social impacts,
6) maximization of construction quality and unttsize,
7) compatibility with area and bulk requirements,
,~
,....."
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD ~ Conceptual Submission
Page Four
June 17, 1982
.
,
',;,h
-'"
"\ ~ J
1<
1'.j)U
82-
,
-
8) proximity to transportation, the degree to which
automobile use is discouraged and the provision of
on site auto storage, 9) adequacy and availability
of utilities and 10) consideration of an RBO being
more appropriate in relatively undeveloped areas.
., In addition to the previously mentioned short-terming and
density concerns, the RaO review criteria raises a few
other issues. The proposed four story structure adds
excessive bulk and goes beyond the height limit of
25 feet in the R-15 zone and the 28 foot height limit
in the proposed L.,,2 zone. This height is not compatible
with the underlying zone district but may be varied
through the PUD pr'ocess.
In consideration of the City"s housing goals, the pro~
posed project would meet a serious need for guaranteed"
housing for MAA students in the summer while also
providing employee housing for seasonal winter employees.
The proposed rental rate'for MAA students is $27.00
per bed per week. which equals $0.72 per square foot
for each dorm unit. This falls under the adopted
rental guidelines for middle income employee housing
units. The applicant currently has no proposal for
deed restriction for winter use of the dorm rooms. The
Planning Office recommends the dorm units be restricted
to the low income category of the housing price guide-
lines ($0.55 per square foot) for winter use. It appears
that due to the dormitory style of the units, that summer
use for MAA students may also need to be restricted to
the low i.ncome category as opposed to the middle income
category proposed. The amenities offered in the project
may however warrant a higher income category for the
MAA students.
The proposed project may discourage automobile use in
that tt abuts the old Midland Right-of-Way which may
eventually provide direct pedestrian access to the Music
School tf the proper easements can be obtained. The pro-
posed underground parking faciTi ty provides excellent
on site automobile storage,
4. "70:30" - Section 24-11..2 allows residential uni,ts to
be exempt from GMP procedures when 70% of the units
proposed are deed restricted to the City's employee
housing prtce guidelines. Thi,s criteria requires the
applicant to deed restrict according to the guidelines
(for summer and winter use if a 70:30 exemption is used.
\The Planning Qffice recommends deed restriction to the
low i,ncome guideline category. '
A review of a "70:30" project should include a deter-
minatton of community need considering, but not limited
to, the numb~r, type, mix and price of the units pro-
posed. The Code recommends that a "70:30" project
maintain an average ll;; and 2 bedrooms per unit within
the deerl,~i cted portion of the project and recommends
tha:t'at;.::tea'S't 50% of the residential floor area be
dev~teil'tu-the deed restricted units. The proposed
:;' ;;~ja::\l;?All1Ill\I,'J:Reets the 50% floor area recommendation.
The project 'proposes two beds per, dorm room, but as a
dormitory the project cannot appropriately be evaluated
on a basis of the number of bedrooms.
5. The Role of the MAA - The role of the MAA in the manage-
.,JGeIlt of,tDeproposed project has not been clearly
;'\ientifi:edbY the applicant. The application does
include a resolution passed by theMAA Board of Trustees
/""".
,~
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD ~ Conceptual Submissi.on
Page Five
June 17, 1982
-
authorizing the Bui.1ding and Grounds Committee to proceed
with negotiations with Hans Cantrup and his representa~
tives to develop MAA student housing on the Mountain
Edge parcel. The resolution states the MAA will
actively participate in the programming and design of
the facility and in necessary political processes. The
'applicant has stated'that legal documents on the MAA's
role in the management of the proposed 'project are not
feasible until the Music Associates know 1:Oe kind of
facilitY which will be ultimately approved. The appH-
cant has shown a willingness to comply with conditions of
approval relating ,to this matter.
6. The Shadow'Mountain Neiqhborhood Concerns - The Shadow
Mountain Neighborhood Group has consistently expressed
their opposition to the Mountain Edge project due to
insuffi ci ent agreements between the MAA and Hans
Cantrup, questions regarding the economic feasibility of
the project, traffic, and parking problems the high
density and the proposed dormitory use. '
lhe Shadow Mountain Ne1.ghborhood Group has expressed
that the Hrst cho1.ce of the neighborhood is the
acquIsition of the parcel by the City for use as a
park., Secondly, they would prefer that the property
be developed w1.th1.n the parameters of the current R-15
zoning. As a third alternatIve the Neighborhood Group
has recommended a counter proposal to the project sug-
gesti,ng that the City trade open space land from the
Rio Grande property for open space land on the Mounta1.n
Edge property with Cantrup building his employee units
1.n the Rio Grande property. The proposal recommends
that the units be owned and managed by Arts Housing (a
proposed joint venture of Arts West and MAA). The
Ri.o Grande parcel would serve as a possible s1.te for the
'transferring ,of any employee units using the split-site
,method for locating employee and free market units up to
a lim1.t of 300-500 beds on the parcel.
The Planning Office feels that this is an unlikely
alternative due to the complexi,ty of the land trade,
the time requ1.red to obtain the necessary approvals,
the fact that the SPA p,roceedi,ngs for the Rio Grande
property are well under way and the resulting negative
impacts from such a project. With the immediate need
for MAA hous i.ng, the time i nvo 1 ved in a land trade
and the reworking of the Rio Grande SPA would prohibit
an expeditious solution to low income student/employee
housing problems. Currently the proposed SPA for the
Rio Grande does not include any residential uses.
The Planning Office has further problems with the Rio
Grande student/employee housing alternative when the
impacts of a 300-500 bed houiing project are evaluated.
If::the recommendations of the Smuggler Area Master
P:bm are adopted, traffic from this area along with
,;,;t:be"t..~1':fi,c,:generated from the proposed Performing
:;;,Jmtst~~ll push Mi.1l Street to capacity without
.;~i:dering.tl1etraffic generated from the proposed
3Oll-.5illil:bedJaci 1 i ty. Parki ng and noi se impacts
would be further problems, especii\lly in light of
other existing and proposed uses in the area. This
large employee project i.s also in conflict with the
City"s:;-:policy of the geographi ca 1 di sbursa 1 of deed
restrided units and integrating these units with other
,,~s....of .r..esi dent i a 1 developments.
.
,
f
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
,
.
("',
,....,
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page Six
June 17, 1982
Summary:
planning
Office
Recommendation:
,
*
o
.
The Planning Office is sympathetic to the MAA'sneed for
housing, however this proposal does not ~ppear to b: the
proper solution. In evaluating this proJect accord:ng to the
policies of our adopted Land Use Plan and our evolV1n9,
update of our physical and policy plans, we do n~t belleve
that the employee housing ,need justifies the POllCY t~adeoffs
regarding density and increasing short term use of thlS
neighborhood. '
I
The Planning Office recommends that the applicant rework the
Mountain Edge proposal since the project as currently proposed
is not acceptable. The Planning Office would suggest that
the following items be included in the newly amended applica-
tion so that our planning concerns are appropriately handled:
1. Density - A reduction in the floor area to the allowed
1:1 floor area ratio' requirement with the same 50-50
di,stribution of the floor area between free market and
employee units. This would reduce the density and in
effect remove the necessity for an RBO rezoning for
density reasons. The RBO would only be required in
order to allow a dormitory use on the site.
2. Short-terming - Since according to the City"s land use
policies short terming is only allowed at existing loca-
tions and should not be allowed at this new location,
an application for multi-family units with six month
minimum lease restrictions would be most appropriate for'
the free market segment of the project. This would
eliminate,the need for an L-2 rezoning and would require
a rezoning to RMF.
3. Height -: The height for the 4 floor story structure
should be reduced to conform to the 2.5 foot height
requirement of the RMF zone district. If L-2 zoning
is still requested, the 28 foot height limitation
should be met.
4. }UV\ Agreement ~ Further explanation and documentation
of the MAA's role in this project is needed, especially
with regard to the management of the student/employee
units. Also, information is needed on the MAA's plans
for requesting the gift or sale of the City's right of
way of the south end of First Street for use as a student
cafeteria.
("',
~
SHADOW MOUNTAIN CITIZEN'S GROUP
C/O CAROLYN S. DOTY
P.O. BOX 5091
ASPEN, CO. B1612
Phone: 925-171B
l! C;
I.
I'
.". .~~ 7\~"t:::;~~ t.,-f"'~
. . 'j i
f' ~'~1 ?
'~"'l'1
t ',',
._.u.,..~.._",-
May 25, 1982
I
I
I
)
Ms. Alice Davis
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
~spen, CO. B1611
gear Alice:
The Sh~dow Mountain Citizen's Group met Wed., May 19
to once again discuss the proposed development on the
Mountain Edge property. We are writing this letter to you
regarding some concerns of ours.
First, although after talking with Welton recently, we
realize that his present proposal does not now include the
First Street Right-of Way for the cafeteria; as we under-
stand it, Welton is going to re-submit that portion of the
proposal separately. Since this is city-owned land (and
we have heard it may even include some BLM land), we are
concerned that all owners of record are required to be a
party to a zoning application, which would mean that the
city (at least) would have to join in the application.
will you please cerify in writing that the application is
complete and proper?
Secondly, we attach a copy of the only known agreement
between Hans Cantrup and the MAA. We feel that this letter
is insufficient protection for the MAA and the community.
We feel, therfore, that a very firm and clear contract
signed by Cantrup, the MAA, and the City should be entered
into the record before Mountain Edge is given any further
consideration.
Thirdly, because of the looseness of the,Cantrup/MAA
agreement to date and because of Cantrup's numerous code
violations in the past, we are concerned about economic
feasibility of this project. We are concerned that possible
dollar losses from operations might force the owner (Cantrup
or the MAA) to convert the cafeteria and/or the employee
units into free market tourist use. Therefore, we request
.
f
~'
:~il
,
'J'
,
,."
.
, ..
'.
,J
,
,
I
.
-,
.'-'.
Page Two
that Qn "economic feasibility study" of the project be
completed before Mountain Edge is given any other consideration.
And finally, in speaking with Lou Gresset" Business
Director of the MAA,on Fri., April 16, we were told that the
MAA would welcome any help in finding an alternative solution
to the one on the Mountian Edge property, particularly if that
solution could provide more beds, and more of a quarantee of
solving their long-term housing problem. ~s you know from
our counterproposal on this property presented to Planning
and Zoning on April 6, 1982, we suggested the possibility of
the ~ity trading open space land from the Rio Grande property
for open space land on the Mountain Edge property, with Cantrup
building his employee units on the Rio Grande property, and the
employee units being owned and managed by Arts Housing (a joint
venture of Arts West and MAA). At that meeting Olaf suggested
that we further research that possibility. We have, and we
attach a letter from the Aspen Lodging Association to the MAA
and Arts West Aspen outlining this alternative proposal, which
we feel would solve the long-term housing needs of the MAA and
the short-term winter employees. We request your examination of
this alternative and possible study of the Rio Grande SPA to
determine if there may be a feasible site for this alternative
project.
We hope that you will consider our concerns and our
alternative proposal. If you have any questions or would
like our help in any way, please contact us. We hope to hear
from you soon. You may contact me at 925-1718, Marge Riley
at 925-7068, Al Bloomquist at 925-3520 or Michael Behrendt at
925-3220.
Sincerely,
C L! \'-
i a/J./-/ r /~,,-lJ
Carolyn S. Doty
Chairperson,
Shadow Mountain Citizens Group
cc: Herman Edel, Mayor
Welton Anderson, Cantrup architect
Lou Gresset, Business Director of the MAA
Dr. Scott, Arts West Aspen
Enclosures: 2
.
f
.
"f' .
.
. ?
"
;'
I"'"
,.....,
I
I
!
January 11, 1982
Mrs. Jean Jaffee, Chairman
Music Associates of Aspen
600 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll
Dear ~trs. Jaffee:
In accordance with your request, the purpose of this
letter is to confirm my representation to you regarding
the development by me of an MAA student housing project
on the property now known as the Mountain Edge and formerly
known as the' Koch Lumber property located between Garmisch
and First Streets.
As you know, this project was first proposed in 1979
and the property was annexed for that purpose. The City is
,now in the process of zoning it R-15 which would preclude
the project.
You have my absolute assurances that if, rather than
R-l5, the City adopts L-2 zoning with a residential bonus
overlay for the property, I will develop the project which
was presented to you by Welton Anderson on January 8, 1982.
Although the specific details will need to be worked out
the development will be along the following parameters:
1. The maximum number of units which the zoning
would permit would be developed in a ratio of 70 per cent
student/employee housing to 30 per cent free market units.
2. The student/employee housin~ portion of the project
would either be leased to the t~ on a year-round basis,
or some other arrangement satisfactory to the MAA adopted
which would insure that it be available, at least during the
sumn,er season for music students.
3. Sixty-Five per cent of the free market units will
be available on a first priority basis for f.1AA faculty
during the summer season.
Since we are not now in a position to persuade the
.
r'~,.- '.~ , ,.:~
,~,'~""~'"
,
:7'"':"'W<'i";"~ "r7~""!:"
'c."..." '.r.-. ~'''','',~_V,.'.'...7'1,..f:'''''' '..' 'r"~\",.)M",'''''' '''''.'''' ,.."'.,
,./
;""
, .
t"'""\
t"'""\
Page 2
Mrs. Jean Jaffee, Chairman
January ll, 1982
City council of the need for this project, the burden of doing
so will obviously be yours. Unfortunately, too few of us
realize that this opportunity for theMAA may never again
be available.
We look forward to your success in this endeavor and
to~orking with you to develop this worthy project.
yours,
e-J?4fnt!; r
C/fs
'f
("',
,-."
ASPEN LOf.GING ASW:IA'rIO:-t
100 E. Hyll':.u1 Avc,
Aspen, CD 81611
925-3520
Iny 1, 1982
To: Russell Scott, President, Arts West AsWn
Fran: Al Blorrquist, President, t~pen Lodgin~ Association
SUbject: ' A Permanent Solution to the Sunmer Artist-Student Hou..<;ing Problem
By Creating :.u1 Erido\\rtEnt for thc Arts'
'lbeGoal
;Ibis is to request the mure of a strong business-type person from Arts
West Aspen and :mother from Uusic t~sociates of Aspen to serve on an Aspen
lDdging Association Task Force to find a peI'll'anent solution to the Sumrer
Artist-Student Housing problem. }L~ again has a crisis for this sumner. What
I want studied is how to convert City incentives for employee housing and
private sector skills im:o incentives for anendomnent for the. Arts, and a
subsidy for sunmer student housing.
~. . . ""
'lbeMarket
, ,The Cantrup proposal for HAA housing on the Koch Lumber site provides the
seed "idea", There is a net surge of 1000 winter-only erq:lloyees each fall.
Enployrent in Sur.1'ner is about 5000 and jur;:1pS to 6000 each winter. The 1000
can't ta.l<e a 12 rrcnth lease.. .50 they buy space as rcoIillutes at $300-500 each
per rronth.. .san:e deal as is c:orrrron on the college campus. They want a 6 rronth
'lease for their '~];:en "fling"
Robin Hood Theory
";':"", .' '. "', ' ",
i<;;<'I'he Aspen Zoning Ordin:mce:md .GMP adopted the "P.obin Hood Theory" for '
Einployee Housing. A developer robs 30 free market units to subsidize break- .
,even on 70 employee units. ,The incentive \\Orks.
, To date, the lnethodology has only been used for year-round, for sale or
for 12 rronth lease, employee housing. It has never been used to help rreet the
1000 bed net surge for the winter employees needing only a 4 to 6 mnth lease.
Chlyan Arts West or IJAA, with a 2 to 4 mnth surrmer need and sorre kind of sub-
sidyto the capital plallt could meet this winter need. ' .
, ,.Arts West has a Strong business base in ooard menbers like Scott, Israel
and Ki.llin. MAA has a lead in the Cantrup Koch Lurrber project. The proposal is
tl1at either Arts West alone or Arts West and HAA together ~orm ARTS HOlJSING, INC.
Arts Housing, Inc.
Arts Housing, Inc. \\Ould be set up to own and operate seasonal housing up
to a 300-500 bed limit. It would obtain free lMd fran the City, COunty, Sewer
District, EDl Mdjor the private sector, and then offer the land to developers
wanting a split-site R!X) project. ' .
.
"'~ '"' , ,~'~<' '<"~":;:'~~?''"':S:~'''''',:~:J':~' ''''?<\)~'' 7"~. :~';~,~~/;,"'<"'Y,.:,T,'_~;:: ~c"",'t'~:~:;"",n;,', ': ",,:,t'.":'e;.< -":".',.41r,,, ":,,~,,,..~'':''!~~'--~~'~--
.-,."-"~,,..,,..,.....,..~-
,,.....,.";.._...-._'...,,.',.:-"-~'-
"",:',
J."'--"
'j'
("',
.'-'.
~
. RuSSell Scott, Arts West
May 1, 1982
Page 'l\vo
The developer would build the 30% free market units on his own land and
the 7r:f!o employee units on Arts Housing, Inc. land, and deed the finished em-
ployee wits to Arts Housing, Inc. A special City ordinance could add rewards
for those developers offering the first 300-500 beds to Arts Housing, Inc.
Now, it is important that the ROO is not just for big projects. A duplex
qualifies. The Baker Duplex at 118 E. HytnaIl is an ROO four-plex, with t\\Q em-
ployee units in the basement. The t\\O extra units could have been transferred
by the split-site method to either the Visual Arts Center site or MAA school
site to meet an artist housing and/or employee housing need at either of those
sites, or any other that might have been avaiable. It could have happened,
bad Baker wanted to "contribUte" to an Arts West or MAA eridmm-ent. 'l\venty or
thirty people building single family houses could transfer 1 REO each to Arts
Housing, Inc. during the fund drive. They could do this with only the "right"
to build the unit if another provided the endo\m-ent cash \vhich to bUild the
unit. The point is that Arts Housing, Inc, gets ~,ousing, free and clear, or
partially so, and has endO\\Tnent "incorre" for Arts use, ' Further, all types of
housing, from dorms to apartments to duplexes, are possible.
i
I
,
c
ii
r
;,
,
I
r
It is going to be difficult to get existing projects involved.
primarily, Arts Housing, Inc. is a vehicle to involve new projects,
sorre large. It fits in well with Arts West's fund raising plans.
Thus,
most small,
However, both the Cantrup-Koch Lurrber and the Kuhn projects might possibly
still have t:in-e to get involved and "prove" the case. At minimum, they would
provide two "test cases" on which to rum SOlre nurrbers, ,test for legal and pro-
cedural problerrs, etc.
Rio Grande Arts Campus
The Rio Grande should have sorre people living there to make it alive by day
and safe by night. The SPA is undenvay, and a site where the impound lot is now
could easily and quickly be clra\\TI on the plat to accorrodate Cantrup's student
housing portion of the Koch Lurrber Plan. The Shadow ~lountain Neighborhood is
fighting the density and bulk of the total project, and especially the cafeteria.
They have asked that the half of the site devoted to the Student Housing and
cafeteria be made a park in a land trade for a Rio Grande site for the Student
Housing and cafeteria.
Were Arts West and MAA to intercede at this point with the above Arts
!busing, Inc. proposal, the neighborhood objectives "QuId be achieved. The point
for Arts. West and 1.1AA and each developer is that such neightorhood problerrs will
develope in alrrost any neightorhood where an ROO is proposed.
r~,;'~'7~'};'~:)' ':"i~~' ,~< '" ~,1:! ""'"'~:"~;?:"':f,,,,?,>'~",:,\"';~~,"~~';' .~,,'": '~,J;'9 '. :":"~, ;'t.,,> C:,>'~:' ..~'!.":;' ",:r:_,,~;:\,'lj>.;i, :" ~N~' ", ,,",,,,,~,,,~__--,,,"_''''.'~_'_''_'_~"'':~~~__"''''''I'''~.,,,.,...,.._..''.e'_.~'_~' '."
("',
~.
Russell Scott, Arts West
May I, 1982
Page Three
Thus, having a "po:;;itive idea" for the Rio Grande as an ArtsC::unpus needing
housing capitalized on the problem every developer of high density faces in 3-
neighborhOOd. It says, simply, to the developers of the ne:,.-t 300-500 employee
beds, "We at Arts Housin~, Inc., , can help you avoid the problem if you do a split-
site ROO, put the employee units on our Rio Grande or other sites, and deed the
units to Arts Housin~, Inc. The ta.,> advantages are... .etc."
Each neighborhood gets only the free nnrket units and less over-all density
because of the split-site arrangerrent. Arts Housim;, Inc. gets to be in business
and t= over its net inCOl'!l:! to the Arts. . .annually! The developer gets out of
the operations responsibility for the employee units and gets certain ta.,> advan-
tages on top of the zoning and GMP advantages that caused him to want to do business
under the ROO Robin Hood 'Theory. Arts West rrerely takes away his problems to create
endo\\freIl t.
The Oden group did the Hunter Ionghouse project... .with directnees, simplicity
and speed. Sarehow, it seems, the Arts should be able to do as well,...even better.
Perhaps the Oden group might rise to a new challenge.
cc: Mayor Herman Edel
Iou Gressett
Attachments (2)
~::. ',':?'T' ;-:":~':1'Y',,!""?'O';."':",''7....'~'(''''!'~f.','t,"'''';'': ,IY~{'l::"'-'.", ,- '~",l"': "~"",',;.,,,,:,,:... ..'~ "'''~<<:\".~;'~;:~' ""."....". ;,;,,~,:~,,""":'f:~"!";\'":;'.~,.' ~:"0".<.'~.~r'~..?T""~'.,"","-'--"-'"
~",,"C""',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-<""-,''''.-'-' ^
''"::,i>-:
0.,,';'
~
("',
^
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
DATE: April 1, 1982
Lot Size:
1.42 acres (approximately 62,068 sq. ft.)
Location:
Zoning:
Background:
Applicant's
Request:
Referra 1
Agency
Comments:
Between Garmisch and First Streets, Cooper and Durant Avenues
(formerly Koch Lumber Company)
R-15 (rezoning to L-2 proposed)
On November 26, 1979 City Council adopted Ordinance 76,
Series of 1979, annexing a 1.27 acre parcel into the City
which was formerly occupied by the Koch Lumber Company. The
Colorado Revised Statutes require that annexed property be
rezoned within 90 days of annexation. This requirement was
not met until City Council adopted Ordinance 87, Series of
1981, zoning the property R-15 on January 11,1982. This
current application for conceptual subdivision review requests
a rezoning from R-15 to L-2.
When zoning the Mountain Edge property, both the P & Z and
City Council were reluctant to zone the property on the
basis of an indefinite development proposal involving an RMF
or L-2 zoning. Both groups did, however, indicate a willingness
to consider a rezoning 'of the property in the context of a
specific development proposal and stated that they would
sponsor the rezoning application. Sponsorship would avoid
the once a year date for such applications to be submitted
by private landowners. Therefore, the applicant has submitted
a conceptual outline of a proposed multi-family project for
conceptual subdivision review.
The applicant is requesting conceptual subdivision approval
to construct 68 dorm rooms ,27 faculty/free market units and
a student cafeteria, The dorm rooms are proposed as housing
for MAA students in the summer and seasonal ski employees in
the winter. Summer rates for students will be determined by
the MAA at a rate commensurate with what students now pay
for lodge rooms while winter rates will be set by the City's
employee housing price guidelines. The 27 faculty/free
market units are proposed as a means to offset the construction
costs of the dormitory and also to provide a continuing
operation subsidy for the dormitory. The free market units
will be sold as condominiums with deed restrictions limiting
summer occupancy to Music School faculty members at a rate
20% below market rates for similar units. This project
would eventually require a rezoning to L-2, an RBO rezoning
approval for a dormitory use and increased density, a GMP
exception for the employee and free market units as a "70:30"
project (Section 24-11.2(i)), and further subdivision and
PUD approvals.
The Engineering Department review listed two basic items
that are required by Section 20-10 of the Code (Conceptual
presentation) that have not been addressed by the applicant.
These items include:
1. A vicinity map showing the project location, all
adjacent lands owned by or under option to the subdivider,
common landmarks and zoning on and adjacent to the
project, and
,I"'"">, ,~
Memo: Mountain Edge/~vJ - Conceptual Submission
Page Two
April 1, 1982
2. A sketch plan of the site showing predominate existing
conditions, (i.e., easements overhead power lines,
etc.) .
The Water Department stated that sufficient water is available
for the proposed 68 dorm units from a 6" main in Cooper
Street and for the 27 faculty/free market units from Durant
or South Garmisch Streets. Under no circumstances will the
Water Department allow connection to the old 5 1/2" steel
line in South Garmisch which is scheduled for replacement.
If a fire protection system and/or additional hydrants are
requi red, it is recommended that the 20" 1 ine on Garmi sch be
tapped with an isolating valve at the point of attachment to
the transmission main. More specific recommendations by the
Water Department can be made at a later date when the applicant
specifies his intentions through a utility plan.
The Aspen Metro Sanitation District Manager and the City
Fire Chief have no problems with the proposal at this stage.
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas and Holy Cross Electric can both
service the proposed project. The Holy Cross Electric
Associ~tion, Inc. stated that it would be the developer's
responsibility to extend, enlarge or alter the existing
power line to the desired locations within the subject
property boundaries.
Planning
Offi ce
Review:
After reviewing this proposal, the Planning Office has
identified several concerns with the project as it relates
to City Land Use Policies. These concerns are discussed
below:
1. The Short-terming of Condominiums -- The Mountain Edge
proposal calls for 27 faculty/free market units which
will be sold as condominiums with deed restrictions
limiting summer occupancy to Music School faculty
members. Since the proposal requests a rezoning to L-
2, short-terming of the condominiums would be allowed
in the months not deed restricted for the Music School
faculty. The Planning Office feels that short-term
condominiums are not an appropriate use for this
parcel. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan states that in
the mixed residential category, short-terming should
only be allowed at existing locations, with short-
terming not allowed at any new locations. The appropriateness
of this section of the Land Use Plan is being studied
by the Planning Office through a survey of lodge rooms
and short term condominium units. The preliminary
results of the survey seem to indicate that the utiliza-
tion of our ski capacity is essentially in balance
with the available short term units. In addition, the
buildout potential for new short term units under
existing zoning appears to be adequate to provide for
necessary growth. Preliminary survey results do show
that it may be appropri ate to allow. the expans i on of
non-conforming lodges to meet the demand for lodge
units, and to experience a moderate level of lodge
develoPment as part of the growth management quota
system. Since lodge unit needs can be met at existing
locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2 to
create a new location for lodging or short term condominiums
and to provide a further justification for rezoning of
other lands in this area for short term usage.
Short term condominiums create substantial impacts on
surrounding areas due to increased traffic, parking
problems and potential noise problems. These impacts
should be considered in evaluating an L-2 rezoning and
a short term project on the subject property.
t-.
,,,-,,,
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page Three
April 1, 1982
ZONE DISTRICT
R-15
R-15/RBO
L-2
RMF
2. Density-- The Planning Office is concerned with the
high density of the proposed project and the appropriate-
ness of an RBO at this location. An RBO is necessary
in order to allow a dormitory in the L-2 zone district.
The Planning Office has no problem with using an RBO
to accommodate a dormitory, but we do question the
appropriateness of using the RBO to obtain a higher
density at this location. The following information
shows the maximum densities allowed on the property
under the current R-15 zone district as well as the
maximum dens ity under the proposed L-2 des i gnati on.
For information purposes R~15/RBO, L-2, RMF and RMF/RBO
designations are also given with'the approximate
maximum allowable densities for these zone districts.
MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED
6 units -- 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit; 3 duplexes
8 units -- 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit; 4 units must be employee housing
100 lodge units -- 450 sq. ft. per unit;
89 free market lodge units and 11 employee
units
10 single family units -- 6,000 sq. ft.
per dwelling unit or 60 studios or 10
one bedrooms, 10 two bedrooms and 7
three bedrooms totaling 27 units or some
other combination of above units
RMF/RBO
L-2/RBO (residential units)
120 studios or 54 multi-family units
including 20 one bedrooms, 20 two bedrooms
and 14 three bedrooms or some other
combination of the above units. Density
permitted for dormitory use is determined
through special review as the Code does
not specifically address allowed densities
for dormitories in the RMF and L-2 zone
districts.
In evaluating an RBO application for the L-2 zone district,
Section 24-10.9 of the Code states that preferred RBO applica-
tions should be in areas which are relatively undeveloped as
opposed to more built out areas. RBO applications are also
preferred in areas where the development is an appropriate
project for the neighborhood or where it is possible to
cluster development and mitigate the effects of such development
upon the surrounding areas through the use of open space and
greenbelt.
The proposed project is in a developed area, very much built
out except to the south where there is a s ingl e fami ly
nei ghborhood. The Pl anni ng Offi ce feels that the development
is not, as proposed, compatible with the surrounding neighbor-
hood. The Shadow Mountain Citizens' Group has expressed
their opposition to this project both verbally and in writing
to the Planning Office. The inappropriateness of a dormitory
facility and a cafeteria, the high density, environmental
issues and parking problems are the main objections of the
Citizens' Group. The high density proposed is of special,
concern to the Planning Office in evaluating the compatibility
of the project with the surrounding area. The applicant,
has however, mitigated some of these impacts by providing
nearly 60% open space.
,-,
("',
Memo: Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Submission
Page'Four
April 1 ,1982
Other review criteria for evaluating an RBO application deal
with the housing goals of the land use plan, proximity to
transportation, and parking. The applicant has proposed to
put 90% of the required parking below grade. The proposal
retains the Midland Right-of-Way for a trail easement and
has good access to public transportation.
3. Student Cafeteria -- The proposed cafeteria is described
by the applicant as a modest, subgrade MAA student
cafeteria which would replace the one lost at the
Wheeler Opera House. The Planning Office, as well as
the Shadow Mountain Citizens' Group, is concerned that
the cafeteria may evolve into a cafeteria for the
general public. This would create numerous traffic
and parking problems unless the cafeteria was strictly
restricted to the students. The cafeteria may also
violate Section 24-10.3(b) of the Code which states
that an RBO can only be granted if the project is a
"pure" residential project.
The Planning Office would like to note that in the annexation
of the Mountain Edge property, housing for MAA students was
the use proposed for the property by the applicant. There
was no mention of free market units. If the applicant
insists on free market units to subsidize the employee
units, these units may possibly be provided at a separate
location reducing the density and the short-terming impacts
of the free market units.
Summary:
The Planning Office is sympathetic to the MAA's need for
housing, however this proposal does not appear to be the
proper solution. In evaluating this project according to the
policies of our adopted Land Use Plan and our evolving
update of our physical and policy plans, we do not believe
that the employee housing need justifies the policy tradeoffs
regarding density and increasing short term use of this
neighborhood. The rezoning to L-2 may increase the pressure
for rezoning of other properties in this area. The Planning
Office feels that an RBO in the L-2 zone district is not
appropriate due to the high density proposed and the proposed
short-terming of condominiums. If this site is to accommodate
a housing project for the MAA students, we would prefer to
see a pure employee housing project, possibly with an RMF
zoning designation and with the RBO only being employed to
permit the dormitory use and not to achieve an FAR beyond
1:1. This would eliminate the major concerns of the Planning
Office and the neighborhood and still provide housing for
MAA students.
Planning
Offtce
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend to City
Council that the conceptual subdivision proposal for 68 dorm
rooms, 27 free market units and a cafeteria on the Mountain
Edge property be denied. As there is a need for housing for
MAA students, the Planning Office suggests that the applicant
rework the proposal to incorporate a low density project
with no short-terming and also research the possibility of
having .a two-site project, with the free market units being
proposed for a more appropriate location.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
Welton Anderson Associates
MOUNTAIN EDGE MAA STUDENT/
SEASONAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING
5 February 1982
In 1978, most of the 60,000 square feet of the old
Koch Lumber Company was annexed into the City for the
expressed purpose of providing a permanent housing
facility for the Music Associates of Aspen.
,
,
.... ._.
'"",.:>'"
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Background:
Proposal:
.1"'"\
~
MEMORANDUM
In the past 21 years, up to 200 music students have
been housed in various lodges owned by the Cantrups.
Last summer the rate was $52 a week. The future con-
solidation plans for the smaller lodges into one
"World Class Resort Hotel" makes the MAA's need for
permanent housing immediate.
To this end, several proposals have been prepared.
The first was for 150 ~'tudios, housing some 300 of the
Music School's 600 studenis and included 45 free market
units on the adjoining Barbee property. This met with
resistance from the neighborhood and other concerned
parties.
The following proposes less than 50% of the density
originally requested by the MAA. It will provide 68
student dorm rooms of 300 square feet each. Each
cluster of 5 or 6 dorm rooms share a lounge designed
for games, T.V., and other forms of interaction. The
dorm rooms will be convertable to "mid-term}' winter
seasonal employee use. Rental rates for students will
be fixed by the MAA at essentially that which the stu-
dents now pay for a lodge room. Winter rates will be
set by the housing authority. Full time on site
management will be ~rovided by the MAA on a year round
basis. To offset construction costs of the dormatory
segment, and to provide a continuing operating subsity,
the project includes 27 faculty/free market units of
1.450 square feet each. These units will be sold as
condominiums with deed restrictions limiting their
summer occupancy to Music School faculty at 20% below
market rates for similar units. The operating subsidy
accrues to the MAA in the form of fees paid them to
manage the faculty portion during winter for short-term
tourist usage. The MAA's role as property manager is
only being discussed at this time, but extension of
the student/employee management to cover the facu1ty/
free market portion is seen as a logical means of
providing the MAA with an ongoing endowment.
-'
This proposal comes as a result of meetings with the
MAA, Planning Office, surrounding neighbors and developer,
and is a comprehensive approach from a planning, community,
political and economic viewpoint, and addresses their
concerns as follows:
A. Low scale massing along Garmisch and Cooper, with
the provision of nearly 60% open space primarily
at that corner. accessible and useable to the
community.
B. Density much below that which the MAA requires,
but necessary to reduce impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods.
C. Provision of at least 90% of code required parking
below grade and out of sight.
~
I'"'.
~
""', ."'.....-...
.
D. Amenities for both the MAA and community to include:
1) .
Half acre park ("Koch Park" to be built atop
parking structure) with band-she11/ampitheater
for practice and performances.
2) .
'3).
Retention of Midland R.O.W. as trail easement.
Provision of modest, subgrade MAA student
cafeteria to replace the one lost at the
Wheeler.
4). Central switchboards for both portions pf
project.
5). Provision of summer MAA faculty housing on
site (at 20% below going rates and guaranteed
available).
6). Outdoor recreational facilities.
7). Practice rooms, lounges, recreation rooms
and lobbies.
This narrative, along with accompanying documents and
drawings, constitute the 'Conceptual' Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development application for the MAA/Moun-
tain Edge housing proposal. Subsequent matters for
deliberation are: Preliminary and final Subdivision
and PUD approvals, rezoning to L-2 (for 'mid-term',
'short-term', and cafeteria uses). application for
Residential Bonus Overlay zoning (to allow the increased
density), the sale or gift of the 8,800 square feet of
vacated and unused city land at the ~outh end of First
Street for use as the new MAA cafeteria, and certainly
other unforseen approvals in the complex process. The
code specifies that these matters be dealt with subse-
quent to Conceptual level review. Therefore, may we
early in the "process" identify those aspects of this
Conceptual Application that will benefit the Aspen
community, and work in concert to refine the rest.
.
. ,.
''! .,:,'"r ...
,.....,
.--
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan ~icl1man, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
DATE: January 4, 1982
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lot Size:
Location:
Zoning:
Background:
1.27 acres (approximately 55,320
Between Garmisch and First Streets and between Cooper and
Durant Avenues (formerly, Koch Lumber Company)
Proposed as R-15 (R-6, R-MF and L-2 also under consideration)
On November 2~, 1979, City Council finally adopted on second
reading Ordinance 76, series of 1979, annexing to the City a
portion of previously unincorporated territory. This annexa-
tion, known as the Mountain Edge Annexation, encompassed
slightly more than 1 1/4 acres which had been formerly occupied
by the Koch Lumber Company. A revi ew of the mi nutes of the Ci ty
Council meeting during whi ch thi s property was annexed i.ndi cates
that it had been proposed that a facility of 150 rooms for
the Music Associates of Aspen be built on the site.
As required by the Colorado revi sed statutes, a public hearing
to consider zoning the newly annexed property was scheduled
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 8,
1980. The property owner suggests that as a result of pending
legislation to adopt the' Residential Bonus Overlay Ordinance
the hearing was cancelled by public notice in the Aspen Times
and was never re-scheduled. Therefore, the requirement of
C.R.S. that an annexed property must be zoned within 90 days
was not met. Recently, this fact came to the attention of the
City Attorney, who noted that recent case law "seems to imply
that a court may declare a tract of unzoned property free from
all municipal or county restrictions." He suggested that we
pursue a zoning of this parcel as soon as possible.
The Planning Office scheduled a public hearing before P & 1
on September 28, 1981, at which time presentations were made
by the Planning Office and the property owner. While we felt
that the property should be zoned R-15, the property owner was
hopeful of an R-MF designation. P & Z decided to table this
item to permit the owner to formulate a proposed development
plan for the site. However, subsequent to that action, City
Council heard a citi",en comment complaining about the interim
use of the property and discovered that because of the absence
of zoning on the site, the City could~offer the neighboring
residents no relief to the noise problem from machinery.
Counci 1 therefore directed us to reschedule the publ ic hearing
on this item and to aggressively pursue a zoning of the property.
At a public hearing on November 17,1981, P & Z concurred with
the Planning Office and recommended that you zone this property
R-15.
Planning
Office Review: The Planning Office believes that the key to your zoning
decision for this property is that you are not considering a
specific application for the site, but instead are taking action
in response to the annexation of land from Pitkin County.
The Planning Office and P & Z concur that at such time as a
development application is submitted, it may be appropriate to
consider zoning appropriate to that specific proposal. However,
since the property owner i.s still formulating alternatives for
the site, including building employee units on the site and using
them to justify free market units on the site or elsewhere, or
.
',' ""-~).....-.
,-"
,-,
,.\ ...
MEMO: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
Page Two
,January 4, 1982
building free market units on the site and the employee units
elsewhere, we recommend very strongly that you should
only consider R-15 zoning at this time. Our reasons for this
recommendation follow below:
1. By zoning the site R-15, you w.ould be providing the
property owner with a slight increase in allowable
density over that available under the property's previous
County R-15 zoning, sinceR-15in the City requires only
10,000 square feet per dwelling unit, while the same
designation in the County requires 15,000 square feet
per dwell ing unit. This s.light upzoning would be con-
sistent with sound planning practice which suggests that
a substantial upzoning shoul d not be granted without the
demonstration of a significant public purpose to which the
zoning acti,on can be attached.
2. An R-15 designation would be most in keeping with the
open space character of Shadow Mountain and with the
adopted land use policies of the City of Aspen wh-ich
indicate that this area should be of moderate density
..apd should be a long-term residential neighborhood. The
cdmments of neIghbors at the previous public hearings
have documented the fee ling that this area has al ready
been subjected to excess ive development pressure~ is chang-
ing too quick.1y,and is becoming excessively bulky and
dense in i.ts development character, Upzoning this
property would be yet another development-intensifying
action which is not acceptable to the residents of this
area.
3. It is not appropriate to designate a site as R-MF on the
assumption that the property owner may eventuallY submit
an application which meets the intent of your zoning
action. Over time, our policies and programs reg,arding
employee housing have changed, and the concessions we are
willing to make today in the name of employee housing may
not be acceptable in the future when a specific app1i.ca-
tion is submitted. Once w,e have upzoned thi,s property we
have given the property owner a certain expe.ctation of
a development right if code-complying conditions are
followed. We do not believe that you should create such
expectations in advance of the submission of an appl ica-
tion, but instead should offer your receptivity to any
request to rezone the property which is associated with
a justifiable development applicati.on. At such time as a
specific development appl ication is recetlled, you may find
it desirable and wish to attach certain conditions to its
approval which will insure that we obtain a public benefit
in exchange for your zoning action.
Council Action: Should you concur with the recommendations of the Planning
Office and P & Z, the appropriate motion is as follows:
l"RDyt: Lu read 0,r~nndllc..:e n-, ;>e,J Lt:::::. u; 1 S~T-: II
"Move to adopt,.on second ",eading, Ordinance Qj; series of
1981. "
130 s
MEMORANDUM
DATE,: November l6, 1981
TO: Kathryn Koch
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE: Aspen Inn - 1982 GMP Challenge
Ka thryn,
Attached please find a copy of a letter from Spencer Schiffer
regarding the above. He is requesting copies of the p&Z
minutes for the meeting when the lodge GMP allotments were
awarded. Since there is probably going to be some legal activity
regarding this, please ask Virginia to type the minutes as
quickly as her time will allow.
Thanks.
_...,'...-......-...;
^
,.....,
GA1WIEU) & HECHT
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST flY.MAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
SPENCER F, SCHIFFER
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
(ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS ONLY)
November l3, 1981
TELEPHONE
(303) n5.1936
TELECOPlER
(303) 925,3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Paul:
Re: Aspen Inn - 1982 Gr1P Challenge
As you know we have filed a challenge to the 1982 GMP
Lodge SCOring for the Aspen Inn pursuant to ~24-ll.6(e) of the
Code, which is so ambiguous as to literally preclude any reason-
able challenge. That is, the wording "...no challenge shall be
heard by the Council on grounds other than matters which have
not preViOUsly been considered by the Commission..." would aPPear
to be incongruous since an applicant would have no grounds to
challenge other than on matters which had been Considered by
the Commission and with respect to which he felt there was an
abuse'of discretion. As communicated to me by Alan Richman,
the Planning Department has made an interpretation of that
Section whereby they have concluded that our challenge is invalid.
In my hUmble opinion the ordinance is void for vagueness, the
Planning Department is exceeding its authority with regard to
this entire matter, and the process which we now all have to go
through is nothing more than an unfortunate effort to discredit
a member of the P & Z. Nevertheless we have been put in the
'posture of having to proceed, and we will do so under the strongest
of protest.
In view of the foregoing, I would request that you direct
the City Clerk's office to immediately prepare a verbatim trans-
cript of the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
and have the same available for our revie.was SOon as Possible
prior to TueSday, November 17th. Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
I
GAIy!'IELD & HECHT
..,
/
SFS/pp
cer F. Schiffer
cc: Hans B. Cantrup
"
~;
"
~
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
DATE: November 10, 1981
Zoning:
Background:
1.27 acres (approximatelY 55,320 square feet)
Between Garmisch and First Streets and between Cooper and
Durant Avenues (formerly, Koch Lumber Company)
Proposed as R-15 (R-6, R-MF and L-2 also under consideration)
On November 26, 1979, City Council finally adopted on second
reading Ordinance 76, series of 1979, annexing to the city a
portion of previously unincorporated territory. This annexa-
tion, known as the Mountain Edge Annexation, encompassed
slightly more than 1 1/4 acres which had been formerly occupied
by the Koch Lumber Company.
As required by the Colorado revised statutes, a public hearing
to consider zoning the newly annexed property was scheduled
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 8,
1980. Forreasons unknown at this point in time, the hearing
was cancelled by public notice in the Aspen Times and was
never re-scheduled, Thefefore, the requirement of C.R.S,
that an annexed property must be zoned within 90 days was
not met. Recently, this fact came to the attention of the City
Attorney, who noted that recent case law "seems to imply that
a court may declare a tract of unzoned property free from all
municipal or county restrictions." He suggested that we
pursue a zoning of this parcel as~soon as possible.
The Planni.ng Office scheduled a public hearing before you on
September 28, 1981, at which time you heard presentations by
the Pl anning Offi ce and the property owner, While we felt that
the property should be zoned R-15, the property owner was
hopeful of an R-MF desi,gnation. You decided to table this
item to permit the owner to formulate a proposed development
plan for the'site. However, subsequent to your action, City
Council heard a citizen comment complaining about the interim
use of the property and discovered that because of the absence
of zoning on the site, the City could offer the neighboring
residents no relief to the noise problem from machinery.
Council therefore directed us to reschedule the ublic hearin
on this item and to a ressivel ursue a zonin of the
property, which has resulted in tonight's discussion of this
issue.
Lot Size:
Location:
Planning Office
Revi ew:
At the previous meeting on this topic, the property owner
introduced information stating that at the time this property
was annexed, it was proposed that a facility of 150 rooms for
the Music Associates of Aspen be built on the site. The
present members of the Planning Office were unaware of this
past statement of intent by the City and have since given it
serious consideration in our proposal for zoning of this
site. However, the property owner is apparently considering
various alternatives for the site, including building the
employee units on it but using them to justify free market
units elsewhere, or building free market units on the site
and the employee units elsewhere. In either case, we have
no formal application to review at this time. The planning
Offi ce therefore feels that there is ample reason' for us to
again propose R-15 zoning of the site,
r--.
~"
r--.,
Memo: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
Page Two
November 10, 1981
The rationale for the proposed R-15 zoning is as follOWS:
1. The zoning of this property when it was a part of Pitkin
County was R-15, which requires 15,000 square feet of
lot area per unit. Zoning this property R-15 in the
City of Aspen only requires 10,000 square feet of lot
area per unit, resulting in a small upzoning from
approximately 4 units permitted to approximately 6 units
permitted (based on an assumed property ownership by
Hans Cantrup of slightly in excess of 60,000 square
feet). It has been a basic principle of planning
practice in Aspen that annexation should not result in
a substantial upzoning of property without the demon-
n-n_Hr:at!9Il...oLn~,sJ_~a!:E..ubl ic Y.Eltlefi t. _ n n,__ ----
2. Designation of this site as R-MF in the absence of a
development proposal to which this zoning category could
be attached amounts to speculative zoning. The property
owner has several alternatives in mind for the site which
would house either free market or employee units. Until
such time that an application/including a specific proposal
to accommodate the employee units/is submitted, and an
approach to creating these units is inaicated (RBO,
70:30 or GMP application) we believe that an upzoning of
the property would be speculative in nature. The City
Council has indicated its willingness to listen to a
multi-family development proposal at such time as an
application is submitted and would consider rezoning the
property in that context only. However, in the absence
of such a proposal, we suggest that you not .be swayed by
any model or site plan which mayor may not ever be sub-
mitted for formal review, and instead consider some factors
related to our comprehensive plan in determining the
appropriate zoning for the site.
3. The map which we produced for your last meeting indicates~-n
the surrounding zoning and existing land use in the
vicinity Of the annexation, Surrounding zoning consists
primarily of R-15, R-6, R-MF, R-15 Lodge PUD, L-l and
L-2 zone districts. Close scrutiny of the map would
indicate that this property is directly adjacent to
the borderline between the portions of Aspen zoned for
short term tourist uses versus those which have been
designated as long term residential uses. Existing
land use, which consists in large part of nonconforming
lodges and multi-family residences built prior to the
City's downzoning, should not be as much a factor in
planning for this area as should be the adopted plans and
policies of the City of Aspen. Therefore, the key
comprehensive planning issue is the determination of
which zoning category will further our policy to concen-
trate tourist units at the base of Aspen Mountain and to
. nnn____IllEi~1:ajll~o,n.9...!E!rm hous2.n~ ,in our neighborhoods.
4. The Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as mixed
residential, although directly adjacent to the commercial
core and accommodations area. However, this site backs
up on Shadow Mountain which is completely undeveloped
both above and below the 8040 greenline. Furthermore,
the surrounding neighborhood has been subjected to the
impacts of a great deal of new construction in recent
months which has been changing its. character from a low
scale to a much more massive and bulky scale. This
neighborhood has expressed to us their concern about the
potential zoning of the site for multi-family or tourist
uses. This expression of interest on the part of this
neighborhood is yet another indication that this site
should most appropriately be considered part of the West
End neighborhood and not the Aspen Mountain Base Area.
"
,/
---.
;5.-
\~', ~,
Memo: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
Page Three
November 10, 1981
5. The concerns of the surrounding neighborhood are a partic-
ularly sensitive issue in light of their recent initiative
regarding the FAR in the R-MF zone district, The resulting
R-MF moratorium has led the Planning Office to address
the issue of FAR, height and open space requirements for
our residential zone districts. However, an even more
basic concern of ours is the underlying development poten-
tial of our current zoning and the potential impacts that
any upzoning may have on our growth rate. As we have
been indicating to you recently, we have been substan~
tially exceeding our planned rate of growth due to projects
which have been GMP exceptions. We are concerned about
the possibility of upzoning this property at the same
time as we are trying to ascertain the buildout potential
in Aspen and to set quotas which correspond to the
community's ability to serve new development.
A lternati ves
Available:
Following are the number of dwelling units which could be
constructed in the likely zone ,districts for this site:
R-6: 13 units (4,500 sq, ft./dwelling unit) in a
combined duplex and single family arrangement.
R-15: 6 units (10,000 sq. ft./dwelling unit) in a
duplex configuration. '
(Note: R~ 15. Lodg.e PUD would permit the same
nU9]ber ofunits,buttheulltts ar!!, permi.tted to
be short term, tourist-type units.)
R-MF: 10 single family units (6,000 sq. n./dwelling
unit) or for example 10 one-bedrooms, 10 two-
bedrooms and 7 three-bedrooms, for a total of
27 units in a multi-family setting or, alterna-
tively, 60 studios, or some other combination
of the above units.
(Note: 1:1 FAR for R-MF currently under review.)
L-l, L-2: 100 lodge units at 450 sq. ft./unit with 89 units
as free market lodge units and 11 units as
required employee units to maximize available
FAR.
(Note: Residential units in L-l or L-2 have the
same limitations as in R-MF.)
R-6/RBO: 18 units (3,375 sq. ft./dwelling unit; 9 units
must be emp 1 oyee hous i ng)
R-15/RBO: 8 units (7,500 sq. ft./dwelling unit; 4 units
must be employee housing)
R-MF/RBO:
20 one-bedrooms. 20 two-bedrooms, 14 three-
bedrooms,Jor a total of 54 units in a multi-
family setting, or, alternatively, 120 studios,
or some other combination of the above units.
._.._'--~.~-_.~_.,-"-
Planning Office
Recommendation: Among the above alternatives, the only ones which we find
acceptable at this time are R-15 and R-6, since these would
enhance the moderate density, long~term residential character
of this area which all of our adopted plans and policies
suggest. We recommend that you recommend to City Council that
the site be zoned R-15 for the following reasons:
1. By zoning the site R-15, you would be providing the
property owner with a slight increase in allowable
density but will not contradict good planning practice
by substantially upzoning the property without the
demonstration of a significant public purpose.
("', -
Memo: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
Page Four
November 10, 1981
2. An R-15 designation would be most in keeping with the
open space character of Shadow Mountain and with the
moderate density, long-term residential character of
surrounding zoning and conforming land uses.
3. It is not appropriate to designate a site as R-MF on the
assumption that the property owner may eventually submit
an application which meets the intent of your zoning
action. Over time, our policies and programs regarding
employee housing have changed, and the concessions we
are willing to make today in the name of employee housing
may not be acceptable in the future when a specific
application is submitted. Once we have upzoned this
property we have given the property owner a certain expec-
tation of a development right if code-complying conditions
are followed. We do not believe that you should create
such expectations in advance of the submission of an
application, but instead should offer your receptivity
to any request to rezone the property which is associated
with a justifiable development application.
"
,....."
"
("',
f.'1e
-----
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Zoning of Mountain Edge Annexati'on (Known as Koch Lumber Property)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing 11'1'11 be beld before the
Aspen Planning and Zonl'ng COI11Illission .on Tuesday, November 17. 1981 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.. in. the City Council Chambers. City Hall,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the proposed zoning of property, the Mountain
Edge Annexation (formerly known as the Koch Lumber Property) to one of several
possible zoningcategori'es, including R~6, R~15, R-Mf andl~2, further infor~
mation may be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925~2020,
ext. 224.
151 Olof Hedstrom
, Chainnan, Aspen P1annmg and Zoni)Jg Commission
Publ1'shed in the Aspen Ttmes on October 22, 1981
C1'ty of Aspen Account
".-.~' .. , "
,--,..'~~RTlr 1:c.~rE\'Or~~;/
/
I hereby certtfy that on tn:ts twenty..-ftl"rt allY' of OctOQeJ', 19B1 a true
and corre.c-t"copy of the Notice of Publ'ic Heartn~ C€lu0Ye} l'egil,rdl~ng 1I1ounta!'n
Edge Annexation zorrtrrg (formerly known as Koch Lumber Propertyl was dC:POSl ted
into the U.S. mails, postage prepaid, €lnd addr~ssed to the il,ttached 11st.
.-." - "
....- <."-" '..;;;;;;.;.:^ \.~..._~',,-.. '''''','W.
-""~.'~""" ",.. ''''-'.-". ~.'''-_..'.
,
,.....,
'"""
,~
,,'i. .
'Ili';;"
--f,y~
-
Lr/--fttFIU
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Zoning of MOuntain Edge Annexation (Known as Koch Lumber Property)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the'
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 22, 1981 at a
'-meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the proposed zoning of prope~tyo=t~-Mountain
Edge Annexation (formerly known as the Koch Lumber PropertY(I,aS R-15. ..further
information may, be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 S~')pen,
925-2020, ext. 224.
Is/Olaf Hedstrom ,_
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on September 3, 1981
City of Aspen Account.
. .
\~
',i~'..,t.;":i
..
1""""\
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
,....,
I hereby certify that on this second day of September, 1981, a true
and correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regardin~ Mountain Edge
Annexation zoning (formerly known as Koch Lumber Property) was deposited
into the U.S. mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following:
Mountain Edge Annexation/Koch Lumber Company Property
Adjacent Property Owners
1. C.M. Clark
Box 566,
Aspen, CO 81612
Block 61
Lots A,B
Hyman Street Duplex Condo
Lots C,D, WJ,E
2. Will F. Nicholson, Jr. and Shirley B. Nicholson
30 Cherry Street
Denver, CO 80220
3. Edwin W. Baker, Jr.
650 South Cherry
Denver, CO 80222
'1
I
4. William D. and Margaret W. Snare Lots EJ,E, F, G
300 Clermont Street
Denver, CO 80224 S' /' (/. I/'~Z."
-To' -KeJL M&'~ JtrJ v-rebft CY~1/(/../jfl1lUi{'
5. Green Family Trust vol'Ht "I; Lots H, I I
&t;c I/O'!
AM~
Lots K,L,M,N,O,P
Miami, Florida
6. Peter Mocklin
Box 807
Aspen, CO 81612
Aspen West Condo Lots Q,R,S
7. William Wesley Hewitt Unit lA
and Chris W. Leverich
104 W. Cooper St.
Aspen, CO 81611
8. Linda D. Woodcock Unit 1
403 Executive Cl ub Bldg.
1776 S. Jackson
Denver, CO 80210
9. Heather Campbell Wurtele Unit 2
Box 10151
Aspen, CO 81612
10. Michael F. Clement Unit 3
Box 2960
Aspen, CO 81612
.,
.
,.....,
'-',
11. Anne S. Cooke
Box 9431
Aspen, CO 81612
12. Anita L. Colony
Box 3174
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 4
Unit 5
BLOCK 69
Hyman Apts. Condo
Lots A,B
13. Terry A. and Janet L. Miller Unit 1
21873 W. Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
14. Glenn Eugene Law
Box 2537
Aspen, CO 81612
Der Berghoff Condo
15. Glennis George Beck
Box 1111
Aspen, CO 81612
16. Albert M. and Myrtle S. Rosen D~2
Box MM
Taos, NM 87571
Units 2,3,4
Lots K,L,M,N
Unit D-l
17. Horace E. and Edith Thompson D~3, S~2, S-4
and Verne G. and M.W. La Tourette
5619'Marador Circle
Shreveport, LA 71109
18. Lucretia Donnell D. Coke D-4
7130 Roya 1 Lane
Dallas, TX 75230
19. James W. Manning and D~5
Harriet M. Manning
4193 South Dahlia St.
Englewood, CO 80110
20. Robert H. Durham, Jr. 0-6
717 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2460
Denver, CO 80202
21. Fred C. and Lucetta M. Larkin S-l
One Cove Lane
Littleton, CO 80123
.
,-",
,-,
22. Steven R. Stunda S-3
and Susan L. Stunda
230 Stony Run Lane, Apt. 2-D
Baltimore, MD 21210'
23. Dr. Hugh J. McGee
3928 S. Jasmine
Denver, CO 8023.7
S_5
24. James & Carolyn Carder
5.769 Snowberry Drive
Littleton, CO 80123
25. Dwight Shellman
Little Red Ski Hostel
720 E. Hyman, Aspen
26. City of Aspen
C.M. Clark Again
27. Douglas B. Clark
Box 3311
Aspen, CO 81612
C.M. Clark Again
Aspen Wild Condo
28. LyleD. Reeder
Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
S-6
Lot 0
BLOCK 54
Lots A-I
Lots K,L,M,N,O
Lots P,Q
Lots R,~
BLOCK .70 -
Lots A,B,C
Unit 101, 103, 301, 302
29. Joseph R. and Barbara P. Tarbet Unit 102
Box 3640
Aspen, CO 81612
30. Stuart Will i ams Unit 201
18 Field Point Road
Fairfield, CT
31. Isaiah Coleman Unit 202
Box 11239
Aspen, CO 81612
32. Robert G. Gardner Un it 203
5 Hilliard Place
Cambridge, Mass
33. William R. Hough Unit 303
One Beach Drive, Apt. #1002
St. PeterSburgh, Florida 33.731
.
-
,-,
34. WjJ Ranch, Inc.
Box 4765
Aspen, CO 81612
35. Leonard W. Koval and
Barbara W. Koval
920 For~st Glen West
Winnetka, IL 60093
36. Clifford J. Llew~llyn
and Karen L. Llewellyn
122 East Durant Street
Aspen, CO 81611
BLOCK 70 Cont'd.
D,E,F and West 25' of G
D 5' of G and all of H,I
Lots P,Q
Aspen Townhouse Central Condo Lots K,L,M,N,O
Cl i fford J Ll ewe llyn and
Karen L. Llewellyn again
37. Aspen Townhouse Central, No.2 Lt, A Partnership
803 Bonita Drive Unit 2
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 1
38. Philip H. Fredrick Unit 3
46 Bridle Path
Orchard Park, NY 14127
39. Harvey C. Taylor Unit 4
West 301 N. 9430 Highway E
Hartland, WI 53029
40. Charles L. and Gale L. Severy, 'Unit 5
Margaret S. Johnston,
Charles Lamb Severy and
Richard L. Severy
30 Dexter Street
Denver, CO 80220
41. Myrtis Mixon Collins Unit 6
Box 3828
Aspen, CO 81612
42. James R. Shenk, As Trustee of the
Shenk Trust Agreement Unit u
Box 9647
Aspen, CO 81612
43. James R. Shenk, As Trustee of the Shenk
Agreement Unit 8
Box 1272
Carefree, AZ 85331
44. Harry Uhlf~lder
Box 1165
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 9
.
, .
/""".
BLOCK 70 Cont'd.
45. S. Elliot Harris
and Marsha K. Harris
8200 Symphony Drive
Baltimore, MD 21208
46. S. Elliot Harris
and Marsha K. Harris
8200 Symphony Drive
Pikesville, MD 21208
Unit 10
Un it 11
EAMES ADDITION
47. Dorothy Shalt J/(JAI~~ Block 1, Lots 1-15
Box 5C "It! LaJ1Tr'IA,{J
en, CO 81612 I
48. David E. Barbee Block 5, Lots 1-9
Hallie B. Rugheimer
John W. Ba rbee
Box 788
Aspen, CO 81612
49. Hans B. Cantrup Block 6 All
Box 388
Aspen, CO 81612
Timber Ridge Cond~
50. Mike Licht, Manager
131 E. Durant
Aspen, CO 81611
Block 4, Lots 1,2,3,4
21 Units
51.
Li ft One Condos
Mike Licht; Manager
131 E. Durant
Aspen, CO 81611
~ ~aW/lAgain
J(!/cI 1) l:ctI11r'lfJ
Davi d E. Barbee r
Hallie B. Rugheimer
John W. Barbee
Box 788
Aspen, CO 81612
Pitkin County
--
Block 4, M-B (what?)
31 Unus
52.
53.
BLOCK 62
/""".
em/COUNTY PLANNING OFF1Cf:
r 130 S. GALENA
'JlSPEN. COLORADO 816 I 1
t..
""
'-
~,.,'~'""
'-,
-~ "'?""
:?"'.{'", ,'~
~ ",j'),,',
" f'<."" "':~). ,': ';:::',c;,
.t/ ", '....' ,-:,"
~ ~?~} <:::}}v:~~";j-'~~~>:,,_. '
~d <Y6: \. "~:~_ c',", ',' '::
~~"~.l~/yiii'iiam Wesley Hewitt
1-~A~\,~'t ,. and Chris W. Leverich
'V ~'l 04 W. Cooper Street
Aspen, CO 81611
i'
- --- -_:::::-
---
----
-; ~':::'f&
( '\801,
I ,\ r Ii;!
, 't',d3S-"
o __ C:::
CITY/ COUNTY PLANNiNG OFFiCe:
r 130 s. GALENA
ASPEN. COLORADO SJ..{I i 1
ROil
10-P'" ,
StIVO '
/J"CI,,~ 1/EASON o,~!
Fid, ,'''''____.. CHECKEO
Il1s~ ,-~I') !Jf/kno~Hefl1~"-'
Itti, !;1!7J",_,"'/ -"f;fJ
~~~rr~~r8$s ~
~~;":;,~~----/
..""'" "'Ii '"G,w. ---:::..ee, ;;:'
---.rt," '" ~ ____ ___
~~~
f"-,
crn/COUNTY PLANNING (l~l"lel1i
(-.. 130 s. GALENA
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
,-
~.,.-
/ \~'Y:-f) (:::~~~~~~...:"""" ~~;
\::1'2,1, J~~~0~
,._,.,<)/:lD -".,,'
. ;;: ;-y ..~'52:;~i~,~ ~
NO MAIL RECEPT Acn
Stuart Wi 11 iams
18 Field Point Road
Fairfield, CT
..:)
. ~- c r.-~ ~;' ,',':.;":<" ,. . .
/ \~ " I~ ':::-;::;';~'cr,~
\.,J~ I,'h' ,..
t StP-Z'Cl Ir-,.;" }ij
\ 1.~j-1Z);:if!,',i ~
,Cr-'L('" -,:rp _.~ ..
...:..'!-,;.;/ :~.,), ~..__..-
~.
~
~.J r
~ ,., y-.-'
;<;,_<' ~h"
'~~~ Townhouse Central, No.2 Ltd.,
,A Partnership
803 B'onita Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
--.~-
....-.,_.--....~---
_. -~^....-.-
--------.-...-......----
---
----.,~,~_....-
-_._----"""'.,.,...,-...,.~_.""...~
"
, '
,~;?~)-~:),c-~~<-?"" -......
/ \(' I'v\~....,,:q
[ SEi'-Z'3l )~;.~!<~t'
__~:(~llt
crrY/COUNTY PLANN1NG OFF e't
r 180 S. GALENA
ASPEN. COLORADO Sl61 1
("
,..,..:......... ..c....,
'><:-:,:,',":""::';:
. 'N 10 SENDER '
.' : l:~L,12<'. M A[)f')f~f,:SSEf.)
" ., .' tjN'At~l..E: TO FOt~ARE)
"..,..~;~--'._~_.~.~...;....--'-.-'-'---" '--_':":-~.>:~-_/
09/1)8181
CITY/COUNTY PLANNING OFFICII!
r- 130 S. GALENA
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
~
/~S'2;~~\':':::.~J,us
~ Sf? - 2'8; Co:. .:7 ~;
" 1;": /;'. i i__
~, .':':"E.?\~~~.' ,_
\..,.... " /.~i;..,~-
-'<~'DLr~ p.D "" ~ '. K j
--.___u~ 'D.52335!~_
CAI:;: 1,9 1l41l'1~')~)N"l ll9/ll'lIf:11.
RE.TlIRN TO t;I::'Nnf'}~
NOT 1)F1~r.VERA13i F~ AS ADl')I:~E~lSFI)
UNAF:1 E TO FORWAJ'd)
James and"caro1yn-Cal'der--
5769 Snowberry Drive
Littleton, CO 80123
r
CITY/COUNTY PLANNING OFFiCi
130 S. GALENA
r ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
" \.:i~~~ ;:
QCiZI'S\ }. "j~,. ~ \ -= ~\ 8 : \~
, "
.. t' '" \I L--...-----
COI-Q' y,ll.z3.S\
"'1)-E;
~PltD
'vo,
~~n TQwnnouse Central,
803 Bontta Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
kWc ~ tf1:IlI- 'Ut- ?f
No.2
r
......
(~- ~ 'Ulf ~I'O
/~
' ,
" '-1/'
l t',~, He~ttt
'i~<2~" .t-'t:/'., Wtlli~ W:S:l~: Levericu
~. " "1'O~~" ,and CurlS: 'Street
~'% .' ''9, Cooper
',~..: ,:;.:; CO 81611 NO MAil RECEPTACLE
""
"'.,.......,.--.,:
"-~'-J ,. ~..c:
. -:-~~;:::;-~-~~L, ~n..... ~~.
";::.;', Sl-'C'Ji,\"":_ 1','1';
\',.. . ...... ~,
'l: ~::7','41
Z I '81 ". J~ 1; i ~
OCT :. ..~. I
.. t To. ~ l
?Bszm...
PLANNING OFFIC;;1!
CITY/COUNTYS GALENA I
130, DO SUI1
r ASPEN. COI..ORA
r
,':~ -,-~ ~, ) !,' , 'J .r 'r-:r:1
?rTitl i. j i ,e I ' I i'i'i<l '('1 'i 9" i ~
n~ i ,'I i~; i.I;! .;iJJ@L,LLlJ
" ft1 FTl !/ ~f:f'f :1 kit-! :n'rrT~i
~ i j j ~blll1lJ1JJ ., LtJJI I . LLlJ 0',
"~,e~, [R;>.' ~~;t[.,......., t;
I J- ,n !1t1~~rJ)I~?:r1T. i I jT". )"1
y i. , 1 ; i .'-!...-.\ , ~p ~ 1. I ~ /~, ,,; !
G~x r~ '=44 -4~,,::,:4tJ.:,:,tc;~:
~ I'~~'_,~~ 11__
'. "'- --"
En be.e. ))u.t'~]1
as ptr i
~,~.w 0.+ ~{)Jse:.sa: I
, , .
I ' I
-T-~
1 I".
, ' '
.
-'--.!-...;
I I i
__L.__,.\......
; j i :
i i
.~-."...._-'...,
f; I
i ;
_..L..U
~I
fTITI ,11-11' rI!2IJ,~~Tf'I,7:'~;'1 "i! I Ill, rn
! l! 5, I 6-", "1]! ! " (, '. " , ' , j '"'" ~"" "i ", "I "" Ii!
I I ! I t 'j ; i,.,':,i. 1. t,"::,,,:,.::: 1, ...._,~",44.,,11 I,.,,'
l: .?3:<1,; ";"~',,; 1:::;,~:!qJl! , """" _ _ _ , __
,,' :w.;"@~-'---t"""~_. '-'---'f'3 '---
l~1~3I~1~I;I~I~r~tl~ ITlJit~J 'ea; 21:1' rzi 3~r~1~~
r-.. :....':.-'7-=r,~t.~;,.-;,,:.;'~,.'-:~;$=,; Ii', I,' " ',", ' ~'--\,' J..._...."-_.._-~~.c.:,.,',.~ fi 'v...{\.
.')I~;'<", \.,t,...".....""..,.-~ . . L.:,,'~.,~ ". ,~~
CLl _.,L__,--<_-~.,--,iS' '. _ ~~~ L-. . ~ '^''''C----'..'.. ...,
~U~N, ~, . , , Ii ~~,': 'I -I !Q~_~III U 1.1 r. u'
l'I'i'i'i~1J ~'I i :j.u f<b~nTi
LLJ..LL._""(;.,,, :, 1:) 1 I
~~....
-:prOpet<4t OuJnetS' ~
wj;Yl- 310 i!; ,.'
~ ~~~.:;.;~."~,,,,--...:...-,
, ; I i I I '1
~ I : f !I I
! . ; l ~ .!
!: , I
.,~.-........".-----~
~.'
i~:-T-'-~-r~'-
-"-'"
~"-'''\.''::;;;/;
Ill! !
, . .. .. I '
, .;',
. ,
\- ; I I ; i ;
'" L...t.J._l..Li
, .,
~ ro>t',~I:;~i:i?:~":,
, , , '/""\' , , ,
:...~, : .t\h,....""---l-~<_...._..J
r~-:-~~.*-:-- '<.,.-:.__.~,-_...,..~.~~;
v: ; ';: i ! L",J ~;! (;. r,.) (1 ,~ :l
1 j , i;: :
;. i . .l-.J..-L.....L.J....-J
c-'~, .==1
~.--~:~-7~'{
L..__,_.~_._~\2..L
; :..i
I
1
!
.~
i
<'
,3
~-~,.._~ ...-. .-.......--
~Tlrrrm ;:
i'."~J".j_"._L..L...i,_.: .".._~_j
,-------.--..-!
' ,
I
i
':;~Z':~,,>:;::
PA'JX
!_.___._.__~._..._.,,----1
r.w.......;..,.~_..'"_~_.~.-r_.~_:.__.
, , i :
Gl.iJc,.L___.l..J
,~
-. . '--- - 'f"'-- 'T-]
: ! Ii: 1 i ! !
~ / ! I ( ;:!!
'"'
eJ";
,
; ,
,
~
;.,",,,,",,,,,,,"0.
fTmrrpl
: _l,_.i .L_LLHi".~,_ ;~ ..
~~"'.,;,,,,,
'A~
l
.. '-,...._-"-.-~l..'
;" ,; i .1
, i I ! , .
; j ,. ,. ,
^.,-.-~...,.--.-..._._~"._--~ -~
r-rr-Tl
, i I !
, ,
I
- ,
1-:"~1
Ii
I I I I I.' r;-;'l
! i i 1" i I ! ; ~ i
_G_Lli_~.J
cr;- 'q-i'-'
[li.1 t II LU
:.::~ r----..,..",-.-_7 ".,
II 'I I I, !
z ,.:! 1
'! !
\ .~
-i~"T-7"-T\!r-'n
. : '
,r'J,." _
"if . .,..K\\ ..~...
Ii [J~lrS}
~-;. .
--":---T-"''i--''-:-~''-''!''-''~
, , I ! I I '
,. I. , . . I '
! \ i l' i ! ~
~ .. i .: ..
~__..__",_.:,_~--L.J I
rTTT~1 -,-1-1'1'1
, ' : : .. ' { , ;!
i i tJ@l'iii"
, I' f \, >
~_~~_: _:.__l~_~.._;.._~.:
;
,
, !
W~GNER
(:) i
'"
"
Pt.;.;,K
,:1.'0
r-r-'
I '
I,
i :
, '
'.
I
I
~
i'
.!
'-:::-i
;. r :1
:"""--';1;
"
I
.--_..",J
, .j ..
*- f
t
,
1'1
~
~_.'" -"....-'''''.,. .,.".'......:.....'..;0. ~~'l .'~~._..~....:&i.!i".,;.-::: ~.io:;.:;.,:;".;.l.. ';'...,', ..;..-,.-.:,.,.,).,,;.::;"~ i. ~:..';::,;"';;:";,"., ,,,i.', ;,' ,;"',,"",~i::.... ... ,..,.:,~'-;::o'''';'"-',,,:I. .... \ ,....~"""-.....,
...--.'-.-..
,"
" '
~~~~@O/twWF~
420 E, HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
.
"""
,.....,
MEMORANDU~1
TO: Aspen Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
FROM: Mark Danielsen, HBC Investments
RE: Zoning of Mountain Edge Annexation
DATE: September 24, 1981
The move to zone this property was recently initiated at the request of the
city attorney, when he noted that recent case law "seems to imply that a
court may declare a tract of unzoned property free from all municipal or
county restrictions." Consequently the proposal to zone the parcel R-15
is a hOlding action necessary to preserve city restrictions on an otherwise
annexed but unzoned piece of property. It must be noted however, that this
parcel has been annexed since 1979, and that the property owner could have
come in any time during the past two years with any kind of development
proposal and received mandatory approval. Yet, we did not. We voluntarily
held back any application until the parcel was appropriately zoned, The
property owner is still willing to enter into a written agreement that no
development application of anyi~ind will be made until the property is
designated under a specific zone.
This parcel was annexed in November, 1979, to enable a project with an employee
housing goal to be accomplished. Annexation was th~ vehicle by which such
employee housing was to be created. The reason for annexation was to take the
property out of the R-15 zone in the county and create an RMF zone for a project
,
that would create employee housing for the Music Associates of Aspen. The
concept is of having the M,A.A. use employee housing for its students during
the summer, with those units available for general employees of the area in
the winter. Consequently, the specific purpose of annexation was to enable
a multi-family residential project to be placed there. (See minutes of City
Council meeting, 11-12-79 and 11-26-79, attached.)
1"""\
,-,
Aspen Planning Department
September 24, 1981
Page two
The property is also contiguous to RMF and L-l zones. (See area map, attached.)
Hence, the zoning of the property to RMF is also compatable with the surrounding
neighborhood and existing uses of that neighborhood. Indeed, at the time
of annexation review, City Council was shown the concept and general view of
an RMF project - and the council proceeded to approve the annexation for the
purpose of implementing an ~1F project.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the public hearing on the zoning
of this property be continued for a minimun of 3-4 weeks to a regularly
scheduled meeting. The purpose is twofold:
1) To enable sufficient time to conform to legal requirements for
advertising to the community of a public hearing on zoning the property to
RMF. Such notice would not supercede the notice of public hearing on R-15
zoning, but would merely be in addition to the original notice.
, i
, 'I
2) Concerns have recently been expressed by the Shadow Mountain
Nei ghborhood as to genera 1 impacts on thei r nei ghborhood in terms of traffi c,
land Use, and zone requirements. Recommemdations have been made by this group
to vacate Some sections of Garmish and Cooper Streets as well as implement
new trails and parks. A specific reference is made in the proposal to the
Mounta i n Edge Annexa ti on: "One nega ti ve impact of the nearby commerc i a 1 core
would have been mitigated simply by working with a pending development project
(the Cantrup plan for the Koch Lumber parcel.) It looks like a low cost
solution to a major neighborhood and city-wide problem." We agree. We
believe we can create an RMF project that will help mitigate these neighbor-
hood concerns. A continuance is vitally important,so that this area may be
properly zoned in accordance with the original intent and purpose of the
annexation as well as responding to a con~unity need and resolving neighbor-
hood concern and city-wide problems.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues.
----..,.
~,
,....,
,"""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Alan Richman, Planning Office~' ,~~
Louis Buettner, Engineering Department~~
September 15, 1981,
Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Engineering Department has no comments on the zoning of the
Mountain Edge Annexation.
The Engineering Department does request that it is informed of the
zoning as it must update the Official Zoning map. Please route the
zonin~ ordinance or resolution to:
Robert Wall
Engineering Department
Extension 221
LB/co
/"""
,-."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
DATE: September 8, 1981
Lot Size:
1.27 acres (approximately 55,320 square feet)
Location:
Between Garmisch and First Streets and between Cooper and
Durant Avenues (formerly, Koch Lumber Company)
Proposed as R-15
On November 26, 1979, City Council finally adopted on second
reading Ordinance 76, series of 1979, annexing to the City a
portion of previously unlncorporated territory. ThlS annexa-
tion, known as the Mountain Edge Annexation, encompassed
slightly more than 1 1/4 acres WhlCh had been formerly occupied
by the Koch Lumber Company.
Zoning:
Background:
As requlred by the Colorado reVlsed statutes, a public hearing
to consider zoning the newly annexed property was scheduled
before the Aspen P1annlng and Zoning Commlsslon on January 8,
1980. For reasons unknown at this pOint ln time, the hearing
was cancelled by public notice ln the Aspen Tlmes and was
never re'-schedu1ed. Therefore, the requlrement of C.R.S.
that an' annexed property must be zoned withln 90 days was not
met. Recently, this fact came to the attention of the City
Attorney, who noted that recent case law "seems to imply that
a court may declare a tract of unzoned property free from all
munlclpa1 or county restrlctl'ons." He suggested that we
pursue a zoning of this parcel aS'soon as possible, and the
Planning Office responded by settlng thls hearing before you
tonlght.
ReVlew Criterla: At the present time, there are no established crlteria for the
review of zoning or rezoning appllcatlons.However, as part
of the ongolng code streamHningactl'vities by the Planning
Office, we have developed criterla which would be useful in
conslderlng any zoning actlon. The crlteria WhlCh we propose
include the following:
1. Compatibi1 ity with surrounding zoning districts as regards
neighborhood characteristics, area and bulk requirements,
and on-site sUltabillty charactedstics.
2. Impacts on trafflc, parklng and avatlabllity of util ities.
3. Compatlbility wlth the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966,
as amended, ln terms of goals, policies and general
locations of land use districts.
4. Impacts on the econ0llJY of the community.
5. Impacts on air and water pol1utlon.
6. Whether practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship
can be documented as a result of strict interpretation
of current zoning requlrements for the s1'te.
Each of these criteria is addressed in detail below.
1. Compatibility with surroundtng zoning distrlcts.
The P1annlng Offtceh.as: developed a map, whlch w111 be
available at your meeting,lndicating the surrouding zoning
and existtng land use in the vicinlty of the annexation.
1""'\
.-,
Memo: Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning
Page Two
September 8, 1981
Surrounding zoning consists primarily of R-15, R-6. R-MF,
L-l and L-2 zone districts. Close scrutiny of the map would
indicate that locations to the immediate north and west of
the site are generally zoned residential, while those to the
south and east are generally zoned for lodge uses. The
Planning Office interprets this to mean that the West End
neighborhood is bas1'ca11y intended to be residential in
character while the land at the base of the mountain is
intended to be used for accommodations.
The above analysis would therefore indicate that a deter-
mination needs to be made as to whether this location is most
properly considered to be part of the ski area, base or part of
the West End. I'nthis regard we would note that the Aspen
Land Use Plan designates this sHe as mixed residential,
although directly adjacent to the commercial Core and accommo-
dattons areas. We would further note that this neighborhOOd
is currently wttnessing a great deal of new development of
duplexes and has recently raised the issue of excess bulk in
new residential development. This netghborhood is concerned
about the site and appears to consider tt most properly
part of its concerns and not those of the base of the
mountain.
2. Impacts on traffic, parking and util1'tl'es
To understand thepossi'b1e impacts of any deve.10pment on
this site, it is first necessary to know the potentta1 number
of untts which could Be constructed on it in the various
approPriate zone. di'stricts. We wi 11 perform these ca 1 cula-
tions based on an assumed lot size of 60,000 square feet, due
to known adjacent hOldings of the owner of this property.
Following are the number of dwelling units which could be con-
structed on the likely zone districts for this site:
R-6: 13 units (4500 sq. ft./dwelling unit)
R-15: 6 units (10,000 sq. ft./dwelling unit)
R-MF: 10 Single family units (6,000 sq. ft./dwelling unit)
or for example 10 one-bedrooms, 10 two-bedrooms and
7 three-bedrooms, for a total of 27 units in a multi-
famHy setting or, alternatively, 60 studios, or some
other combination of the above units.
(Note: 1:1 FAR for R-MF currently under review.)
L-1, L-2: 100 lodge units at 450 sq. ft./unit with 89 units
as free market lodge units and 11 units as
required employee units to maximize available FAR.
(Note: Residential units in L-1 or L-2 have the
same b)nttations as in R-MF.)
R-6/RBO: 18 units (3375 sq. ft./dwe11ing unit; 9 units
must be employee housing)
R-15/RBO: 8 units (]500,sq. ft./dwelling unit; 4 units
must be employee housing) ,
R-MF/RBO: 20 one-bedrooms, 20 two-bedrooms, 14 three-
bedrooms, for a total of 54 uni,tsin a multi-
family setting, or, alternatively, 120 studios,
or some other combination of the. above untts.
As can be seen, the numBer of units which can Be built on this
site varies considerably, Based. on tile zone to which it is
designated. The l)npacts of the rezoning on traffic and
r",
Memo: Mountain Ed9~ Annexation Zoning
Page Three
September 8, 1981
'''~'' .~
-- j'--"-
utilities would also vary, and would likely be reviewed as
part of any request for either subdivision or GMP allocation.
Therefore, the key question to be determined by tflis analysis
is whether this site can accommodate under 10 units, 10-20
units, 20-50 units or 100 or more units, baSed on anticipated
impacts on the character of the neighborhood and community in
genera 1 .
Clearly, the expressions of the neighborhood would indicate
that excessive development is now impacting this area and
needs to be limited in the future. Additionally, since this
land was previously zoned R-15 in the County, with a 15,000
square foot minimum lot area requirement per dwelling unit,
only 4 units could have been built on it prior to annexation.
Therefore, even zoning this property as R-15 in the City does
lead to a slight increase in allowable density, while placing
it in a less restrictive district would result in a substantial
increase in density due to annexation. Finally, we would
note that this site backs directly on to Shadow Mountain,
which is undeveloped in this area, and any intense development
along the toe of its slope could seriously affect its open
space character.
3. Compatibility ,with the Aspen Area General Plan
As was mentioned previously, this site i,s designated as
"mixed residential" on the Aspen Land Use Plan, although i.t
is bounded by both commercial and accommodations designations.
Moreover, the adjacent existing land uses include many small
lodges which were made non-conforming by the rezoning of the
City which accompanted the adoption of tMt plan. The avowed
purpose of that action was to eliminate the possibility for
the creation of new lodgeS in this area, whil e encouraging
new lodge development at the base of the mountain in the
downtown area and encouraging the creation of a residential
neighborhood in this portion of Aspen. The zoning of thts
property to R-15 would be compatible with these poltcies of the
Land Use Plan.
4. Impacts on the Economy
Arguments have been made to the Planntng Office from several
sources that there exists a need at the present time to
i.ncrease the opportunittes available for lodge development.
These arguments have included requests to increase the lodge
GMP quota, to rezone the nonconforming lodges to lodge uses,
to permit timesharing and to provide for transfer of develop-
ment rights. The Planning Off tee recognizes the sensitive
nature of each of these questions and of the larger issue, that
of skt area/bedbase capacity in Aspen and in Snowmass. We
are presently engaged in an overall update of our GMP and
expect to be addressing each of these issues during that
process. Until we have developed our own policy position to
present to P & Z and Council, we are hesitant to join the
bandwagon which encourages drastic changes i,n our existing
lodge development policies. We therefore suggest that this
site not be considered for lodge development at this point in
time.
,
Planning Office
RecollJllenda t ion:
5. Impacts on Air and Water Pollution
No significant impact anticipated.
6. Practical hardship or Unnecessary Difftculties
Not applicable - property is currently unzoned.
Tbe Planning OffJcerecommends tb.at YOu direct u~ to preparL-__
a resolution, whereby you make speciftc findings regarding
this zonSns question and in whtchyoure.coJnro~ndthat City
Council zone this property R-15. ' '
>'-r_"_",__
,'<1-
P.O. Box MM
Taos, N.M. 87571
Sept. 7, 1981
Mr. Olaf Hedstrom, Chrmn.
Aspen Planning & Zoning Comm.
City of Aspen
1]0 S. Galena
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Mr. Hedstroml
Inasmuch as our property is diagonally opposite the
proposed Mountain Edge Annexation, we would like to
protest the zoning of the former Koch Lumber Property
to R-15.
Since we cannot attend the meeting, we wish this letter
to express our protest. Thank you.
Sincere lYlll
:I / /r-/ '-)..,' .?,/-'>
:It..(t0h :111//"'--- //tc;iM.. ht~
Albert M. & Myrtle S. Rosen
'-'.
,-,
PEN
130
asp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 4, 1981
TO:
Alan Richman
-
Paul Taddune~
..,.
FROM:
RE: Mountain Edge Annexation to City/Zoning to R-lS
Close attention should be paid to the procedural
requirements of Article XII, Chapter 24, of the Code,
particularly the provisions for notice and public
hearing.
PJT:mc
1<:.
1"'..
I"'.
'Wle
-
,,..'"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
City Engineering Department
FROM:- Alan Richman, Planning Office
I
RE: Mountain Edge Annexation to City/Zoning to R-15
DATE: September 2, 1981
----
,/
("',
("',
PEN
130
asp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 4, 1981
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE: Koch Lumber Yard Parcel
Attached is a case note concerning a 1976 Georgia case
which states a legal principle which may have applica-
tion to the Koch Lumber Yard parcel. As you know, the
Koch property is presently unzoned. Although I have not
actually read the case, it seems to imply that a court
may declare a tract of un zoned property free from all
municipal or county restrictions. I suggest, therefore,
that we pursue a zoning of the Koch Lumber Yard parcel
as quickly as Possible.
PJT/mc
r,
ord. 73, 1979
!hbile !lane Park'
regs
ord, 76, 1979
Annexing Koch
luntJer property
Mall/Olri strnas
decorations
:1
'I
"
"
!I
"
ii
Ellployee housing
seninar '
Beso, 21, 1979
1M> Canlmcial
allocations
1980
,.....,
,,-.,
277,
.::
Regular Meet.ing
Aspen City Council
November 26, 1979
Dave Farney told Council he felt the voters would approve this. It is very charming anc
a cost effective thing. Farney said it would be efficient to use electric power.
Councilman Behrendt said if this does go to the voters, he would 'like the routings as
part of it so that the people know where the cars will go.
Councilman Isaac moved to allow this to go to the voters for approval of franchise;
seconded by Councilman VanNess.
I
"
Councilwoman Michael said she felt if this gqes for a franchise, Council should decide
if they feel it is a good idea. If it goes to the voters in an ambivalent way, it is
not fair. Councilman Collins asked what a franchise obligated the city to. Stock said
the city would be granting permission to operate on city streets, charge certain rates
and to construct and operate. Councilman Parry said the city should have an opportunit)
to clean up the' town and get pollution free vehicles. The city needs to be far-sighted
to see an alternate method of transportation.
Finance Director Butterbaugh asked Council to delay a vote on this so that the staff anc
Council can go back through the information and make assessments on the impacts to the
city other than just the franchise. ,Mayor Edel agreed he did not have enough informa-
tion from staff and would like a written report.
Councilman Isaac withdrew his motion; Councilman Van Ness withdrew his second. Council-
man Behrendt moved to ask for comment from staff, from 'the highway department; to addres
the routes in question, 'the impacts on parking; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #73, SERIES OF 1979 - Mobile Home Park Regulations
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Stock told Council he has not had an opportunity
to put in writing all the changes.
Councilwoman Michael moved to continue the public heari~g; seconded by Councilman Isaac.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #76, SERIES OF 1979 .. Annexation of KOch Lumber Property
Mayor Edel opened the pUbl~q hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edcl closed the
public hear ing. , 'I
Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #76, Series of 1979: seconded by Council~ar.
Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE n6
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN UNINCORPORA1'ED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO was read by the city ~lerk
Stock told Council there is no zoning proposal at this point. This will be referred to
p & Z for their recommendation of what zoning is appropriate.
Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance #76, Series of 1979; seconded by Cou~cilwom~
Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Collins, aye; Van ~e~
aye; 8c~rendt, aye. Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER
1. Oecorations in mall. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council that Interior Gardens has approac
the crty about do~ng mall decorations for Christmas. Interior Gardens would coordinate
with the Chamber to do garlands, wreaths, and lights in the trees. If the city is
interested in making a contribution, this group would collect from the businezs communit
Ms. Butterbaugh said if the city would do the labor, the total cost would be about $3600
Councilman Isaac said he did not mind supplying the labor if the city had it. Council-
woman Michael said she felt the mall deserves some kind of decoration. Councilman
Behrendt said he would like to see the banner program increased this year. The majority
of Council said the city would supply the labor but not put any money into it.
2. Housinq Seminar. Planning Director R~ren Smith told Council 150 invitations to the
commun~ty pous~ng workshop have been sent out. This is scheduled for December 3 and 4.
The Gant is donating the conference room in the name of employee housing. Ms. Smith
requested an appropriation for wine and cheese social after. the first day. This will
cost about $200,
"
Councilman Behrendt moved to allocate $200; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor,
motion carried.
RESOLUTION #21, SERIES OF 1979 - GMP Commercial Allocations for 1980
Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution #21, Series-of 1979; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #21
(Series of 1979)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977,
September 1, 1979, was established as a deadline for submission of 1979
applications for commercial and of~ice development within the City of Aspen, ana
. ~,.. ._~. .
Ord. 73, 1979
Mobile lIcme Park
regs
Ord. 75, 1979
Mt. Bell tax
_.,~-'-......
/,'
Ord, 76, 1979
'ArU'lexation
Koch LurrOer
prq:erty
eso. 20, 1979
DUSing Price
Llidelines
-
,~
---,
276~
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
_...::
November 12, 1979
- ~-= ::
-::
. ~ .
Gideon Kaufman told Council the Lodging Association has beenrneeting with staff, P & Z
and Council on this and are rapidly coming up with recommendations and proposed legislatiG
for Council. The Lodging Association does not feel there is a need for a long moratoriun.
Within the next 30 days the Association should have statistics and legislation prepared.
Councilman Collins said he felt the time limit in the ordinance was too short. Council-
woman Michael said Council's duty is to do this as quickly as possible. The power of a
moratorium does not give Council the power to go on and on.
Councilman Van Ness closed the public hea~ing.
I. i~ Councilman Collins moved to read Ordinance 174, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
ij Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
Ii
if
"
'I
II
II
I,
'I
i
"
I,
"
1
II
ORDINANCE *74
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBDIVISION OF LODGE
AND HOTEL UNITS AND THE APPROVAL OF SUBIDIVISON EXEMPTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONDOMINIUMIZATION, TIME-SHARING OR SPLITTING THE FEE OF SUCH UNITS
was read by the city clerk.
Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance #74, Series of 1979, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Parry, nay,
Isaac, aye; COllins, aye; Van Ness, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #73, SERIES OF 1979 - Mobile Home Park Regulations
Councilman Van Ness opened the public hearing and stated Council had wanted a study sessi(
on this ,ordinance before second reading. Council set up a study session for Nov~mber 21
at noon.
Councilman Van Ness continued the public hearing to November 26, 1979.
Councilwoman Michael requested an executive session with the attorneys on the Aspen
Institute and the Plum Tree Inn status.
ORDINANCE #75, SERIES OF 1979;- Mountain Bell Telephone Tax
, '1
Councilman Van Ness opened the public hearing. Finance Director Lois Butterbaugh told
Council it costs Mt. Bell less to serve urban areas than country areas. Originally 2 per
cent of the revenues were paid to eVen that out. That was found to be unconstitution?l
because it was a gross revenue tax. The PUC will allow an,overall cost item on the
telephone bill.
Councilman Van Ness closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance
#75, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion cF\r.cil2'd.
ORDINANCE ,*75
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING REVENUE AND IMPOSING A BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX
ON TELEPHONE UTILITY COMPANIES OPERATIN9 WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN; PROVInING
FOR !'HE COLLECTION OF SAID TAXES AND FOR PENAL~'IES \-11TH RESPEC~' THERETO
was read by the city clerk
Councilman Isaac moved
by Councilman Collins.
aye; MiChael, aye; Van
to adopt Ordinance #75, Series of 1979, on second reading; seconde,
Roll call vote; CouncilmemberR Parry, aye; Isaac, aye; COllins,
Ness, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #76, SERIES OF 1979 - Annexation of Koch Lumber Prperty
~;~~~:!~;1~* :~~ ~~~o[;~~:~;:=~~:~ ~~~~~t;~k~~~ :; I;: ri.O~::;:::~:~; :I~:=;~::~~~::~ a j
ba.:..iJ! · f~"rfm:'~~;.=:"V~~?~;~:L.~. .....~.,..,]" ~,.~ ..loa!!" ._"06.. QO "e!I as
~.a-f6tt!n:i:'8"';'"""""1'hi's-Woa1:(!1)f!..'!lT!t".t"labl..."fu._J:.A<<i~.a M',..-{ng ~,.,~ 'f/;nt""'''':" 1i""'''''':'~''1 l...hl~y ARcierso
LepJS4WMAti'n9~cant.rup~.,;.€ounoH~~=:~~~p~ ~~il ~V''''&'>''-;;!lJ .u~~.. .~ td... ~I;o. ~ 'ils.l.
CO\U'I'~E!1"f'l"'I-!!Jaae""a'S'ked"'''Wh'at'''''W'a"s-p-l'ann~ol.UI'l;l' ....14, ww..-i i "0- n,,:,nQ_~~Q\l ,a.~; d....t.hey..-..ce
1"""';.,.... for-....pl_,~t.o ....v.. . b&ilj
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance,'#76, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE 176
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO was read by the city clerk
Councilman Isaac moved to adopt
by Councilman Parry. Roll call
aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye.
Ordinance #76, Series of 1979, on first reading; seconded
vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Collins,
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #20, SERIES OF 1979 - Housing Price Guidelines
Jim Reents, hOusing director, reminded Council they 'adopted rental price guidelines in
October 1978 to apply to the next building season, and also adopted a method to update
these on an annual basis to allow for an inflationary factor~ Resolution #20 proposes
two guidelines; those for new construction in the 1980 building season, and rental increa
for anything approved to be built in the guitlelines in 1979.
~""''l''
" '~-i
.',,,,,'-,'!Y.:,,,~',,b ~
'""
28 ZD 641
FLORIDA
VARIANCE
Property owner with an undersiz<!C! lot sought a
variance from frontage requirements in order to build a
single,family home, The zoning board denied the
variance, The court found that the propery owner had
showed that his hardship was unique and pecniiar to his
lot and not shared by other owners in the area. A
variance in this case would not alter the character of the
locality, interfere with the zoning plan, or interfere
with the rights of other adjacent properties. Absent the
variance, the lot would be totally undevelopable. The
court rejected the city's contention that the hardship
was self-created and self,imposed, as the property
owner knew of the zoning ordinance when he purchased
the lot, The court held that the property owner should
not be precluded from objecting to the zoning ordinance
merely because the ordinance was in force when he
acquired his lot without knowledge of the restriction.
Anon v. City of Coral Gables, District Co.urt of Appeals
of Florida [intermediate court1 Decided August 3,
1976, 336 So.2d420.
28 ZD 642
FLORIDA
ANNEXATION
Property owner sought to have the annexation of a
400-acre plot reversed, She contended that the property
which was completely uninhabited and being largely
wild' and unimproved received none of the municipal
benefits of the town, The court agreed, noting that, the
town provided no' water or sewage services or police
protection. n,o streets, and no municipal benefits other
/16
.
'~.".~~...""""~~. ,'~'
than the volunteer fire department. Thus the reasoning
that the area incorporated must be snited for municipal
purposes and must bear a just proportion to the
population included was not found here, The fact that
benefits would be availa.ble if the land were inhabited
and/or subdivided "does not constitute a metamorphic
transformation of agricultural land into municipal
property."
Johnson u. Town of $uwannee River, District Court of
Appeals of Florida [intermediate court1 Decided July
13, 1976, 336 So,2d 122.
C28 ZD 64:..?
GEORGIA
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Property owners sought to construct a neighborhood
shopping center on property zoned residential. The trial
court held the ordinance unconstitutional as. applied to
the property and ordered the issuance of building
permit, The city contended that this amounted to
judicial zoning, which is prohibited both by the Georgia
Constitution and the Georgia Supreme Court in Barrett
v. Hambly, 219 S.E.2d 399 (1975). The court noted
that the ,proper procedure is to, give the municipal
governing body reasonable time to rezone the tract to a
use classification that is constitutional. If the
goveminQ" authority does' not accomplish this p~,
s:lq l"I hqt l'p.sort toward obtaining- compliancewithit~s
judgment, the court'ma declare such tract unzonea
~ree fromJt11, mnnir1p:'ll', orcountv 'restnc'lons.
Therefore the trial cou should not have immediately
or ered the i,:,"'~"~"'o ,'nf ,the building pemut' or a
pUrPose for which the property was not zoned, It
should have directed the local govermng autnonfy to
rezone the property so that it would pass constitutional
muster and withhold any mandamus action. The
municipality was equally at fault for 'failing to provide
any zoning other than residential for the parcel.
City of Atlanta v. McLennan, Supreme Court of
Georgia [highest courtl, Decided June 8, 1976, 226
S,E,2d 732
28 ZD 644
GEORGIA
REZONING
Community group protested the action of the county
board of commissioners which amended the zoning
ordinance to rezone certain property from residential to
industria! to permit operation of a quarry. The court
held that a rezon,ing by the governing authority is a
legislative act and is presumed to be valid. It is, there-
fore, not mandatory that the board enter findings and
conclusions justifying the decision to rezone.
Hall Paving Company v, Hall County, Supreme Court
of Georgia [highest court1 Decided June 8, 1976, 226
S.E.2d 728
.
,
\
o
I
I
I
I
I
r
{l
H
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
Box E
Aspen, Colorado
,-,.,
, p~~
~. i/dt
, ~ 'NJ
~b!..~/
"S0Jvt 3) ) 1'179
ArII'l€Ka..i,'!h0
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
") ss.
C;:ounty of Pitkin )
I, 1,~i] liam ,1'. Dunaway do solemnly swear that
1 am the F'lt'lili'h'S'v of THE ASPEN TIMES;
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part,
and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has
a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub-
lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of PitKin,
for a period. of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior
io the first publication of lhe annexed legal notice or advertise,
' ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States
mol!ils.as second-class .matter 1.!J1der the provisions of the Act 'o~
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and ,that said newg..
paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal
notiees and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of-the.
State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published
in the regular and entire issue of 'every' number of said weekly
newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive. insertions; and
that the, first publication of said notice was in the issue of said
newspaper dated .r""'1J"''''Y:3 AD" 19.8.0; and that,
the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news.
psper dated
A.D., 19_
da~t:;#)u~~
~ /
Subscribe~ and sworn to before me,. a notary public in and for
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
9U$///J/'t-1 A.D..19W
I "
~ - /
.E~J/L:l a
Notary. Public
7
this
, day of
I . * /
//,.~
/:!.: );~;JL~: L < {..
'/ / I /
/1 C/r. /
,(~. '/ /j i'i.
-'7r-.~--o-:/ .'
My cornn:issiOll expIres
Copy of Notice
~
8el &-u.r 131 $d" 0/
'td~ ~~~M'~<!l ~
'-7-\ rst
CDOper ()Vl~efi{)~
]) tU'cwt1. &--vt ~
~
~ pUblic notice '--
He: Zoning: of Mountain Edge Annexation
(Koch Lumbe, !'roperty)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub,
lie hearing sCheduled to be held before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on
iTuesday, January 8. 1980. at a meeting to
begin at 5:00PM in the City CouneU Cham_
bers, ,2nd Floor, City HaU, 130 South
Galena Street. Aspen, to consider zoning of
property being a POrtion of Lot 1, Seetion 13
and Lot VIII. Section 12. Township 10
South,.R.ange85 West of the 6th PM, Pitkin
County, Colorado (Koch Lumber Company
Property).HAS BEEN CANCELLED
UNTIL FURTHER NO'1'ICE, Furth.. ,in,
fonnation may he obtained from the Plan-
ning Office, 120 South Galena. Aspen,
925-2020. ext 225.
I
/s/ Olaf Hedstrom
Olaf Hedstrom. Chairman
AapenPlanning and ZoningComntiSsion
Published in'lh. Aspen Tim.. January 3,
1980,
("',
I""\,
- tl21>t
"
PETI'l'ION
'ro: Ci ty of A;;pen Planning and Zonning :::)mmis~;lon
We, the undersign,ed, r'O\sidents ()f :5 tkin County;,CpJ:o;t'ad.o,.
r-espectfu lly'peti tion tha t th,= Commission rei ': mmend to thEl'J\.~pElIl,
City Council t,hat tile prope,rty c<>mmonly know D.5. th'J;.I<c>chJ:.!l~e;,~
Proporty now located in the City of A.spen, b zpned RMJ1' otcI.-Z>in
o.rde...., .to permit the development :)f an e,mploy, hOUSing. proje,ctforrJ!j..r"
the ,'1llA. . ...
f.?v;,t ~ot.-,J~.r.fl'''' II/v f- - Uh,;:f:s '.'.: '
Da'te Nam.. Acdr,'C';s
/l/iJ!-~_k~c1Jt't.yn ( ~,L.4-. :L)h",~"",_ ~,i : CI- - /J-~'-, ,
\~~]/~~ ~_., ____. =1M;kct- ~
li;-L'7--r-fu-,---.r- f ,_~,_-;-,--fo ~~,~_~._1l.~ ~"( L
llpzf8L - - ,_lliJ~ U(L~L~A-f) ~
//~ . r::;;2--7 e~~~..e.c:::., /~~--./
~++-fJ.L, tk----tlL J3.~~t.h 13- {)f'~ '
0/11 <r( ~ -- P/P. ___ ?J~_ ...~
~~V- n_~_, --- .., b--~~---
\ 11 "6 _.. g~,9,~-:213_.__ ~~.,~~
~ ---,. -----------"
9: o.!39/A_ $Y.Y?.._~r\i
jZ~~~)C, 8A'-{I--~
fu.~(n .~1J
f2 f9 ~o;( ?()(~ ~1&0
~.._-,.". ,.__._--,---_..~
"*-*_&4- ..~.
~ 3::'__,.,.2<2q:iZ_, . . , ' '
, ,_._,___4J~.;3,Q~_0,__,__ ~./
.... ~ ~
' -----. ---102,L'\----" . "'",
1JLt--~--.s 1.______
-----,~---h$-&!t:-------4:&~
~~ __'" '-6~ 4-~J.~"_,__,,G~
,___ ~ -<<~W------, Q~A
~ ~~~;~ ~~
,__,__:....~L~ll!4.___
-----lflJ.ArM/2tJ!L,
2 1f.5 s 7 ('1LliJVI/- (t;;rruv
__'.____,__________..._,.,...__,______ ._._._.____w."
--'-- ,e~_X_d'1.1.J:...,-~;2.f'1
____~, .Iu.~~
-,,----.PI<(j~f~.If~-,:.-. . . ..
t
'j' .:.,'(,'~;;'W;~';";!";, ;..,,;."" '
, .' ;,i";(;;;'," ;. ,:;k>,t;'U&.\';:'::d!?i':;;.:%.i<4i&;;@ni~;\ ~ i;ii
;:iJ,~i':tJ1ii"i.~;;~i,~!!:(:" ::,:;!i..",j.t~,8\~~~.',.t
~?t)
.,....,
PETITION
^
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zonning Commission
We, the undersigned, residents of Pitkin County, Colorado,
re$pectfully petition that the Commission recommend to the Aspen
City Council that the property commonly known as the Koch Lumber
Property now located in the City of Aspen, be zoned RMF or L-2 in
order to permit the development of an employee housing project for
:::eMAAo Neme Addreee ~
(,^~
II /17
.
II I,
~
\~t J1- I!L
.
'"
^
~.
\
PETITION
TO: Cit;' of Aspen Planning and Zonning Commission
!
we, t e undersigned, residents of Pitkin County, Colorado,
respectfully pet tion that the Commission recommend to the Aspen
City Council that the property commonly known as the Koch Lumber
Property now locat~~d in the City of Aspen, be zoned RMF or L-y@2in
order to permit the development of an employee housing project ~J
the MAA. !J
Date Name Address'
t
w
f-
(0,
s
tYJX ,.:;JPt:P ~ep?
/02-81.f It
,-
,-,
d'/
/ TO:
PET'ITICr,'IJ
--- "._'"..._._~_.",.. ,,-
City of .^spen PlarloirlJ and Zonn._DI
-, . .
!,,'CLlml~:;Sl.Cn
We" the :;ndersi,med, "esidents of i itkin Com, t,y, Colorado,
res"cctfully pE~titic:Cl that: the ',:orlmission r ,e'D:e'lend to the Aspen
Cit\, Council; that the property ,;:ommonly kno' i ,I,,; the Ko.,h Lumber
Property nOH located in the Ci t'r of Aspen, zoned R1'lF or L-2 in
ord"r to penni t the development of an emploi,' housing project for
the M.l\.A.
Dat(;; New 112: A,del f;,s
i r--- , ~---- 'l b ;;,---s: ~ ' ,,',' ,
II. "n..,~l1(IU.h -'-'___'_~,___~_ ::i__, _
i ( ?-_,"'j~ ,l~_______" )g' ~---,-~'M:J ,
'0f::~~*.. -~i1~-&(/'4"
;1/7---~-~ ~o" ---~/ ~~~--o:.s-~-
;rt:Jf31i>d/iz=___t.l t .0 F!~--- ~/
:/pd"':/!ll~_I-I ~ ~: to~~ J-'-I~'L~_: k-",
1/(7-,---, . -i:-----Iu.c-~,4--,-,----~ -:2,-,--'---710 __
11/ /t___ ~~-,__~~~ ",--Ji0.2U,U~ O(j_,_"_J~ p~ /
Il/17___ -----,--,---~ '-,-~-- {;o 'i~~/ ,,---,-__ffi f-e.., C, ,
\\{f1_u -- -"-~ '--------- -~j6"7.__ --,,-_,_.0l c, '-
,,'1.;1-. -.. .. -//7-------;=;-i7rj-/ -.7;---: _D~
I~j~l.. .~--~~_
~/7.,__,- - - -' --= ,.:. _____,__~tyj>=-, "--__J-
~(H I ~ < ..... -, -.J7) /.'d 11!I:. #f.-AA~
m ~/~~1i .' ,-,---~-,_-,___J~1 M!L~.A1f'!!7___A~L..
(~ft<\ if: '.' ~=~;~~.=~~~ 1/./1,;
'I/nb 1_ --~ ,,__ ,--,--__,___~..K3f3 ,,--------!tf:eQ/.
I {tULriil ___ ...L""- -~ 0
/lh'L_{l~ .... __3. . __~d:l,_
11\12/01 -- -'__,_ -----J(,,1s:-~._~k._~~1)r,:__ A.r~
1I/I1/lL ~ ~Yi1/"z-'6.< -,P_L ..6"..,.~~& 1'/./-"-
i t/JZt,L-,_~ ."--,---"":B.1l)L,,dt'liL_, ... i-/StfA,L_Io 91 b I 2-
1,61LtL '-, _:.. _ .. By.J:. 17i?:}::-___~)2~1 Co !?/.(/7-
_.....~- ---.-------,....-----...--.._"._._h_."_,____._"~._. ...__.____...__. _~_..".___,___,___._...._
-""'.--, ...-..--.-.--....------.--.-....-----., ._..._-_..._.~--,....,_._..- --------- -.-...-----.--....-....
'"
,.....,
PE'J'ITIC>:
TO:
Ci: '! of Aspen Plannir:'J and 20nn,;,1'1'
., . .
:~c~nmJ_SS.lon
We>, 1:he l;ndersigned,:esidents ()j
J:~e::::~ 1..1111' peti.t.:lon, that the <:ommission 1>'
Ci t.., Council' that tl1e property <'ommonly knO'
P:coperty now Toea ted in the Ci t. { of Aspen i
nrd'::r to per-Tnt. t .tbf:,:~ developrn'3nt of an emp
the f.ll\A.
[ it kin Cauney, Colorado,
OIL'lCncl to che Aspen
i'S the KOch Lumber
zoned RNF or L-2 in
,;,' hOlu;inc, [)roject for
iJat'.:;
Ncll:i1f2
,~d.c:. SE.;
~;-~,--- /~o~~t=;~~
ff---..,-'~" -- --'---,-,---,-_
t/J7--:f{~'i1k~--,---_---'2/L_~_,tUt,.----~-'2
11.:(7_ j ~cfL_~.-,-,--,-,,---Li?LkH-tf!c~L~__,_:!:'i?
II:L7,. . ~-'r-'------..v~-,.J.:.,' d~_,
t 1~11_.__, iLYi.___ s'?!Lli,l!L.-_-1<>cr -1DItJ ~_ fJ.!'!_'E..___
/117 -, ~. H~~,..____ ,--~L_Ct~~,~~& ,
/III, 2.j)~1:h0- _' ,__'.__. ,_~ '7 fJ1E/2.tL--lAN-€J_
11-) /t -- ~ - ---, ,--- ---. - . ,0l3. =>,_ .
!IIIfL_~' --- .. ~ 20/_C!flL0L-;~~~ I
.LlIJC7-,-- ., _ ~ ,--,,?C_ J(,qsS'_._ __ Lf--" ----'- m Mtox-~
J!~~~!, ._
\\/I"t- ~--.A.
~GJ:,. ~-=-~'
. ~---,-------. Sb ~ ...:._~J""7"'i.:J_._-/-fj."":.._f5IS A:s~ C,
-, ,., ---,,- .:1:":-,.' ~--------H '-I :z 51f., ,ili C-.-_,,_,__ "
~z--.~~--:i'~_,__...__.~;d,-e. ,_0~~ f/6a
u/rl_,_~ ~-_--...el!;!!x.._Alb.~_.O <Y:)Q~J (n 8/ 6/~,
!ijJ~&j,ub0pJ~ Y'l'Id .~, Co S'/C;/<2
IlIL"'l~,. .~.II~~ -,~7Y1, C'" ~ I (oJ;;)..)
\ \ I 71--,-- -1\\.u.s ' "---.-- ,_~ "'\ ';}.t.\?' ,_ __,.!..~_, " (('
~Vl8:--- ~.__ j;~~-ew____&~ " f(
})1-. '. ,___.,~J'..~~~_ ,__~
/lf17__,_.. . .".. ---.-,----.:~~~L ,_ ~
10- . ~- --cdo..x,s""'L.-Mff#
- -~ rM._.. - ~-"'"DO~~~sl\
uln--,~\, - ",-_1d1EtJ~~~ Kl__,_,,__,
Z857'5tJ?7/11'c; >r--;;f^j>e/V Cd, ~6IJ .
,~ -..----.-.,.-..---..-.".
C<J "<;;/,1.. 1/)
.--_. '-'-"---'~-'._-----"_.,._.
_;:Oi(,~",,,,,",_.~_..,...,,,,,,,,",
. ,
~,
.""""
@'
51
. TO:
PETITIO,II;
Cit: \( of )\spen Plannir: J 3.nd Zonn::.n: '- c:nrnis::;icI'l
We, the undersic;ned, "esidents of [itkin County, Colorado,
re":)(',ctfully petit that the ,,:ommission r err'\end to ::he Aspen
Ci t, CO'-";1ci1' that th,,,, property,ommonly kno, "s the Ko,~h Lumber
Pro, Jer tyj noVl lClca ted in the Ci t ( of Aspen zoned PMI' or L-2 in
,ndc.'): to pernd t the development of an empl.o e, housinC) !:>roject for
t:he MAli,
Ca b~ Nanie Add t;S
/;;!IrL~:U< ~~. J{;~~L~+>d
1~1tJ~, .. . -~l-t-b_~~lk-
tlhll'b~~ '., ;:c'1B0 ~_:t-~O^"-
ILtn-{~J_,,__l!~ -, = "_ g,Q1L1M~_~~
JL}lf-. gLC!N.. 0v~ 3qLuJjaH......
~1!J -, -, - , ':'-'--!!ll:-~~N
i~l/. - t~__ "', ,-~~El~ ,,~Zcz3~/eVJ./ ,- "'/0, I?/-t 1<-
I:f~ ~J, ~ __ t:;;;~~~i~:S:~!
i//!;jiIL .' .'jt... ... .. ./.2.:La.Ht.rL'w/2r,~ 17 ~?
L1tl~~ -~.~killufL_~i&
UII7.j1L~_.. ~-,--'d.~ 3;?dL~~(~ '
ILh1.hl- ....~~~\s:&L$~ b\In\&-
l}/rJI<KL~ '., ~,Th~dL,,-5d_L1.Y,S~,7 "._,~~ '
11/17-/$3,-,_. ], "-_Jkr-2iS2-_ll~~,,f\ ~/6 J 2-
tt/-nf-tJ ~- -" ",._JM,~23(<...,.A~, ?f{lal2.
11/~-~:~, 'eJ..tkA-<2L'2I_~ jJ/~/<fU
lLl-L1~~___ '----,-,JZo.Uil(Q-...Q5-flm~_lJGII
ILfl~L..MIC lLL .~lt;'t-." Y;I~[) ,
;;/z/& ----,~~r~~~~__~ _ p1r;I/
1.1/17#1 -',,&Ae.e'f_L~l'!@!;~) IOsd G.fl4Y'L~,,__ {-/(,/I
''#"1/,&._ . YJ,~__~~~._ ""-II
i:,*1/i?J; . ,.._~.flli--L~ Yllzl~
11r7f1___, --,,~,h.J!&__..--"_J~ ~Jj,I,;v
42jM.~~-~~37-- ik~ J</{_'D-
l~'1;;rL--CW~~~~~ 10t-.LS::H_0-"p~=, ,?,II-,j~
#,H~/~ ~ c.$-<>S/3~_ ..~. 15/6/2
10J'~Ar, ,,-- A\,,",\~ ~,_, .6.~d/~,~__ '&'1 CD ~
14'l/-8L~~~~4f.e{;f 061?---
IlII '1lKL~/hmJa:{)llLf'i~~--1.?::.f - H _ '-W-ttl.. ~ I/, I Z-
!l~ 11~~)..k-~V.5~,--~6$__$fL _~~,_ ~/(, /'l./"
, "'~;;"'.
'I.,;,::,,~.;;i,"'~'~'~'~'~ ~'.. .......,
,.....,
,....."
PETI'l'IO:'j
TO: City of T\s:?en Plannir~.! and Zonn:cn, ('c'mmission
\~C" t:he undersigned, ~esidents of 'i itkin Coun:"y, Colorado,
ce;:;;Jc.cttullj" pet~it:i..cn that~ the '::ommission ,t". . c\IT:rnend to ,the Aspen
ci t: / Council" that tJ";'2 pl:opeI:ty~ommonly knO': a~; the Re;ch Lumber~' "
p:ccuert, Y DO" IDeated, in the Ci t{ of Aspen, zoneel ,P~lF' or, L-2 in. ,I
o,'d,'r to penlll.. t the ':leveIopment of an emp"o" hou~nng proJect f r \
t_ y\, C I0J\.A 0 .
lte Name jldd:; '>E.:
'~~ji_ ~~~-~~
1(J+~1-"--- ,,.:~,,.,_..__,_a~cL~ '.. ... P4~
;;112---- _' ,_...,_,__'" /;3/__ ,-, ~-,--
l/fI..___()__L . _ ~ ~,~~ O~..-,
I;~l~~:i~ ~--1lli\h+-.A r:;? '~::f:-t;e PL~"J \p
..Ull,~"~JL,, -, "jlo ?lk--=-6:;..~~~,~J ~ '
[1117- ", .' _ ~ ____....__,_~~/l...-,();tM4 t.
~,1n-_~~-.- 0 -~'f~~L~fA.
Al-t. ~i);:~-~.c----4 'Ii.
1i/l:iL.Jl1 "C__o-_JJh. i73_~/f
Il/2..1fL _ _, .. _, ,-,.,_.ZNiI!lL-- ~,t;!:, #ltl?
I/.:J 2::.2L _, ' ,.. ' ,_, ,,_$QJ.o2..':'/,9J -l!~'i-C." -' 9'1 Inl;< ..
/tIHL v/J .- _ff&&-/rllL~ ,?fe/v
/(jZ-:"'!:~-AL,~o/-;/- .. ".' ~~ /.5q.1'~ZP _,_..__~ I' .P' /6' / 5-
l;~IL~ ~~ ;'0~g::;:~~p_'.c, :.::.;z
1...i2-..-.--t:.::~---'--'--"-- ~---_.--, ~ " ~
/,L..j,z.=..d?!,---,- ',_ - ,.. /- -_.,e<7~__yjld:,.._, p-,/c/ c:---.
l-LJl '> ffL__ :3~S - M@(,-."
~~..',,\-=t'~ ~_ ,..' ' ~'{_~SQ~--,--, (\ I I
\\."..p-~-f-..- ,_ ,-, ..' 3>-?_,~~ 'F;fbq
/t'.-:-L:j.o":b?;Loo. ~/Li!~ //
ILjLgjJ....L n1/f,~ /Jf-,'f-:!J,~ ~ U,_ ' -~
I//! ~/1-1----- _ J2 ' _ f::,KJifI ')?33 j'C::2.J7---JY..s;Jg.... 8'1 &7 r <'
"il{L1./~/..,-...., .,.,."..____ .~_.,_JQ1L'-L, .-bl-~ .ei&JL-
lJ{fi/pL--, ,>' .._ '_ , ~1-38_~1Cc()ok:. 8(b5Co
/flff~1~~--'''! -Rofj;2,C.~.,tly)el? 0)f/UJ-
lLJ118-L-~~z...9!1-~ ' J97\,23~L-~,/f/
,...., ',,,. ,......, _" ".'~ """"'lio\'!"'_~'4,;.,Wi;;,\"',:'';;;;'
,....,
,,....,.,
PETITION
TO:
,h7l
We, the undersigned, residents of pitkin county, COlora~
respectfully petition that the Commission recommend to the Aspen
city council that the property commonly known as the Koch Lumber
Property now located in the City of Aspen, be zoned RMF or L-2 in
order to permit the development of an employee housing project for
the MAA.
City of Aspen Planning and Zonning Commission
Date
Address
,)~ / E L" ; y
~/C4c
.-,
,r/ hr.
~ ::2-,
,ASJ2A-v Co-_
() j~76 Q
f b GS ti.- CJ
/;/
,
/<
J~
L/ t{ :Y
)
[Ii fi
it---
q~()Z-
N
~
,....,
,.....,
PETITION
--.-'--'
@
TO:
We, the undersigned, r,~sic1ents of itkin C:0\Jntyi,,;t:8191:"ado,
resp(~ctfully' ;pet:i tion that the c:<Jmmission: rei,; mrnend to tt).e~~PT'~
City Council that. the property commonly know"S th'il,Kochr..um~r/
prop,-~rty now located in the City of Aspen, b zoned ~.:E' 01::' L..Zin
order. to permit the development of an employ' housing F,ro.ject~or
,the: \~J1l\ .
City of Aspen Planning anel Zonning:cJmmiss:ic,n
Date
Name:
Addr, , ;H
-,.-~...,.,,, ._-
/&2
llJ
J-LL
Jl::rL
//-/-
Ir~l___
u),
,
~_#Q2...______
~
.-..-.--.-----....-
...,,_.,._ .__.___'M_"_'_'
..,_.,-----"-----~,."_.
--~.., ."_. -----..--.--..-.'
-..--.---.....---..-.'.-...
":':.
-~_...-,---_._.'. ... ,._---,-_.~..
.t
._"----,.,---~--_._~-""-,._.
.. .-.-.....---..----....
.__.__.~---"...
" .--.-----..------...
.... ,._-"._-,-~_._."..
-_._----_..,._,_.,-""_._-"------_.~_.,..,._.-_._-'-,--- ._._--'~---_.'-
_._____.~.___..~::::::::;::=O-~----_.-
--..-- .__._-~-_.,....
_..,.._-_._--_._--_._......,~--'-----_.".
-.---"'..- .--.-------.'...
\
" .,.;',';;,-",A;e:,";;;,;".'._, ,,<.. ,
~",.'^,'",.'i';~""
. <":.;~i
,,:...!., ,', 'i '.J;-.:..,w;~;;",,, il.-,~"'".,
" '.i,,~,,':i.,~:,;';~.;;..&;;a;;;,ii;,w
.. ~..!)';1"'t''''''f''''''i-~-!j~.w''''<t".,'~.~,:_;_~i.:'
!00 J
~~'
~/T():
/""".,/""".
PEI'ITIO:i.~
City of I\3pen Plannin'J and Zonn:U11' Conuni:::;sion
We, the undersigned, :esidents of
,ces;)c,ctfully petitio:", that 'the ',:ommission :r,
Ci t/ Council' that thee' prope):t:1' ,::ommonl1' kno'
prouert1' now located in the Cit/ of Aspen"
ord~r to permit tho development of an emplo
the !v1l\A.
[itkin County, Colorado,
: c,n:mend to':he Aspen
, as the Ko:;h Lumber
, zoned RMF or L-2 in
'0 housing ~roject for
Dab_~ ..----.---.''....----...., ,AcId, BS
~~',~' ~ ,.~_.?:J:. ~ >_'l______ A7pe!6.-'r~GL,
':=:::~;-Ai:'~ /:zL-I/ ;::. .1 / V 7'-~~r~~-"-~: "
6~--C,-~._,~-""'="~-.--.----..-,-O! ,V-l-r",.. ,
.~~~~~__.__/3:;/JT?/!iL.,_. ,~~~~f/.2'_~O~
,_~_-t"::.:::_~--,-'-~~!!!'o.A V^":.1 ~^ :~,-P::r--€'~' Co,
__"_~.___,__2~o.,,3..hLCf_.-.-~s:.n '"
"GZ6.~, Co.
.~_,,~6XI9 <'7 s ~ dJ.L~ h. c c2 ,
...".111 'kti_._"_,__.ti~.~J.
..-fg..tla ._. eo i~, _, ._;ht?f!~ C17 .5
~r:-}!:}:!~p;;r/t2L9--7 ,-d~~ v~
, ~ ?f!:P$._ ._*6h,
,.~x. #"Ih~, ,_)15L~d
, ..-Jt,~ ~~-- ~~(' '\x'
" .,~" ~-'-.~- C '
____,_~.3..B f23__ __, _ ~e~ c: ,(7 ,
,,',' " ." "', ,"'" ,~jg-L6..-,,~ ~>,
-ti~-=~~=-~:F.
..,./.:;t'~ _~,L___,J!..~ ;?A--YZ ;.:2;?-1.&zf/,jL~.k:, '
c/
_._-----_.__...._._-_.._...__._---~."._-_..-. ----_..-..._~..." .~- ._----,..~--
._....___~ ,,______._,_.__...._n_.....___..___.___....____,_.~.___._-..-... -...---.---.--
._-...~.--."_._-~..._--_.-.._-_.._,,_.,-,,--_.._._._--_.,,.. -------.- . ".-...--------.-..
._._._._--_...~-_.~....._-_._-_... _.-..--~,-----_._.__..__... --..-----.-...-.-. .--....--.----.----.
;,
~...~..~ ",'-" ~ ,." --,,,,,~"'"",-
,-'
~
PETITION
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zonning Commission
We, the undersigned, residents of pitkin County, Colorado,
respectfully petition that the commission recommend to the Aspen
City Council that the property commonly known as the Koch Lumber
property now located in the City, of Aspen, be zoned RMF or L-2 in
::::~~ ~:::t the development of .n em::::::,hoU,ing p<Ojeot@
.~
(576
C)'<; z s
II -/7 - '11
}~iJ~: ~ 'i:;::-"" )
Iii I r In <.It>l', 11.v/",A- ,,{,.ilIJ.flil!
I I
{I II n' Ff 55
,
,c \? "
0<,-;'"
~'..5I). ?
i'"5K 1/7/ '
/'')
/1!/~;~ I
r
.,"" ", / (v ,,\
II .....~,'(,~""'..-'\.. ."-f"-'-'''{.
j~9'< 2.? 'jR
/\l
P~6-=>
10 5;;'31'
).
,-
,-.
t
PETI'rICH
TO; City of l\Spen Plannin'J and Zonn::~n' Commi~,;sion
We, the undersigned, :esidents of [Itkin County, Colorado,
:ce~;;)octf:ully petitio.n that the '2ommission:c (.mmencl to the Aspen
Clt,/ Council' that ':,ho property ,:;ommonly kno c s the Koch Lumber
Property now located in the Cit i of Aspen, zoned llMI" or L-2 in
:::,::,;~ P::::t Ch,' development of en em::,:, 'wu,inu ",oje" fO~ .
/ff-!~--,~~~ _''___',__' _,_,'1.(3:_s, ~L!:!f,fu-<--/~ '-
L'lJ. 7/L- ~. _,_,___,,___----&dJ f/,9.cf- !?~. U!:I.
. /j117-?1_~1fjf~'2 7fU'1Jt.{L j}'O:x._~~-Liy?/'EA-; Cp
Ijli~jjj---L~-~ _,J~__~1y\L, ftsfaJ (j
1L11:i'iL~~_~? .\?>~~~- ~
I!!J*~~ _ . ._~~~- _.~_:ruL~ \ (,0
IffffL-,:- ~J-,.,..: ".-- ,~BX-,;;~'--'.~ Cb
/;/;;/;fi,_ __ _~~~ ,____,23:.w-,__________
IlltL/fi ' ""l, _,___,_ ,..G _,gcy./.SL.-0.--_.... & L-
;~~/_ .=fl;: - ;;2- 1f;~~~~i,r;: ~:
#A . . '- .$o/.d;t8.L. 49<31
/1; / __L u' __ ~____ _,_,_&x_l3.l_,,__ /f,~ ~ ,
LIJi7Pj_-~aL-~ ,_..&~J:2,,__, a7~eh CO
UAn#-~---E '-- -- , "J36f::. C+)::::L__ flrs.q{? \~ ---'
!5f*-L-~~~ ,~_#'L-___, ;;JAf'-IA-
_..,._-_._.~...-.-------_._--_...."
_._.~_.. ._________._._.___........_.,_~_~________'~."_.____~.._._ .__0-----.---...-...
...--.-.- ...._~._--,,-----_._~-_. ...-.....--.--.-.------.--.. -~_. ._----,,----,,-_._,~-~-_..
-.-..-...-.. ---,,~,-,,-----,-","--'-'-"""--""-'-------"-'-'-'-~" ..-- ~._..-._----_..._-".
.--"-.-.-.,,.....---.-------.-....--......--.....----.---..__._-~-'-' ,,---'--~"-~ .-.-.-..-,-.--,--.-"'....-
____..______,,_._________....n._______..._....__.'".__.____.~"._-.. . .--,,-.-~------.".,
.-._-"._.._.._~--_..._-,-_......_._...._----_._._._----".-._~ . .-.-",".-.-,---.",..
....__.._.. ._____________."...._.._____._..._..___....________.___m ".__....._.._~______..
-_._._._.__.~.-..__.__.._.--.. .----------.--..--..-.,.--- ...._..."--~--~-_..,....~
.....__.."..____._.._.__...__'"._ ""."...--_.____0_..__.." ._..____,._ .--....-~-----.-.-.
-----. -,'-"-'---'~---~-"--'-- .".-----.--..--"-- .------..-- --,,-_._-~-_....-.
_.--_.~. ..-...--.-----..,,------..-- . ----..----....-..--.. ._.._--_.._.~~ .._...._'".~_.__.~_._.....-
__,",_, .,,_____~___.___.._.___._,_ _.____.____.___ ____._..___ __.__.~__H._._....
---.- -----.-...---...--.--.-.-.-.... ---.'---.-- .--...-.-.--.---.----- .--.... ..-.---.--.------ . _..._-~--"~.'-
""~,,,,; " "". "". ~. ,..,
~J(;;,_.;lIi.1 ;
~
,....,
(jJTQ,
PETITTC:'i~
Ci.ty of Aspen Plannin'J and Zonn:i,n '"ommisslGr:
Wo, the l:ndersiqned, ::esi.dents of ,it kin C01.:',n':Y, Colorado,
~~(::;:~ lC'CL.fully petit.i'.::.n t~hat the Commission 1> _ on:mend to :.he Aspen
CSt" Council' Ulat t,he property (:ommonly kno" as the Kc);h Lumber
Prouerty noVl J oca t,,'.1 in t,he Ci t( of Aspen, zoned RJ'lF or L-2 in
Grc(:r to perrni t thc~ developl;tent of an emp...o (: housinq Droject for
the MAA.
Dote
Name
A,del ~;~;
.~__.'.__.m__' ,,"__.___,___ .~M^'__'____" "__,,,__,__,__~__,____"
--.-----""---'--- --------.. .------.----.--. ..----.....-.. ._._....~,_.----,..
....._,_...",___.__._. _.____._""_.,_,.w____.~_______'" --.-.--.--., "-,-..----..---~-'-
m._._' ..__..".,___.__ .-..--.--. .--.-------....----......-----.--....-.. ~-.--~-.---._-
..-.~~._.-._-_..-...__.__..." ._-_..._...._._--~-_._--~ ....----" .-'- .--.......----.----.....
....~. _._.~..__._--_. ._--_."....._.._---~.__._--_. ..-.------....-- .--...---.---.-..-
-. . .------.--..---.. .. _.__.._...._.._--_..~--_..~- . ._,----_._._,._.~ ...-..-----,--...---
---..-.....----.-. ,.......--.---------.--.--... .
----...-..----.-...--.-------.-.-----..
._._-_...._-~---_._..._..__.__..~.__._-_...__._---- .---.---..".-.- .--,,_._---_.~-_...-_.
..----.-..-.---------....---."...--..---..---
._"._...--._----_.__.._-_..._._.._~---_._-".._-_..._..
.._-_.__....__._-._-,,_.__._,-~.._---_.._..__....-
...._..__...____.__._____....____..__.____.._.___... .H__
--~._._...._~_..__.__._-_..._--_...._..._.._-_...__...__._.-.....-
..----_._-_...__..._.__._---_..---'--~_.~ -.
..--------..---- ....-_..._~--_.__._---.-."._----_._.~_. . ---"'....----.-----...-.
..______...__".... _..._.____._._.._.. ..______'.'H"_" .. _.___.__~__.__...._.
..........-.. .-.--.---......---.-.. .---.-----..--.-.-.-..,.
. _...._.... .__'__.__ ......__~___. __.__~..__.__..__..._____.._._..____..._N .__...__._~.______
......_,,---"'. ..~-._-"" --.,,-----.....----..-..-----.-......--...-----.. -..--'-'-'-'-- .---.--------.-.... -
. ___.__."... ,._._._._"M _____ _.. _..____..__.__....___.__.. .--.----.-.-~.._--" _......_-~._--~.-......
",'k'" H....~....-"."..<"'"."',""'..... ,:,\~,~."",_
^
~
&w
PETITIO.,]
Ci. t: \' of 1\3pen Plantt'in') and Zonn:',..J"l I,~"cnunission
We f tb.e llndersiCJned, .~'esidents of
~~es:)ccttulll/ petit.:i,cn that the ;.:ommission 1>
Cit'1 Council' that the property:,o:mnonly knO'
PY'cnerty now located in the Ci t,' of Aspen,
:)l'-d;r t:.o perT"l t thc: development of an emp...o
tJ~(; t-il\A.
ritkin Coun~y, Colorado,
: orrmend to ,:he Aspen
z: ,; the Koch Lumber
20ned RMF or L-2 in
~',~ housinq project for
i-;ddi 'i S~,
__-A ~ _____'-"
11.iF&t_____"_.
___f-:!c ~{~_"__,
c-_~,
.,-tP(tL\~w-"
___,__/0.l2:5_,__
);.i~""'~~""1i.iij;~:!i"jjt'i,*i\~~.!\~f.~:!l':>_., _
^
r-"
1-
I'ETITIO;;f
TO:
City of /\;3i?en PlanninJ and Zonn::;.Yl' Corunission
We, the ,) ndersi<Jned ,:'esidents of
reel' )eotfu11)' pet~i t ien tha t the '::o;nmission r,
eit? Council' that th,~ property;ommonly kno'
Pro!Jerty now located in the Cit,:, of Aspen,
on:!c~r to perrrd t the: development of an emplo
t.he MJ\A.
[ itkin County, Colorado,
,c'mmend to:he Aspen
":c; tlm Koch Lumber
zoned EN!" or L-2 in
r .~~ housinq project for
Da te Nanle A.cid: ~;E;
///?-i/~___ ~'~~fC0- fi_II.s.s~ JO!~- ':(e~~~~4zt1e
II / ZKL__~{e':.0~ 'C1_____I!4!'?~S P'?? __ IOL s-.--~~2Z~~1J ACC/'7 e
-~--_...".,_._-_._--_._"-_._-_......__...~--._-_._.__.- .,----.-~__.,.. '__"'__'___W_._....
._'_....-_....._-~--'--_._---_.,._..__._~..__..,-_..__--"'___0_'. ..._.....__..___.__
--'--"....,-_..._..,--~----,..,._-- .- _.._---~----_..
-'-"'-'-"'-'~'-'-'-"-""-----",- -"~-'-------_.. ---------.--- -,.-..--..---.....-
.--.--------.-..--.---.-.-,.-..-....-.---.,..----,-
----..-.-.---.--...--- ..-.--.----,,---.----.... .--...----..------.-
---.--.-.-.-...----- ...-..-----..-.----,..------.---. --...------.-
-.---.--..---.-.-.--.----.-..--.---.-----...-..--- ..-----.------..--.--...-.
...--.-.----....----......-..------.-...----....------..---- ._-,.~_.~_.---,.._--
-----"._'---_._-._._-----------~.__._~-_.- .--,----....-..- -.,,-.--...---..--....-.
----,,-...-..--.-..-- ----.-..--..---.------.-..-.--...-..--.-.--.-. .- -~'---"---'-"'"
. ._._-_._-~..._._._-_. ---.--....-..--.---...-..--.-..--.-----.... ...._....~.__._----_....
- ..-.-.---.....-..... _.._-_....._..._..,_._.__._~._~-----. --.-----.--. ..-....-.--.---.--,....,
.._----_.._.._._._._,._-_...~.._-_._----..._-"' -'---'."-'" .~_...._---_._._........
~'-'''-'-'~'''-------'-",' ._-_._-_.-..._~-~---_._-_.__...
"....".-..------...-.--..-.--.-,,~.-.---_.____.~__.. 'M_'___._..._... ____..._._.____._...
"._.._._._._-_._..._-~_....~------_._._--_._. .----.,..-..- "--"'-'--"-'--
..-....---.--..--.....------..."'.-------...---
-.---.---------...--.---.....-........-----.-.-,---- .. .------.-.,-.- .-.-...---.-..---...--
--..--.--.---.....----..........-..-----.----...
.------------ .--..-..- -----------.
-----.-----. .----. "- -....--..--.--...-.----- .-----.--..-..- .~_......_--~.~-_...__.
-..-.-.----....---. ....-.------,--..--.."
----,---...--.-., .. ._._----~-------_....
';.
.----....-----.....---. ..._..__._,----~......._-- -~._---_...._-, .. .~._.._--_._--._....
.._.._-------~...._- ..."--..-------.---.--... ----'--'-',--- ~._----~_.._.._.._.
.~-.__.._".,,-_._---- ._-_....._.__.._------_.__...._._--~.
----.-.-.-------....---- ...._--_._--_._._.._"---_.~--_. ..-----..---
_.._......_._--_.._-~-~.. .,,-- .. --.----.-.........-----.. ,..------.-.-..-
,', ,-", ~'",.,'.-,"'.,;..-......~..........,"'.w:;:i~,,~,._........
1-
^
PEI'IrrIOi~
'1'0:
City of Aspen Planninj and Zonnln,
^
(:cmrnissi.cn
litkin COLn~y, Colorado,
: C>IHlend to 'c:he Aspen
as the l{c;h Lumber
zoned RMP or L-2 in
a housing Droject for
c" "C
_. ..h..'
~::,E~_~~_~7~~~~~~~ '
Wc~.' the ~;,ndersiS:ined, ::'esidents of
res;>cctfully petition that the ',:ommission r
eit:; Council; that tb2 property ,;ommonly kno
PlCCnerty noY! locatr',d in the eitl of Aspen,
ol~d<:r to perrnit the development of an emp.to
the Mi\.A.
Dati;~
Name
Add
'--~'-'-__'_", "_.___'.e_.'______"__________
..-..-..-.--__. '___,._.__.'._.M__.__.____~~_____._.__.. '~_"'__'__~__,"..___..
-,."..~.,-,_.. ..--..-.. ----'--"."--.----- ..-----.--.---.-....--.- ..-.,..----.--,-.-....
"'----..--.--.--. ..------.--....-..---------. .--.,..-.--.------..,.
-...-..--.-.,.-.---.-----. ----.-....".-----.....---...-.---..-. "----- --, '~__"'______H"'_''''''
-- .-..".--.--..---- .---.-.--.----.....--,---...-.--.--.- ..~_._-----~._- .. --"-,..--.-.---
...-.. .----_.____._._.. __.M_.....__.________._.._,.__._. "______._.,.__ .__.......___..___._._.
-..-----,,-..----. ----..".-."..----....-.-- .-.---...-.- .~.__..._--_.._----_."..
-~--_.._.~..._..._---"..._----,."'.__.._-._-_._~----_. _._._.. ._-,,_._-~_._--
...--~.-"-._..-..-~-- ,.-.__~_..__._.__..____u._____ _____.__..."._.._ .__...~___._____".....
. ..---.".-.--.---... --.......--,....---....----.-.-..---. --..-. .-.-..-----"..---.-...-.
___._._._M_._....__.__._._.~__._.___.._
.._"_.,,_.u._________..___~_. .._~_.______._....______..
--"'__'M'___,_"__,,,U_'~______,,___,, ._._,____.~..._..., ..._,____~__M.._..._
_'_._...M _ _._.___._~____...._._
----.-..-.-------..,.---.-.,.----------..--..,
-...-.-.......----.,---.-.--_____._._.M_...__"
--~_. ._. ._._.._._.~_..__....
-----~--_....._.._.._-_..__._-_.._--,
.--.------....--.-.....-._.__.._..._._._..__._m_._.____......__
..__...__u .._____.__.....~____...._._"...____.._...___.~....____..._..
~._-~._._...._---_._.---._---"'._..-----._._--_....__..,._-
,
"
....-...-..-...---..".---." ...-------.-..----....-..--. .--.-----,-..-..-
..---..---....".--.-----.....---- . "-..--.-..----.".- '-...------ .-.------...-...
..-----.------.-.- .------- -....---.--..--...-. '--~-' -_.._-----,.-~". - ...-......--..--....---....
..-.---..---.- --------.---.-..-------......-..--.- ---'---'-'-'--,,- ---.-.-,.----....
"'" ~ ,. '..M"""".'............ ,_......,....
~
^
\
PETITIO;~
TO:
Cit,y of i\.spen Plan,nin and Zonn:::.r1; (:o~'mniss.icn
We J the und(~rsiS;ln.ed 1 '"esidents of
~ces )8ctf1.111y petit:i:::<:1. that the :.~~ommission rl
C:it,.' Council' that the property ',:ommonly knO',
Property now located in the Cit,' of Aspen"
OI,'o.'_;r to pern!it the develC!pmE~nt of an emplo
the t'L~.A.
I itkin County, Colorado,
ornmend to the Aspen
a~,; the Kc,:h Lumber
zoned H1'lF or L-2 in
e" housin':: ;)roject for
Oat':.:
NaIlle
A.del: ~" f;~
,-~,
~
t/:JL~ "~ /~f-~.
-----.--- '..--..----.-.-.,.-.--------.--...-... "---"--'--~-_.".,
"---"--- .-----...--..-----.-----...,.----.---.--... .---.....--.-.-----....
.---...---------.-. .-----.-.. ._,._---,-.._~-"..__.,~. --.----.-..-..- '--"---'~-,~_,-,
.--.---...-----.----, -.----.---....-.......--.-.-----.-.---.... ._~---_._._..- --"-"-"---"'--
-.--.-----__. .____n__.._n...".._______..,_.._____..._______._. .__..____.__.__.._
....._-,,-._~----_. ,.----... ..._.-~-'_.__.__.._..__.__..__._--- .-... ...- -.-.---.---......-
..-~----.-___.. __~.___...n.._._______.__..______.... .___,_____
..--.--.--......------..-.----..... .-'.---.--.---.-
. ----....-------.----.--.. ..._.._-,---_._....._.~_.
-'---"-.-..-... .--.--.----....---.--...-----. ---.---.-,-.- -.-.--..-.--....-..-..
...-------.......--..--.. .--..-.--"....-..-..----.-----.-- .-.----.-.--.-.. -.._ "'_'_"._'_.._n'"
.-.----..---..--.-...---.-----..--.--.-----. .-..----.-.-.--.. ..-..-.-.------....-
--.--..----.-.-.--.-.--.---..........-------..-.--..----- .
_.___"___n.__._.__.,,,___._.,,.-_.
. .""..---.--.-...--......------..---...-..-------.-....
'~-"--- .~_._-_._-_.__.....
.~._._._-_.._----,.._--_.... -------.--.-..--.
.-.--...-.".-.-----... ..__..._......__._.,,-~---_.__...__._.~._-_..._... --.....--...----.-
.....----...----. .._..__.._._------._._.__.........._~--_._,,_._.... '~'--""'-"---'--,-,.
~..____..n~.____ .____~. ".______.._._..___~_.._ "__'__.._."._._
~~ -----"--.--.,,---.. -~--- -._-- _.__.__.__..._-_._~_...
._~.._._--_.__...._-_....._._---------.__.__....
-~--._---_..~...._--,,---- .....~..-...__._-_.._.__._--.
.---.-..-. ._--"-~-_.._._--....
-----_.~-- .-----. ..~._._-_.~._..-..._-----..
......--. ..-.---.-----....------- .....---.---.-...--.--.-. ..._--~.~"._~-
...,--- ...~--_._--~----_...._-_._.... _.._---_._-~_._--_... .-.---.-,,-...
'-".~"-" -.--.---.------. ----.-.....,.------..----- .-----.-.-,- . ..._------~_._--"'..
._.__._._._.~..__._.--. ._-_._.."....."_.__._-_._-------_._~_.__...
...------------ -----.....~-.._____._____.n.
....,,_......_._-_..._._..~._.._-_._.. '....---,--..-....-..--... .---
..'~;;.,;;"",,~ ......".....
1"""'.
,-,
"
PETITIOi,1
TO: City of Aspen Plan:nifi'J and Zonn~.nl Cu:n.missi.oL
We ,> thc undcrsiqncd, :'csidents elf
res;'>8ctfully petiti:):~ t.hat the.::omrnission J:>
C'; t. . ("r)U"C1']' 'tllat 1'1'" prorE"'t.y "ommonly kJ'"
\........ .-./ ~'.1. 'e_ 1.1;:;. . ,_ 1::) -" .'. ~ '... I.~,) ,
Pt'o.'Jerty now l()catc,~j in the (~itl of Aspen;,
':):'-d',:l~- to perrr:i t the: development of an emp::..o
the Hlu\..
[jlkin CmJnty, Colorado,
,.:>rr::nend to t:he Aspen
<,E,; the Kc~h Lumber (Ji)
2,oned RNF or L-2 in ' \:1
(" housinc; :noject for
~V'W'
Dab.:
A('~d
.
__,no_."" ._.__________________.__.__._._.._.____....
...--.".-., ---.-.-----.....---,.,...-.-----------......--
..-.-.--.,---------.---,--"'-.---_,__~_____m_____.. ,
.-.__.._._-----_...,-_.._~.._-------_._-._-_...-
---.-.-..-----..---.......------.-....-...-....".
._"....u"....______....__.____ .. _'_'_'_"_'~'_'.__'___"'_'
....-... .. .---......----..---.....
-...-.-. .-.--.-....--.-.,.... "'---"--"---,,--, ..--.---------
._..~_...____u____...____. ....__.____....~_.__._.....,..._._______...__
---~_.__.._...._---_...._._- ----..-.--...-.....---.--.... ._._-----_.,._~.
-""..- ..._.__.u...u_._.__.....___ u. ._...___.________..._. __....____.~ "____~_.__._
m....._._ .u_._._..._..._ .____..___ ___'_.~."
'-'---'_"0'._... _ _..._.....__._..._____.__
_.... - -----..-.-. .-...---... '---"-'-- - ....-..._...__._-_.._..._.._.._~--_.- -----_. .-- -_....."--~-,.__.__....- -
_.". ..-.. ".....~----_...---_...__.__. '-'--.
"c~~'i~'~.,.",,,,,,,,,,,,w,-",-.
""'"'
~
PETITION
(f)
TO:
City of Aspen Planning and Zonning Commission
We, the,undersigned, residents ,of Pitkin County, Colorado,
respectfully petition that the Commission recommend to the Aspen
City Council that the property commonly known as the Koch Lumber
Property now located in the City of Aspen, be zoned RMP or L-2 in
order to permit the development of an employee housing project for
the MM.
Date
Name
Address
iI-/1- /
7-t'/
/7l
8
~.
,~
PEI'ITICJ\l
-"-'---.-.--.., -
TO:
eiL y of A'.-3pen Plannir; and Zonn::.n' Ccrruni.ssicn
We, the lilldersigned, 'esidents (,)f
cC;,:;;;')(iCt 111' pet.it:i.cn that the .:ommission r
Cite. Council' that the propert:y ,ommonly kno
P:coperty now loca tc'd in t.he Cit'{ of Aspen i
n:cd,':r to permit the developmE~nt. of an emp.l.Q
the M.l\.A.
[jtkin County, Colorado,
. ('"':lend to the Aspen
as the I(o:~h Lumber
zoned RJl1F or L-2 in
e housing project for
Date
Name
AcId ~- ss
~. :~~'---'--. .,--_.,_.. "'- -,_._-'.~
-.,---, .~_.., "".. ',. ~~-~-~~
~ . ,
._.__.._----.,--_....~_._.._-_._-._-,._-_. ..----.--- ._-"-,----_..,.
-.---..------ ..._.,-,.,.~._......_..M._...___.___.
.__._-~-,-,--,.,...".
"------. "--'-- ........------...-.--...-.-.---...-__ . 'h'_'___'_,__",___,,,
-."-------- ---.------..,--. .-.----.--..---.--..- -.--.--.--.---- --..------.-...-.-...-..
--~._---_.-.__._,- ,.... .,---~_.._._.__......_-
---'-'--..--.---->-.-
-._--~._---_._-----_.._"..._-_..._-._~_._.._.
--..-. .~_..__..__.__."'-
._.._-----_._..._-._---_..._-._._----"'._..._..~-,,- ...------...-...
..--.--..-..----.. "--"'--. --.----------.-------- ..---
...-----.--...--- .....-..------...---.... .-.--.----- .-.-..-.-.-----..-......
---... -.---...--------...--...---..-~---.._--._~ '-"--.---...-.. .--.--._,.____..u
_u.____, ___.___._______".___._....."'_...___..____._____~. ___________.._~ __....__,_...________...
--_..._---..._--_._.._."'._~---_.__.~._------... --.----.--.----
.--".."..--..----...
.._-~-------...---_._.._--_...._-_.-._._-_._. --.-----.-...
-.- .------...---.---..-.--..-...--.-..------.-- .-.-----...--..
.._._m_.._...______....._.___.__.__..___________. ____,._._
. .--..--.-.-----
..._---~.__...._._-_...- ..._.._-_._-_._-_.._.._--_....._~.- .. '-"'''-~--'-_,.__"
....---.---------....-.--- ...._..~._-----_..__.. -----.--.-..-.-
..-..--.---.--.-....
_.__...._-_._.._.~..._..._-_._._.__.~ .---.-.-.-- "'--~"-~~"-----""",
-----~--..---_.-...-__._._H._.'.
.~ -"'--'-'-~--~--""
--........._- .._._"--._--_....._----....._~..-
~.__._._---_.._-
_._._H.___._._.._._.....
-.-----....--..---.-.-----.. ---- .....~...._-~-.."-..-...---.. ----.-.-. '-'--._'___'''_''_'n..'
------....--...----..-- .----- ..... ~...'".__.__._~...__._-- .. .-.----.-,.- .~-_.._--_._-_.._~-
...-.-----..----.- ...........---..-.--.--...------...---.
'---'-..--..-..-.".
.-......-.--.---.....-.-.--.-. ..._---_._---.__..~'"-... ._.-----_.~.._._..
_._--."._._---~-_....
"" ...- -.---..----.---.- -.-----... .-.----.__~__._H.___....______..___.
,
. _..~.__..~----
._-"~_.~..._._-.__. ..----- ..~-----._...._._._-- ._-_.._-_.~_.-"'
..-_.._~._...._..~......~-._._.
. ....--"----.---.-..
.. --_.-.._--_._~ --.~--~- ..--.-------..---------. ~ ...._._~--_.__._-
.---.....-- ....--...--." .----- -....-----.-...--.--..- '--'--'---.-...-
,; ,',..."... '"'''~'.'''''
'~~ff""""""''\\li~"",~"
b
f"""'.,
,-,
PETI'nO'"
TO: City of Aspen Plannin and Zonn:i.n, Commission
We!, the ilndersigncd, ':esidents ()f
.re;:;: >c~ctfully petit. on tha t Lhe ;.~ommisEiion r,
Ci t- Council' that "he property ,::ommonly kno'
Pro'H::rty nO\-l locatc:d in the Ci tOr" of l\spen,
onY:r to per:n:i t the developffi'2lnt of an emp ::,0
tile M1\A..
[Itkin Coun~y, Colorado,
,c-n:mend to ::he Aspen
2:'; the Koch Lumber
zoned HMF or L-2 in
<s housing project for
Dab.:
1/711,.
/;)0
IYl/-~ -
Itll'L
\~f:L
))l,C: ",0, , /iJ/J/)//IA ~
c------.J3f./ ~~/I-r'F,-
- --- -i~~ '1JH1;;f?i-A~~-
----- - - - =" --"fj--'''---
, ,r\_, -. <:13<)
.,.,,-~_..L.. _~ _ __
-- '_ ,___..__11 (, ~... C ~'l f-r-LY-;:rh ~ _
, ----.2r21S-I~J),.
_.~--~.,.~-_._-" --.-----.--,... . ---.-...-------. ---.----..--..
---'-.--....-'-----.-....-----,..-,.--.,---,--~---.---.,. .-____ _... .__'_.____.~M_
.._--_.,..._-_.._-"-_._,._".._'-_._,._-----_..._.~._._..,.-..-----..".--.." .-.."-.---,----..--
....-..--.-.------.-----...-----....,.-. ...._-,._-_..._----_...~_._-_.... .'.
-.----.. -.________._..___. .___._ _u_. "___________.. ..
_.__......__._._-~--_.- .---.----....-..-----...----..,,-
-.. "-'" ._-...__._..._---_.__._-_.-..-.__.__....--""..,.._._-~._._-,+..-.-------.-." --...,,---.--.".-,.-.....
.---.--.--.-._.~_._.__..______....'__.._H__~_._._"" , .__....._._..______.,._.
++---" ..._~.~_..._-_.+.._-_...._"-" "..-.._._--~.__._.__.- ..--
...-.-.+-. ---..~.---.-__..____.. ..._.."____H_.___"..
.-..-+-.. -..-......."-..-.---.---..------.---.-.---..---.---.--.--- -----.-...-." ._- ...._-,,----_.....-
._--_..__._._--_....__._---...,,--------_._-_...._--~_.._... .--...-.------.-- ..
'---"-_."_..,,._----,,--.._--~_."---_..- .
-..--.. --.----....'---.."----......-".------.----.- _.~ .~_..~--_.._-,--_....
-.----..-..--...---...------.....-.---------------.-....----.--..-- .. - -"'--'~---"--"."
.. "..--., .~._---_..._._--_...._--_..._,..~-----~--'"-_...._.._-_._---.--. .. -....-.---.--..-.....
-----..,-.-.--.- .-.--...-..--.------...-----." ._--_._.~_..- ".---...-.------.--.-..-
_._-"-._..~._._----~---_.~ -----------..--.-.-. .------....-... ..--.----...
.-'..--"~-' .----.---...,,-....---.---. ....".._~--_..._..- . ..-----.--.-, ..__.~._-_._-_..".-
. --_..._-~--~.__..-.-....__._--- "_.._-_._-~.__._.- ..-------.-.-... -- ---"---'---"'""-
i;'
_._..._....._..._..,,-_.~-_......_--"- - -. -------.--.-.---....- ---_._~- ._-.... . -.".----.-----.--.."
_._----~._----_._~-_. .--.---- .. -..-.--".-..---...-....".------ -..---.--.. .--.- - ----_.__.~..-
- .---......"...-.-........--___ ._._..__. __. ~__n___.__._____....____.__ __._..__.__._.._.. __ _ _.______..__
--~. "', ~~ ~...""',,~. .~
-"<"'''Hi '..filii
'3
,-,
,-,
PETITIO];!
TO:
Cit.y of A:3pen Plannin',i and Zonnln, Commi1ision
We; the un1lersigned, :esidents of
re,; Jectfully petitlGn that the '.:ommission r,
Cit,/ Council' that the property :commonly kna"
Property no", loea ted in the Ci t,." of Aspen"
ord,~r to permi t th(~ developnlS~nt of an emp -to
the Mi\A.
[ilkin County, Colorado,
,('IT'mend tot:he Aspen
[ as the KOch Lumber
zoned EMF or L-2 in
'0 housing project for
Datl;~ Name A<::.d : ~;s ~ .
\~~---'- - ~ ~ 0i .., .
;llq_~~~6~;t~_
1~i1_~~__~~-t'~ ~
-...-"-----..----.,..--- ....-..---------..-
-.--..-'.'----------..---.-,.,. _..._-~..__.__... .------.-..- .__._""------,--~.
._-----'--'--,._,----~._,-",._--,..,-----,-._..,'-,----, ..---..-...--.....,----
------.-----...-------. .,_...._.._-'--~-,----_._,.._-~ . --.---....-,."
--'.---...---- ..._--_.~....-.*'._----------_.,.. ..---------
_._-"_..._,...._-,._'---_.._..._"_..__..~..._..__.__.~..-.---.-..-.----.....-- .".-.-.----.-'''.-.-
"._--,.__."".__._._...._.~--_...__._- ~.__._-_. .."---...-." . '.'-""'--'._-'~---"'"
.-.---'.-.-.---------..-----. ._.,,"_._-~._-_._.. .-----..-.- .~_..~.._,~._.~-_...~-_...-
._--_._-_..__._.-----_._.._..,---_._.__..._-------._.~ '.'-"-'-..---'-'--
.~_._--". ._._._----_._---"--_._.._..--.._-~--.--_.. ._-----,-- -_.._--_.~_._-.._..
-.,..---. ....------.-..------..,,- ._---~_.._". . .._---~-_..._---- .-----.-......-.
---'-"--- ...--.----..-..-.-...--.---.......-..----.-.--.-..
--.-....-...---.----------..----...--..----.-....-..-.- "
..-.....-..----------...... _._~-_.._"' _._----_._._--_.~.-
-~.__._-_._.._----_._"... - .--,,---.-.-----.--...
---..--___._____.__H_____._.___...____.___....
"".....--.----...---...---.-..---.,----.-....-.-... .._-_._~._-
--...---- --~.-.-.---.-.----..----..."-~-,---..----".--,-.-
--......-...'------'--...---....------___._____."..______..~M_
.-.---....----.-----..--.-..-.-...----.-..-.-.-....
-"---'-'-'"-'--'-", "-----., ..-...--..-.----.------ ...._---_._-~...- - .-.-"..'---.--.--....
..........H.._._._"..,...___. -'._.....____H_.._.___.._,
.....--....-..---------.-"--.--- .. _._----_.__.~ .-----.-..-- .--.....-..--..-.......
"
""."--~'-_._-'----' "--.-... - - .-------.-.-.-.---.--. .-.-----,..-..-
."--_...._._._.~_.._._-. ...---- .. -.---.----.,,----" -.--.-.--.-..-..."
..--.......-........---- '"------. _._-_._----~._,,_..- _.._._----_..-...~
-----.-...-----..-- --"--"'-"--'''--.--,.------.-.-.,..-...
..."" ... "" ,.""".,
,~~~...,. """
,'-'
, '~
7""",
April 14, 1981
I
I
I
!
Blomquist said he would like to see the trail worked out so that it goes to t
the music' tent and the west end. Blomquist suggested that a developer be I
allowed to use park dedication fees to construct trails or be able to build i
a bridge. This could get a pUblic amenity in place at a private developer's !
cost.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'CRIlII.C.'.1l0tCKtLlI.1I./lrL.Cll.
P & Z
Page Three
Ferrell told the Board that part of the settlement agreement is that when
this land is annexed it will be zoned SPA. Hunt said historically when land
is annexed into the city, it is zoned whatever is compatible with surrounding
land. Ferrell said, in the county, the land is' zoned R-30 and AF-2 and could
support sixteen units. The developer is only proposing twelve. In terms
of the density calculations, the SPA is less than the corresponding .
territory. Hunt said SPA is a bad zone because it is not very well def~ned.
Hunt said he would prefer a base zone below the SPA. Hedstrom requested i
the planning office change the pedestrian easement to 12 feet as part of the '
conditions. P & Z chose not to comment on the caretaker unit. P & Z
requested the pOlice protection investigation also be a condition.
Pardee said he would like to see this tied to approval of the Smuggler
mobile home park at LOW income guidelines with subsequent sales and rentals.
Hedstrom stated the Board'would prefer to do this annexation and development
with an underlying zone district.
Pardee moved that P & Z recommend to City Council approval of the Pitkin
Reserve conceptual PUDsubject to the following conditions; {I) annexation
of the subject property prior to preliminary plat submission, (2) approval
of the Smuggler mobile home park conceptual submission which must include
a determination of the exact rental and resale levels for the trailer units
with a recommendation from P & Z that such levels be lower than low; (3)
adoption of a 90/10 code amendment prior to final plat approval; (4) assu~nce
to protect the horse trail and Rio Grande trail and provisions of a 12 foot.'
trail easement as per the trail director's comments; (5) extension and
under grounding of all necessary utilities; (6) the applicant will cooperate
with surro)lnding landowners for a trail through the Institute to the West
End; (7) compliance with code design standards for public streets and
functional and safe intersection design; (8) attorney's opinion regarding ,
the necessity of an underlying zone district when overlaying an SPA; seconded;
by Ms.. Klar. l.
. . I
Hunt stated it is inappropriate to act on this application without forwarding!
a recommendation for the use of the property. The SPA is much too vague and !
there should be an underlying zone. This is just residential and no other ' .
uses are planned.
All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried.
Hunt moved to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.; seconded by Anderson. All in favor,
motion carried.
,
....,
'~~, ,
~ ~ Pv attfz?l~~ ptp~
J,kR~J!~7t r'~l .1
KA p~ k ~~~.~ f2 to
I riA A' ,f11~
VrM\iiij '~f,*4L;: J./'
, . (j ''t}"" (/ II
, Ur. . ~ J\{ V.' V~.1(~.V. ./VI/.".".. (j . (J
, Wu &-71P'&f.jU(,
7t.m." ~tjy~ aw,;~ .
'" ."',,/1 (
". . VIj,)....L .L-."~"~.' ,f.-. "L, <..,.."
/j.~"1: ii ,'~~)
~~ .. " ,-~
/ . c' ;'" (' ,/ ,"
.~.,~~
~~A~~
.--.,
,~
~