The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.910 W Hallam St.A006-03SAGEWOOD CONDOS 910 W. fio LL) Vv,CLa ovz St 273718229121 A006-03 j - HALLAM - PUD & REZONING C- 1 -9Â»WED *19 1 P U J 8 1 .. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER A006-03 PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737-182-29-121 PROJECT ADDRESS Sagewood Condominiums PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION PUD & Rezoning REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8/18/03 (Record date) CLOSED BY Amy DeVault Ill MIl I Il I Ill lilli lilli I Il I Il YI/~ 03 3 26 Page: 1 of 5 SILVIA DAVIS FI-KI- COUNIY CJ R 26.00 D 0.00 ORDINANCE N0. 11, (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR ENCLOSURES OF TWELVE (12) BALCONIES, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER AN ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, 910 W. HALLAM - PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result o f the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WIIEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 6,2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and by a vote of four to zero (4 -- 0) recommended City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the applicable referral agencies and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, 11 lilli 111111111Illl 111111 08/18/2003 03:26P 463-~9 Page: 2 of 5 SILVIA DAVIS PI-KIN COUNTY Co R 26.00 0 0.00 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the application for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map meets or exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, by a vote of five to zero (5 - Q), approves a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: , Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included iIi a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file the approved PUD plans in the Clerk and Recorders o ffice of Pitkin County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits for the Sagewood Condominium building or its individual units, the owners of units with balcony enclosures that were constructed without a building permit shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department for review and approval to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and noted on the Final Ptl[) Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. ~| ~ |~ | ~|~~ ~ | ~ ~| |~|||| ||| ~08/18/2003 03:26P t-487139 ~ Page: 3 of 5 SILVLA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, will be required to be brought into compliance. 8. All applications for building permit for balcony enclosures shall include a letter from the Sagewood Condominium Association approving ofthe enclosure design. 9. The Aspen City Council approves a partial waiver of the land use review fees for the portion related to the review of the rezoning. As the rezoning constitutes , approximately 40% of the total review, the applicant shall only be required to pay for 60% of the costs of the entire review. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the i same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity o f the remaining portions thereo f. Section 5: A public hearing on this ordinance will be held the 14th day of July 2003 in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 9th day of June, 2003. _1 48~39 - -- - ---~ 08/18/2003 03:26P Pag43"4 of 5 l_- SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 LEGAL DESCRUTiON OF PROPERTY --- r EXHIBIT "A" All eleven (11) condominium Units as shown on the Condominium Map for the "Sagewood Condominiums", appearing in the records of the County- Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin Â·County, Colorado in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as described in that Condominium declaration for "Sagewood Condominiums Association", appearing in such records in Book 282 at Page 438, more fully described as: Lots Q, R, and S of Block 4, City of Aspen, with the exceptions of a parcel of land lying on the westerly boundary ofÂ·lot Q, being 7.16 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5.95 feet wide at the northerly end, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot Q, Block 4, Township of Aspen; thence south.75Â° 09'11" east 7.16 feet; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of said lot Q, which point lies south 75Â° 09'11" east 5.95 feet from the northwest comer of said lot.Q, thence north 75c 09'11" west 5.95 feet to the northwest corner of said lot Q; thence south 14Â° 50'49" east 100 feet to the point of beginning. 1-1- lili-Ill -11-1111--1111111111111111111-11 08/18/2003 03:26P 487139 Page: 5 of 5 S.LV.A DAVIS PI-K N COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 A'*;TEST;,4 /14, i o F 43,0,1.24 -1 1 1.q . f~A j +40'~.,U_j -0/0 /1 L - I *allirA Ite#'City dlerk 'LU. Helen Kalin Iman,U.mi~layor Vi~19Â£169, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 14th day o f July, 2003. Â·/2'IrTES,;93*, 2 1 . f â€¢ 1/l 4=~LUL. â€¢ - 44#9Â£1.&* ~ -4' -f.:Kathryn-S. *01â‚¬ Cfty Clerk Hefen Ka]LK-ldnd;?JhÂ¢Iayor ' Â· ' . Â·: /0,fÂ·.1;'ClÂ· , ':* /2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1*4:41 0-1047Â»-, 11-Lot bb 4[.0Â·hIEWorcestor, City Attorney .. RESOLUTION N0.11, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE EAST ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R- 6 TO R/MF FOR THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, 910 WEST HALLAM STREET, A PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result o f the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of four to zero (4 - Q); and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 68 DAY OR MAY 2003, THAT: .. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 0 f the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, parcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Pif[) Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is detennined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF MAY, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: J,U.-t< C 4- City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair 9-0 ATTEST: *kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk vid j LEGAL DESCRUNION 01, PROPERTY --=-- -- ----- ------- EXHIBIT "A" All eleven (11) condominium units as shown on the Condominium Map for the "Sagewood Condominiums", appeaing in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as described in that Condominium declaration for "Sagewood Condominiums Association", appearing in such records in Book 282 at Page 438, more fully described as: Lots Q, R, and S o f Block 4, City of Aspen, with the exceptions of a parcel of land lying on the westerly boundary of lot Q, being 7.16 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5,95 feet wide at the northerly end, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said lot Q, Block 4, Township of Aspen; thence south 75Â° 09'11" east 7.16 feet; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of said lot Q, which point lies south 75Â° 09'11" east 5.95 feet from the northwest comer of said lot Q, thence north 75Â° 09'11" west 5.95 feet to the northwest comer of said lot Q; thence south 14Â° 50'49" east 100 feet to the point ofbeginning. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council gAA- THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City PlanneÂ£~r- RE: SAGE:WOOD CONDOMINIUMS, (2ND READING - PUBLIC HEARING); PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; ORDINANCE NO. 21, SERIES 2003 DATE: July 14, 2003 FJ"Â· 722393- . > i, : 4. 04/W,7 6 -< :32 7-. The south elevation of the Sagewood Condominiums ' 5.-' I. t '6. with US Highway 82/ Hallam Street in the foreground. 4 ..t .4-2 @i74/Of + : p.rNâ€¢te. 4 . 1 '1 . *Â·' . ' Â·.1Â¢~13......... \74*,W- .- ----~N 62'Â·, ':6:.f- F . - â€¢C ..,â‚¬ -*1 â€¢.4/70 401-~'.'r â€¢-'..9Wk -~ itâ€¢ .l= 1. 4 J -* I' - 1 . '.... j 1 . LI- ...tÂ» 4-5~.lit.F )I'rr.:9. I.. x ~.. PROJECT: :2-~ SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD overlay to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks, height, floor area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the condominium as conforming and to allow enclosure of twelve balconies and construction of a roof structure over the entrance on the east side of the building into the setback, and to rezone the parcel from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use. P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions (Vote: 4-0) on May 6.2003 APPLICANT: Sagewood Condominium Association LOCATION: 910 West Hallam Street STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO RECOMMENDATION: THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, WITH CONDIT]ONS SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 .. REOUEST SUMMARY: The Sagewood Condominium Association, represented by its Secretary, Scott A. Gallagher, has submitted this land use application requesting the following: l.) PUD overlay of the property to establish the existing, non-conforming dimensional standards (floor area, height, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and parking) for the structure as conforming; and 2.) PUD to approve the expansion of the floor area of the structure by 660 square feet by enclosing twelve balconies (55 square feet each) and construction of a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building (setback encroachment); and 3.) Rezone of the property from R-6 to IUMF to make the existing, non-conforming multi-family use a conforming use. 4.) Waiver of the fees related to the rezone of the property (see discussion below). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Sagewood Condominiums, known originally as the Sagewood Apartments, were constructed in 1970. At the time, it was constructed legally in the AR-1 (Accommodations/Recreation) Zone District, which included multi-family dwellings as an allowed use. In 1973, the City approved the apartments to be condominiumized'rOn April 28, 1975, the City rezoned the property from AR-1 to R-6 as part of amendments to the land use code. As the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family uses and has different dimensional standards than the previous AR-1 zone district, the Sagewood Condominiums became a legal, non-conforming use and structure after those amendments were approved. This status meant that the structure and use would be allowed to continue in its present state, however, no significant improvements or additions could be made to the property. Subsequent to this change, no legal land use actions have occurred on the site. Based on review of the City Council minutes during the code amendment in 1975, it is not clear why this property was rezoned; however, it appears as though the rezoning was part of a series ofbroad changes to all of the zone districts in the city and perhaps the fact that such action made this property non-conforming was not recognized by the City or the owners at the time and only recently discovered. There are also six balconies on the structure that have been illegally enclosed over time (mostly by previous owners of units), which means that they were constructed without first receiving a City of Aspen Building Department permit for the enclosures, or approval for expanding their fioor area. One owner was recently red-tagged by the Building Department during illegal construction of one of the enclosures and was required to remove their work. The other enclosures were built over ten years ago and are more integrated into the unit, so their removal would be more involved. Regardless, the Building Department is requiring, through this application, that the owners of such enclosures contact the Department to schedule inspections to determine whether or not they are in compliance with the current Building Code. This step must be undertaken SAGEWOOD CONDON/lINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 .. prior to the Department signing off on any permits for exterior improvements to the building. PROPOSAL: The Association's ultimate purpose for submitting this application is to make exterior improvements to the thirty-three year old structure, as its existing siding is outdated and in disrepair, as well as to legalize the existing illegally constructed balcony enclosures and allow the non-enclosed balconies to be enclosed. To that end, the Association has been recently approved for a construction loan for the siding improvements; however, they are unable to obtain the necessary permit approval from the City to do the work because of the illegally constructed balcony enclosures. Also as part of this application, the Association desires to legalize the non-conforming dimensional standards and use, even though the non-conforming use and structure status do not, in and of itself, prevent the re-siding (as normal maintenance is still allowed for non-conforming uses and structures). The reason for this request is to simply "clean up" this situation so that such status will not preclude more significant improvements in the future. According to the Section 26.312.020 and 26.312.030 of the Code, non-conforming uses and structures may continue to operate as they are, but only normal maintenance procedures can be conducted and no extensions or expansions are allowed. According to the definition of "normal maintenance", only maintenance necessary to preserve the safety and structural integrity of the building are allowed. The exterior siding improvements that the Association wishes to do are not necessary for structural inteli;ity, however, it has been past City practice to approve such activity on a building despite its non-conforming status. In this instance, though, because the re-siding work would include the illegal balcony enclosures in addition to the building, staff cannot approve the re-siding on the grounds of normal maintenance, thus the need for this application. lf the current PUD application request of additional floor area for the existing balcony enclosures is approved and if building permits are obtained for the illegal balcony enclosures, then the Association will be allowed to apply for the pennits for exterior siding improvements. In addition, if the PUD is approved to expand the existing floor area, then the remaining balconies may be enclosed should the owners choose to do so (according to the application, however, none of the owners have made this their current intention-they simply want the option for the future). The Association would also like to construct a small roof over the entrance to the east side of the structure for protection from the weather. There are two slightly different proposals for the design of the structure, with one being cantilevered and the other being supported by columns (see application in Exhibit F). The applicant hasn't chosen which design they prefer and propose that either option be allowed by the City. Both structures would encroach to the east property line and require PUD approval. Finally, the applicant is also requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning portion of the application because they contend that the rezoning of the property in 1975 that created the non-conformity was not their fault. As noted below (under Review Process), the City has the ability to waive or reduce land use review fees. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 .. Below is a summary of the proposal, land use actions necessary, and purpose: ISSUE: . LAND USE APPROVALS SO THE ASSOCIATION CAN: f':...':........ .. ...:...1 ILLEGAL BALCONY PUD APPROVAL & RE-SIDE THE STRUCTURE & ENCLOSURES BUILDING PERMUS LEGALIZE THE EXISTING BALCONIES AND ENCLOSE REMAINING BALCONIES NON-CONFORMING USE PUD APPROVAL AND LEGALIZE THE NON- AND STRUCTURE REZONING CONFORMING USE AND STATUS STRUCTURE SO THEY CAN DO MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FUTURE NEED ROOF OVER EAST PUD APPROVAL TO VARY CONSTRUCT ROOF OVER EAST ENTRANCE TO SETBACK FOR ROOF ENTRANCE BUILDING REQU-EST FOR PARTIAL CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL RECEIVE RELIEF ON FEES WAIVER OF FEES RELATED TO REZONING REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described abdffi 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD); According to Section 26.445.040 of the Land Use Code, establishment of dimensional requirements and density may be approved with the adoption of a Final PUD development plan. In this case, the applicant proposes a PUD to establish the existing floor area, height, off-street parking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit as the allowed standards and then to increase the allowed floor area to allow the enclosures to twelve balconies and to allow a setback encroachment from the east property line for a small roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building; Final Review Authority: City Council 2) Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; According to Section 26.3 10.020, an application for amendment to the official zone district map may be initiated by a group of people who own more than 50% of the property subject to the development application and proposed development (the applicant has received approval from over 50% of the affected property owners). A public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a public hearing with City Council is required in order to approve such amendment; Final Review Authority: City Council 3) Partial Waiver of Fees; Per Section 26.104.070, land use review fees may be waived or reduced by the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposals by a non-profit organization, or in cases where she determines that the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. In this instance, however, the Director feels that the request is too significant for her to waive the fee and is requesting that the City Council make the determination of whether the portion SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 .. of the land use review fee dedicated to the rezone should be waived in entirety or in some sum thereof. Final Review Authority: City Council STAFF ANALYSIS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Staff finds that the proposed PUD complies with the applicable criteria (see Exhibit A for full Staff Findings). The following are the dimensional standards that the applicant is requesting to establish as part of the PUD and staff response: FLOOR AREA: The structure currently exceeds the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the proposed RfMF zone district and proposes, through this application, to increase it by 660 square feet with the 12 balcony enclosures (55 square feet each). Including the twelve balcony enclosures, the FAR will be 1.3:1, whereas the R/MI: only allows 1:1 (without including the balcony enclosures in the calculation, the FAR would be 1.25:1). In terms of square footage, the total with all of the balconies enclosed would be 10,860 square feet, as opposed to the existing 10,473 square feet (which includes 6 of the balconies already enclosed). 459 7- p t>-7-34 The north side of the building where three of the six balconies I=-Ii/001:mill:Jillillipfi- I 7~ have been illegally enclosed#f approved to enclose all of the 11 1 i I - C-IL=*Le balconies on the structure (a total of 12) in a legal manner, Sm=L the Association will use the 1-1 - design of the balcony in the D*\ 53.-~1 L 1 - 1- - -I--- I.-.- upper right as the preferred design for future enclosures. 1 lilli 1.. 1 1---1/1/- - Staff believes that because the existing building (not including the proposed balcony enclosures) was constructed legally and made non-conforming later during a blanket rezoning of the entire community, that it should be allowed to become conforming through the PUD. Rather than dwell on what the existing floor area is (as it's already there), staff believes it is more pertinent to discuss whether it is appropriate to increase the allowed Door area to accommodate the proposed balcony enclosures. It is staffs opinion that the enclosures will not be too visually obtrusive and will be beneficial to the occupants of the small units. Despite the structure being located on Highway 82 at the entrance to the community, the building itsel f is not very visible due to the existence of very mature evergreen trees and other landscaping including a row of shrubs along the south property line. When viewed driving west on US 82, there is no clear view into the property and when driving the opposite direction, the glimpse of the SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 r . .1.Aâ‚¬* f. .. structure is very brief and only conspicuous if you are purposely looking for it. Because the primary landscaping is in the form of evergreens, it can be expected that the screening will exist year around. The other six enclosed balconies will be located on the north elevation, which is essentially an alley view and out of public view. Additionally, the enclosures will provide valuable additional space for these small units (mostly in the 600-800 square foot range and one 1,300 sq. ft. unit) which function primarily as housing for locally employed residents. Enclosing the balconies is one way for the owners to improve their units while not- requiring any expansion of the building footprint or increasing the height. View of the property as if * , you were traveling west on Hallam Street. Note the obscured view into the f*. building from this angle. 0 1*52 Staff believes that the 42*t , , 20* mature, evergreen trees and ' other vegetation screens 4<4 most of the view of the , 3 building. The addition of i ..1.: 6 421 balcony enclosures, while not the preferred choice for 4 4. ..O 1, ,TIL â‚¬ 4, ir + / i : 1 4 the structures, would k + 6 * 1, appear to not greatly ~ sir = detract from the aesthetics - . Â·Â·- - r of the building. ; ri 243.t AM*:r - Xn.3 3 . 5 +91-%.~Â·. 6 . ..2 :.r - :-4-velt i. k=tul-...eL,imbl.Ell;i. 0,tÂ·Gicilit..Ek,lai~~* t,SL/*r..:A/&1 116.3,'2...,2/; HEIGHT: The height limit of the proposed RjMF zone district is 25'. At 30' (as the Code measures height: from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to a point halfway between the eave and the ridge of the roof), the Sagewood Condominiums exceeds that limit by 5'. The building is not proposed to become any taller as part of this application. When the structure was built in 1970, the AR-1 zone district that it was located in also had a 25' height limitation. How the structure was built over this limitation is unclear. Regardless, staff supports the PUD to establish the existing height as legal because the height is not conspicuous from the street due to the existence of the even taller evergreen trees and it is not too incompatible with its immediate single family neighbor to the west. In addition, it is unrealistic to expect that the 5' of additional height is going to be removed from the structure anytime soon because it would require a major redevelopment project. Building a new building and replacing the locals housing would likely make the project not cost effective. So it is relatively safe to assume that the structure will continue in its current form well into the future. If the non-conforming status is removed from the property, the applicant will be able to make much needed improvements to the exterior of the property, which will help mitigate the impacts of the higher-than-allowed height. OFF-STREET PARKING: According to the Code, two off-street parking spaces are required per each dwelling unit, so 22 spaces are required for the existing 11 units. Only SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 .. 9 off-street spaces are actually provided. Originally, there were 11 parking spaces, even though the Code at the time required 1.5 spaces per unit for multi-family dwellings (for a total of 16.5 spaces). Again, its unclear from the available City records why the required amount of spaces were not built. Two of the 11 parking spaces originally provided were located directly off of Hallam Street. When the structure converted from apartments to condominiums, the City required that those two spaces be removed due to the danger of vehicles backing up onto a highway. According to the applicant, there is an informal agreement among the residents that allows the seven owners who live on-site to use seven o f the spaces and the other two are rotated among the renters of the other five units. The other renters apparently park on the street when they don't have access to the on-site spaces. Although this situation is clearly not optimum, it is physically impossible to rectify the deficiency on-site as there is no room to accommodate two more spaces. Possibly, the Association can lease the use of some spaces on an adjacent site. If not, the current situation will have to be endured. Staff does not see, however, how the parking problem will be ameliorated by maintaining the non-conforming status and supports making the nine spaces provided the legal dimensional requirement under the PUD. M]N]MUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the proposed IUMF zone district, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is determined by the number of bedrooms in a structure. In this case, 19,800 square feet of lot area would be necessary to accommodate the combination of bedrooms in units of the Sagewood Condominiums. The sit/Aly contains 8,344 square feet, so it is non-conforming with respect to this requirement. Staff supports the establishment of the existing site square footage as the minimum lot area to support the 11 dwelling units because it met the requirement for minimum lot area when it was constructed (at the time, 750 square feet per dwelling unit was required, or 8,250 sq. ft., in this case). The only reason it is non-conforming with respect to this is due to the rezoning in 1975. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Staff finds that the proposal for rezoning from R-6 to R/MF complies with the applicable review standards (see Exhibit B for full Staff Findings). COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVIEW CRrrERIA: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning complies with the review criteria because it is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the community character of Aspen, will not create traffic congestion, and has been subject to a changed condition which supports the rezoning. The area in which the subject parcel is located is characterized by a mix of different uses where no single use is predominant. Because of this existing character and because the proposed zoning amendment will only reinforce this mix by legalizing this multi-family use, staffbelieves that it will be compatible with its surroundings. The changed condition that supports the rezoning is the blanket rezoning of the property by the City in 1975 which made the Sagewood Condominiums a non-conforming use. It is staffs opinion that this was done without consideration of the impact that the rezoning would have on this property and that it should be rectified with this proposal. A rezoning to IUMF will not create spot SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 .. zoning because there is a large swath of RAMP directly across the street from this project, at the Aspen Villas. PARTIAL WAIVER OF FEES: As part of this application, the applicant is requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning. According to their application, they believe that the rezoning that made the property non-conforming in 1975 was done in error and that they shouldn't have to bear the cost to correct it. To date, the applicant has incurred approximately $3,500 in land use review fees, of which, approximately 40% has been devoted to the review of the rezoning. This equates to about $ 1,400 that could be waived (Note: this amount is as of the writing of this report and may increase due to additional work). Section 26.104 states that: "Land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non-profit '5 organization, or in which thefee may be excessivefor the work proposed. The Community Development Director has recommended that the decision o f whether to waive the fee for the rezone be made by City Council. Condition #9 of the Ordinance includes the waiver of the $1,400. If Council does not believe it is appropriate to waive the this fee, then this condition should be removed from the final Ordinance. Based on incomplete documentation, it is difficult to discern what the rationale was when the City took the rezoning action in the mid-1970's. It is possible that the rezoning 6fthe property to a single-family zone district was done consciously by the City in order to make the property non-conforming so the multi-family use would go away someday and the area could be redeveloped with single family residences. However, when you consider that the City approved the Sagewood complex to be condominiumized in 1973 - two years prior to the rezoning - it is difficult to imagine the City would want the multi- family use to go away. For this reason, it is quite possible that the rezoning was part of widespread changes to the zone districts of the entire community and it was not recognized by either the City or the owners at the time that it would make this property non-conforming. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2003. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. No major issues were raised at the meeting. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF for the Sagewood Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Staff Findings SAGEWOOD CONDON/liNIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 .. Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Approved P&Z Resolution Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes Exhibit F: Application City Manager Comments: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 .. ORDINANCE 30. 31, (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR ENCLOSURES OF TWELVE (12) BALCONIES, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER AN ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MIr FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds lhat the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 6,2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) recommended City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the applicable referral agencies and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the application for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map meets or SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 .. exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, by a vote of to 0-), approves a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file the approved PUD plans in the Clerk and Recorders office o f Pitkin County prior to issuance of a building pennit. 4. Prior to .sign-off on any future building permits for the Sagewood Condominium building or its individual units, the owners o f units with balcony enclosures that were constructed without a building permit shall be required to submit the necessary pennits to the Aspen Building Department for review and approval to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and noted on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 .. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, will be required to be brought into compliance. 8. All applications for building permit for balcony enclosures shall include a letter from the Sagewood Condominium Association approving of the enclosure design. 9. The Aspen City Council approves a partial waiver of the land use review fees for the portion related to the review of the rezoning. As the rezoning constitutes approximately 40% of the total review, the applicant shall only be required to pay for 60% of the costs of the entire review. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abat~ent of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on this 9th day ofJune, 2003. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 .. FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 14th day ofJuly, 2003. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney SAC}EWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 .. EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regard to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need for a "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different ' economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the function i~,of the community. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The character of the existing land uses in the area is a mix of single-family and multi- family residences interspersed with a restaurant and government offices. As a multi- family residence, the Sagewood is consistent with this character ofmixed land uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal, which proposes to make the condominium a conforming use and structure and allow for balcony space to be enclosed, should not have an adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding area. Parcels on all four sides of the structure have been developed and should be able to expand in the future without being inhibited by this building. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The expansion of overall floor area with the proposed balcony enclosures is exempt from GMQS, in accordance with Section 26.470.070.A.1. of the Code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Existing Zone Proposed New Existing Dimensional Requirement: District (R-6) Zone District Conditions/ : (R/MID t Proposed PUD Â«c Â·~ Requirement: Requirement: Â¢Standards: Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 6,000 6,000 8,344 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling N/A -. 8.344 : .6 19,8001 Unit Maximum Allowable Density N/A Varies2 11 units Minimum Lot Width 60' 60' 84' Minimum Front Yard Setback 10' 10' 21' Minimum West Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5'6" Minimum East Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 0' Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' 20' Maximum Height 25' 25' 32' Minimum Distance b/w Buildings 5' 10' N/A Minimum Percent of Open Space No 35% 35% Requirement Allowable Floor Area (FAR) NiA ]:1 1:13 22 spaces (2 22 spaces (2 Minimum OYStreet Parking spaces/unit spaces/unit 9 spaces Shading indicates areas of non-conformity. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: 1 Required amount of lot area to support the existing 11 unit condominium development of 4-1BR units, 1- 3BR unit, and 6-2BR units. 2 The allowed density depends on whether the units are studio or one, two, three, or more bedrooms. The 11 existing units, however, would exceed the allowed density iII this zone district. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 .. a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has existed in this location for thirty years and is located in an area of mixed types of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family. It appears that this use has been and will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and natural and man-made characteristics with the proposed PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and o f the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed dimensional requirements seek to establish the existing dimensions as the legal standards for the property and expand that allowance slightly for the ba~eny enclosures. There will be no appreciable change in the size or character of the structure. Although the existing height exceeds the allowable height in the zone district by 7' and has more floor area than is allowed, this is an existing structure built legally under rules in effect thirty years ago. Despite the increased height and floor area, the structure exceeds the minimum front and rear setback (of the proposed R/MF zone district) by twice the required amount, which lessens the impact of the structure from the highway. The IUMI requires 20' of total side yard setback with a minimum of 5' on either side, whereas the structure provides about 13' total, but maintains a minimum of 5 '6" on both sides. This places some impact on the neighbor to the west, but does not effect any structure to the east as it is on a corner. Mature landscaping on the west property line somewhat helps to mitigate the closeness o f the condominium to the neighboring single- family residence, which was just constructed last year. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability ofpublic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity o f the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are currently 9 parking spaces for 11 units, which means that some units do not have access to an off-street parking space. While this is somewhat of an untenable situation, it is the reality that the owners and the City have to work with. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on the site to fit an additional two spaces and it is not realistic to expect that two units can be eliminated from the site to make the parking comply. However, given that the structure is located on the bus line and is a short walk or bike ride into town, there are options for tenants who don't own cars or who don't need them very often and have an alternate place to park their vehicle. Staff does not want to have this unfortunate situation continue to be considered non-conforming and have it be a barrier to other improvements to the structure. Staff supports legalizing the situation and encourages the Association to continue exploring parking alternatives. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES ' According to the review by the Development Review Committee, there exists adequate infrastructure capabilities to the structure. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because o f ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are no natural hazards or critical site features impacted with this structure or with the proposed balcony enclosures. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 .. and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The density is not proposed to be increased. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No changes are proposed which would impact any natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There is only one structure on the site, so clustering has already been achieved. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure is oriented parallel to the public street and is setback farther than what the zone district requires with mature vegetation, which softens the appearance and size of the structure. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fire and emergency service vehicle access is adequate to serve their needs. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YEs/No There are sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the property providing good pedestrian access, but there is no specific handicap access. The structure was approved and constructed at a time when handicap access was not a requirement. To make the upper units handicap accessible an elevator would be required, which would only be feasible as part of a larger redevelopment request when there would be more of a nexus between the proposal and the request for such improvements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Site drainage appears to be accommodated properly and does not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing vegetation on the site is mature and ample. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and SAGEWOOD CONDON'lINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 .. other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the design of the building is starting to become outdated, it was likely appropriate when it was approved. Still, there are many condominium and lodge structures o f the same era in Aspen that all contribute to the local architectural character and are appropriate for the environment in which they are located. If the PUD application is approved, then the Association will undertake faâ„¢le upgrades. The Association has already applied and received a construction loan for such improvenzits. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff has not yet reviewed the outdoor lighting for the building. Consequently, a condition of approval has been added requiring inspection of the lighting prior to sign off on any building permit and the bringing of any non-compliant lighting into compliance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 .. 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users ofthe PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Open space is provided between the Hallam Street property line and the structure which provides a buffer for the residents from the heavily traveled street and provides visual relief for those on the street back towards the structure. The PUD establishes 35% of the site as open space. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public faeffties associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has direct access from a public street, 8th Street off of Hallam Street. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 .. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No traffic congestion is created by this development on surrounding roads. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment o f impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior t>the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing is proposed. SAC}EWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF R.EPORT PAGE 22 .. EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL Z0NE DISTRICT MAP Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of a Rezone: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. , ST AFÂ¥ FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff is unaware of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regard to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need for a "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" ofpeoplg,ith different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment o f local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the community. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The area in which the Sagewood Condominiums are located is a mix of single- family and multi-family residences with a restaurant and the US Forest Service offices nearby. Because of this mix of uses has existed for many years in a seemingly compatible manner and because this amendment will not alter that character, staff finds that the continuation of this use in the area would maintain and reinforce the neighborhood character. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 23 .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment will have no impact on traffic generation or road safety as the use of this PUD only seeks to legalize the conditions that have existed relatively unchanged for thirty years. Additionally, no new units are proposed to be added. While each unit will have the option of enclosing their balconies with this proposal, it will only add 55 square feet to each unit. It is unlikely that this extra square footage would add additional traffic as the space is generally too small for an extra bedroom. In addition, there are not any extra parking spaces on site with which to park an extra vehicle. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Based on the feedback from the Development Review Committee (DRC), which reviews issues related to public facilities, there is not anticipated to be any additional demands on public facilities as a result o f this PUD Amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would reslj~ in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not expand the size of the footprint of the building. therefore it will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City o f Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? YES For the most part, the community character of Aspen includes a mixing of different types of uses, including residential (both single-family and multi-family), retail, office, and, in some cases, industrial type uses. In the vicinity of the Sagewood Condominiums, this character is evident, with other multi-family structures and single family residences co-existing side by side, as well as commercial and office uses close by. This amendment will serve to legitimize the existing multi-family use on the property and to continue the community pattern ofmixed uses. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 24 .. The Sagewood Condominiums were constructed in 1970 as a legal use in the ARI (Accommodations/Recreation) zone district in use at the time. In April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6, as part of a change to a new land use code. The rezoning had the effect of changing the Sagewood Condominiums from a conforming use into a non-conforming use because the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family residences as an allowed use. Apparently, the multi-family uses on the south side of Hallam Street were rezoned from AR1 to R/MF at the time, but the Sagewood and another condominium structure in existence at the time, the Aspen West End, were allowed to be rezoned to the R-6, leaving both as non- conforming uses. It is unclear as to why these two properties were rezoned as they were. Possibly, it was an oversight on the part of the City or maybe it was a conscious decision to have these types of uses removed over time. Staff would submit that the changed condition was the rezoning of the subject parcel which made the use non-conforming. The use did not go away and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the owners wish to establish the use as conforming again so that they can make improvements to the exterior o f the structure and to their individual units, both of which lend permanence to the use. Because this area of town includes mixed uses and because the units house locally working residents, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the community to legalize the use and allow it to continue. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interes~nd whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAÂ¥Â¥ FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To staffs knowledge, the multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums has existed in harmony with its surrounding for the thirty years it has existed. Rezoning the parcel to R/MF so that the multi-family use can be legalized again will allow the use to continue as well as allow the owners to make improvements to the property and structure. Staff believes that because this structure houses many local working residents and is located on a prominent site at the entrance to town, it is in the public interest to allow this use to continue and for the residents to be able to improve the outward appearance of the structure. Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Title, which is to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens." Allowing the locals who live here to continue to improve their units and the exterior of the structure, which is very visible at the entrance to the community, is helping to protect the safety and welfare of the citizens. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 25 .. EXHIBIT C DRC MINUTES DRC COMMENTS: 1. Engineering Department â€¢ Existing Dumpster: Existing dumpster is to be moved out of the ROW. If no onsite dumpster location, as a last resort the Engineering Department may issue an encroachment license to enable the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. 2. Building Department â€¢ Building Permits: A building permit will be needed for existing illegal construction. 3. Aspen Sanitation District â€¢ Inspection: The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visit/walk-through prior to issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specification~lat are on file at the district office. 4. Zoning The Sagewood is an existing multi-family non-conforming use and structure located in the R-6 zone district. The complex, which consists of 11 condominiumized units, does not comply with the use, height requirements, parking or density of the underlying zone district. Outlined below are the non-conformities. Dimensional requirements: Dimension Required (R-6) Required (RMF) Proposed Floor Area NCU* 1:1 (8344.5 sq. ft.) 10860 sq. ft Height 25' 25' 32' Parking NCU* 18 9 (existing) Density NCU* 19,800 sq. ft 8344 sq. ft. *Non-conforming Use The applicant is proposing to remedy these non-conformities by rezoning to RFM, which will grant relief from the non-conforming use status, and by going through the PUD process to establish the dimensional requirements proposed above. Residential Design Standards: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 26 .. Since there will be no substantial change to the exterior of the building the residential design standards do not apply at this time. Impact fees: There are no applicable impact fees with the proj ect. Lighting Code: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use code. Illegal Construction: The enclosure of seven of the balconies to date has been done without proper permits, inspections and approvals. The applicant(s) will be required to submit the necessary permits to "formalize" the enclosures and ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 27 Exhibit D: ~proved P&Z Resolution . RESOLUTION N0. , (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE EAST ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R- 6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received rgietral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting: and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application. referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan: and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of four to zero (4 - fl); and. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 6th DAY OF MAY 2003, THAT: .. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, parcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders o ffice o f Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order. or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the 0pen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out o f the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the .. same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section. subsection, sentence, clause. phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 6 TII DAY OF MAY, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian. Deputy City Clerk Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes ASPEN PLANN~ & ZONING COMMISSIO~Minutes Mav 06,2003 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Sagewood Condominiums. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. Scott Woodford distributed a site plan and two different elevations of the proposed roof over the east entrance: One had a flat roof and the other a pitched roof. Woodford explained that the application was for a PUD overlay to establish the non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming. The non- conforming standards were FAR, height, off-street parking and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The PUD would also include the expansion of allowed floor area to enclose the balconies for living space; to approve the 6 that have already been built but also approve 6 additional enclosures, when and if the owners wanted to enclose those balconies. Another part of the PUD was to allow a setback encroachment for the roof structure on the east side, represented on the drawings. The third aspect was to rezone the property from R-6 to RMF to bring the non- conforming multi-family building into conformity. Woodford stated the condominium complex was originally built in 1970 and in compliance at the time, but in 1975 there was a new code that rezoned the property to R-6, which made it a non-conforming structure and use because of different dimensional standards and because multi-family is not an allowed use in the R-6. Since the property is non-conforming only maintenance can be done without any significant rehabilitation to the building (up to 10% of the value of the building). The homeowners association would like to do some exterior improvements but the non-conforming status is holding up that process. Woodford said by the PUD the applicant hoped to establish the non-conforming structures to conforming and the rezone to establish the use as conforming, which would eliminate the non- conformity status. Woodford said that somewhere down the line 6 balconies were enclosed and since the additional FAR was not approved by the city and there were no building permits obtained, the City would not allow the homeowners to obtain a building permit for the exterior changes until the illegal balcony enclosures were approved. The applicant also wants the option to enclose the additional 6 balconies, which were each about 55 square feet each (a total of 600 square feet to the entire building). There would be a standard design for any future balcony enclosures that owners would have to comply with. Staff supported the proposal. Woodford stated that local employees occupied the units even though the units were not deed-restricted. The units are about 600 square feet or so. The building stood 30 feet as the code measured it and the RMF zone district allowed 25-foot 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZOM[NG COMMISSION Minutes Mav 06,2003 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Sagewood Condominiums. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. Scott Woodford distributed a site plan and two different elevations of the proposed roof over the east entrance: One had a flat roof and the other a pitched roof. Woodford explained that the application was for a PUD overlay to establish the non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming. The non- conforming standards were FAR, height, off-street parking and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The PUD would also include the expansion of allowed floor area to enclose the balconies for living space; to approve the 6 that have already been built but also approve 6 additional enclosures, when and if the owners wanted to enclose those balconies. Another part of the PUD was to allow a setback encroachment for the roof structure on the east side, represented on the drawings. The third aspect was to rezone the property from R-6 to RMF to bring the non- conforming multi-family building into conformity. Woodford stated the condominium complex was originally built in 1970 and in compliance at the time, but in 1975 there was a new code that rezoned the property to R-6, which made it a non-conforming structure and use because of different dimensional standards and because multi-family is not an allowed use in the R-6. Since the property is non-conforming only maintenance can be done without any significant rehabilitation to the building (up to 10% of the value of the building). The homeowners association would like to do some exterior improvements but the non-conforming status is holding up that process. Woodford said by the PUD the applicant hoped to establish the non-conforming structures to conforming and the rezone to establish the use as conforming, which would eliminate the non- conformity status. Woodford said that somewhere down the line 6 balconies were enclosed and since the additional FAR was not approved by the city and there were no building permits obtained, the City would not allow the homeowners to obtain a building permit for the exterior changes until the illegal balcony enclosures were approved. The applicant also wants the option to enclose the additional 6 balconies, which were each about 55 square feet each (a total o f 600 square feet to the entire building). There would be a standard design for any future balcony enclosures that owners would have to comply with. Staff supported the proposal. Woodford stated that local employees occupied the units even though the units were not deed-restricted. The units are about 600 square feet or so. The building stood 30 feet as the code measured it and the RMF zone district allowed 25-foot cÂ·n ASPEN PLAN19IG & ZONING COMMISSIO~Minutes Mav 06.2003 Dylan Johns said that in the Resolution there was no mention of the entry canopy and asked if this was the first step in adding features. Woodford replied that the enclosure should have been mentioned as part of the PUD request; the enclosure structurally encroached to the east property line. Tygre stated that balconies were not included in the FAR of buildings and they were meant to add interest to the outsides of buildings rather than just square boxes, but a few times a year people do come in for variances to enclose balconies. Gallagher stated that it would be very expensive to take out the enclosures that were already done and would be a significant hardship on those owners; he asked if those could be allowed to remain. Tygre stated that created an inequitable situation rewarding the people who built without permits and punishing those who did not expand their units buy not allowing them to expand. Hoefer stated that if this was not approved the non-conforming enclosed balconies would have to be removed. Ruth Kruger stated that she would vote for the proposal to get this building into conformity as much as possible. Allgaier said that the commission should,egk themselves if this zoning was appropriate, should the applicant be allowed the extra 660 square feet of floor area for the building taking in the circumstances of the neighborhood and the building. Allgaier stated that the PUD set the dimensional standards for the project. Tygre stated that the enclosures would not affect the building in any way but she stated concern for the enclosed balconies. Eric Cohen agreed and asked what were the extenuating circumstances and asked what were the positive benefits. Cohen answered that the building housed a lot of employees and was located in a highly visible place at the entrance to town. Cohen said the negatives were the building was already above the FAR. Hoefer noted that the commission decision should be based on the criteria, not what was best for an individual. Tygre noted the use was made non-conforming by the change in city codes. 1MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #11,2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums, 910 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado with the addition of a condition for the east side entrance cover; seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting adjog>eQ 5:45 p.m Â»MAL 0 ' 44.-~ ~Ekie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plannef~(~ ~ RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, (1ST READING); PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; ORDINANCE No. , SERIES 2003 DATE: June 9,2003 FA,49&975Twn/262-7.:1:32pff. 1-9~4*fit?F:*:. ./'fit.U.~~9-'. ' The south elevation of the ... Sagewood Condominiums Street in the foreground. with US Highway 82/ Hallam .+44*idg:912:RdAF.i:-_. . . -.piÂ¢*Ittif~ *-:: 1311,nmm i 492Â¥i~:fid , , --:lii"'ll//P+* I -f. -- SH PROJECT: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD overlay to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks, height, floor area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the condominium as conforming and to allow enclosure of twelve balconies and construction of a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building into the setback, and to rezone the parcel from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use. P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions (Vote: 4-0) on May 6,2003 APPLICANT: Sagewood Condominium Association LOCAT]ON: 910 West Hallam Street STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO RECOMMENDATION: THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, WITH CONDITIONS SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 8*!: 7,1 .. REQUEST SUMMARY: The Sagewood Condominium Association, represented by its Secretary, Scott A. Gallagher, has submitted this land use application requesting the following: l.) PUD overlay of the property to establish the existing, non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming; and 2.) PUD to approve the expansion of the floor area of the structure by 660 square feet by enclosing twelve balconies (55 square feet each) and a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building (setback encroachment); and 3.) Rezone of the property from R-6 to IUMF to make the existing, non-confonning multi-family use a conforming use. 4.) Waiver of the fees related to the rezone of the property (see discussion below). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Sagewood Condominiums, known originally as the Sagewood Apartments, were constructed in 1970. At the time, it was constructed legally in the AR-1 (Accommodations/Recreation) Zone District, which included multi-family dwellings as an allowed use. In 1973, the City approved the apartments to be condominiumized. On April 28,1975, the City rezoned the property from AR-1 to R-6 as part of amendments to the land use code. As the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family uses and has different dimensional standards than the previous AR-1 zone district, the Sagewood Condominiums became a legal, non-conforming use and structure (with respect to allowed floor area, height, off-street parking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit) after those amendments were approved. Subsequently, no land use actions have occurred on the site. Based on review of the City Council minutes during the code amendment in 1975, it is not clear why this property was rezoned; however, it appears as though the rezoning was part o f a series o f broad changes to all of the zone districts in the city and perhaps the fact that such action made this property non-conforming was not recognized by the City or the owners at the time and only recently discovered. There are also six balconies on the structure that have been illegally enclosed over time (mostly by previous owners of units). This means that they were constructed without first receiving a City of Aspen Building Department pennit for the enclosures, or approval for expanding their floor area. One owner was recently red-tagged by the Building Department during illegal construction of one of the enclosures and was required to remove their work. The other enclosures were built over ten years ago and are more integrated into the unit, so their removal would be more involved. The Building Department is requiring that the owners of units contact the Department to schedule inspections to determine whether or not they are in compliance with the current Building Code. This must be done prior to the Department signing off on any permits for exteior improvements to the building. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 .. PROPOSAL: The Association's ultimate desire is to make exterior improvements to the thirty-three year old structure, as its existing siding is outdated and in disrepair. To that end, the Association has been recently approved for a construction loan for the improvements, however they are unable to obtain the necessary permits from the City to do the work because of the non-conforming use and structure status and because of the presence o f the illegally constructed balcony enclosures. If the currently proposed PUD to legalize the non-conforming dimensional standards and the rezone to legalize the existing non-conforming use is approved and ifbuilding pennits are obtained for the illegal balcony enclosures, then the Association can apply for the permits for exterior siding improvements. In addition, i f the PUD is approved to expand the existing floor area, then the remaining balconies may be enclosed should the owners choose to do so (according to the application, however, none of the owners have made this their current intention-they simply want the option). Finally, the Association would like to construct a small roof over the entrance to the east side of the structure for protection from the weather. There are two slightly different proposals for the design of the structure, with one being cantilevered and the other being supported by columns (see application). Both structures would encroach to the east property line. According to the Section 26.312.020 and 26.312.030 of the Code, non-conforming uses and structures may continue to operate as they are, but only normal maintenance procedures can be conducted and no extensions or expansions are allowed. According to the definition of "normal maintenance", only maintenance necessary to preserve the safety and structural integrity of the building are allowed. The exterior improvements that the Association wishes to do are not necessary for structural integrity, however, it has been past City practice such activity on a building despite its non-conforming status. However, the presence of the illegal balcony enclosures would preclude that possibility because that additional floor area has never been approved. As part of this application, the applicant is also requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning because they contend that the rezoning of the property in 1975 that created the non-conformity was not their fault. As noted below, the City has the ability to waive or reduce land use review fees. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD); According to Section 26.445.040 of the Land Use Code, establishment of dimensional requirements and density may be approved with the adoption of a Final PUD development plan. In this case, the applicant proposes a PUD to establish the existing floor area, height, off-street parking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit as the allowed standards and then to increase the allowed floor area to allow the enclosures to twelve balconies and to allow a setback encroachment from the east property line for a small roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building; Final Review Authority: City Council SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 .. 2) Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; According to Section 26.310.020, an application for amendment to the official zone district map may be initiated by a group of people who own more than 50% of the property subject to the development application and proposed development (the applicant has received approval from over 50% of the affected property owners). A public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a public hearing with City Council is required in order to approve such amendment; Final Review Authority: City Council 3) Partial Waiver of Fees; Per Section 26.104.070, land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non-profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. The Director feels that the request is too significant for her to waive the fee and is requesting that the City Council make the determination of whether the portion of the land use review fee dedicated to the rezone should be waived in entirety or in some sum thereof. Final Review Authority: City Council STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Staff finds that the proposed PUD complies with the applicable criteria (see Exhibit A for full Staff Findings). The following ard the dimensional standards that the applicant is requesting to establish as part of the PUD and staffresponse: FLOOR AREA: The structure currently exceeds the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the proposed IUMF zone district and proposes, through this application, to increase it by 660 square feet with the 12 balcony enclosures (55 square feet each). Including the twelve balcony enclosures, the FAR will be 1.3:1, whereas the IUMF only allows 1:1 (without including the balcony enclosures in the calculation, the FAR would be 1.25:1). In terms of square footage, the total with all of the balconies enclosed would be 10,860 square feet, as opposed to the existing 10,473 square feet (which includes 6 0 f the balconies already enclosed). SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 .. -6 :.ing = p .-Â·.2/ 721 ....: %.: Ettip<T' ~ b . . . _,~ The north side of the building -71 P 5*1 r 149-14 where three ofthe six balconies 1 It i- 4 ~1 -19 2 1 have been illegally enclosed. If approved to enclose all of the balconies on the structure (a total of 12) in a legal manner, >~ T F UL.Â·, b<ar <r- =53= JF I -r the Association will use the design of the balcony in the design for future enclosures. upper right as the preferred p--- 1Â·,!C./itit 1 3.4'r~, -:rgbi? . , *30 1.-402 .- Staff believes that because the existing building (not including the proposed balcony enclosures) was constructed legally and made non-conforming later during a blanket rezoning of the entire community, that it should be allowed to become conforming through the PUD. Rather than dwell on what the existing fioor area is (as it's already there), staff believes it is more pertinent to discuss whether it is appropriate to increase the allowed floor area to accommodate the proposed balcony enclosures. It is staffs opinion that the enclosures will not be too visually obtrusive and will be beneficial to the occupants of the small units. Despite the structure being located on Highway 82 at the entrance to the community, the building itsel f is not very visible due to the existence of very mature evergreen trees and other landscaping including a row of shrubs along the south property line. When viewed driving west on US 82, there is no clear view into the property and when driving the opposite direction, the glimpse of the structure is very brief and only conspicuous if you are purposely looking for it. Because the primary landscaping is in the form of evergreens, it can be expected that the screening will exist year around. The other six enclosed balconies will be located on the north elevation, which is essentially an alley view and out of public view. Additionally, the enclosures will provide valuable additional space for these small units (mostly in the 600-800 square foot range and one 1,300 sq. ft. unit) which function primarily as housing for locally employed residents. Enclosing the balconies is one way for the owners to improve their units while not requiring any expansion of the building footprint or increasing the height. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 .. .<9%9:*7 ,Â¢319 View of the property as if *' you were traveling west on Hallam Street. Note the obscured view into the 4 building from this angle. 44%* Staff believes that the <4*34 mature, evergreen trees and other vegetation screens 36* most of the view of the .-./Mak : - building. The addition of < balcony enclosures, while 2 fr?, Â· not the preferred choice for the structures, would c + 4... . appear to not greatly detract from the aesthetics of the building. .. Dz-121222161 EfÂ·33:1.,Viljl=LA-11=22Â£-#-21,021 HEIGHT: The height limit of the proposed R/MF zone district is 25'. At 30' (as the Code measures height: from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to a point halfway between the eave and the ridge of the roof), the Sagewood Condominiums exceeds that limit by 5'. The building is not proposed to become any taller as part of this application. When the structure was built in 1970, the AR-1 zone district that it was located in also had a 25' height limitation. How the structure was built over this limitation is unclear. Regardless, staff supports the PUD to establish the existing height as legal because the height is not conspicuous from the street due to the existence of the even taller evergreen trees and it is not too incompatible with its immediate single family neighbor to the west. In addition, it is unrealistic to expect that the 5' o f additional height is going to be removed from the structure anytime soon because it would require a major redevelopment project. Building a new building and replacing the locals housing would likely make the project not cost effective. So it is relatively safe to assume that the structure will continue in its current form well into the future. If the non-conforming status is removed from the property, the applicant will be able to make much needed improvements to the exterior of the property, which will help mitigate the impacts of the higher-than-allowed height. OFF-STREET PARKING: According to the Code, two off-street parking spaces are required per each dwelling unit5 so 22 spaces are required for the existing 11 units. Only 9 off-street spaces are actually provided. Originally, there were 11 parking spaces, even though the Code at the time required 1.5 spaces per unit for multi-family dwellings (for a total of 16.5 spaces). Again, its unclear from the available City records why the required amount of spaces were not built. Two of the 11 parking spaces originally provided were located directly off of Hallam Street. When the structure converted from apartments to condominiums, the City required that those two spaces be removed due to the danger of vehicles backing up onto a highway. According to the applicant there is an informal agreement among the residents that allows the seven owners who live on-site to use seven o f the spaces and the other two are rotated among the renters o f the other five units. The other renters apparently park on the street when they don't have access to the on-site spaces. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 .. Although this situation is clearly not optimum, it is physically impossible to rectify the deficiency on-site as there is no room to accommodate two more spaces. Possibly, the Association can lease the use of some spaces on an adjacent site. If not, the current situation will have to be endured. Staff does not see, however, how the parking problem will be ameliorated by maintaining the non-conforming status and supports making the nine spaces provided the legal dimensional requirement. MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the proposed R/MF zone district, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is determined by the number of bedrooms in a structure. In this case, 19,800 square feet of lot area would be necessary to accommodate the combination of bedrooms in units of the Sagewood Condominiums. The site only contains 8,344 square feet, so it is non-conforming with respect to this requirement. Staff supports the establishment of the existing site square footage as the minimum lot area to support the 11 dwelling units because it met the requirement for minimum lot area when it was constructed (at the time, 750 square feet per dwelling unit was required, or 8,250 sq. ft., in this case). The only reason it is non-conforming with respect to this is due to the rezoning in 1975. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Staff finds that the proposal for rezoning from R-6 to R.&IF complies with the applicable review standards (see Exhibit B for full Staff Findings). COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning complies with the review criteria because it is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the community character of Aspen, will not create traffic congestion, and has been subject to a changed condition which supports the rezoning. The area in which the subject parcel is located is characterized by a mix of different uses where no single use is predominant. Because of this existing character and because the proposed zoning amendment will only reinforce this mix by legalizing this multi-family use, staff believes that it will be compatible with its surroundings. The changed condition that supports the rezoning is the blanket rezoning of the property by the City in 1975 which made the Sagewood Condominiums a non-conforming use. It is staff' s opinion that this was done without consideration of the impact that the rezoning would have on this property and that it should be rectified with this proposal. A rezoning to RiMP will not create spot zoning because there is a large swath of R/MF directly across the street from this project, at the Aspen Villas. PARTIAL WAIVER oF FEES: As part of this application, the applicant is requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning. According to their application, they believe that the rezoning that made the property non-conforming in 1975 was done in error and that they shouldn't have to bear the cost to correct it. To date, the applicant has incurred approximately $3,500 in land use review fees, of which, approximately 40% has been devoted to the review o f the rezoning. This equates to about $ 1,400 that could be waived (Note: this amount is as of the writing of this report and may increase due to additional work). Section 26.104 states that: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 .. "Land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non-profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. The Community Development Director has recommended that the decision of whether to waive the fee for the rezone be made by City Council. Based on incomplete documentation, it is difficult to discern what the rationale was when the City took the rezoning action in the mid-1970's. It is possible that the rezoning of the property to a single-family zone district was done consciously by the City in order to make the property non-conforming so the multi-family use would go away someday and the area could be redeveloped with single family residences. However, when you consider that the City approved the Sagewood complex to be condominiumized in 1973 - two years prior to the rezoning - it is difficult to imagine the City would want the multi- family use to go away. For this reason, it is quite possible that the rezoning was part of widespread changes to the zone districts of the entire community and it was not recognized by either the City or the owners at the time that it would make this property non-conforming. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2003. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. No major issues were raised at the meeting. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to IUMF for the Sagewood Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Staff Findings Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Approved P&Z Resolution Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes Exhibit F: Application SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 .. ORDINANCE N0. , (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR ENCLOSURES OF TWELVE (12) BALCONIES, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCORACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER AN ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO IUMF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 6,2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) recommended City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission. and the applicable referral agencies and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the application for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map meets or SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 .. exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, by a vote of to (-0, approves a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building pennit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and noted on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City o f Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building pennit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF R.EPORT PAGE 10 .. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause. phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereo f. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council o f the City o f Aspen on this 9th day o f June, 2003. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 14th day of June, 2003. ATTEST: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 .. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 .. EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regard to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need for a "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the community. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The character of the existing land uses in the area is a mix of single-family and multi- family residences interspersed with a restaurant and government offices. As a multi- family residence, the Sagewood is consistent with this character of mixed land uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development o f the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal, which proposes to make the condominium a conforming use and structure and allow for balcony space to be enclosed, should not have an adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding area. Parcels on all four sides of the structure have been developed and should be able to expand in the future without being inhibited by this building. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS. or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 .. The expansion of overall fioor area with the proposed balcony enclosures is exempt from GMQS, in accordance with Section 26.470.070.A.1. of the Code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Proposed New Existing Existing Zone Zone District Conditions/ Dimensional Requirement: District (R-(D UUM]F) Proposed PUD Requirement: Requirement: e' Standards: Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 6,000 6,000 8,344 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling .19,800i NiA i. v.,2 8,344 Unit Maximum Allowable Density N/A Valies2 11 units Minimum Lot Width 60' 60' 84' Minimum Front Yard Setback 10' 10' 21' Minimum West Side Yard Setback 55 5,6" 5' Minimum East Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 6'6" Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' 20' Maximum Height ~ 25 25' . 32 Minimum Distance b/w Buildings 5' 10' N/A Minimum Percent of Open Space No 35% 40% Requirement Allowable Floor Area (FAR) . NIA 1:1 ]:1.3 22 spaces (2 22 spaces (2 Minimum OY Street Parking 9 spaces spaces/unit <j: spaces/unit Shading indicates areas of non-conformity. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: ' Required amount of lot area to support the existing 11 unit condominium development of 4-1BR units, 1- 3BR unit, and 6-2BR units. 2 The allowed density depends on whether the units are studio or one: two. three, or more bedrooms. The 11 existing units, however, would exceed the allowed density in this zone district. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 .. a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has existed in this location for thirty years and is located in an area of mixed types of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family. It appears that this use has been and will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and natural and man-made characteristics with the proposed PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and o f the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed dimensional requirements seek to establish the existing dimensions as the legal standards for the property and expand that allowance slightly for the balcony enclosures. There will be no appreciable change in the size or character of the structure. Although the existing height exceeds the allowable height in the zone district by 7' and has more floor area than is allowed, this is an existing structure built legally under rules in effect thirty years ago. Despite the increased height and floor area, the structure exceeds the minimum front and rear setback (of the proposed It/MF zone district) by twice the required amount, which lessens the impact of the structure from the highway. The IUMF requires 20' o f total side yard setback with a minimum o f 5' on either side, whereas the structure provides about 13' total, but maintains a minimum of 5'6" on both sides. This places some impact on the neighbor to the west, but does not effect any structure to the east as it is on a corner. Mature landscaping on the west property line somewhat helps to mitigate the closeness of the condominium to the neighboring single- family residence, which was just constructed last year. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 .. There are currently 9 parking spaces for 11 units, which means that some units do not have access to an off-street parking space. While this is somewhat of an untenable situation, it is the reality that the owners and the City have to work with. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on the site to fit an additional two spaces and it is not realistic to expect that two units can be eliminated from the site to make the parking comply. However, given that the structure is located on the bus line and is a short walk or bike ride into town, there are options for tenants who don't own cars or who don't need them very often and have an alternate place to park their vehicle. Staff does not want to have this unfortunate situation continue to be considered non-conforming and have it be a barrier to other improvements to the structure. Staff supports legalizing the situation and encourages the Association to continue exploring parking alternatives. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the review by the Development Review Committee, there exists adequate infrastructure capabilities to the structure. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due s to runoff. drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the .terrain or causes harmful , disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are no natural hazards or critical site features impacted with this structure or with the proposed balcony enclosures. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 .. and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics ofthe site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The density is not proposed to be increased. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity o f the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No changes are proposed which would impact any natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There is only one structure on the site, so clustering has already been achieved. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure is oriented parallel to the public street and is setback farther than what the zone distict requires with mature vegetation, which softens the appearance and size of the structure. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT ~ PAGE 17 .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fire and emergency service vehicle access is adequate to serve their needs. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES/No There are sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the property providing good pedestrian access, but there is no specific handicap access. The structure was approved and constructed at a time when handicap access was not a requirement. To make the upper units handicap accessible an elevator would be required, which would only be feasible as part of a larger redevelopment request when there would be more of a nexus between the proposal and the request for such improvements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Site drainage appears to be accommodated properly and does not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and vari ety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing vegetation on the site is mature and ample. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 .. other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the design of the building is starting to become outdated, it was likely appropriate when it was approved. Still, there are many condominium and lodge structures of the same era in Aspen that all contribute to the local architectural character and are appropriate for the environment in which they are located. If the PUD application is approved, then the Association will undertake fa~ade upgrades. The Association has already applied and received a construction loan for such improvements. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference o f any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures~ and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff has not yet reviewed the outdoor lighting for the building. Consequently, a condition of approval has been added requiring inspection of the lighting prior to sign off on any building permit and the bringing of any non-compliant lighting into compliance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 .. 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and properly users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number o f years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Open space is provided between the Hallam Street property line and the structure which provides a buffer for the residents from the heavily traveled street and provides visual relief for those on the street back towards the structure. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has direct access from a public street, 8th Street off of Hallam Street. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 .. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No traffic congestion is created by this development on surrounding roads. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. lf phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities. payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing is proposed. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 .. EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of a Rezone: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff is unaware of any portions o f the Title that the application is in conflict with. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regard to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need for a "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning ofthe community. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and i land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. ' STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The area in which the Sagewood Condominiums are located is a mix of single- family and multi-family residences with a restaurant and the US Forest Service ~ offices nearby. Because of this mix of uses has existed for many years in a seemingly compatible manner and because this amendment will not alter that character, staff finds that the continuation of this use in the area would maintain and reinforce the neighborhood character. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES 1 SAGEWOOD GONE)OMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 22 .. The proposed amendment will have no impact on traffic generation or road safety as the use of this PUD only seeks to legalize the conditions that have existed relatively unchanged for thirty years. Additionally, no new units are proposed to be added. While each unit will have the option of enclosing their balconies with this proposal, it will only add 55 square feet to each unit. It is unlikely that this extra square footage would add additional traffic as the space is generally too small for an extra bedroom. In addition, there are not ally extra parking spaces on site with which to park an extra vehicle. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLÂ¥? YES Based on the feedback from the Development Review Committee (DRC), which reviews issues related to public facilities, there is not anticipated to be any additional demands on public facilities as a result of this PUD Amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not expand the size of the footprint of the building, therefore it will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES For the most part, the community character of Aspen includes a mixing of different types of uses, including residential (both single-family and multi-family), retail, office, and, in some cases, industrial type uses. In the vicinity of the Sagewood Condominiums, this character is evident, with other multi-family structures and single family residences co-existing side by side, as well as commercial and office uses close by. This amendment will serve to legitimize the existing multi-family use on the property and to continue the community pattern of mixed uses. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 23 .. The Sagewood Condominiums were constructed in 1970 as a legal use in the AR1 (Accommodations/Recreation) zone district in use at the time. In April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6, as part of a change to a new land use code. The rezoning had the effect of changing the Sagewood Condominiums from a conforming use into a non-conforming use because the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family residences as an allowed use. Apparently, the multi-family uses on the south side of Hallam Street were rezoned from ARI to R/MF at the time, but the Sagewood and another condominium structure in existence at the time, the Aspen West End, were allowed to be rezoned to the R-6, leaving both as non- conforming uses. It is unclear as to why these two properties were rezoned as they were. Possibly, it was an oversight on the part of the City or maybe it was a conscious decision to have these types of uses removed over time. Staff would submit that the changed condition was the rezoning of the subject parcel which made the use non-conforming. The use did not go away and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the owners wish to establish the use as conforming again so that they can make improvements to the exterior of the structure and to their individual units, both of which lend permanence to the use. Because this area of town includes mixed uses and because the units house locally working residents, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the community to legalize the use and allow it to continue. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To staffs knowledge, the multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums has existed in harmony with its surrounding for the thirty years it has existed. Rezoning the parcel to R./MF so that the multi-family use can be legalized again will allow the use to continue as well as allow the owners to make improvements to the property and structure. Staff believes that because this structure houses many local working residents and is located on a prominent site at the entrance to town, it is in the public interest to allow this use to continue and for the residents to be able to improve the outward appearance of the structure. Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Title, which is to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens." Allowing the locals who live here to continue to improve their units and the exterior of the structure, whi ch is very visible at the entrance to the community, is helping to protect the safety and welfare of the citizens. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 24 .. EXHIBIT C DRC MINUTES DRC COMMENTS: 1. Engineering Department â€¢ Existing Dumpster: Existing dumpster is to be moved out of the ROW. If no onsite dumpster location, as a last resort the Engineering Department may issue an encroachment license to enable the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. 2. Building Department â€¢ Building Permits: A building permit will be needed for existing illegal construction. 3. Aspen Sanitation District â€¢ Inspection: The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visit/walk-through prior to issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specifications that are on file at the district office. 4. Zoning The Sagewood is an existing multi-family non-conforming use and structure located in the R-6 zone district. The complex, which consists of 11 condominiumized units, does not comply with the use, height requirements, parking or density of the underlying zone district. Outlined below are the non-conformities. Dimensional requirements: Dimension Required (R-6) Required (RMF) Proposed Floor Area NCU* 1:1 (8344.5 sq. A.) 10860 sq. ft Height 25' 25' 32' Parking NCU* 18 9 (existing) Density NCU* 19,800 sq. ft 8344 sq. ft. *Non-conforming Use The applicant is proposing to remedy these non-conformities by rezoning to RFM, which will grant relief from the non-conforming use status, and by going through the PUD process to establish the dimensional requirements proposed above. Residential Design Standards: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 25 .. Since there will be no substantial change to the exterior of the building the residential design standards do not apply at this time. Impact fees: There are no applicable impact fees with the project. Lighting Code: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use code. Illegal Construction: The enclosure of seven of the balconies to date has been done without proper permits, inspections and approvals. The applicant(s) will be required to submit the necessary permits to "formalize" the enclosures and ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 26 .. EXHIBIT D APPROVED P&Z RESOLUTION RESOLUTION N0. , (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant): requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described iii attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering. and Building. as a result o f the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of to C - 3; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 88 DAY OF APRIL 2003, THAT: .. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, parcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building. the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life. health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. i 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and .. Zoning Commission or City Council. are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. ,Section 4: If any section, subsection. sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of tlis resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk .. EXHIBIT E P&Z MINUTES P&Z Minutes had not been completed yet at the time of the printing of this report. Once they are available, staff will forward them by email. Sorry for the inconvenience. .. 1118. MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Director~ ~ AAdl FROM: Scott Woodford, city plannef~f- RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, PUBLIC HEARING; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; RESOLUTION NO. 0 , SERIES 2003 DATE: March 25,2003 97'-9--1 19Mdpe.-n, ti. The south elevation of the Sagewood Condominiums with US Highway 82/ Hallam Street in the foreground. ...; J i i :16%22(. L:----'-*~'/. ... 4 1 mumm i '2 1. :fc: 1 . ./. . 4 ./. -9. . a. 1 . . E- * I I + +1 . 4 I . . .â€¢46 PROJECT: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD overlay to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks, height, floor area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the condominium as conforming and to allow enclosure of twelve balconies and a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building, and to rezone the parcel from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use. APPLICANT: Sagewood Condominium Association LOCATION: 910 West Hallam Street STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND RECOMMENDATION: AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, WITH CONDITIONS SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 .. REQUEST SUMMARY: The Sagewood Condominium Association, represented by its Secretary, Scott A. Gallagher, has submitted this land use application requesting the following: l.) PUD overlay of the property to establish the non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming; and 2.) PUD to approve the expansion of the floor area of the structure by 660 square feet by enclosing twelve balconies (55 square feet each) and a roof structure over the entrance to the west side of the building (setback encroachment); and 3.) Rezone of the property from R-6 to R/MF to make the existing, non-conforming multi-family use a conforming use. The 11-unit Sagewood Condominiums was built in 1970 in compliance with the standards in effect at the time. Several years later, during a land use code change, the property was rezoned to R-6, a single-family and duplex zone district with different dimensional standards. Based on staff review, it is unclear why this rezone occurred. The action, however, made the Sagewood both a non-conforming structure with respect to several of the required dimensional standards of the R-6 zone district (floor area, height, off-street parking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit) and a non-conforming use as multi-family residences are not an allowed use in the R-6 zone district. According to the Section 26.312.020 and 26.312.030 of the Code, non-conforming uses and structures may continue to operate as they are, but only normal maintenance procedures can be conducted and no extensions or expansions are allowed. The Sagewood Condominium Association would like to make some improvements to the thirty year old structure as it is starting to become outdated, however, they are unable to do so, in part, because of the non-conformities of the structure and use. In order to help rectify the situation, the applicant proposes a PUD overlay to establish the existing non- conforming dimensional standards as legal for this property and to rezone the property to R./MF to establish the multi-family use as a legal use. The other component of this application is to request PUD approval to enclose all twelve balconies (one unit has two balconies) on the structure to increase the floor area of individual units by 55 square feet a piece, for a total of 660 square feet. Six o f the 12 balconies are already enclosed - constructed illegally by individual owners without first obtaining a building permit for the work or approval from Community Development for increasing the floor area of the building. The applicants request, therefore, is two-fold. First, they are seeking retroactive approval for the six balconies enclosed illegally and pre-approval for the other six to be enclosed when individual owners choose to do so. It should be noted that, before any building permits are issued for any new changes to the building (including exterior improvements or for any additional balcony enclosures), the owners of the illegal enclosures shall be required to apply for building permits, which may necessitate the enclosures being torn out and re-built properly. Once the additional floor area for the illegal balcony enclosures is approved, then the Association can apply for a building permit for the exterior improvements (for which they already have an approved construction loan, according to the applicant). SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUNIS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 .. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD); According to Section 26.445.040 of the Land Use Code, establishment of dimensional requirements and density may be approved with the adoption of a Final PUD development plan. In this case, the applicant proposes a PUD to establish the existing floor area, height, off-street parking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit as the allowed standards and then to increase the allowed floor area to allow the enclosures to twelve balconies and to allow a setback encroachment from the west property line for a small roof structure over the entrance to the west side o f the building; Final Review Authority: City Council 2) Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; According to Section 26.310.020, an application for amendment to the official zone district map may be initiated by a group of people who own more than 50% of the property subject to the development application and proposed development (the applicant has received approval from over 50% of the affected property owners). A public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a public hearing with City Council is required in order to approve such amendment. Final Review Authority: City Council BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Sagewood Condominiums, known originally as the Sagewood Apartments, were constructed in 1970. At the time, it was located legally in the AR1 (Accommodations/Recreation) Zone District, which included multi-family dwellings as an allowed use. In 1973, the apartments were approved to be condominiumized. On April 28,1975, the property was rezoned to R-6 as part of changes to the land use code, which also established new zone district names. Based on review of the City Council minutes at the time, it is not entirely clear why this particular property was rezoned, however, it appears as though it was part of broad changes to all of the zone districts in the city. It is possible that this property was "lost in the shuffle" and the fact that the rezone made it non-conforming was overlooked. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: There have not been any previous actions related to this development application. STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; Staff finds that the proposed PUD complies with the applicable criteria (see Exhibit A for full Staff Findings). The following are the dimensional standards that the applicant is requesting to establish as part o f the PUD and staff response: FLOOR AREA: The structure currently exceeds the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the proposed IUMF zone district and proposes, through this application, to increase it by 660 square feet with the 12 balcony enclosures (55 square feet each). Including the twelve balcony enclosures, the FAR will be 1.3:1, whereas the IUMF only allows 1:1 (without the balcony enclosures, the FAR would be 1.25:1). In terms of square footage, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 .. the total with all of the balconies enclosed would be 10,860 square feet, as opposed to the existing 10,473 square feet (which includes 6 of the balconies already enclosed). Staff believes that because the existing building (not including the proposed balcony enclosures) was constructed legally and made non-conforming later during a blanket rezoning of the entire community, that it should be allowed to become conforming through the PUD. Rather than focus on whether the existing floor area is appropriate, staff feels that the more important consideration is whether it is appropriate to increase the allowed floor area to accommodate the proposed balcony enclosures. The north side o f the building where three of t/Al .11 / 9 e ~~ the six balconies have been illegally enclosed. , Ill k -= bk -323â‚¬24 1 EL U - _r_ 2 If approved to enclose all of the balconies on the structure (a total of IN .== =32--Imp~ 12) in a legal manner, '310'.rl 6 -. 4 11//"'--r'~6202-ELLE:,. the Association will use 16**ilii*-~ the design of the balcony r.. I FI< iltil],in : . - .- --7-*IFE:ca--- in the upper right as the NVE-an.il . 1 - 7%4#11 1 7 :--- -- 1--- preferred design for 'y'Â¢**f~ fitsâ€ž=.-.1â€žmiâ€ž- future enclosures. - 31--~ EN ---0,-1*Z:~v-*-- - â€¢ - It is staff's opinion that the enclosures will not be too visually obtrusive and will be beneficial to the occupants of the small units. Despite the structure being located on Highway 82 at the entrance to the community, the building itself is not very visible due to the existence of very mature evergreen trees and other landscaping including a row of shrubs along the south property line. When viewed driving west on US 82, there is no clear view into the property and when driving the opposite direction, the glimpse of the structure is very brief and only conspicuous if you are purposely looking for it. Because the primary landscaping is in the form of evergreens, it can be expected that the screening will exist year around. The other six enclosed balconies will be located on the north elevation, which is essentially an alley view and out of most public view. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 .. ' View of the property as if you were traveling west on Hallam Street. Note the obscured view into the . building from this angle. Staff believes that the mature, evergreen trees and 1 other vegetation screens most of the view o f the 2, building. The addition of balcony enclosures, while * not the preferred choice for ..1 the structures, would *it...1 - & i.5.1 appear to not greatly impact the aesthetics of the building. . + 11 Additionally, the enclosures will provide valuable additional space these small units (mostly in the 600-800 square foot range and one 1,300 sq. ft. unit) which function primarily as housing for locally employed residents. Enclosing the balconies is one way for the owners to improve their units while not requiring any expansion of the building footprint or increasing the height. HEIGHT: The height limit of the proposed R/MF zone district is 25'. At 30' (as the Code measures height: from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to a point halfway between the eave and the ridge of the roof), the Sagewood Condominiums exceeds that limit by 5'. The building is not proposed to become any taller as part of this application. When the structure was built in 1970, the AR-1 zone district that it was located in also had a 25' height limitation. How the structure was built over this limitation is unclear. Regardless, staff supports the PUD to establish the existing heights as legal because the height is not conspicuous from the street because of the existence of the even taller evergreen trees and it is not too incompatible with its immediate single family neighbor to the west. In addition, it is unrealistic to expect that the 5' of additional height is going to be removed from the structure anytime soon because it would require a major redevelopment project. Building a new building and replacing the locals housing would likely make the project not cost effective. So it is relatively safe to assume that the structure will continue in its current form well into the future. If the non-conforming status is removed from the property, the applicant will be able to make much needed improvements to the exterior o f the property which will somewhat mitigate the impacts of the additional height. OFF-STREET PARKING: According to the Code, two off-street parking spaces are required per each dwelling unit, so 22 spaces are required for the existing 11 units. Only 9 off-street spaces are actually provided. Originally, there were 11 parking spaces, even though the Code at the time required 1.5 spaces per unit for multi-family dwellings. Again, its unclear from the available City records why the required amount of spaces were not built. Two of the 11 parking spaces originally provided were located directly off of Hallam Street. When the structure converted from apartments to condominiums, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 .. the City required that those two spaces be removed due to the danger o f vehicles backing up onto a highway. According to the applicant, there is an informal agreement among the residents that allows the seven owners who live on-site to use seven of the spaces and the other two are rotated among the renters of the other five units. The other renters apparently park on the street when they don't have access to the on-site spaces. Although this situation is clearly not optimum, it is physically impossible to rectify the deficiency on-site as there is no room to accommodate two more spaces. Possibly, the Association can lease the use of some spaces on an adjacent site. If not, the current situation will have to be endured. Staff does not see, however, how the parking problem will be ameliorated by maintaining the non-conforming status and supports making the nine spaces provided the legal dimensional requirement. MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the IUMF zone district, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is determined by the number ofbedrooms in a structure. In this case, 19,800 square feet of lot area would be necessary to accommodate the combination of bedrooms in units of the Sagewood Condominiums. The site only contains 8,344 square feet, so it is non-conforming with respect to this requirement. Staff supports the establishment of the existing site square footage as the minimum lot area to support the 11 dwelling units because it met the requirement for minimum lot area when it was constructed (at the time, 750 square feet per dwelling unit was required, or 8,250 sq. ft., in this case). AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; Staff finds that the proposal for rezoning from R-6 to IUMF complies with the applicable review standards (see Exhibit B for full Staff Findings). COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff finds that the proposed rezone complies with the review criteria because it is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and the community character of Aspen, will not create traffic congestion, and has been subject to a changed condition which supports the rezoning. The area in which the subject parcel is characterized by a mix of different uses where no single use is predominant. Because of this existing character and because the proposed amendment will only reinforce this mix, staffbelieves that it will be compatible with its surroundings. The changed condition that supports the rezoning is the blanket rezoning of the property by the City in 1975 which made the Sagewood Condominiums a non-conforming use. It is staff's opinion that this was done without consideration of the impact that the rezone would have on this property and that it should be rectified with this proposal. A rezoning to R/MF will not create spot zoning because there is a large swath of IUMF directly across the street from this project. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2003. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. No major issues were raised at the meeting. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 .. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. / ~ , Series of 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Staff Findings Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Application SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUN/IS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 .. RESOLUTION NO. 11, (SERIES OF 200~'-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO IUMF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of to C - 3; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2003, THAT: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 .. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, parcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building pennit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice o f PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of-Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building pennits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 .. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 .. EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regard to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need for a "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the community. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The character of the existing land uses in the area is a mix of single-family and multi- family residences interspersed with a restaurant and government offices. As a multi- family residence, the Sagewood is consistent with this character ofmixed land uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. ST Afl FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal, which proposes to make the condominium a conforming use and structure and allow for balcony space to be enclosed, should not have an adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding area. Parcels on all four sides of the structure have been developed and should be able to expand in the future without being inhibited by this building. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFÂ¥ FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 .. The expansion of overall floor area with the proposed balcony enclosures is exempt from GMQS, in accordance with Section 26.470.070.A. 1. of the Code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Proposed New Existing Zone Zone District Existing Dimensional Requirement: District (R-6) (R/MIr) Conditions: Requirement: Requirement: Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 6,000 6,000 8,344 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling 19,8001 NIA 8,344 Unit Maximum Allowable Density N/A Variesz 11 units Minimum Lot Width 60' 60' 84' Minimum Front Yard Setback 10' 10' 21' Minimum West Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5'6" Minimum East Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 6'6" Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' 20' .Maximum Height 25 ' 25' 32' Minimum Distance b/w Buildings 5' 10' N/A Minimum Percent of Open Space No 35% 40% Requirement Allowable Floor Area (FAR) NIA 1:1 1:1.3 22 spaces (2 22 spaces (2 Minimum Off Street Parking 9 spaces spaces/unit spaces/unit Shading indicates areas of non-conformity. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: ' Required amount of lot area to support the existing 11 unit condominium development of 4-1BR units, 1- 3BR unit, and 6-2BR units. 2 The allowed density depends on whether the units are studio or one, two, three, or more bedrooms. The 11 existing units, however, would exceed the allowed density in this zone district. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 .. a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has existed in this location for thirty years and is located in an area of mixed types of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family. It appears that this use has been and will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and natural and man-made characteristics with the proposed PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and o f the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed dimensional requirements seek to establish the existing dimensions as the legal standards for the property and expand that allowance slightly for the balcony enclosures. There will be no appreciable change in the size or character of the structure. Although the existing height exceeds the allowable height in the zone district by 7' and has more floor area than is allowed, this is an existing structure built legally under rules in effect thirty years ago. Despite the increased height and floor area, the structure exceeds the minimum front and rear setback (of the proposed IUMF zone district) by twice the required amount, which lessens the impact of the structure from the highway. The R/MF requires 20' of total side yard setback with a minimum of 5' on either side, whereas the structure provides about 13' total, but maintains a minimum of 5'6" on both sides. This places some impact on the neighbor to the west, but does not effect any structure to the east as it is on a corner. Mature landscaping on the west property line somewhat helps to mitigate the closeness of the condominium to the neighboring single- family residence. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number o f cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability ofpublic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 .. There are currently 9 parking spaces for 11 units, which means that some units do not have access to an off-street parking space. While this is somewhat of an untenable situation, it is the reality that the owners and the City have to work with. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on the site to fit an additional two spaces and it is not realistic to expect that two units can be eliminated from the site to make the parking comply. However, given that the structure is located on the bus line and is a short walk or bike ride into town, there are options for tenants who don't own cars or who don't need them very often and have an alternate place to park their vehicle. Staff does not want to have this unfortunate situation continue to be considered non-conforming and have it be a barrier to other improvements to the structure. Staff supports legalizing the situation and encourages the Association to continue exploring parking alternatives. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the review by the Development Review Committee, there exists adequate infrastructure capabilities to the structure. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility ofmud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects o f the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are no natural hazards or critical site features impacted with this structure or with the proposed balcony enclosures. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The density is not proposed to be increased. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity o f the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No changes are proposed which would impact any natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There is only one structure on the site, so clustering has already been achieved. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure is oriented parallel to the public street and is setback farther than what the zone district requires with mature vegetation, which softens the appearance and size of the structure. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fire and emergency service vehicle access is adequate to serve their needs. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES/NO There are sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the property providing good pedestrian access, but there is no specific handicap access. The structure was approved and constructed at a time when handicap access was not a requirement. To make the upper units handicap accessible an elevator would be required, which would only be feasible as part of a larger redevelopment request when there would be more of a nexus between the proposal and the request for such improvements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Site drainage appears to be accommodated properly and not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing vegetation on the site is mature and ample. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 .. other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the design of the building is starting to become outdated, it was likely appropriate when it was approved. Still, there are many condominium and lodge structures of the same era in Aspen that all contribute to the local architectural character and are appropriate for the environment in which they are located. If the PUD application is approved, then the Association will undertake fagade upgrades. The Association has already applied and received a construction loan for such improvements. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff has not yet reviewed the outdoor lighting for the building. Consequently, a condition of approval has been added requiring inspection of the lighting prior to sign off on any building permit and the bringing of any non-compliant lighting into compliance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 .. 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number o f years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Open space is provided between the Hallam Street property line and the structure which provides a buffer for the residents from the heavily traveled street and provides visual relief for those on the street back towards the structure. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has direct access from a public street, 8th Street off of Hallam Street. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 .. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No traffic congestion is created by this development on surrounding roads. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing is proposed. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 .. EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of a Rezone: 1n reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff is unaware of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regard to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need for a "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the community. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The area in which the Sagewood Condominiums are located is a mix of single- family and multi-family residences with a restaurant and the US Forest Service offices nearby. Because of this mix of uses has existed for many years in a seemingly compatible manner and because this amendment will not alter that character, staff finds that the continuation of this use in the area would maintain and reinforce the neighborhood character. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 .. The proposed amendment will have no impact on traffic generation or road safety as the use of this PUD only seeks to legalize the conditions that have existed relatively unchanged for thirty years. Additionally, no new units are proposed to be added. While each unit will have the option of enclosing their balconies with this proposal, it will only add 55 square feet to each unit. It is unlikely that this extra square footage would add additional traffic as the space is generally too small for an extra bedroom. In addition, there are not any extra parking spaces on site with which to park an extra vehicle. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Based on the feedback from the Development Review Committee (DRC), which reviews issues related to public facilities, there is not anticipated to be any additional demands on public facilities as a result ofthis PUD Amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not expand the size of the footprint of the building, therefore it will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES For the most part, the community character of Aspen includes a mixing of different types of uses, including residential (both single-family and multi-family), retail, office, and, in some cases, industrial type uses. In the vicinity of the Sagewood Condominiums, this character is evident, with other multi-family structures and single family residences co-existing side by side, as well as commercial and office uses close by. This amendment will serve to legitimize the existing multi-family use on the property and to continue the community pattern ofmixed uses. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 .. The Sagewood Condominiums were constructed in 1970 as a legal use in the AR1 (Accommodations/Recreation) zone district in use at the time. In April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6, as part of a change to a new land use code. The rezoning had the effect of changing the Sagewood Condominiums from a conforming use into a non-confonning use because the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family residences as an allowed use. Apparently, the multi-family uses on the south side of Hallam Street were rezoned from AR1 to R/MF at the time, but the Sagewood and another condominium structure in existence at the time, the Aspen West End, were allowed to be rezoned to the R-6, leaving both as non- conforming uses. It is unclear as to why these two properties were rezoned as they were. Possibly, it was an oversight on the part of the City or maybe it was a conscious decision to have these types of uses removed over time. Staff would submit that the changed condition was the rezoning of the subject parcel which made the use non-conforming. The use did not go away and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the owners wish to establish the use as conforming again so that they can make improvements to the exterior of the structure and to their individual units, both of which lend permanence to the use. Because this area of town includes mixed uses and because the units house locally working residents, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the community to legalize the use and allow it to continue. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To staffs knowledge, the multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums has existed in harmony with its surrounding for the thirty years it has existed. Rezoning the parcel to R/MF so that the multi-family use can be legalized again will allow the use to continue as well as allow the owners to make improvements to the property and structure. Staff believes that because this structure houses many local working residents and is located on a prominent site at the entrance to town, it is in the public interest to allow this use to continue and for the residents to be able to improve the outward appearance of the structure. Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Title, which is to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens." Allowing the locals who live here to continue to improve their units and the exterior of the structure, which is very visible at the entrance to the community, is helping to protect the safety and welfare of the citizens. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 22 .. EXHIBIT C DRC MINUTES DRC COMMENTS: 1. Engineering Department â€¢ Existing Dumpster: Existing dumpster is to be moved out of the ROW. If no onsite dumpster location, as a last resort the Engineering Department may issue an encroachment license to enable the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. 2. Building Department â€¢ Building Permits: A building permit will be needed for existing illegal construction. 3. Aspen Sanitation District â€¢ Inspection: The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visit/walk-through prior to issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specifications that are on file at the district office. 4. Zoning The Sagewood is an existing multi-family non-conforming use and structure located in the R-6 zone district. The complex, which consists of 11 condominiumized units, does not comply with the use, height requirements, parking or density of the underlying zone district. Outlined below are the non-conformities. Dimensional requirements: Dimension Required (It-6) Required (RMF) Proposed Floor Area NCU* 1:1 (8344.5 sq. ft.) 10860 sq. ft Height 25' 25' 32' Parking NCU* 18 9 (existing) Density NCU* 19,800 sq. ft 8344 sq. ft. *Non-conforming Use The applicant is proposing to remedy these non-conformities by rezoning to RFM, which will grant relief from the non-conforming use status, and by going through the PUD process to establish the dimensional requirements proposed above. Residential Design Standards: SAC}EWOOD CONDOM INIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 23 .. Since there will be no substantial change to the exterior of the building the residential design standards do not apply at this time. Impact fees: There are no applicable impact fees with the project. Lighting Code: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 ofthe Land Use code. Illegal Construction: The enclosure of seven of the balconies to date has been done without proper permits, inspections and approvals. The applicant(s) will be required to submit the necessary permits to "formalize" the enclosures and ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 24 7/7/03 City of Aspen Community Development Department 4:32 PM Pre-bill Worksheet Page 1 Selection Criteria Applicant (hand sel Include: Sagewood Condo PUD & Rezoning Nickname Sagewood Condo PUD & Rezoning I A006-03 Hallam Full Name Sagewood Condo Association Address 910 W. Hallam St. Aspen CO 81611 Phone Fax Home Other ~ In Ref To Fees Arrg. By billing value on each slip Expense Arrg. By billing value on each slip Tax P rofi le Exempt Last bill Last charge 5/30/03 Last payment 2/5/03 Amount $1,205.00 -* ~ r~ i -ti cU f~kpoit Date Planner Rate Hours Amount Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 1/29/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 0.50 105.00 Billable 50 Caseload DRC packet and dell\,ery 1/31/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 0.25 52.50 Billable 51 Caseload Site visit 2/12/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 0.50 105.00 Billable 55 Caseload DRC meeting 3/19/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 0.75 157.50 Billable 141 Caseload Work on staff report 7/7/03 City of Aspen Community Development Department 4:32 PM Pre-bill Worksheet Page 2 Sagewood Condo PUD & Rezoning:Sagewood Condo Association (continued) Date Planner Rate Hours Amount Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 3/20/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 3.00 630.00 Billable 142 Caseload Work on staff report 3/21/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 2.50 525.00 Billable 143 Caseload Work on staff report 3/24/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 2.50 525.00 Billable 173 Caseload Staff report 3/25/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 2.00 420.00 Billable 174 Caseload Staff report 3/26/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 2.00 420.00 Billable 175 Caseload Staff report 3/27/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 1.50 315.00 Billable 176 Caseload Staff report 5/28/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 1.50 315.00 Billable 301 Caseload I City Council staff report 5/30/03 Scott Woodford 210.00 1.50 315.00 Billable 302 Caseload City Council staff report 7/7/03 City of Aspen Community Development Department 4:32 PM Pre-bill Worksheet Page 3 Sagewood Condo PUD & Rezoning:Sagewood Condo Association (continued) Amount Total TOTAL Billable Fees 18.50 $3,885.00 Total of billable expense slips $0.00 Calculation of Fees and Costs Amount Total Fees Bill Arrangement: Slips By billing value on each slip. Total of billable time slips $3,885.00 Total of Fees (Time Charges) $3,885.00 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $3,885.00 Accounts Receivables ~ DatelID Type Description 2/5/03 PAY Payment - Thank You. Check No. 5278 ($1,205.00) 9 ($1,205.00) Total Accounts Receivable New Balance Current $3,885.00 Unapplied ($1,205.00) 7/7/03 City of Aspen Community Development Department 4:32 PM Pre-bill Worksheet Page 4 Sagewood Condo PUD & Rezoning:Sagewood Condo Association (continued) Amount Total Total New Balance B a { an a DoÂ« $2,680.00 . 4 0 e Â¢t 7 0,'0 0 0, 4 rt > rt 3 c 0 rt a : rt Re D d C (+ O 0 0, UÂ¢ DJ 0 UOUÂ· rt P O rt Crl E u. â‚¬ (fro '0 755 P. P. w M '0 P. p.71 :r p. CJ rti 3- M PÂ· P O (D (D 0 3 D' E 4 1-'Â· m D '0 H, ID C Q 7 0 * 7 H PÂ· 0 0 It M f 0 0 0 0 01 p PO DJ o W (D 23 1-Â· (D (1-OPS(D P. (D 3 4 01'0 '1 0 ID f F (D rti rt O 4 P O '1 1 0 0,0 0 CD N P' rt rf 61 7 2 40 30 rt (D 3 PÂ· 0 {D C rt O PÂ· rt (D (D 7 rf N rt V (1 300 M 5. rt W Pr; rt OC In 3-ty-C . bl<m H 1 4 RI 0, M 11 M 3- 11 6 + 1-J â‚¬DJ MEMO. 7 0 0 0 4 3 1 V - 1-'Â· PJ . M --303.- (D W M 0+ 3 DJ 0 1 rt C (D rt ID m la - N M DJ DJOC Al--1 MV !, 01 3' 0 C H 01 (D PÂ· 0 9 ty 0 3 3- rt H H M 61 O (D DJ P rt O 0 0 DI , P. 0, rh rt (t rti M 7 â€¢ O rt 1 P. {D - D'Â£0 0, 11 3 '0 91 21 ~ > rt - C 1-Â· PÂ· (D 3- >' * rt CD PÂ· MH Prt 73(rtrt 0- rf A p. (D k- le p. 1-hi K D) 3 11 rt (D rt . e 2 3 0 0'0 J D Ul un ID N'0 0 Â£1 0 01 1-'- W (D DI 3 (D D' rt rt XMO rlo, 0 01 1, 01 P. 0 Ko. bve PÂ· FU Qw Crt 79) 0 21 3 01 01 p. w (D 14 rt . 3 3-Â· C 7 O rt DOOM u] 0 0) PÂ· 3 C M M rf 1-h (D (0 3 0; PÂ· 9(D D-rtl=- 1-' E (n rl- PÂ· tri P - Ul , b 3 0 Â¢ 0 0 0 0 0 O U. 1 1-42: Dj 0 7 iii rl- 3*Skt>rtÂ·05 0 0 Â£1 0 01 01 M ('D Ul (D O tr' to 3 C W C DJ (D C e. s 3Ml0 m-(C ~-'30 D O f 01 PÂ· p Â¤ ri-,fri ~ C . H p:j Co rt M H (D '0 3 rt PÂ·la '0 3 0 % m 0 00 3,[AC 0: ompÂ· -' 21 (D 3. DJ 1-' 0 01 rt rt O rD (D D rt E 21 01 21 Â· le P 1 1-hM OmODIA,(D (n 33 0 + 00 7 3 rt S t! MDD 7 M P. 1-' 011 Ph 7 91 3 DJ 3 Q r rt p. H lf: 3 p. : V rt L a W h (D PÂ· u m (D 1 0 3 0 21 3- 1-, D p o rt K 00 0 11) PÂ·{nrt 0 rt M {D 7 rt n} p. DJ < 10 N j (D H V 0 4 0, 3 PÂ· 310 1 01 pÂ· o o Hs o DJ e. 0,K â‚¬ 03000 3-rtrt- CD 0 D- Ft D t-' m 0 0 3 3 P- PO 7 01 O DJ C 04 h $ 3 O H 1-â€¢ 1-1. 309 P rh 3 (-1- 0 11 rt CD H 3- DJ 01 (D p.lo 41 0 3 rt pO rr PÂ·'0 0 1 (D P- rt 0,0 1-' (D '-t 0 3,0 3 3 < U. , HO ' PÂ· H (D rr- p. OpPÂ·*330< Fh rt 0 DJ 0 7 (D Hh .lin . 44 0 3 - 1-,3 .9) 2 rtl-1 3 01 3 0 0}(Der (D St 3 m 0 4 DJ D., O (D P U [1 0,1-h ID P'-73>DOU(DMPÂ·07 PÂ· O rt (D rt 0 0 0 0 Cip 0 0 1-r DJ DDE 310 1-1.3 0 C p 1-J (D lo P. N L< rt- 1-, M m O rf O (D 01 1-1 DJ C 0 0 < 0 (D rf cAl C 'o Â·s DJ 3 1 01 M pt (0 - H C' rt PÂ· M rt rt rt 9- 0 (D P (n K PÂ· A t rt p. 3 M 0 PÂ· H ct t-1- co ~h (D rt 91 (D W r 111 91 P SY 0 0 Al (D V (D DJ 3- 7 D (D It :3 PÂ· '0 rt P 3 V. H 70 0, m 7 (D PÂ· 0 5 3 0 3 1< H M. 0 le )l,0 3 51 C < 3'rt H 0-3 0 (D mil] L.Q X rt rt 0 27 3 0 W p 0 0 0 0 0 :3 0 0 rt (D fL 0,0 0 a %1 0 1 P B P 3 (D DJ 3 91 0 1-' P '0 01 . PÂ· H (D * 1-5 Inâ‚¬<MInElrfOm(D Ft '-4 0 3-3 ro rt M r. I 50 1 p. P PÂ· 3Mort0(DO' 1-"0 [in p 0 H K (D 1-4 # 0 PÂ· P 2 0 7 0 (D rt rt PÂ· 3 Q N O U} h 1 3 0 ft rt la p. 3 L< P. (D M P HUD P O 01 0 0 0 1-4 0 4 0, '0 DI S PÂ· 3 0 0 (D '0 + 0 27 ro Q I PÂ· (D # 7 L 0 Â£ P ID CO'O rt rt M '0 m [ADJM+ HE (D 3 0 7 (D 51 01 P- U D~ M M m . 0 8 0 ao 3 Â« P. D M- Ill D 3 rt 0 3 K C 0 '0 Y O Q D DJ U â‚¬ ENXOD'D BM 6 0 0 to O 0 4 0 Q rt, r'O rt tr , ) P. el 0 7 Â· PÂ·â€¢ M 0 (D (D F In rt PÂ· (D (D Ort rt rt - 0 1-1 &1 rt U (Dge rk 3 DJ Ft (D - 11 2- e. 1 rt D (D rt (D rt (D m ~< 0 3 d P h' 0. 3' rh El, M (D 7 p ki Tr {D PÂ· 4 PÂ· 3 (D D' eÂ· 4 â‚¬ TY 2,1 1=Â· O 7-1- 11 rt 3-Ul B 010 El rt r t (,0 2 0 0 '0 (D PÂ· 0, O 7 Y CD > fD 3 0 0] >u 3 fl, Mt pÂ· (D f H M m ' h (D rt 3 M 1-â€¢ u m lf) O ID W DJ r'D (D D (n BO O cr 11 ID O 0 3.El PC (D rt 2 e. P- rt p 1-' 0 14, ) PÂ· D PÂ· 91 7 C U I 3 '0 LA (D M e :rtjc 11 1-1 D rro â‚¬ 00 DJ 0Â¢340; :t Z 0 X D' Q 01 DJ 0Â· 1 C ~ Fh P (t H P C'K rPC CD C th (D 0 0 1 rt O 0 0 0 1-h H o 3 0 1-h 3 El 3 Hirt* 0 O rt D C 3 4. L: (D 3 rr P U] 0 C 3 1-h 7 5 PUL< 3 Al' 5â‚¬'0 45< Fu ri- 3 H(Drf m C Ft ~ D~ 3 0,1 0 PÂ· P (D H Ht O li O PÂ· O a rt HM W 5 DJ 3 C u] QMDEN >PO PÂ· 33 ON sliDe (D DZ PÂ· 01 I rt 0 0) 0 11 9 .0 (D ttirt th rt 0 4 0 9 4 k< rt (D M O (D H (D D, (D O '0 3 rt 0, 71- t p. m op- E 0 3 0 : 1-1.3 ID 1-1 0Â· C 1-hrt m [n rt 01 0 U CQ No]MN. 0 lifuo p p Â· 2 M [/1 o 03001(D r 1 O.H.1 0, 011 14 ro*(DD-rtsÂ¢ m C kt (D Ort MC (D C rt P m rt MID< 4 8 (D- rt rD U} O i â€ž11 p h '0 Â¤ 11 m .0 3 3 P w th 7Â·PÂ· 3 X D oj (n rf P. prtoimo 4 OM:mOH,301â‚¬ " rt' 3' 009Mrt-Q (D 3 DJ Dj ; CD DJ OW P.,0 OSCO 390 0 43 0 3 rtMVO m (D 3 ' rt M 0 H 3 Le m 3 C rt PÂ· 44 0 rt p (D O lip rt 11 rt- rt U M W M C PÂ· (D W W 01 3 0 0 0 0, 3 rt M 3 0 e -17 1-1 El e rf 0 3 rh < in 0 W PÂ· PÂ· 0 0 0 rr 0 El 3 0) 3 3,0 10 : MBHOJO rf M *1 0 0 0 020 (D m O {D P-M rt Â»11 21 rt 311 M N 1-'Â· 0 (D rf O DJ '0 b' In rt ED DJ P 4 0 pÂ¢ O M FÂ· 9 3 DJ rt 21 0 0, m pÂ· O (D (D Q 1Â·Â·hj 01 X O 3 d- 3 (D H (1- 1 â€¢ er F rf â‚¬ 0 tr} 01 10 3 :1 0 rt (flit rt 0 0 m BD 080 00 '0 0 0 M 91 5-01 91 1-Cl rt i 3-CD ,+ 33 El P 5 Og 1-, DJ O 0 0 7 0 rt :0 0,0 0 P â‚¬ rt N rt O H 1-Â·~ H rt rtÂ· P (D 3 0 0 p I (D 3 m (tÂ· (D rh Dj r + C-i OH 3- (D D,K 0 9. 01 < r.r 2-2 3 1-1- 0 UD 5 0 (D DJ Dj 1 1-01< 0 Bao rt 0 * H J O Y $ R 01 2 P (D 01 2 rt M 0 1- PÂ· (D â‚¬ (DOM'<P-{DDO] â‚¬ 0. w mo) 3 3 $ W O M &7 Q rt p 0 0 20 Â· 0 p H {1 DJ 1-h (D 3' H~ 3 D 3 rf 4 0 0 001 rt U 0 [f} W 'g rt 1-1 11- 3 C â‚¬ p C . il L< 02 (D :0 pÂ· rt ki S (D * 01 11Â· r â‚¬ DJ U 11-3-0 8 1-'0) OMOC 3 1 34< FO O P. 3 1-' PÂ· m C DJ 0 (D 3 p- Or't 0 H O (D C 0 ,0 0) (D PÂ· 5 (0 51 3KliC ~1 0 MUE(D 0(D (D vt, C 1-1 (D C 1-' 0,0 3 c PÂ· AL ON 0 a ca I~ 3 . '0 rt 0110 D) 3 3 Q Q, 0 rt P. la U. 0 p. P 0 0, M 3 0, En YÂ· 4 0, â‚¬3 1 K P. I 4 m (DO 3 (D PÂ· 0 M 220 m o p- C '0 W t< 3 PQ M Ort â„¢ Â» U M,Â· r:- rt (D ' C 0 ID riÂ» 03 r; O, M D, tl 9, 01 11 M 5 0 p >M, (/1 0 J 0 (D W O P) P. (D PÂ· 7 7 5 M PÂ· :3 M DJ rt 11 0 K 2, P. 91 0 0 3. P. 0 0 0 rt (fi lt NO 01 00 2'3 01 50 Il rto; St M.M 01 0(D h 10 (D De C 3 3-rt 0 3 1- 530 M-(DO]m .0 3 ne rt 7 "110 0 H Mt e U) rr Dj rt 11, N 3 P. o m u. 9 3 lo O 0 (D DJ ../ 4, 1/ la 3. m P. 0 3 H H P. 1-40 0 7000 1= (D P Ort p: m m (D Q '0 0 â‚¬0 0 (+ 3 1 2 0 974 3 03034 0 + 4 4 Ort{Dpo rf Y OF(001#0300M 3 P. <OHC 0 10 (D 5- U ta.' ro n 0 rn 3 1-'Â· Al DJ 01 '0 P 0, (D e Y 3 0, P. 7 3 rt -3 1-h E {D rt 11 rf 0 rt Q M M M 4 v l Â·-1 01 Mph 0 (DMWPÂ·OC O 0 2 Dj P Q (D U PÂ· (D U (D PÂ· DJ DJ â€¢ I 3- PÂ· 2 001 02 - 4 0 M 0 3LQ(DIME I 70Â·OJ= 1 4 0 31 (01'JO,DON 10 0 3 P ID - rr 3 0 4 (D ul I 0 0 Ila 3 1 M D (D C K m Q .. n h. I Â·r ~ ecogn ze~ unde -I a U.'4 .. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ADDRESS & PHONE LIST FOR 2003 (As of February 25,2003) Please review and notify the Secretary of any changes, as this is where your mailings will be sent. If you prefer mailings bye-mall, please provide address. j54 Unit 1. Risoun Heng & Scott Gallagher (VICE-PRESIDENT) Unit 11. Tony Petrocco i -,~910 W. Hallam St #1 9Â·1 f 910 W. Hallam St #11 UEW Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 No 0921 544-0809, docglive@excite.com 5 925 -3795 ~ 9 -ly- Unit 2. Herman Anderson skÂ·L Unit 12. Jim & Karen Blanz POB 1003 6344 NW 50th Street C YES Aspen, CO 81612 ~ Coral Springs, FL 33067 No fÂ»â‚¬64 -~ 923-2535 (h), 544-5296 (w), 379-8330 (pager) 305-596-1960 x5412 --% 954-345-1785, karenb@babtisthealth.net ~ 9-11. Unit 3. Jeffrey Shoaf r-00]3 3123 Patricia Chew, Inc. (accountant) L.TE-&9 Aspen, CO 81612 695 Surrey Road 925-4501 012- O - 1 / 14 1.- 0<9 Carbondale, CO 81623 963-1129, 963-0185 (fax) -,1,6/l'Ini t 5. Charlie Eckart & Carrie Paterson 940 North Hoover <120 -7 0Â¥9 4 76 5 lelos Angeles. CA 90029 - (323) 662-8850, eliasb03@earthlink.net / carriep@rof.net 9,('/runit 6. Enrica & Tiziano Gortan 465(09 Aspen, co 81611 -010 W. Hallam St #6 - 920-7901 etgortan@yahoo.com 6 1 u 9*RaSH, 9 C0 9 Â·16-11*ft 7. Carol & John Ott (PRESIDENT) M-- --I 0401 E, Cooper St #203 ~NLDA,-. Aspen. CO 81611 925-7444 (h), 925-1701 x247 (w), jott@billposs.com 766 - 99.3-K 7.97.- Unit 8. Scott Bartleet & Lyndal Williams (SECRETARY) 1--010 W. Hallam St #8 VES Ug Aspen, CO 81611 --- 544-0584,1williams@billposs.com / scott@teaguearch.com N ' Fâ‚¬fer D 1 6 7-7 7~. Unit 9. Andy & Michelle Sanchez (TREASURER) -y4OB 1801 448 W. 400 North Street < Â¥ E<gl~y: Aspen, CO 81612 Moab, UT 84532 FAA} At Z 1 . 1 f -< 925-8719 435-259-4443 '/4 .t%Wnit 10, Paul Fegan 12' POB 244 1 Aspen. CO 81612 ~ i'-2 274-1134 (cell) dlictl IA (360-' 00,9 -DISC LpAA-ng" 5 800Â«04 fAC[ Â£'91 1*- 1. 4. -L -EXHIBIT II- UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN COMMON AREAS & UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGE FACILITIES 1 1289.7 15Â·0% 2 755.4 9.1% 3 769.8 9,1% 5 640.2 7.6% 6 767.6 9.1% 7 707.6 9.1. 8 640.2 f . U,O ' t. ' 040.2. 7.66 10 707.6 0 1Â· / . 1 B 11 767.6 9.14 12 640Â·2 7.8 1 4.v 0 0 YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACZED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - h PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 I ScaTi-- Cr'gu,4 6-'hâ‚¬:,2. , being the owner of unit # I . at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use o f the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure o f the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. *f~ I approve. E I disapprove. 6/th.te? / M H/4/H KÂ£ Signature Date .. YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACE-07Â» QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGEE_1, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 K-(C iD ~ J ~:-Tlr41~D ' 3,~Â£ j, being the owner of unit # 03 at the Sagewood C~ndominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood CondoR#nium Association. < I approve. ~ Â£ I disapprove. Date 9 .C/. .. YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACEEÂ» QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGEFF, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 1 Â£0/Â»Â·8201 5 Ect.,9%277 , being the owner of unit # ~ at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow pernits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood ~<~ I approve. Condominium Association. L I disapprove. tÂ»-4 frc=12/ l ./ Signature Date 9. 1 /, .. YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACEED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAG>_71,910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 1 -D 2(10__-YkET/tlo 6 , being the owner of unit # 9 at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enc]osures, as well as for enclosure ofthe remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. I approve. D I disapprove. /1, A 1 / (lt! Ct.ti~~ 06- C 6:63 Signature Date .. YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACZEÂ» QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGÂ»321,910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 I LHADAL U\BIAMS _ , being the owner of unit # 8 at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforning setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. 4 I approve. 0 I disapprove. ill r 1.- 06,15,0 3 V Signature Date .. YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACEEÂ» QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 1-~~AA=jb,Enk-~_ , being the owne5ofunit # ~| 9 at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure ofthe remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. ~1~; I approve. E I disapprove. pinAA,\ lL 41 6133 Signature 3 2- Date JUN. 18 2003 3,28 AVIÂ·V ER NO. 938 P. 4 ,-b YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONNAIRE IS NEEDED ASAP-PLEASE RETURN TO SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 WEST HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 1 1?ivt Fel.1 . being 0.,ier of linit # 10 D At thc Sagcwood Con,bminium Association under5tand that the Sagewood Condominium Associalion, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Coin t}unity Lievelopment Depallmont of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rczene from RiÂ· to RMF to legalize multi-family usc of the Sagewood Condominlums (2 ) Legalize existin 4 non-con forming selback 5, building height, floor area and minimum lot arca per divclling for the Sagewood Condominiums, (.1) Obtain sufficieril additicnal FAR to allow pennits to be submitted ibr the. curranl enclosures, ae w 011 as for enÂ©losure of the remaining balconies if and when decmed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Assooiation. I Approve, -3 .fllsapp~ve N -20-4 - 9/ 1 4 14 Signoture D atc /Un 'J 'AN WW 4 Url Pn:Rn IMA RADZ-07.-NOP e . YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAG--377,910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN, CO 81611 I 43-2 '.10 AC _-C~En , being the owner of unit # 7 . at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: #77& u 2- (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums R?7203 1- 6) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. -Dis A?72Â£,c; 2,(3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow pemits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. m I approve. A 5 No TCP E I disapprove. A 5 * 7-FED 0 Signature Date Apr11 28, 1975 Norm rns of the Historic Preservation Committ!~0!old Council he had some reservations Main St. - of the zoning as outlined. This does not preclucre-someone from tearing down an existing Historic structure. Burns highly recommended under conditional uses dropping the words "a : 1 Zoning structure." By adding these new words under conditional uses, this would preclude a non-historic building from adding any of these uses. Lary Groan addressed the Council and pointed out that no where in the revised zone for ~ :U Main Street is there any definite provision to preserve historic structure short of I allowing them better uses. There are 29-30 historic buildings on Main from Monarch to the ~ Castle Creek bridge and there is nothing- in the code to actually prevent removal of these structures. Historic zoning on that stretch of Main Street would protect historic structures. Planner Stanford said all structures on Main Street would have to be documented. The i i Planning Office would like to see a preliminary plan for historic district which catalogs ~ structures of real significance. Those structures not of real significance after being ~ cataloged would be available for removal or relocation. Councilwoman Markalunas moved that the Council adopt a directive to the Historic Preserva-~ tion Committee that they proceed immediately to go through the process of availing both ~ sides of Main Street from Monarch to Seventh Street with historic overlay; seconded by , Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley brought up Han Gramiger's point of a side street curb cut. City Attorney ~ Stulller said this provision applies only if the structure has received historic designa- :1 tion. The access off the alley is required only if an alley exists. One may get per- -1-. mission from the P&Zto get a Highway 82 curb cut. Mayor Standley asked if one could ~ have a peaked roof on Main Street that would go over the maximum height requirement. I Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1975, seconded by Councilman ' Breasted. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #11 (Series of 1975) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 24, " ZONING" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, RE-ENACTING OR AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS THEREOF, ADDING : PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY A PART OF SAID CHAPTER; INCORPORATING BY ~ REFERENCE A REVISED ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND BY THE REFERENCE ADOPTING THE SAME; SAVING PROSECUTION AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS WHICH VIOLATIONS OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING, IN ADDITION TO OTHER LEGAL REMEDIES, THAT FOR i VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 24 THERE MAY BE IMPOSED FINES UP TO AND INCLUDING $300 AND IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 90 DAYS. was read by City Clerk. j Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1975, on second reading; ~ seconded by Councilman Breasted. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Breasted, aye; I De Gregorio, aye; Markalunas, nay; Pedersen, aye; Walls, nay; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion Carried. Ord. 23, 1973 ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1975 Impound Lot ' lease Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman De Gregorio moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 1975, seconded by Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #23 I (Series of 1975) 1 ' AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND HARALD PABST FOR THE LEASING OF A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING ~ A MUNICIPAL IMPOUND LOT; REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF $125.00 PER MONTH FOR SUCH LEASEHOLD; AND PROVIDING FOR A LEASE TERM OF THREE (3) YEARS SUBJECT TO EARLIER TERMINATION IN THE EVENT OF THE SALE OF THE PREMISES. was read by the City Clerk. seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote; Councilmembers De Gregorio, aye; Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 1975, on second reading; ~ Markalunas, aye; Pedersen, aye; Walls, aye; Breasted, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Standley, ~ aye. Motion carried. Ord. 24, 1973 ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 1975 Appropriate Funds to Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed ~ ~ . Centennial the public hearing. : Councilman,De Gregorio Moved to read Ordinance #24, Series of 1975, seconded by Council- ) woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. 10 1 ORDINANCE #24 (Series of 1975) | AN ORDINANCE TRANSFERRING $4,000.00 OF SURPLUS WATER REVENUES TO THE GENERAL FUND AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING SAID AMOUNT OF THE CENTENNIAL/ 1 BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION; AND RESTRICTING THE USE OF SAID FUNDS ' was read by the City Clerk. Councilwoman Marka~hes asked if this would be.a general Ci t~licy. City Manager Mahone~ said he felt it w propriate to handle the Police Departm~separately. Mahoney I Police Dept. i pointed out fire al!M'bolice departments are generally treated separately in pay scales. Pay Schedule < Mahoney also mentioned that other departments would probably want more money and this will have to addressed at this summer's budget hearings. Mayor Standley said this salary plan would give the Police Department a structure for i | I dealing with their personnel. Councilman Behrendt indicated he felt it was a great idea J but wanted Â· to hear what the Finance Department had to say about it. Finance Director Butterbaugh asked that if the Police Department had excess money in the salary budget, would they go over the maximum. Hershey said his raises would be based upon merit plus if the Department had extra money. Councilman Behrendt moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman Breasted. Council- members Breasted, De Gregorio, Behrendt in favor; Mayor Standley, Councilmember Walls, Markalunas, and Pedersen opposed, Motion NOT carried. Finance Director Butterbaugh pointed out this would motivate people and she had no objections from that point. She had no specific problems with this type of schedule. Hershey told Council no other department heads had come to him to look into this type of i schedule. Mayor Standley said he thought the Police Department had gotten rid of the lieutenant's position and questioned it on this schedule. Hershey said this was just following the lines in Section 2-91 of the Municipal Code. Hershey indicated he did not ~ i ~ intend to create the position of lieutenant again. i ~ Mayor Standley asked why the humane officer was placed substantially below that of a patrolman. Hershey felt this was a historical place for the humane officer. Mayor Standley said it seemed that a humane officer had a different kind of training but virtually the same work load and the same inherent danger in their work. Hershey ~ indicated that $10,500 was maximum for a humane officer and that he didn't have the budget to raise the humane officers at present. ~ Councilman Walls moved to direct City Attorney Stuller to draft an Ordinance supporting 1 ~ this type of salary structure; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion I ~ carried. ~ Chief of Police Hershey addressed Council on the needs of the communications in the police ~ Department requesting an additional $3,500. Mayor Standley told Hershey to come to the J budget study session with any request. Council told Mahoney they wanted a packet before ' ~ the study session of department head requests. i Councilman Behrendt moved to adjourn the meeting until 5:00 p.m..Tuesday, April 29. NO - ~ one seconded, Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion. City Manager Mahoney told Council that the Holy Cross situation would be addressed in Holy Cross I a memorandum from Sandra Stuller. ~ on energy and that the City needs to address an energy alert. Energy Alert City Manager Mahoney told Council they would receive a memorandum from the City Manager ~ City Manager Mahoney introduced the status on the economics report and the determination ~ of impact of certain things occurring in the City. Urban Economist Larry Simmons told Economic Report Council he planned to have a report out by July 1 that would be fairly substantial to I start discussing the expected impact of different types of growth. City ManagerÂ·Mahoney reported to Council that the City does own the Thomas Property, an additional 6.2559 acres for $87,500. Thomas Property ~ ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1975 ~ ord. 11, 1975 Mayor Standley said because of the sweeping change in zoning on Main Street, he would Zoning Code ~ allow comments on that subject only. Councilman Walls said the Council had made so many I changes in the zoning ordinance over so long a time that it is hard to keep track of them. ~ Councilman Walls was wondering what point Council should have another public hearing. ) As far as the public is concerned, there should be another public hearing so that every- ~ one knows exactly what is in the final ordinance to be voted on. ~ Councilman Walls moved to schedule another public hearing; seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. Councilmember Walls and Markalunas in favor, Councilmembers De Gregorio, Breasted, Behrendt, Pedersen and Mayor Standley opposed. Motion NOT carried. ~ Planner John Stanford told Council they had looked at the zone R-6 along Main Street and Main St. ~ to maintain the integrity, visual impact and historical significance of Main Street and zoning ~ to allow for a more diversified type of uses along Main Street they had developed an 0-2 district. The intent of this district is to retain the present mix of uses on Main i < Street, to encourage the preservation of structions of historic significance and the character of the entrance to town, to provide for reasonable use of properties along Main 1 Street, and to maintain efficient use of Main Street as a primary high volume of east and west thoroughfare. The permitted uses in this zone are residential, professional and ~ business offices. The conditional uses require special review by the Planning and Zoning 1 Commission. These uses are restaurants, roaming houses, boarding houses, if location 1 in a structure which has received historic designation and if adequate parking is provided~ i on site with access provided from the alley. The area and bulk requirements for 0-2 were disigned primarily on R-6. . Hans Gramiger commended the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission for making ~ the changes they did. Gramiger questioned the 0-2 zone requirements asking if the front yard had to be in addition to the open space requirement. Gramiger objected to the ~ ~ maximum height requirement in this zone and questioned the basement area being excluded I I from the f.a.r. i 1 .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 9 CD Wes V 4-1 at ltd 4 S W.Q-T , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 40(4 11 , 200 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 5 coitt G~a 1(il ke- (name. please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: \ \L/ Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official J A paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. *f~ Posting Of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide , and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 24 day of 3.J,t , 200 3 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~Jw Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise. the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However. the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. A Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 25- day Of ., , ,te . 2001' by :' p C .C' 7-7 A Ch /-1 Â£- /Â»All.Lk> WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 0 / -2 % 0 6, L-/<- 3 et Â£ 6 ct \ a 74-4 0,0 /0,- Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. ATTACHMENT 6 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Three forms of notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting ofthe property, and mailing to surrounding landowners. Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including identification ofwho is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days pior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department and we will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and to bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use attached affidavit). 3. Mailing - Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it according to the following standards, and to bring proo f to the hearing that the mailing took place (use attached affidavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An Applicant for surface Development shall notify affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of public hearing. Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160Â® .. ALLERTON PHIL & VALERIE ANZALONE GRACE E ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 945 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 3808 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BEN-HAMOO PATRICE CONYERS BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M BORDERICK MARK E & SHARON A PO BOX 2902 PO BOX 1365 939 W HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 BRUNT FAMILY LP BUTLER MARIE COHEN RICHARD A & ELIZABETH A PO BOX 304937 814 W BLEEKER #C-4 PO BOX 1806 107-9B ESTATE CONTACT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ST THOMAS, VI 00803 COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N COORDES HEINZ E & KAREN V CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW 908 W FRANCIS PO BOX 32 ATLANTA, GA 30305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DOYLE R& G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 DACOSTA MAUREEN C DOYLE R T 111 30% GRIST F 30% EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE PO BOX I 3711 EASTLEDGE DR TRUSTd/2 ASPEN, CO 81612 AUSTIN, TX 78731 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 FOREST SERVICE ASPEN FATTAHI AMENEH AS TRUSTEE GEIGER KRISTEN HEADQUARTERS PO BOX 8080 941 W HALLAM ST 900 GRAND AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI GELLER SCOTT GIBANS JONATHAN GLATMAN BRUCE ROY 29 BARKLEY CIR PO BOX 8098 20034 CALVERT ST FORT MYERS, FL 33907-7531 ASPEN, CO 81612 , WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 GREGORY KIRK GUTHRIE DAVID H & AMY L HADDON HAROLD A & BEVERLY J GREGORY PETRA 920 W HALLAM ST 409 21ST ST PO BOX 10055 DENVER, CO 80205 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HEISLEY MICHAEL E HOGGATT JERRY S HINRICHS NANCY R C/O K J LONG 100 N 8TH ST #2 175 14TH ST 2004 DIANA DR ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124 MENDOTA, IL 61342 HUGHES GAIL HULL MIKE 50% JONES EARL T & SANDY 50% 712 W FRANCIS ST 834 W HALLAM ST 307 N MONGOMERY ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OJAI, CA 93023 ~ AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® .. KURTZ KENNETH T & KAREN KEILIN KIM MILLER KUDISH DAVID J REVOCABLE TRUST BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY PO BOX 10064 1325 N ASTOR ST 18656 S RT 59 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60610 SHOREWOOD, IL 60435 LEPPLA JOHN L LANDIS JAMES H LARNER JACQUELINE L LEPPLA JOEN F 1501 MAROON CREEK #11 376 DAHLIA 4040 DAHL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 MOUND, MN 55364 LUU TONG KHON LICHTENWALTER GARY R LONG MONA HAYLES TRUST TRAN TUYET LE 814 W BLEEKER UNIT B-1 BOX 3849 814 WEST BLEEKER - B4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MADSEN GEORGE W JR & CORNELIA G MANIE MICHAEL B 1/2 MARCUS STEPHEN J 62.15% INT 931 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 11373 PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINNESOTA MATERNAL MARKS MARILYN R MATTHEWS DEE R FETEL MEDICINE 930 W FRANCIS ST 5137 52ND ST NW 2115 DWIGHT LN ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 MINNETONKA, MN 55305 MURRY PAUL J OSHEROW PAM PARK JAYLENE & STAN 37.85Â°/0 INT MURRY BONITA J 3528 NW 61ST CIR PO BOX 1709 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 BOCA RATON, FL 33496-4001 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 RAKESTRAW RONALD L REED BRENT H RICCIARDI RIK 947 W HALLAM ST 100 N 8TH ST #6 100 N 8TH ST #14 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHAFFER WILLIAM H SCHIMMENTI SUSAN SHARP DESIGNS INC 814 W BLEEKER ST #B6 PO BOX 2554 936 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SISTY UGLERS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP SHERIDAN DAVID R li 1/2 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B LTD PO BOX 11373 4706 WARREN ST NW C/O CAROL ANN KOPF ASPEN, CO 81612 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 770 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SJR ASSOCIATES LLC SMITH BRADLEY K SNOOK GARRY & SHARON C/O STEVE MARCUS 937 W HALLAM ST P O BOX 10000 PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Â®09Ig Jasel 510qel SSeippv Â®AMBAV ~ .. STEINBERG EDWARD M STUART DONA STUHR WILLIAM J 111 1068 HOLLY ST PO BOX 11733 PO BOX 3808 DENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 TALENFELD ELIZABETH G TOPELSON ALEJANDRO TRAN HONG HUONG 915 W FRANCIS ST 4725 S MONACO ST #330 814 W BLEEKER ST #Cl ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 ASPEN, CO 81611 UHLER FRANCES M ZUCKERMAN HELEN LIVING TRUST ZUCKERMAN NORBERT A TRUST 814 W BLEEKER 280 DAINES STE 202 7439 MIDDLEBELT RD STE 2 UNIT B2 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322-4163 ASPEN, CO 81611-3115 Â®09IG Jol aleldlual asn wisla@4S Paa:I 4100UIS i 1 6 2-14,%3:11: 1, 2:4.11 91 - / =..1 . 4 4 fle .43! i ~il. 6 0 e r:.9 4:t 1 Â·; 1 4 ; 1'9 - th, . ' 'f I. J... 94: .. t..: C ,/p"ilill. 9% 14 7 Â¥ ~ 6.- 101* :61 .06.11 0 - 41 4 â€¢ 'A 1.m.... 4 . 41 I i -i - 1% :Ill'll'll'WIM/:MMI'll/~1 -* k I ./ ALJ....i 4~ t f 1~"Imilimpl .4 - P 1 1/ . 134//,1,~41, 46 , *%119.11: , . 11 laillillif6 1//4/1,/6 41*-1 / 4-11 ' Alf ' Li '0 4 .? + , T 14 -0-/flh,W r ..ti,r -r ' 1 ' tn k. t~Â·r : Â·116Â» 17-- ~ '. i - ''%Â· '04...r#-'M//'ll-.lk/Â· ., z. 9 , . i I - Â· Ah , 1, r .. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Paul Smith * Chairman Frank Loushin Michael Kelly * Vice- Chair Roy Holloway John Keleher * Sec/Treas Bruce Matherly, Mgr February 21, 2003 Scott Woodford Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sagewood Condo PUD Dear Scott: The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visit/ walk through prior to the issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed Service is contingent upon the District' s rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the district office. Please call ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, [kfu-A L.U I ...~~ji ALL LÂ·'-*'- X Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970)925-2537 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: City Engineer Community Development Engineer ............ Zoning Officer Housing Director 1 ........... Parks Department Aspen Fire Marshal ............ City Water Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Building Department Environmental Health Electric Department Holy Cross Electric City Attorney Streets Department Historic Preservation Officer Pitkin County Planning County & City Disaster Coordinator Transportation FROM: Scott Woodford, (scottw@ci.aspen.co.us) Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5102 Fax-920.5439 RE: Sagewood Condominiums PUD and Rezoning - The Condominium Association proposes to utilize a PUD to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks as conforming and allow enclosure of balconies on six of the twelve units (six already are already enclosed) and to rezone the parcel the structure sits ort from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use (it is currently a non-conforming use iii the R-6 zone district). DATE: January 30,2003 DATE OF DRC MEETING: February 12.2003 at 1:30PM. â€¢ NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOEIINER (johnn@ci.aspen.co.us) BY NOON ON Januarv 15.2003. YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. 11 CU 111 J JI rl'Emiti 'll ------ 0=***324*4 =----------========-====Lm 1041 1 189** s 1-08: ILL-=I NE'---la~ 4 9 Ilmill@Elilai!!!~3mk~~L--1 r-:r -11 L.~3 I 0 . 0 WEL=111 -4== 1=1 - - 151 19=:==...1 luill:11 :-MOWE://30/Fil-4754 Prl 1!~ 7~1 1 IIi 1 53 Ir-[417 1 --L_R--1_1 H m .-1-r.rrr' 4 .1 --1 iCE}Â£Â¥_' 11 - â€ž 1 Ld Li 11 Â· -JIL--1 --1-L.._- it' L 111(D 'A Â£111 /it-EASINVATeÂ¢ .-_.EXISING __-_ _---_---_ 6 SOUTH _ELEMATK]Â¢4 - EXISâ„¢G____ _,-__ ___ _ .._ illozE SII C_; SCALE % â€¢ 1'-O' /. SC~LE. 1/8' â€¢ 1'-O' 11*3 4 Fll WEE re 111 1 i 11 0 -1 *~1*31~ rifi 1 Fm- --- T r--------------1 :1 111*MIEL..1~11 m 1 11~*eN.m~11 1/=mil-Alt --1111%350~~Fll --1 I i ;1.-_1~ ~- m, ---- 2 _ 1-- -- 71-14 peM___i~ - 1,1 i -&&J/LE; Jil 'TTE?â€¢- 1 lei 11'111 1,111'11:111 -4- , - |1~' 1EILLIilht_li1- "21 -WEEr_EUMATKÂ®1 -_EX5ING_- _ ---__--__ _-- /1 3 NQRTH_EUVATION - EXIST'*3---- --. - .' SCALE' U. â€¢ 1.. \ /MALE, 1.- 1'-O -TIG 11[---1 IFAid--]1 1VAO 1]- -- - - 41 E-- 1 10.--31 01 Cul 11/// mY. 4- '5 1 1 0!80 14't .P:F UNIT 9 UNI. 10 011 008 ]%i r-till [ ' il If j ---4--- {91; =0 1 UNIT 12 UNIT U mil - 636 0 * 76,0 14't 001 \ J deck 1, -Lf'=7~ 1 .... W LEVEL 3 3499 0 sc C, 0 / -ROOE PLAN__ ___ - _ _~_ ___ 3 ThED LEVEL PLAN ~ k') 66,â€¢LE, 1.- 1-0- k .. 56*LE, !/8 â€¢ 1-0 00 1 1 1 Ir'll i , |1 || 1 2 Elc--9 n dec, ' 1 .. L..0.11 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 63.0,44ft ./. 14 t --, 0 1 1 it. [ 1 il, 1 tÂ« 1 . --UUÂ£___., 4 1 LOB.Y Aty I Ill*111* 1"11,11'f, E-2 74 L 6360 * 7640 $ 0100,4ft UNIT 8 UNIT 7 UNIT 3 LELF 9 .---. e - 4/"-.1 --1-3 NORâ„¢ LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 E-G 3304.0 sq.ft 3680 sa ft SACZWOOD MÂ»Â·6 -21.SECQWUVEL_ELAN- --_ __.-_ ~._ ._. /7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN __ _ __ _ _ Al.0 I SCALE /8 â€¢ 1'-Â·0' ' .' M.L. 1//' â€¢ 1 -O- -i .....I.-.. . WAINIWO NOD SNOUVAON3 C a . 41. , AL L. ET ..1 . 14 4 / U .15-6,91 & 04Â· 0,4.1 â€¢ 6 - 15+8,173Ion 0Â»921 - - . 1, 2 4-0 1 - 27Â· 2 r ../.0 d M/ls --1 , 4 diteÂ¢ . 11Â· + 3 ----= r 4 AtÂ· 4 4 e . th-)/0 . .) f ~ -;- Tti ,-PL~~ :C, /00 '.00 1 0.-/4- lu. 1 .- 03 \ e -9/ 4 0 I -I 1 - 9 1 , 4, A 4 UPI, r . 74 .2 9 i Â· IlllIt 1 . 42'/. ~ ' *Sk. t ..4 i. t. -29-Â·r-4 - .. *'0 *14 2 4 1\ Â· 0- it/All ' : 1 6. -1'JU ' 9. . . I. "745 41 1 .-15 1 -->I - _ _ .<2 49 Clu _ilj - 1 .h. I 0 1 1*,> { 01 .N...; h. h 4:. ? ..4 I . f â€¢'3Â· 2; , 7 F 94 4 1 ,/4,1 1 1 M iÂ«/ I i , 1-2*<4:% - 1 1,4..<Pfy,; 9% 15/ 0110- <_SÂ« X. 4 1 =3~3- M. fir 0 1 1 F k 1 =~ -A Â· / ' V\... 4 -kk : 1 49 't . Â»fj~J\ 04< <> 5,5.4,744 ~ i k 7 3 -",73 3 5- , if .11,Â·1 1 I e .%- '. g 72 =Â·1(Â·*14 ;724'4 *LT<311 3734:J?r.# *G ** 21 4 UE-5T H A Â·L LAM 1 t. i. *4 - . SAGEWOOD ' (Caudill Gustafson3[3' 1 I a Araeoclgree AFO,T=cre. P.c. r mâ€¢22 ' .Ifilt+.U~ 1- - -1 CONDOMINIUM Mt,Â«pic.... #. co.â€ži - /Â»921.1*J .4.,111 1 : RENOVA-1-IONS ~ ~ 910 WEST HALLAM STREET, ASPEN, COLO~~ ~ - â€¢ .91/. 1Vol . \ [4: 0: CON 41)5 1 00 1_ -~~DerÂ«3%@LfÂ»m~ n r=u - --==3 1----21 -GE==2=,-m ! 0&:%. 33~ Â»a- :.2- J e==S--1 ./-' \E-72-~ ' [9 <.0/7 - #4Â¢/Â¤-mÂ·R~i re=.=-Il;-- =- -~..1 FEE-4 u -7 -08! JQI - -1222=4.m, 1 -=d=1 1 4 *==21 ki-i==/.=ATI-I 1 U..1-=a --Â« mil *Ril 1.1 ~ - a.all/*.2.-- le.......j//3..I--6 I I ./9 ..1 1 ~ ' 1 , !/4,4-i i . 5 /j 1 EAST ELEVATION 61. surt' ELEVATION < I 'CALE: I//' â€¢ I'/0 ZET U / 3 11 11 ~- tr-=la ~Â·Â·:3~ .. EhEE@ea~de,aa:~~ --*r-a 'Â»9~ =e CL-= =--- f -=Â«~ 3 - *' 223 Â£ 1 1 EÂ¥ M:maTilratij....==-=,=4 1 Â· 749#YArk -' -fER rf Lâ‚¬ 1.-,5,,k~~~ M - -1=-- -1 dia- - 1*# 4 al F.- 1*.Ge r-- 7 +1 1111'r i 41 WEST BIVAIION_- __---___ . _ 6~ NORTH HEvAlloN __--__-_ _ ______ I SCALE, 1/8' â€¢ 1'.0' 1 5 seâ€¢LE /6 Â· iÂ·-0Â· 1Â«2*000..An/- A3.1 1 -- â‚¬* ~â€¢-a~K i...... ' ........ 1/19 05 MAINIM aOOAA3DVS Ann#- 4--& - n .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE 1 9 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 33~1 ~ 032(Â£-try, f' <r--ald/os , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: --7 / i t.i< 0 -n , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 3~1 /</ 8 F- L--7- b off (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made o f suitable, waterproof materials which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide 4 and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days 1 prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of ,200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photographoj* the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. . Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government. school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses o f property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. t (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners o f real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 1 A t.ild--f.Llf Signature n-fl_ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before {ne thisly,lay of 73-I b - , 2003, by 75---Â«S 1.-A r~351-7 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires:~ /~139 /0-3 '*.- 140 Td YA Notary Public B 0 / n >t ; O.11 i ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL . 1 I , 493 % AP.... I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 14th, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers. City Hall. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Sagewood Condominium Association requesting approval of a Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) to legalize the existing, non-conforming dimensional requirements, to allow for a 11' wide by 6'8" long entry canopy that extends to the east property line, and to increase the allowed floor area to enclose twelve (12) balconies and an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map rezoning the parcel from R-6 to R/MF in order to legalize the existing, non-conforming multi-family use. The subject property is located 910 West Hallam Street, City of Aspen. The legal description of the property is generally described as Lots Q. R and S of Block 4, City of Aspen, with the exception of a parcel of land lying on the westerly boundary of Lot Q, ~ being 7.17 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5.95 feet wide at the northerly end. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Commuhity Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Klanderud. Mayor Aspen City Council ~ THE CITY OF ASPEN Published in the Aspen Times on June 27,2003. Sports 1 Running Trail half-marathon on Saturday The third annual Aspen Grove Trail Half-Marathon and 10K is scheduled for Saturday, June 28, start- ing at 8:30 a.m. The race, which included a full- arathon distance last year, starts and inishes at the Aspen Art Muse- In Other f: um for the half- marathon loop. Action + The challenging, hilly course winds above Aspen into the Hunter Creek and Sunnyside trails. , i . Registration costs $30 for the half- *F arathon or $20 for the 10K. (Add 10 after June 21.) Proceeds benefit he Asben High School cross-country earns. Register at the Ute Moun- aineer in Aspen or online at ww.exploreadventures.com. unning I ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: c--Eck. 01-4 \-,i-/7/,36301 d (Â»L/,r,JOC~ <i~spen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE :- -5/07/4-3 x , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) - I \ I, 'j 0, Ill 14> c u 1 1.,1 OP -0~-- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ,~<f~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting ofnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. BY the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government. school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet o f the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. GAL,4.96_yÂ·Â·Ld D-- 7fgnature -fL The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ) 8 day of AÂ®-~ , 200*,by 1-- -5 krntÂ¢-7 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOM1NIUMS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 6th, at a meeting to WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL begin at 4:30 p.tr.. before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission. Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an applica- tion submitted by Sagewood Condominium Asso- My commission expires: 9/AWS#2~ ciation requesting approval of a Consolidated ' Conceptual/ Final Planned Unit Development d-1.-16 ho < i> lA (PUD) to legalize the existing dimensional re- quirements, to allow for a 11' wide by 6'8" [ong, cantilevered entry canopy that extends to the Notary puBlic- east property line, and to increase the allowed floor area to enclose twelve (12) balconies and an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map rezoning the parcel from R-6 to R/MF in order to legalize the multi-family use. The subject property is lo- - i> ' Â·. .09 cated 910 West Hallam Street, City of Aspen. 2,M For further Information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tygre. Chair Asp,n Planning & Zoning Commission ATTACHMENTS: Published in The Aspen Times on April 19,2003 (0291) COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE A / 1 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -/> , Aspen, CO 40 00,\0 crt rfoltÂ¢\typ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1,4 19 I ca ,200- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1 f I, -F-Bc U J)_C~ /--_ C l,1 67 ~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 1*- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section o f an o fficial C paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time ofthe public headng. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing Of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses o f property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in ally way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement o f an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses of owners ofreal property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ofÂ»Â»UÂ»Â«14~ .Signature 2 The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was.ackaowledged before me thlisÂ© 1 day of 1,4-~L , 2003, by -ha .Â«2- 1 1-_.1 rÂ·Â·xfor PUBLIC NO'l ICE 1 RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing WITNESS MY HA.*EfANDTOgMCIAL SEAL will be held on Tuesday, April 8th, at a meeting to Â£ ..:0 begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning & C Â·- - . 1.1 Zoning Commission, Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an applica- My con~nission ##ks: 7 /07.7 6.>r 33 tion submitted by Sagewood Condominium Asso- iation requesting approval for a Consolidated Conceptual/ Final Planned Unit Development PUD) to legalize the existing dimensional re- luirements and to allow for balcony enclosures Notary Public *d>~Â· ind a Rezoning from R-6 to R/MF in order to legal- ze the multi-family use, which is not currently al- )wed in the R-6 zone district. The subject prop- 1 e biGOF :rty is located 910 West Hallam Street, City of As- )en. 'or further informatiou, contact Scott Woodford 1 the City of Aspen Community Development De- artment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO (970) 920- ;102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us, s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on March 22,2003. ATTACHMENTS: (0210) .. COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESSOFPROPERTY: 9#0 w HAUAM STAEET- , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuag MAT G ,200 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 5 â‚¬ 0-ri- GAL,LA GH-AL (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: /C 2---Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A COpy Of the publication is attached hereto. 79- Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high. and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the il. day of her I 1 , 200 3 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto, 1 t..atailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community V Development Department. which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is iii any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title. or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended. whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of. and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 313Â· day of A F, 1 .2001, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 0/-2 3-0 do 4dta__ ',4.-44.-AL Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Â· Sn:orth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® .. COORDES 111{INZ E & KAREN V BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M TALENFELI) 1'1.1/.AlllÂ·Ill c ; 908 W FRANCIS PO BOX 1365 915 W FRANC'I>; S'I ASPEN, CO 81(,11 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN. CO 8 1 (, 11 SHODEEN K ENT W l Itt 1% 1 Vili ASPEN HISTORIC ('C)TTAGES I.LC GUTHRIE DAVII) 11 & AMY I C/O SHO-I)IiI:N 62.15% INT 920 W HALLAM S'I 17 N FIRST >;,1 PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, a) 81(,11 GENEVA, IE (,01.1.1 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUU TONG KNON PARK STAN & .1./\3'11Â·NIÂ· 66.67%INT GELLER SCOTT TRAN 773Ylirl Ill PO BOX 2091 29 BARKLEY CIR 814 WEST BLEEKER - 114 ASPEN, CC) 81(,1.. FORT MYERS. 11 33907-75.31 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHERIDAN I )A\'ll )1<Il 1/2 COHEN RICHARD A & IiI.IZABETH A TOPELSON ALEJANDRO PO BOX Ilt/4 PO BOX 1806 4725 S MONACO ST #330 ASPEN, ('C) 81(,12 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 MURRY PAUL.1 BUTLER MARII SCHAFFER WILLIAM H MURRY BONITA J 814 W ]11.1Â·01'.KIÂ·14 1/'( 4 814 W BLEEKER ST #136 814 W BLEEKER ST ('-5 ASPEN.('c) 81(,11 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 UH I.ER IRAN('1Â· S M FATTAHI AMENEH AS TRUSTEE TRAN ]ION(i liliON( i 814 W 141.1Â·.1 Â·.K ] .14 814 W 131.1 {liK ER Sl //( ' I PO BOX 8080 UNIT 112 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN. CO 8 1 611 ASPEN. CO 81(,11 1]Ici MINNESOTA MA lit.RNAI LICHTENWALTER GARY R HOGGAT']'.11,1<1<,1. S FENA MEDK iNI 814 W BLEEKER UNIT B- 1 175 14TH Sl 2115 I)\VIcilll I N ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWORLEANSI A 70124 MINNETONKA, MN Â»305 HE]Sl.IEN' MI('1 1 Al:1. 1: KURTZ KENNETH T & KAREN LARNER JACQUI:1131: 1. C/O LON (; K .1 BRAKUR ClISTOM CABINETRY 376 DAHLIA 2004 DIANA 1)1< 18656 S RT 59 DENVER, a) 80220 MENI)()TA, 11. 61342 SHOREWOOD, IL 60435 HEIS[.EY MIC'll Alll:. KUDISH DAVID J REVOCABLE TRUST STEINBERG El)WARD M C/O K .1 LONCI 1068 HOLLY ST 1325 N ASTOR ST 2004 DIANA 1)14 CHICAGO, IL 60610 DENVER, a) 80220 MENDOTA, 11, 61342 EICHNER SAMUEL L POLSE KENNETI I A &.|OYCE L DAILY KIMmiRLY DAWN EICHNER SUSANA STERN DE REVOC 1992 TST 814 W !31.Inâ‚¬KER PL E.2 FUENTE PIRAMIDES 243 452 SCENIC AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TECAMACHALCO MEXICO CITY, PIEDMONT, CA 94611 53950 ~~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® , Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® KHALAF ALEXANDER R & FAHIMA BOSSART TODD L KEILIN KIM MILLER 408 E HYMAN AVE 814 W BLEEKER ST #E4 PO BOX 10064 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEN-HAMOO PATRICE CONYERS ZUCKERMAN NORBERT A TRUST OSHEROW PAM PO BOX 2902 7439 MIDDLEBELT RD STE 2 15240 TALL OAK AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322-4163 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33446-9793 MADSEN GEORGE W JR & CORNELIA MARKS MARILYN R SNOOK GARRY & SHARON G 930 W FRANCIS ST P O BOX 10000 931 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 RAKESTRAW RONALD L SMITH BRADLEY K ALLERTON PHIL & VALERIE 947 W HALLAM ST 937 W HALLAM ST 945 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 BORDERICK MARK E & SHARON A SCHIMMENTI SUSAN GEIGER KRISTEN 939 W HALLAM PO BOX 2554 941 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 FOREST SERVICE ASPEN SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B GIBANS JONATHAN HEADQUARTERS 4706 WARREN ST NW PO BOX 8098 UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE WASHINGTON, DC 20016 ASPEN, CO 81612 SISTY UGLERS FAMILY HINRICHS NANCY R COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N PARTNERSHIP LTD 100 N 8TH ST #2 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW C/O CAROL ANN KOPF ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 770 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM RICCIARDI RIK HUGHES GAIL ASSOC 100 N 8TH ST #14 P O BOX 11048 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-9657 ASPEN, CO 81611 DOYLE R & G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI HADDON HAROLD A & BEVERLY J DOYLE R T III 30% GRIST F 30Â°/0 GLATMAN BRUCE ROY 409 21ST ST 2834 MONTEBELLO RD APT 6 20034 CALVERT ST DENVER, CO 80205 AUSTIN, TX 78746-6817 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 REED BRENT H DACOSTA MAUREEN C EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE 100 N 8TH ST #6 PO BOX I TRUST-1/2 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® . Smoqth Feed Sheetsâ„¢ Use template for 5160Â® .. BRUNT FAMILY LP LANDIS JAMES H MATTHEWS DEE R PO BOX 304937 1501 MAROON CREEK #11 5137 52ND ST NW 107-9B ESTATE CONTACT ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 ST THOMAS, VI 00803 LEPPLA JOHN L ANZALONE GRACE E SHARP DESIGNS INC LEPPLA JOEN F PO BOX 3808 936 W FRANCIS 4040 DAHL RD ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUND, MN 55364 GREGORY KIRK CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION STUART DONA GREGORY PETRA PO BOX 32 PO BOX 11733 PO BOX 10055 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® I I â€¢1Â»1 - 13_, 0 4 - Â· . i t. . i Q I . 1 ..3. 1 30 , i r '1 71:,L . ) .r~Â·,-Â·91 .. 1 Â». adep .St, 3. '.1, BLIC NOT * - 4 11 4...ff J DATE # '. - o,jIT t 9. j.. TIME ~ , ' 't , . 10 , . ..2 . / I 4 2 LACE 1 64 #. n 4,1 V 1 . 1 I. t VURPOSE - 1- 44*t 54 V ; 41 - 14 Â¢â€¢44 J / *t 1:~Â·13% - 1- 1 , i 41 . 1/ r ... 4. I . r '..:..::'63.70 1 - 1 4*,0 LE â‚¬ 1 * ....MIM '9644'* ......U'.1~ . f NG ..r .1 1 1,14 , I. ALÂ· r .3 *'Â· ~ ' 1 -j.4 4,Â·99 <eli . . $' 4 I : _a Â·Â·IN'vÂ· </ ./ t 1. 'Hy JN. 4 -1, PÂ¥Â·+J t. 3 1.1. 49% 1 . ff, 1 , P JA~i ,- S' .L: , e *34 1,1 ;;91Â¥.1 1 Â· :Â·, A G: 17: ' 9/1//0 3 2* ' t *f .4 k# #. I. . t .4 . Â¥4 L L~ Â·Ak * 4. 1 -15 6 4 k P A. 40 i %*, , .1 mf' i Er I 6Â¢ k.- t, R -1 I- = T 4 9 434 . 4 1 9,11 ----7 .- - -5 .. 4 li~ 1,11//1111/1/1%21.-1 1, ~~~ ., 44. 5912~l~~~1:K *Ant, - tâ‚¬.. a .. i . & . =. 2- 4~ 42 -Ip."c .... - . f DAT, :IM:.'.0 .i f ..CIA 1. liNE Â· ?:il 1.4.0.4%,IL r, ,/-41 #tr 5 0 a. 6.tpos. h fi'. 0/.1"r.' r. Mirrk I Ird . . St . Â«m ne E XI . -4 , I & 2% i 'li 1,1 ' .7. /Â· - 29*EC . . .... 6-Ill-----~liall 4/11,/0 3 Wr9 .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 6% at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Sagewood Condominium Association requesting approval of a Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) to legalize the existing dimensional requirements, to allow for a 11' wide by 6'8" long, cantilevered entry canopy that extends to the east property line, and to increase the allowed floor area to enclose twelve (12) balconies and an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map rezoning the parcel from R-6 to RAMF in order to legalize the multi-family use. The subject property is located 910 West Hallam Street, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tvgre. Chair Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 19,2003 City of Aspen Account , a L 191/60' wk ta,41 Community Development Director Aft -D#4 iÂ«,1,& 64 r.tuackA 0,0 1 461'' 11 4 Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street -Fata- * > -144 ET> (6*-Utj 142 4 - Aspen, CO 81611 CAK Lit, loli &09 46 Copli R(Â£ 4 (rk, Scott A. Gallagher Secretary, Sagewood Condominium Association ('04 L sul.~ t~ bialtÂ« pornÂ· Af 19 910 West Hallam Street, Unit #1 Aspen, CO 81611 ProÂ·(066 / ( rk to 9 7, 2 A+dc M an* 4 telÂ· 7December 10,2002 RE: Sagewood Condo PUD and Rezoning Proposal To Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director: The Sagewood Condominium Association respectfully requests that you consider our application to establish a Consolidated Conceptual / Final PUD to legalize the existing dimensional requirements and set the dimensional requirements for multi-family use. We are requesting approval to be processed as a PUD because the property is under 27,000 S.F. Attached are copies of the minutes from the Sagewood Condominium Board ofDirectors meeting of December 5,2002, appointing Scott Gallagher (owner of Unit #1) to act on behalf of the Sagewood Condominium Association in this matter. The Association proposes that the dimensional requirements of the PUD be equal to the existing dimensions of the building, and be expanded to include an additional six (6) balcony enclosures [see attached drawings]. We are requesting that the balcony enclosures be in included in the proposed floor area (FAR) calculations so that future amendments to the PUD will not be needed in the event that the remaining six (6) condominium owners may want to enclose their balconies in the future. As of today, six (6) of twelve (12) balconies are currently enclosed. Additionally, the Association requests that you consider our application to rezone to the R/MF Zone District to legalize multi-family use. The Sagewood Condominiums are currently zoned R6, which does not permit the multi-family use for which the building was originally built and erected in 1973 under the appropriate A.Rl Zone. It is unclear exactly when the City rezoned our lot to R6. However, the effect was to create a building that is both nonconforming in use and structure. The surrounding area is primarily single family residences, although directly across Hallam Street is a large RMF zoned project (Aspen Villas) and there is also a multifamily dwelling across 8th Street on Forest Service land which is zoned SPA (Forest Service dormitory). .. The Association argues that both of these proposals (PUD establishment & R6 rezoning) will further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and will best serve the interests of the community in the following ways: (1) The Sagewood Condominiums are an older building in need of refurbishing. As the building is currently a nonconforming structure and nonconforming use, we are unable to obtain permits to improve the outward appearance of the building without rezoning and establishing a PUD. The Association has demonstrated a commitment to improving the appearance of the building by the recent approval of a construction loan for this purpose. (2) The building is a prominent structure, conspicuously located on Hallam Street on the Entrance to Aspen, and clearly visible to all who enter Aspen. The Association argues that both the immediate neighborhood and the City of Aspen would benefit from any aesthetic improvements that can be made to the exterior of the existing dilapidated structure. (3) Exterior improvements made to the building through the permit process will improve the aesthetic appearance of the building and will in no way change the character of the existing land use, adversely affects future development or adversely affects neighboring residences. Our proposal will not in any way change the quantity of open space or site coverage, existing o ff-street parking, area noise, traffic, transit, or pedestrian circulation. There will be no effect on existing natural features of the site, existing lighting, orientation to public streets, vehicular or pedestrian movement, pedestrian and handicap access, emergency access or existing site drainage. I have personally contacted our immediate neighbors and do not anticipate any objection to improving the outward aesthetic, appearance o f our building. (4) In addition to legalizing the existing dimensions of our building, we respectfully request that you consider including all the balcony areas in the proposed FAR calculations. This will allow the remaining owners who have not enclosed their balconies, the option of obtaining permits to enclose their balconies and prevent the need for future amendments to the PUD. In the past, seven (7) of twelve (12) balconies were enclosed without proper permit approval. One (1) Owner has recently removed his enclosure after being red- tagged. His enclosure was rudimentary and easily disassembled, with no removal of sub-flooring, flooring, plumbing, electrical wiring, walls, doors or proper windows. The remaining six (6) balcony enclosures were completed over 10 years ago, mostly by previous owners. Their removal would involve complete demolition and remodeling, with removal ofwalls, windows, doors, sub-flooring, flooring, plumbing and electrical wiring, as they are extensions of the adjacent living rooms. In order to move forward and improve the appearance of the building, without subjecting multiple owners to undo hardship and expense, we are seeking an FAR that will include all balconies. 2 .. (5) The Sagewood Condominiums represent an important source of housing for local residents of the City of Aspen, most of whom use public transportation. Of eleven (11) units, seven (7) are owner-occupied and one (1) is an Affordable Housing Unit. All residents, including the renters, live and work locally as there is no short-term rental permitted. Five (5) units house two or more occupants, and two (2) units house families with young children. There are both professionals and business owners in the building including three architects, one emergency physician and a restaurant owner among others. It is our argument that these valuable resident deserve a chance to improve the appearance o f the building and avoid potentially having to demolish their enclosures. (6) The proposed PUD and rezoning will have no effect on the existing architectural character of the building. However, through the proper permit process an upgrade will be pursued using more attractive and energy-efficient materials. The only potential change to the external structure of the building would be the possibility of enclosing the remaining six (6) balconies at a later date i f City and Association approval were granted. In summary, the Sagewood Condominium Association respectfully proposes the following: (1) Permit rezoning to the appropriate IUMF Zone District from the current R6 Zone to legalize multi-family use. We request that the City waive any and all fees associated with rezoning. Rezoning from A_Rl to R6 by the City in the late 1970's appears to have been done in error, as tlie building has been a multi-family dwelling since it was legally erected in 1973. We request that we not have to bear the cost of being properly zoned. (2) Establish a Consolidated Conceptual / Final PUD to legalize the existing dimensions and an additional six (6) balcony areas (an additional 330 S.F. beyond the existing building dimensions). The Sagewood Condominium Association greatly appreciates your consideration of our situation. Please consider our proposal to rectify the current situation in a manner that we believe will be to the benefit of all who live here, our immediate neighbors and those who transit the Entrance to Aspen. Thank you for consideration o f our proposal. Sincerely, L k,gL,= Scott A. Gallagher Secretary, Board o f Directors, Sagewood Condominium Association 910 West Hallam Street, Unit #1 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 544-0809 3 DEC-04-2002 WED 03:39 PM FAX NO, r, ut 0 0 CITY OF ASPEN PRE.APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE 12/4/02 PROJECr: Sagewood Condos Rezoning and Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Gallagher OWNER: Sagewood Condo Association TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning, Consolidated PUD DESCRIP'l]ON: 1 he applicants would like to rezone the Sagewood Condos to the IUMF Zone District 10 legalize tlic multi-family use. In addition, the applicants are interested in establishing a Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD to legalize the existing dimensional requirements. Currently the Sagewood Condos are zoncd R-6, which does not permit the multi-fainity use or set Out Icquired dimensional requirements for a mult~family building. 'rherÂ¢fore, the building is both a nonconforming use and a nonconforming structure. The establishment of a PUD that sets the dimensional requirements as what exists would legalize the nonconforming structure. We recommend that if any of the condo owners anticipate wanting to enclose their balconies in the near future that they include the balcony enclosures in the proposed floor area (FAR) calculations, so that a future amendment to tile PUD would not be needed. In older for the applicants to pursue a PUD application, 1he Community Devebpment r 42/ Director must find ihat the proposal may have the ability to further the goals of the_Aspen Ale_Commlmity Plan (AACP) and that applying the provisions of the PUD land usc - 49, review process lo the proposal will best serve the interests of 111( community A letter requesting that the Sagewood Property go through the PUD process should bc included in the application. This letter should make an argument for how tlic proposal will further tile goals oftlic AACP and will best serve 1he intel-ests of the commutit> . Land Use Code Section(s) 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) Review by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council. City Council shall be the final review authority regarding both the proposed rezoning and PUD applications, Public Hearing: Yes at P & 7, Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance Planning 1- ees: $2405 Deposit for 12 hours of stafftime (additional stafftime required is billed at $205 per hour) Total Deposit: $2405 7 >'t I A-( O C To apply, submit the following information: 11. I.utter addressed to Community Development Director requesting approval to be processed as a PUD because the property is under 27,000 SF. 2. Total Deposit for review of application. Applicant' s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of tile representative authorized to act on behal fof the applicant. 4. Signed fee agreement. Pre.application Conference Summary. 6. An 8 1/2"x 11" vicinity maplocating the subject parccls within the City of Aspen. 7. Proof of ownership. &94 Secretarv' Report Rezoning and Consolidated Conceptual / Final PUD: Scott Gallagher met with members of the Aspen Community Development Department on Tuesday, December 3,2002 at 2:30 pm for 1 hour to discuss rezoning the Sagewood Condominiums to legalize multi-family use and to legalize the existing dimensional requirements. The following members were present from Community Development: Julie Ann Woods, Sarah Oates, Steven Knipe & James Lindt. Currently the Sagewood Condominiums are zoned R6, which does not pernit multi-family use or set out required dimensional requirements as for a multi-family building. Therefore, the building is both a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, according to the Community Development Department. This process is a detailed process and willlikely have at minimum the initial cost of $2405. The Community Development Department has requested, among other things, that the Sagewood Condominiums select one representative authorized to act on behalf of the Sagewood Condominiums during this process. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved by all present at the ~Â·'1 meeting that Scott Gallagher serve as this contact person. Lyndal Williams, Scott Bartleet, Charlie I Eckart and John Ott will be available to assist in the application process which may require architectural skills. With regard to the cost of the application, Charlie Eckart provided a similar application from 3/20/02 provided by Fred Jarman for a cost of $1205. It was mentioned by Scott Gallagher at the time of the meeting with the Community Development Department that perhaps there should be no cost to us as we are no responsible for being improperly zoned. Apparently, when the building was erected we were 1 appropriately zoned AR1 and then at a later date after completion ofthe building the City rezoned our \Il building into a non-conforming R6 zone. The initial response by Community Development was that we --1. would have to pay the cost ofthis application, regardless of the reason why we are presently zoned improperly. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved by all present at the meeting / that we request a reduction in the cost of the application, but proceed with this application whether a reduction is obtained or not. "FAQ" sheet: The "FAQ" sheet prepared by Scott Gallagher was briefly reviewed. No specific motions were made on the numerous poinis highlighted in red at this time. However, it was evident that there are many inconsistencies between how we operate and how our By-Laws require us to operate. Michelle states that many of the practices required in the By-Laws were changed in prior minutes. However, we should change By-Law requirements by voting to amend the By-Laws (which can be simply done at any Association meeting). The By-Laws are in need of revision simply because much of the terminology is irrelevant (e.g., different classes of voters). We still do not have a signed/dated copy of the By-Laws and there is continued questioning about the validity of this document if no such copy can be located. IF ANYONE HAS A SIGNED/DATED COPY OF THE BY-LAWS PLEASE PROVIDE THESE TO THE BOARD. Another issue brought up was the need for a corporate seal, as required in the By-Laws. This seal would be helpful to affix to all minutes so that there is no question later if minutes produced are official or not. The FAQ sheet was designed to provide a general reference to common issues as they relate to our governing documents. Capital Improvement reimbursement requests: There was discussion regarding Scott Gallagher's request that he not be asked to pay 100% ofthe cost for improvement he made to the Common Elements already with Association approval as well as 15% of the cost for doing the same improvements to all other units (i.e., fence replacement, entryway improvements, windows replacement) during this capital improvement project. There was general agreement that this would not occur and a final proposal will be presented by other member of the Board at a later date for voting. Meeting adjourned: 10:45 pm Next meeting: Board of Directors Meeting, TBA Prepared by Secretary (Scott Gallagher) 3 1Â· tg Â»Â· ' 4 2 J 08 uy tB 4. N. 1 - 1 1 0 I V 1 z --1 " ~' / M I 1/ . .r., E 1 9 1 ~ f , 4 \ N AVE. f:\, Alv :4* - - C i; ' Ili-Â· -' ~ . . 4'08. THE I T .A...=JIO~ , t 87, / =--- COTTONWOCD - SHADOW MOUN AIN - ST. MORITZ LODGE A A fT" Age Qui / & Condominlums ~1~81*WÂ¥}Alma LOD< E 47 t,5 7/. 1 V.1- 8.1 6 /1 ..': C 'Y. 4 a 4. 9 1.1 \ .....P Â£ I /2 r 7 A 21 43 6 ..~.* 4 C r&&,7,1 9/16 ~brf Â· Â· Â»7-K e' A- 8 5.laamper-1-Â©1/41.t<ES*(41141 46 K +2~I -236: 1749 94(rE,~7> "07.11 0 gâ‚¬04 *441: %45 )4 e ~ ~ flr- DA u:y - ., 1.2 .1, .! 4,7 . 1 / .. 3 ./:-.., I . .7-1 A I, il i , - Â£ 1-1 /,11 !1'L /1 0 -L "2'94r- '21 8 1 4 94#i40 8648% 141:94 0 ~â„¢713 431 0 GO 8 E 'Aâ€¢.~ j -1 A.l 0 0 ta â‚¬11 /'1 :Tio .,1 h~0 +T'*Â¢28 ~ -4 Di, Â»\ Al 6 g Â£ , W. HOPKINS AVE. /4 2.2'.44 BOOMERANG LODGE - 0 42 < ~ 3Â« Â·fÂ»Â»fXM LA- 4 02. .. 16=9 lur 7,=r~/fl z *01,&18 941 N 4rat <>~\ -1 , 4% r nat'p ' A A w v Â·4'1 -A 'Pr *ING & RANCHING , 4.,2 ~ , P.9 \ ,~Yegihcva p<WN 4 #R 940'60,4VT HOLDFN/MAROLT LL_; /'. MUSEUM 925 3721 Lankering* ,~, 6 tz) P I Chiropracticâ€¢f,1 , 6 1 *L ... .r.vt v .,2 =Won I 601.JOIBSON- 121.-~rE - '- - ' '-t*Injury ~~~~64<%~~ 182_11 > 1* - . \ J \ . LODGE INNSBRUCKINN ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE LAUREAGE D' ASPEN Clinic. Inc f wÂ· mnÂ·* W. fook W 9/,I 1. 7/'0 GOLF COURSES SCHOOLS Â· HOSPITAL 1 {~ ~, ~.. Â· j.O 0 W. MAIN ST. Ila) ASPEN HIGHLANDS 'hopaedic Carol Oopkin - BUTTERMILK MTN. \\ The Eye Care Institute Associates R"1 TYROLEAN THE of Aspen, PC SNOWMASS a i . 996 / Glenwood TME HOTEL LODGE CHRISTMAS INN David J. Singer, MD, FACS 1/If 'f Aspen 8 Estate A 4 MAROON 8ELLS . Hickon~ House . aids/,in e i FA-6-f- ' '616 1 A.Alfj *, I . . % 'AN, Abilenir <-n. T LAZY 7 RANCH . i' . h ~ e 44 11~ r" A. Mi--1'1 INN AT ASPEN b/,4 .... Â· 1 P.1 AN -W - 0'91 -(11(3,10 MA '-7 ~t i ' 04'~ AIRPORT -I W E Ue.1 80@) IN<%3* EN-hâ‚¬Â£3 Â£~imi' tivÂ«0411 ki(*rml f.**4. ASPEN~mÂ»*S CENTE~ ./*-Â·.3 ''. 8 - ' 'il' AS~BASALT U 44 /-\*11 3.......2 69 -- /A YemiliÂ·bili b W BLEEKER ST. DiÂ·rhÂ·râ‚¬nin:ird /ARBONDALE ' WKS ' 4* '11"{ 1,11, r~1~ DAYS INN 28 mi : 0 32 24 Ar 60 VeÂ«thhri,Â·hi,i>.1 Prirk -9 * -#M-rM-1M* 4= F r*to - C W V, elar -lu~Â§~ 1 EE.1 Iwit&*bÂ¥*L ia . , n pia * - 0=W 1 0 f~~'~ - I V F LU 4 HAL LAM ST. LL 05 'pies LaqiÂ· i . 6*Â£/ 07*R-T HALLAM ST. u~ FiEL,Lf wi.= i reinfilfpem F -1 /istro ~ 06 ~ ~mi=mmli K~5F) rir9~'12/u'ggimff,1 Inni . C.,6 -- , I W Â· \\Q UM V 11~1111111111~111118./' I .............. utmaim -- A G e A 4. 1 , /| 5./. /1 IttliLITI,41,~ LJ.Wl' FRANCIS ST. 0 L 142 E UNTOMEFT,i" C 4{. f 044 1 AJÂ·r~K-t Ar" /*%,1 61 1 1 ./*p I SM - - 4â€¢x SMUGGLER ST. w 1.u AN 1,510/Flize,El 1/la'R:RgiAim â€ž m lt-pâ€¢"t: LAKE~~~9.2*4 L =- q -1. ,-4./. -Wl W~g/%#lk 2/ N / 44 44 8%116#8 4' 140~6*a NORTH ST. P.j>i.C,~pa} (/47Â·[h %\ , Ner,i center 4 ' -Â¥9' I 91 +32'MA TRN,lkS 7% 1 'r,innienin, Snialeâ€¢ 1 1/ i &*ti~ Â·-â€¢,\ FAJAM[t# , M nr-â€¢ -Div--70\ 1."Iliâ€¢ take 1/.1- 1/ke Walt,re Pre,~rrvr , -7- 4 ) 94 *21 ~Tkir --.. //~W -â€¢thE!Â£1 GELESPEST. - Mfiem her 1.-/ 4.- 11(fll \B '5*illt 5% 4 --=- GE===* . c===Lil 91.- , '.4 4% 03,1, 1 Feb F.- 1345 63 -7* irmi.iÂ·,â€žâ€ž, (, T 1"ll'#AA/.3\,2@?~ .7.~it Fra UNIQUE GIFTS i. I - /"IrtÂ·~ C i."i 1.11 ..1 1 -,9 , W 11* 1 14.. c , 7 1 I , ,Â·' 1 â€¢ 1, â€¢11 'â€¢ _14 T 6,--Â·r. 441- Ok J ' r 7Â·\ I. 0. ..Â·-4& 45#7%319< & THE PEOPLE 420 E. HYMAN Â· ON ' ,Â¢Â· bUNVIHE>IH NadSÂ¥ RTH ST. #* THIRD ST .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT "A" All eleven (11) condominium units as shown on the Condominium Map for the "Sagewood Condominiums", appearing in the records o f the County Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as described in that Condominium declaration for "Sagewood Condominiums Association", appearing in such records in Book 282 at Page 438, more fully described as: Lots Q, R, and S of Block 4, City of Aspen, with the exceptions of a parcel of land lying on the westerly boundary of lot Q, being 7.16 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5.95 feet wide at the northerly end, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot Q, Block 4, Township of Aspen; thence south 75Â° 09'11" east 7.16 feet; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of said lot Q, which point lies south 75Â° 09'11" east 5.95 feet from the northwest corner of said lot Q, thence north 75Â° 09'11" west 5.95 feet to the northwest corner of said lot Q; thence south 14Â° 50'49" east 100 feet to the point ofbeginning. 1 1 . ..i(Cp [1\O [ID Â© 0'0 0 01131[1 UVIO [M]ZA[]p 03 S>ZAGE[%47([DÂ©[ID 000\02Â©04000~00 100<IS (Dell. Deco 2 Â· 7. W 84 <,5' 1 ...4.i . I u. uu=,-1 .Â·* -' 5/5 /9 r Â· I Â· M A p ./ .,as SEEN v --I. a 1'11..'~ j': ):*.rs ,- 'P.P f t'..b .1 - -1 11 i 1 1 -4 e. _Ay lit........... !9-1 - 03â€¢â€¢. _Lfi, Pac~1*,12, Re.CORD' 3- T-'. CLL 7 -4,Â· | 1 9,1 - i M.M.... A Â·Â·1,.. 11 . b 1 .- 0 ..= c. .....45/ Fel/GOIN. *.6 M. r-Â·s 4.- D.. / I ~ SAGEWOOD 1 - OF 1573 0Â¥ G ..D wil-NESS .Â¥ PANO AND CDF~ICIAL- ..AL. Z . J Norr A-V 0&.C 1 1 1 5.[U]_JErÂ·~IK'*R'_3 04- E+DGUM/!E[R'S â‚¬I[le-0'0[]20(C,A-17112 w. s M.... -' -0 ./ ......0 â€¢ 6-AN.~ AND E~~Gl...1 ./RESÂ·r r. E . r--'I- O/ ... ./.L biliATED .V 1 1 SCALE 1- â€¢ 10 SE. 14 54 3*, 5,C '2, 71". 1, eS Â¥6 6 p", AND ~ouND I i- ~ ~~ wirl,iN .â€¢il NWO, t. LINES 9 m. ON -rl.,I p. L.~~A rieN AND *3.5â€¢ONS O- -C nourip/-Â¥ .Ne IMP.O~/EM~â€¢4T. 1- I.,r>INC. 0. f U LfT 1 70 ./ ... SWOWN . N Â¥-1. 1,1.P ANC> T-. M.. .~c:c-RA~rIL-~ AND . 5 .El,6/. Â·r~ E ........ AN. rA,2 AN. veR-r.(L ./LD-GS, ... R -r-/ UNIT Detsâ€¢*NA-TION' ........ 7.-I I......,INS 0. k.t. UNITS, AND r.,a p...,swep AND -rwAÂ·r ...s M.P --4..D .U-S'Que-. j. ./SC.'.&10 ......... , Â· .6-1.61 1 '9,1- / 1. 11... 1. 1 ..4. - .57.- 1 .... CO~NÂ·â€¢Y OP -7-64'. __2-Ng- 0.1 IN N.V...F..1,73 1 1 1 ......:+IÂ·s w.4 ..m.â‚¬ ./ @20~A'tcp AND .-M.... WAA,D AND 0 -,CiAL .SeAL . 1 1 1 ~o-rA=v r./.tr.G 1 -I ...1... ARE.: 8610Â£.gal[112[bll -1 1 - 7.Ic ' 6 m.09 Â£ Tb 0 7â€ž f 5 â€žâ€¢os'E 82 84') KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: NE Câ€¢â€¢ - J'1* Ct/ ./.r 7,46 UND-&*D 15 1 -I.I. - A .Kup# ....... '../. 0/M ./ . D.I. 0/ -rÂ¥/0-/ 0. r.. I,EAL ........ ....AM 7.Â·, r...d. .....t./. Ir. r./ I.â€¢Iâ‚¬ 0./i...... Pe) I' CO' 7-Â»AÂ¥ r..a Jpâ€¢DeR6â€¢4Â·NED A, . Mett-G,â€¢GEE- HEQSBY a.â€¢â€¢r~niEs ,-0 &446 1. rwe .Epic,t ION O. S,~10 Â»L- 100'TNE-R .Vr,i :I .K#&-. I. Gd-,â€¢-Ts, 'Bl.7.0â€¢Â·,s ,Â·,t,D lesrmicÂ·ril./ I. T,1~ S,Â·4.-t=~oob ...1Â»liN,vâ€¢,I~S E..CoTED r,1,5 -1Lm_ 2Â»., .3,= Al.,ual,6 C.â€ž1473, v.4/.El ......._ ..WN'I ... J.# I 'r,irED ST-*.-6 C...0.-râ€¢ON A&6Â¤C.,AnON O..RAND JUNCT-ION, 1 .Im-1.57> i -C h M Â£ c-*-4Â¢ ATTE.7 .0- . .i ' ...TE 2.Â£Â£6[CODEP â€¢ MO-FIES [Et:10-00.07 *A' C064NTV T.5. P.teÂ°.ly *gl#EN' *VAS - -*11* m- Mi M IN M GF 444*6'r .,~ eÂ·r /' 2,Â· f rifÂ· 7~. .14. -1..' F. W.74. SEO.% O/ .Au-EY 0,01* ~AviNGS . .CAN ASSOCIA.,06, I. WA~,b luhACT.6.Â·â€ž - ortivE-b /1Â»â€¢.-p~~S co.po.ADIN 0 - S ..... WIr' PLISTÂ«- CAr * 137/ ING,Ne:./. ...... : Â·w.. - - .. 'Â· i. CLUDED . LITI ... 4 S 0. Â·,TW W,INESS .Â¥ WAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. \ mLOC. .Â· Cirl MÂ¥ COMMISDioN ~or-AstÂ¥ P,461.,CL . fll. ./r .Â¥ â€žr R.Â·C:~ ......O,1 0/ . ...CIL OF LAND ./INGÂ· ON .VESY-ERLÂ¥ OF L07 Q, DEIN. 7. 1/ F.Â£. 1 -PE Ar ./. Sau'â€¢4EÂ·RLY END A.N. 5 95 -â€¢eT WIDE .7 ' 1 1-,4. %/Â·rÂ·~ERLY END. MOâ€¢, I.*C-,C...... t.Â£61.185/ AS ,-0.-1-,D- .1 COM.B.ING AT ... 0- SAle BLOC. 4. aV ASPEN: -TWIâ‚¬NCE 80./. .'rATE OP '00*.01*01~/1 SS I r.i/â€¢Ill ..4 -NCE 75-c>,Â·r EAST IiI FEE', 7.â€¢.ICâ‚¬ ....r/ ./ 0. TWI 1/ OF S.'. LIT Q. n. - m. eFrâ€¢C. C. -r.1. C.ER. .N. Veâ‚¬COKPEFk 0. 1 -1 . 0. ..c/ POIN~r LIES .OUT. 7.-3/'11,1 E./7 5 9/ FEET Pir/IN, Â¢10.-0-Abc, A:r -IUZE_ 00 CLeeâ€¢< _1_ M. /Â·WIS Â·- -'- Da' 0- -_LE'Â£/-01/-2-*.,9-0 F,20.1 7.4/ COq/N 0. SA,C, L.0 T I , I hi 0400 K __4Â£--1 1-â€¢4. _4Â£4Â£_*. T~,ENCE h O.'iE' ./ST ..5 ~eET 1-0 TWI 0: ..AID 50.Tu 14' 50' 4/ EA,r Ic/ FeeT TO 7-. po.-- ./ Mi.liC. CLE'. AND eECOâ€¢~C>E. C...... 0. .....,N. 0. \ 9,70.00 poLOT OÂ»n_ADD 80=E-0 11 Â©8 N h~ blt.:r 2ZS, . 1 ?~r , EN]Â¢DÂ·Ir[T 0.. Il WK. -C. CONS-,1.147. COM.â€¢ON 1 i . . Ii I: 1, UNIT "2 1 1 *L. 1 Iii 1 1 1 UNTIL 111 --i A F--41Â»> 1 4- I -- ZAOSEAS Â©EF' loeâ‚¬]0'US LI 204' 1 ------- ill 1 UNg . 1 1. 1 ;283.74 I UNIT * 3 1 2 745.40 7 ZIE 3 1 1 . , 3 70980 1. 1 1 1.1 ~B I 1 1 '11 1 I 1 . . EluM...1 Elk-~rn'll-r 1 25' 24 1 :btr [FELÂ©(IDOK CP>[LZA[1\0 SCAL' SGJ[KIE-0- 2 ipli' 5 377â€¢4 . 2. 1 ---------lai. --f -- ------- - ----- 1,-11 - --- - ------- , | T I |/ A5 sÂ»o,4-1 E.1.1 CONDO,Â·,â€¢11.M 1. 1 O-r-WER .rACE Si~.WN 1 1 CAN'-râ€ž-Irl CO-MON AAEAS 0 FACILÂ·~â€¢ESÂ· | | I . 4 101 K | LT,1- " 6 UNIT G . 1 . 11,1 _2_4_ 7 f /\1 11 I 11.1 up 1,~111*1 '2 zA[F&[rZA S *CF Q.004]0-WS 1. -- t.111â€¢T * -- 11 5 640.22 ) Â£ G 767.60 1 7 767.GO ; 9 0 8 240.22 1 ; ,Â· - g UNIT -7 - 1 - L,Al.. 4-0--aN I ./.4.-1 " 2 0Â°o [F[1.-Â©OR [FILLA[N] Sal[ELE'U' 3 Â©Er 5 ~ I . - L....0 r i>J<IDÂ·UCE Â· 1 RQI AS .OWN ......E-r. ./. 1 D-AIL CON'/11Â·ul l COM-0. - UNIT 09 :,I-- UNIT 'O 1 T 1 F 1 1 1 11 *-- - - 1 -1 1 AO=KEAS Our 0-20[1 71- 5 9 640.22 sa /r |0 767 50 34 â€¢7 11 767. GO &4 â€¢r. 12 64022 - - 1 UNI r ' 12 ,---'.. UNIT -11 1 11 1 lil. 1. 1 It I 1 l ir-Â·~Ill C.--Â·,.. 3 4/I 3 Â°'- : -up 23Â·p PELLA[~0 .CALE 4 â€¢ 1 so-UEE[Â£71- 41 â‚¬DEF 5 327, 0 9Â©13-CE Â· i 6.5,0 ./ ELI..U*N OF ,04.* ON Cl.V MONUMEm .T N. IT. AND ' 5010-0-Iho KEDLE.WLA-0-Â£10*0. ..... 24.3 1 -00-0-[3-00- - -- ----1. Câ‚¬.ING EL.EV. 121 00' UNI.Â·S 4â€¢9 _________U_N~-S-.10-.11~J R 1 TUIT,-3- 111 1 idNE!-Of-1 Flâ€¢. 3~ â€¢600Â« E-Ev. 113.50 CmÂ¢N. ELEV. Ill.50' IP C. Cul. I i.w I ./ *TFL-Ti ~ li- 1 ~ 1 11-1.11 . - / ..0- .E -E.T. -COR--=R F.. 2 tur ...4. .... 104.50 '1 E.EV 103.50 IU,U IlliU 11 ' 1 1 0 0 UNIT ~ 1 . - 11- 9. -9---- FIN. 1. ./00. ..... 95.50' r-4- \ | a.a.â€¢/ Reel. 1 15.u, 1 2/ 6, .. ....I : 1 1 r -1 00'... ..OM M. .L.V 83.0 SO-Â·002[2-0- 5 0[7 5 -_...................._.........................._--_-_-~g.r. * 11 1 All./ 1 4~ DEC-04-2002 WED 03:44 PM r MA liu. 11 .. ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION Name: Location: APPLICANT: Name: 54<1<904:ct Cd.444(,Pi, Reut- ASSÂ©CAR-JKOF.1 Address: 9 |0 U-3 86+ Ha I U.1 St,te_f , 1,4-1 ill 4 . As f â‚¬,1 (-0 â‚¬l, (t Phone #: 916 -5-99 - 09>09 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: S c, it K . (1#1143 ker Address: 110 w ri + Ha Ila w. 5 +rect, Asfe.i , . C f 8 1 4, I i Phone #: 93-0 -999 -0809 bel * 1 PROJECT: D Conditional Use [Er Conceptual PUD D Conceptual Histolic Devt. El Special Review [24 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) O Final Historic Development E Design Review Appeal D Conceptual SPA U Minor Historic Devt E GMQS Allotment D Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) O Historic Demolition D GMQS Exemption E Subdivision D Historic Designation E ESA - 8040 Greenlinc. Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane Lot Split D Temporary Use O Other: I-ot Line Adjpslment 0 Text/Map Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,.uses, previous approvals, etc.) No ACO N RDE-M 1 N Q 3 - 5-ropr MUCEI PAMICY d>)H DorÂ·11 IVILÂ»1 ZONE-O ) ~ROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings. uses, modifications, etc.) KE=OM E- -0 f /MP cori-u AMEMDE.0 1>iMENs{044-6 'Retuaa-EMINTS 1-0 Al-Lou, Ft>F- -FLA--1-u ELE_ Poâ‚¬618 LE> ENCLosa Â£-E- ots- ALIL-- 15Â»Â·t-Â«> H i Ef:>. Rave you attached the following? FEES DUE: 5 D Pre-Application Conference Summary 3 Attachment #I, Signed Fee Agreement 3 Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form 3 Response to Anachment #4, Subminal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 411 plans that Brelai-gerthan 8.5" 1 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written cxt (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the applicstion. 00 DEC-04-2002 WED 03:44 PM r MA NU. 1. 1 4 4 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 0>AUELDOOQ C~DH,00 11,h{LU-6 Applicant: bacle 1,Â·acd (ck (10.-1 .A.9- B 5 5 oi . - lh-5.01 Location: 910 loep-r l*Â»,u- n 9-r. , A->PEÂ»-1 Zone District: E- 6 Lot Size: M>9@01<.. 84' w (co' Lot Area: 8344 -9 9. F. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: n,/4 Proposed: n/1 Number ofresidential units: Existing. i i Proposed: ,\ Number ofbedrooms: Existing: \1 Proposed: \7 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 0 79 4 5,379.5-2 1 DIMENSIONS: 1292*e, 37 Floor Area: Existing: '0413 Allowable: Â·g=*2*-Proposed: CO BGO Principal bldg. height: Existing: bb O Allowable: 21'n proposed: 31- c - Access. bldg. hcight: Existing: t /0 Allowable: h /(4. Proposed: h A On-Site parking: Existing. 1 Required: Proposed: a % Site coverage: Existing: â€¢ 44 Required: 4.7- 19 rroposed: . *\M\ % Open Space: Existing: Â· Obt' Required: r /<1, Proposed: , '- '05 Front Setback: Existing: t. 10 C Required: 10 Proposed: IC' Rear Setback: Existing.- 5 ;0' - D Required: 10 Proposed: \ 9 1 '4 Combined F/R: EXisting: S 41 Â· O Required: EfO Proposed: 30 Side Setback: Existing: 1 E - Ce Required: 6'4 1/~,r Proposed: AL / gl Side Setback: Existing: 5 6" 62' Required: Proposed: D * I .... 1 Combined Sides: Existing:f \1 -0 Required:25 -1 tioo proposed: h Existing non-conformilies or encroachments: Fi.00* AR-r , t W '6 0 1 4 02 14Â£'crw-71 7* w * 1 N w Variations requested: PU O -70 AL,-4.0,43 Fc,Il FUTÂ£-4 PE F?Â·ir:4.< Â· a f 21 oF TDAL,ct *-064 k) 1-EM FU,>421 A RÂ·/7 1-9 10, {>047/'. t.00, , /â€¢K.-â€¢ 0 . I 14;tic.DING, +Eler'Hi -TO AL.4-Â·(.3 642 fbk. Eyl ef/*/61 No,/ - CotÂ·A,cogrl 17-f of 52.'- d' 0 DEC-04-2002 WED 03:48 PM i MA INU, r, cu .. - ATTACHMENT 7 - -- - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY; 9 1 0 W '3+ 14 a (6, 9-in,c T- , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: .200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 5,â€¢* A. Gatia,1,4. (name, please print) being or representing ali Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that J have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper ofgeneral circulation in the City ofAspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of thepublicalion is attached hereto. Poszing of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200-, to and including the date and time of the public headng- Aphotograph of theposted notice (sign) is anached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the infonnation described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noriced is attached hereto. (continued on next page) -DEC-04-2002 WED 03:49 PM PHA HU. , 1 ,-4 .. Re:zoning or text amendment- Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area ofthe proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. A 1 - Signature The foregoing ~Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this - day of ,200__,by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public , ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OY THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN WRETT PAID . HRETT PAID . 00 00 REP NO. DATE REP NO. -7j,26/00 9 70&1 -1 k Cle j %8 -72 GA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED MARK BORENSTEIN AND DENISE GILLIKIN, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, (collectively, "Grantor'), for Ten Dollars and no/100 ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to SCOTT A. GALLAGHER with an address of R: Ba 69.2-4 , SNLUJMASI V,ll,ACE, lo Â£ 16,5- , the following real property (the "'Property") in Pitkin County, Colorado Condominium Unit 1, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438. Together with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title against all persons, subject to taxes for 2000 and thereafter, and except and subject to those items set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTORS: Date July 14 , 2000 PS- Â£ 75, rA;b A Mark Borenstein 6 61'63 8 .5-Â·Af " A,s 61 +H--7 A.k Date: July 14 , 2000 De *# 0 i #A U. Denise Gillikin *7 6142 Li 3--4 " 0- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me July C~..~,2 2090 by Mark Borenstein and Denise Gillikin.bl 0&<+15 6 3,11'2Â£.rs, -t Aer a #a cu -1 In A c v My commission expires // (1 /63 ./-3 Witness my hand and offic=li sedl. Notary Public ' L>" ti i* : )1 ~4204,8 .\9''M}f b -,0.4. 2-f r Op G ou057 14'Commission Expires It/01/2 MA I ill'll lilli llilll 111111111 lilli lilli 111 lilli 1111 lili 445499 07/26/2000 04:10P WD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 2 R 10.00 0 60.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 0, C) Page 1 of 2 .2 PeT- 1 51-3 -3 0002/92/10 03AI3038 N0IiU881)30 5 .. Exhibit A to General Warranty Deed 1. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 308 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws." 2. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded in Book 282 at Page 433. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. 4, Easements, rights of way, and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property r ecorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449. 1 11'ill lilli mil lilli lili 111111 lilli Ill lilli 1111 1111 445499 07/26/2000 04:10P WD DAVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 10.00 0 60.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Page 2 of 2 .. WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made this 10 th day of September , 1998 , between JEFFREY S. SHOAF ElÂ·Ic said County of PITKIN and Statc of COLORADO , grantor, and ERMAN A. ANDERSON Dell acl Â·92) ~* L 2~ whose legal addressis PO BOX 1003 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ I (~0 e said Coun[y of PITKIN and State of COLORADO , granice ~ WITNESSETH, Tharthe grantortor and in consideration of the 5Urn of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND [jÂ»- VALUABLE CONSIDERATION DOLLARS, the receipt and su fficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained. M,Id and conveyed, and by these presents does grant. bargain. sell, convey and confirm, unco the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property toge[her with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the said County of PITKIN and State of Colorado described as follows: Condominium Unit 2, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449 as Reception No. 164277, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at page 438 as Reception No. 164279. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ~L also known by street and number as: 910 W. HALLAN ST. #2, ASPEN, CO 81611 6-h Z v TOGETHER wid] all and singular the hereditanients and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion ZO 9\ and reversions. xmainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand what- ~ ~ ~~ssigns forever. And the grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personÂ·,1 representatives. does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and wilh soever of tile grantor, either in law or equig, of. m and to the above bargained premises, with the heredilaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the ed premises abovc bargained and dmribed, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and ~ ~ 2_ cifor~.h,i;,Er,Ssr,t::Ct, 72~,tiltiCZEr2~inÂ°12 %72:11:~s.2't~is~ZfdÂ°~$Â£aer,pr~sower~I~ I autionty to grant, bargain, sell and convey The saint in manner and form as atoresaid, and that the sarne are free and clear from all r and other grants. bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature so>ever, except -. -r TAXES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE AND THOSE SHOWN ON EXHIBIT ZPN*Â· ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS REFERENCE. Thegrantorshalland will WARRANTY AND FOREVER DEFEND the ahove-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular numbtr shall include the plural, the plural thepingular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. /1;IRN'NESS 'HEREOF, the iL,RTITGF*Phxccut,1 this decl on the date set torth above. State of COLORADO ) Â£ 11'ill lilli l'Fill Illill 11 111'111111111111 lilli lili lili 421830 09/11/1998 11:26A WD DAVIS SILVI 3 SS, County of PITKIN ) 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 29.90 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of September , 1998 , by JEFFREY S. SHOAF My commission expires December 27 ~-6ko~f-~~~4~y-b~~~l~g~ t~~~0~ Notary Public â‚¬414.27~ File No. 00724894-â‚¬2 StÂ©warl Title of Aspen, Inc. No. 93ZA WARRANTY DEED (For Photographic Record) Re. 9/97 421830 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 09/11/1998 24574Â· VI EXHIBITA Older Number: 00024894 EXCEPTIONS Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 aa Reception No. 60156. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 433 as Reception No. 164278. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Condominium Declaration for uThe Sagewood Condominumsâ€¢ recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438 as Reception No. 164279. UCC Financing Statement by Sagewood Condominium Association, Debtor to Colorado National Bank Aspen, Secured Party, and Assignment of Assessments and Notice of Right to Assessment Lien attached thereto, all recorded September 23, 1994 in Book 762 at Page 199 as Reception No. 374530. 111'111 lilli llilli ill'll 11111'11 mil 111 lilli lili Ill 421830 09/11/1998 11:26A WD DAVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 11.00 0 29.90 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO CITY OF ASPEN Crr~SPEN EXEMPT FROM Â¥iR]rr'r EXEMPT FROM HRETT TB REP. No. DATE REF NO. ~*D tÂ°,- 4~ _ 45ul idialol (12 4 5-0-5 CORRECTION QUITCLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this 12th day of November , 2002 , between JEFFREY S. SHOAF of the said County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO , grantor, and JEFFREY S. SHOAF, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 50% INTEREST, AND PAMELA MCCROSKEY, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 50% INTEREST, AS TENANTS-IN-COMMON. whose legal addressls P.O. BOX 3123 ASPEN, CO 81612 of the suid County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO . grantee: WITNESS, Lha[ the grantor. for and in cons,derimon of tle sum of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION DOLLARS. the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised. released, sold, conveyed, and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents, do remise, release, sell, convey and Quit Claim unto the grantee, his heirs. successors and assigns, forever, all [he right, title, interest, claim and dernand which the grantor has in and m the real propeny, together with improvements, if any, sltuaue, lying and being in the said Counly of PITKIN and Stare of Colorado described as follows: Condominium Unit 3, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Condominium I Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449 as Reception No. 164277, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for n THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS'r recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at page ' 438 as Reception No. 164279. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 474740 Pag'. 1 of 1 r 1 11111111111111111 lilli lilliltlm lilli'!1111111!111111 11/13/2002 12:ISP SILVIA OAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 6.00 D 0 00 as known by streetand nliniber as, 910 W. HALLAM STREET #3, ASPEN, CO 81611 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurnerances und privileges thereu:110 belonging or in any- wise thereunto appemining, and alj the estate, right, [irle, interest and claim whatsoever. of the grantor, either m law or equicy, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever The s3ngular number shall include the plural. the plural and the 5ingular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grant~ has executed this deed on the date set forth above, L lai/\ .2-Â«//f JEF~REY Â© SAA, ' i' PAULA f 8 LAMBERTI : ~ 1. State of COLORADO ) Â¥, ...,jibs,un Expifes 12/27/2005 ) SS. County of PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of November , 2002 by JEFFRRY S. SHOAF My commission expires December 27, 2005 Witness my hand aod official seal. Notary Public No. 933 QUIT CLAIM DEED . . Ii. 00 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 02 day of OCTOBER 1995, between DENISE ANN JURGENS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO GRANTOR, CARRIE E. PATERSON AND CHARLES F. ECKART, 05 ~e rlo nfs /4 60'Finley'L.. GRANTEE whose legal address is : POBow j I G-75 WO -500 W. ILOPICINST ASPEN, CO, 8161,k A. H COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars 0 & K go z and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of ~ which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real O E.1 4- I property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows ,- ok Z Condominium Unit 5, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Z 01 U . Condominium Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at o 'ln W E Page 449, and as further defined and described in the Condominium fo- 1 Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438. 4- r, 1 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances 10 thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and 0 0 reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. . 0 08 EL (C To HAvE AND To HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, 03 UJ with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. 01 -1 â€¢â€¢ U And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personal representatives, does 01 9> covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and 4 10 G assigns, that at the time of the ensealing delivery of the presents, he is ' Ch 0 well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, 3 8 absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance. in law. in fee simple. .Z and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, - sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind LL or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs 7 E and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the m) whole or any part thereof, The singular number shall include the plural, Ct c the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all Gl G genders. 4 - m to "41 DENISE ANN JURGENS f STATE OF ~0 |~ C R ~~| 01 1 COUNTY OF P iÂ·f kiu ) SS. , <.The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this JL- day of d*-4 '~S'''~'''~' '*136/5 , by DENISE ANN JURGENS f q IJ :. 'Â·. O y' c~WI/INESS my hand and official seal C Lu L 1 16 1 [05;@ommission expires: Notary Public 514.#-Aug A Nfl 386080 Transfer Declaration Received 10/02/95 - ~0) lo <K ~19 ~ Cfu% ASPEN RECO E P-616 10 0) .. EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 1995 not yet due or payable. 2 Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the -City of- Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 308 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws" 3. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded in Book 282 at Page 433. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for The Sagewood Condominiums recorded in Book 282 at Page 438. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Assignment of Assessments recorded October 3, 1991 in Book 658 at Page 354. 386080 B-795 P-617 10/02/95 02:55P PG 2 DF 2 .. Recorded the day of , at o'clock m. Reception # Recorder By QUIT CLAIM DEED i THIS DEED, Made this day of March 15, 2001 ; between TIZIANO GORTAN AND ENRICA GORTAN Grantor, for the consideration of "* TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION "* in hand paid, 1 hereby sells and quitclaims to TIZIANO GORTAN AND ENRICA U. GORTAN I Grantee, whose street address is 910 W. HALLAM #6 Â§ City of ASPEN , County of PITKIN , State of Colorado , the following t real property in the County of PITKIN , and State of Colorado, to wit: CONDOMINIUM UNIT 6, THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1973 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 449, AND AS FURTHER DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM 6 DECLARATION FOR THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1973 IN BOOK 282 AT PAGE 438 i COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. also known as street and number 910 W. HALLAM #6, ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all its appurtenances. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall f be 4plicable to all genders. Signed as of the day and year first above wrftten. / f T~ZIANO GORTAN L LE:2- 4 Quev-) ENRICA GORTAN > State of Colorado ) 1 as. County of PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March 15, 2001 by TIZIANO GORTAN AND ENRICA GORTAN k Witness my hand and official seal. ~ ~~ My corn.iss,ion exoires */~/03 , LE<KNEÂ» 722â‚¬od JESSICA REED NFy pualle NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My CommIss on Expires Aug. 2.2003 E When recorded return to: T[ZIANO GORTAN AND ENRICA GORTAN 910 W. HALLAM #6, ASPEN, CO 81611 t Form No. QCD {Quit Claim Deed - 2/97) QA381765 0381765 1111111 11111 111111111111111 mil mil ill lilli iII illi 452626 03/21/2001 04:08P QCD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 1 R 5.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 36/966 0 CITY OF ASPEN .'' T t OF- ASPEN WRETT PAID HAETT PAID DATE REP NO. (Al E REP *Abdor p)(Â· D\34-4 '4284, 216 ~536-1 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made December 28, 2001, Between HERMAN MICHAEL BEHRENDT of the County of -~1 +1Â¢- I w , State of 9 GRANTOR, AND JOHN OTT and CAROL M. OTT, GRANTEE whose legal address is : 1 0 1 8 (L. oc. p 32- 4 31 j:[ cgcfb Aspen C. D bl 10 1 I of the County of PITKIN, State of CO WITNESSETH, That tor and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: Condominium Unit 7, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS' recorded December 14,1973 in Book 282 at Page 438. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurÂ·tenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, tull power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever,except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use 01 gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WFFNESS WHEREOF thggranter ha@46/3te**s opidd. 4Â»*~9/1+M4#---- HERMAN MICHAEL BtHRENDT 7 ' . 9 STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .1-~ day of DECEMBER, 2001, by HERMAN MICHAEL BEHRENDT. WITNESS my hand and official seal 3.44 3~41. my commission expires: Eary Public A $ - Joy E.H.... M, Cof r.1 litÂ·,stor,, :.i ,â€¢ ..Â·.1 41,22/SH 601 Fast Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 G -Â·-1.Â· 462323 & TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 12/28/2001 462323 Â®Hill illitHill tlti illilililipillillilli 12/28/2001 12:27P Page: 1 of Z SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 10.00 D 35.90 3*r- 1 G4O14 .. EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 308 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws" 3, Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded in Book 282 at Page 433. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Sagewood Condominiums recorded December 14,1973 in Book 282 at Page 438, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded December 14,1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449. 12/28/2001 12,27P 462323 Page: 2 of Z SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 10.00 D 35.90 JITY OF ASPEN ~ WRETT PRO HRETT PAID CFTY OF ASPEN DATE REFT NO. DATE RFE) NO. l U U l 9 l(-1 l.-\Â£ 1 02*cy L.40 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made this 19 th day of February , 2002 , between H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT of the said County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO , grantor, and LYNDAL WILLIAMS AND SCOTT BARTLEET OP- 4 30, Ca whose legal address is 1,~ 9/0 661Â· /4.â‚¬A:*1 s A =#S ASPEN , CO . 81611 of the said County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO , gran[ee: WITNESS, that the grantor. for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the grantees, their heirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, all the real property. together with improvements. if any, situate, lying and being in the said Counfv ot PITKIN and State of Colorado describcd as follows: Condominium Unit 8, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Condominium Map thereof recordid Decombir 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Pagi 449 as Riciption No. 164277, and as further definâ€¢d and discribed in thi Condominium Declaration , for â€¢THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at page 438 as Reception No. 164279. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE Oy COLORADO. also known by street and number as: 910 W. HALLAM STREET #8, ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurlenances thereto hekinglng, or in anywise appertalning, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profrs thereof. and all the estate, right. title. interest, claim and deinand what- i soever of [he grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and lo the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and migns turever. And the grantor, tur hunself, his heirs, and personal represencatives, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the mne of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law. in fee simple, and has good right. full power and lawful authority Lt, gram, bargain, sell and con-vey the same m â€žw.,c, allu IOilll .5 .It,IC-lu, .11. Lnd, UIC )dill. 41. fic; wd clear trum ,ill fonner and other gram, bargains, sales. liens. Iaxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of wha[ever kind or nature soever, except thoge specific Exceptions shown on the attached as "EXHIBIT 1". The grantor sbal! and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee. his heirs and assig[Is, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include [he plural, the plural the Singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders, IN WITNESS WHEREOF the granto has exccu,cd this deed on the date set forth above. Â£ rb i PAULA t. u; LAMBERTI i r4 State of COLORADO ) ) ~S. County of PITKIN ) ily c-â€¢sion Expir# 12/27/2005 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19th day of February , 2002 by H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT My commissione,Apires December 27, 2005 Witness my hand a~d,wficial seal. 1 utkgail (4Â»l 40 rude Notary Public File No. 00029276 Stewarl 1111/ or Aspâ‚¬n, 1.. 464101 - No. 92,A WARRANrY DEED (To Joint Teliants) (Y921ANEW) b. 7199 Page: 1 of 2 02/19/2002 01:20;: SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 10.00 D 30.00 1 9176 ER DECLARATION RECEIVED 02/19/2002 .. EXHIBIT 1 EXCEPTIONS File Number: 00029276 1. Distribution utility easements (including cable TV). 2. Those specifically described rights of third parties not shown by the public records of which Buyer has actual knowledge and which were accepted by Buyer in accordance with paragraph Bb of contract Form No. CBS 1-9-99 [Matters Not Shown by the Public Records] 3. Inclusion of the Property within any special taxing district. 4. The benefits and burdens of any declaration and party wall agreements, if any. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 2002 and subsequent years not yet due and payable. 7. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 8. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 433 as Reception No. 164278. 9. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Condorninium Declaration for "The Sagewood Condominiums" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438 as Reception No. 164279. 10. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on Plat of Sagewood Condominiums recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449 as Reception No. 164277. 02/19/2002 01.20F 464101 Pag.: 2 of 2 Slew//Title or A,pe~, Inc. ExhiWI 1 - Deed Excepitons (YDEED[.XCErn SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 10.00 O 30.00 Rev.7/99 ~ 11'E 11111111111 Q'111111 ~1111111111,11,1111~ ~1111111 . 402522 03/13/1997 01:44P NO 1 of 3 R 18.00 D 17.48 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERI --- - -- WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this I 3}bay of March, 1997, between A. RONALD ERICKSON and ELISABETH R. ERICKSON, Grantors, and PAUL L. FAGAN, whose legal address is 910 W. Hallam St., Unit #10, Aspen, CO 81611, Grantee: WITNESSETH, that the Grantors for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado described as follows: Condominium Unit 10, 'THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to the Condorninium Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449 as Reception No. 164277, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE Irc SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS' recorded December 14, 1973 in Z 23 Book 282 at Page 438 as Reception No. 164279. 52 rn 71 k - COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 4 g NE also known as street and number: 910 West Hallam St., No. 10, W Aspen, Colorado 81611. 5 NE TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and 84 2 appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. 0 R TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and ~~~} described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantors, for themselves, and their r successors, do covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with *LkÂ· the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ~6- ensealing and delivery of these presents, they are well seized of the premises above conveyed, have good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and have good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, 402522 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 03/13/1997 2 3 +00 CITY OF ASPEN CITY 1 4909 .% .. .. except and subject to reservations and exceptions as set forth in ___ Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The Grantors shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantees, their heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this deed on the date set forth above. GRANTORS: Â®Â»09/1 111'W lilli llilll lili 11111 11111'l lilli 111 lilli 1111 lili A.' Ronald Erickson 402522 03/13/1997 01:44P WD 0- 2 of 3 R 16.00 0 17.46 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERI C x. 1,1 44 2 -1- - Elisabeth R.'Erickson STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ~..,9-nw The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /3 <iÂ»40& March, 1997, by A. Ronald Erickson. 6/r ',wivrness my hand and official seal. commission expires: 12-,9.-7 -9 7 :08 153,8 STATEOF Â«Q-ic/Â» Â«ted Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowl.edged before me this /3 day of March, 1997, by Elisabeth R. Erickson. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 9-571-91 A 4 VE 1.8 '' 1 77 --7%44%2 1-4/-4 Notary Public 2 vt.ABER :; 82 .. EXHIBIT "A" To That General Warranty Deed Between A. Ronald Erickson and Elisabeth R. Erickson, Grantors and Paul L. Fagan, Grantees 1. Taxes due and payable and any and all other unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 2, Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 3. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 433 as Reception No. 164278. 4. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Condominium Declaration for "The Sagewood Condominiums" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438 as Reception No. 164279. 111'111 lilli lillia lili lilli 1111111 lilli 111 lilli lili lili 402522 03 / 13/ 1997 01:44P WO 3 of 3 R 18.00 0 17.46 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERA .. ripocr oho .eâ€ž=,4 1 liff' 111'j lic'll lill Ilill' 11111 % 111 lilli till illl 05/13/2002 09: 455 467338 page: 1 of 1 51LvIA DAVIS-PITKIN COUNTY CO R 5.00 0 0.00 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made this 1111 day of May, 2002, between JAMES M. BLANZ, of thc County of _A rnwa rd, and State of Florida, GRANTOR(S), and KAREN--KAY_ BRADY and JAMES H. BLANZ, whose address is_ G ')44 Al .0, C=<)th 51 j C C.,-6-1 511>1-1 tyÂ·A, Ct.. -5-bOL; 1 of the County of -F,-d, and State of [1 (. 1-, el u- , GRANTEECS): WITNESS, that the grantor(s), for and in consideration ofthe sum of TEN DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. has granted. bargained, sold and conveyed. and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the grantec(s), their heirs and assigns forever. not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, all the real properly, together with improvements, if any, situate. lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State o f Colorado, described as follows: Unit No. 12, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map thereof filed for record and the Declaration recorded December 14. 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438, comnionly known as: 910 W. HALLAM UNIT 12, ASPEN, CO 81611 D TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and all reversions, reinainder and remainders, rents, issues und profits thereof. and al[ the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever o f the grantor(s), either in law or in equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments und appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargatned and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantees, their heirs and assigns forever. The Grantor(s), for themselves, their heirs and penonal representatives, r-- do covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained -21 premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof, by through or under the Grantor(s), but not othenvise. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the: singular, aiid the use o f any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantorts) have executed this deed on the date set forth above. 11-~~1. Blanz ~ State of Florida ~ ;Â§ County of - Broward rhe foregoing instrument was ackilowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this '3~ day of , 2002 by 4&8*4 H 15i#*4444 JAMES M. BLANZ 3&4:uoss my Hand and Official Seal 62Â« 52-34- My Commission Expires: Notary Public OFFICIALNCTARYSEAL BRUCE SESLOW NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC969004 MY COMMISS!ON EXP, OCT. 112001 THE TrTLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES INC, 317 E HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN (Â·0 81611 PhoneÂ· PH y70-%,20-4030 DENVER Jo.1-395.8463 Special Warranty Deed - Joint Tenancy 40722IR SS 7@1K / K .# - -~'-~IÂ·*I"79'Â·Â·93f'*--"- ~".Â· ~-~ ~' ..VPM"rMIM/7 + 87/.-*7741.Wry.f.V ., ~1 9.r? ..: .9~,a/'Il"/p P. Â·: #*PM'*:Â·3-&4**'I . A.k ' 4 f./. - ~' ~~. . 4 - . ~~ ~*~ . 31Â·*2110*1 - i~'i-' e. 561 .743 ./ Â· li -A . c : : 4 Iffy:E...2114 .7 ; f.*.% ..... *~ -I- I .. a. .... = 2 W -' Â·~-0.460UkA'. Â· Recorded at o'clock 6 M i ... - F 1 72221: - 7 23 00 35. r . C t- 3 9,9Â¥>1 - ,, Reception No. .th -- 1 , Â·Â·Mr' ,=f,~Recorde . --1-- J> . ' /4 1.11 = + :/br 5 iblUMII RIER .-:i.aw. Â· .9 1 44.-Â· 1 cYrle;.. . 93#if ,/4* -~ THIS DEED, made thtâ€¢ _ *0_ day of Â£**/~ 1988 between Guv Pisano ' 'd;~Â·'N { '{ (hereinafter 'Crantor"), and Andy L. Sanchez and Michelle Mal- Sanchez whose , j , . legal addre,1 1, P.O. Box 1801, Aspen, Colorado 81612 (hereinafter'Grantees'): 't 'tiE tri WITNESSETH, That the trantor. for and in consideration of'the sum of Tia Â·,iÂ·Â· . JEI~ Dollars zind wthor good ind valuable consideration to the Grantor in hand paid ' ;.IGry,j*" ' by the Grantees, the receil t and sufficiency of which im her/by acknowledged, hai granted, bargained, mold and cor,veyed, and by theie prosent* does grant, ame A bargain, 0011, convey and confirm, unto the Grantees, their luccesiors and I assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvemants, if nity,; f .ib: 1 . f , -5 mituate, lying and being in Pitkin Couity, Colorado, describiar.. follows: , 1- CONDOMINIUM UNIT 9, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map thereof, recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 1 at Page 449, and H defined and de,cribed in the Condominlum I. A r.1125. Declaration for Sagewood Cond-iniumi recorded Decemb,r*1*, 1973 iii r: 5 r-zdt F.~' PA. Book 282 at hsâ€¢ 438. Q . al,0 known uy Itriet and number ao: â€¢9 Sagiwood Condominiummt.010 West Hall- I C - Avenue , Aspen, Colorado 11*'A'. S. 14*. -9- '~ TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances -2 -- thereto belonging, or in anywime apportaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and f AI â€¢ Â·.- KÂ»1<'~ ~>0 ~ 1- all the estate, right, title. interest, claim and demand whaloever of the 2 .FL . vii u.23 I Â· Â· .6 ' ~ 1 ' ~ 't 1 / 14. Grantor, either in law or equity, of. in and to the above bargained premisee,< Â·t 1.Ii-, ~0~ with the hereditament, and appurtenancei. .' . TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premloes Above bargained and dele~tbed with th. ' ..K - 4 .. appurtenancel, unto the Granteâ€¢:, their Bucce,lors and astign, forever. And : 2.4Â« ..4 the Crantor, for himself, hi, heiri, executors, and administrators, does ~ 4..1 covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Granteest, their successors ./ and assigni, that at the time of the ensealing alid delivery of these presents. Â·t . N '<4 i he im well seized of the premises above conveyed, ham good. suro. perfect, /4 1 absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, ir law, in fei' simple, and . . .. , 111 .41 $ - has good right. full power and lawful authority-to grant.-barpin. sell andÂ·. 4. v ..1.-li convey the same in manner and form n aforesaid, and that thr.alie is free and 4-: . 6. clear from 011 former and other grants. bargains. sales. liono. taxes. ..1. . :Â¥.h2&,i. Â¢Â·. . : 4 3 . assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind *I.,nature so ever. 4 .:~ Â©: ~0*@ti< .#1 , ' 22+2///SC Â· 2... :6-, : irl laiap# t,*A-1 . 1 EXCEPT: 3' f /Â· 1~2**,: 4 . 464- ''V. t 1. Property tax,1 for 1988 due and payable in 1989. ~~~~ 4Â·2.-Â·~ Â· ~'-Â·9 :r' /.2 2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Deed <2111 the City of. !7: Hâ‚¬~Ci* â€¢ tâ€¢ Â· v A,pen aâ€¢ follows:)-12 4,43â‚¬*61 Provided, that no title shall be hereby acquiredÂ¢6'any mine of Â·7Â· 2,, . 1 0~. . - . 21Â£452â„¢i '5 4 1 1 ... gold,. silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid lining claim or; 35 - *Buk 21 \40 . Â· B~2&2~ possilion held under existing lawl. fld#k Â· .22 5-iÂ»' ,- Â·~ b ; I . L; i , 94 - ... . . 2.7....im. 411/5 '09.9. i. 3. Termi, conditions, obligations and provision, of'Agreemelit 76 ~ ':/ d 1* granting Exemption from Subdivision Regulations for Sagewood Condominiums ams.-, Â·, .Â· Â·NEDâ€¢4Â¥ set forth in initrument recorded Dee-ber 14, 1973 in Brok 212&*t Page 433. Q ft:L- . : 1 4. Termo, conditions, obligations and provt,ions of'Dielaration of -* 3 '19 :.': Covrnants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Sagewood Condomintums as set ' 4 .>,1.3 forth in instruient recorded December 19. 1973 in Book 282 at:.248 438. -Â·> 3- = -:Fe-, -6 -2 '*i#Q. I 5. Easements, Rights of Way and other matters as *how,i and contained A f: ... .34ke * on the Condominium Map of the Sagevood Condominium, recorded Dâ€¢cember 14. 1973 ..3-- Â· -fÂ©*72:3 19L in Plat Book 4 at Page 449. BiATE DOCUMENTARYrrk! 73-~~ ~:# f*,Ma raore to next page... 1 r'--~:r~. z , .Â· in- 7.49:4~-1 : 14.6 ~ 1 Af'RÂ»1388 1 1 5 .. 4ff I 1 5?2:Â£ 11 .1 .021EA-<422 t :: 130 Elt f . f... I , Â· 214 . , P - le .ASid/* I /-1 ~<3 : . 7#. . I Ii,4 #.p---.--*A-g##.- .-*.*...&:*. %*-:4*"IF 0 . * 4 h.4 1 l{.9*Ell, : - 2-* 42- V I --lw t..e; p.:I:Â·.'9 - , Fa.= , , - e. 56154744 r . h *J.Jue . #. -4 41 The Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFELD the abov,-bargained ..2.5 Â· --- - - premises in the qutft and peaceable poi,assion of ttl,*Granteetit their-- - alit, 1Â¥-- , Iucces,ors and -signs, against all and e.ry per,on or persons lawfullv claiming the whole or any part ther,of.;' Thi singular number ~haltâ€¢lnelude th,4 --tre-- plural, the plural the singular. and the unâ€¢ of any gender â€¢hall, 1),tapplicabl.~ j S .%/.2,. to â€¢11 gender. 2 - w I ki,Â·5.A 3. ) Signed and delivered thi, , day of April 1988. 1 . 4 , 9. I ' S. V.Â·1:2.-' Â· -2,//i:%? ~{4{f. f I f f / 6 GuyiPi-no ,- Â·ok-fits:' # .. AF . z State of Colorado -Â· 10 3 .g... ff.e. 1" 2 . :*f VÂ· :' D., 1 . . t. . - .e..1 k 2/1.- de. . County of Pitkin f ) The foregoing Warranty Deed was acknowled,ed before me thi~ day 1 - ~Â· ' 4 - .. - of April 1988 by Guy Pliano. b, 1 - eta/:... - -1, - - r Witnesâ€¢ my hand and official â€¢â€¢al.1 My commission expirai: ..... , Â· .2 I â€¢ 45;~. 1 E 'cy'.80n .....':1 0. h J r..b.le J .r . -*0 ~-t. Coloradc ele, 1 9 ...4,4 .s " 1/.pleino.wd . 1 1.,.: 1 i .4 ..~ 'f:*.r. 11 . . . 4 After recording return to: 'B:'F' County Title, Inc~' 1,1.3 10 ' ./t 9 E Hopkins ..on. Colorado 81411 9-1 ** N.*'- 1, Â· , 6 - 9.20:1 4 - .. 42 . Willie 1 . . ?10=70~ . . .. 1-!Ve.4 .. - . Â· ..5>Â·â‚¬%*Â· 00 . 6, 2 , 99 *. 1 4:k; ' 'Â·-:Â·Â·Â·.f ,-Â·4*.. -.'<1,~12' Â·Â· ~.. ;: ..i-&40 A.2 Â£ Â·,91/k.SmtÂ· j .t.*.. 1 971..,Â·KÂ· . r*,1.. a , ' - - 1~ 4, , 4 --Â·Â· . I. , . A , 1 :2 0 1: 422 im-= 4'J L..7 . 1 -e - 2%1~Â£211 4 Fâ‚¬1* 8 . Â·. 1. 1 7, 4. ... 1 4 , 4 , I : -*..44. ~1 -aurÂ· ~- - Â·,~ - 1,515~1/9 Â£ .==45= i./4. .. . . - Ek Â·: L.- . .D 9 4.1:=1 A./ t. ; 4 : - 1 ti Vt . 1,1.=. 4 - r .4...... lit>Ly. C ..1,30~ i ;.* 2, ,~al. =, ..' Â· 931%~C . 4Â· 1../ 4. . ' ti,Â£~~R ..t . l...... tak > 3?10 fp 5, 0 1~01 * 1 '~ Â·i**f~ -64,44 4*: 5-7'4 n... . I*.6.. 1.~EÂ·N Â·-1 4 1 ./ . 1 ~1.-*45. , ;~N73#fiÂ·ik?li: , ;. ~1 9 -7*%.4.0.3.~Â¢f...4.1,%.. ..lk' -*.0,4"/Â·'7KitiÂ¢ r '. 1 h , N 3 2 - NI ..:.Of*-,;Â·RÂ¥ 7 2.* 3 <Â·>'F. - 5. i k Recorded at 0'clock M., 9. CO . 1- â‚¬9*fi~/E:*.:/ J# Re*Bler. 0, WAYS.Â·*.54*#A..>'' 92 - Â· Reception No. C& J ./ 2 22 . >4 03 *4>it+: .. Â· ' 4 State of Colorado ) 44 -99*4:4,%440 )SS. WARRANTY D~ T*).'Â·A'â€¢N-*fJ FAL*,9 1 Â· Or -e&*FiÂ·FÂ· <fÂ·Â·<40& '-County of Pitkin 4%925%44%*12.jig):. I ...1â€¢- -- THIS DEED, made this 4th day of August, 1987 between Anthony L>*34%141 ' J . Marta of Pitkin County, Colorado, "Grantor", and J. Anthony .4f**El-<.2~43#.IÂ·. Petrocco, whose address is : Â· .. , "Grantee": WITNESSETH, That the said Grantor, for and in consideration . iff*jf*fi:45{4 - of the sum of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable 44%*4-?46' - PÂ¢, consideration to the Grantor in hand paid by the Grantee, the 7%?*%'i' ".*9.9 '*.:2 receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, â‚¬7R,52.Â·. Â·' 6-,~, e = Â·Â· Â·. I sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, 1 sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns ht?***4*44; forever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in Pitkin County, Colorado, to 11 Wit: -Â·~Â·2FÂ¥â€¢fe**F UNIT 11, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, according to the 54 <93.y490:Â·t~ .1 and described in the Condominium Declaration for C .\L SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 2 ~ Â·' /&44*#m. 282 at Page 438. ,r also known as street and number: 910 West Hallam, Aspen, Colo -~iu . , 4 & Condominium Map thereof filed for record, and as defined 3%4; A U ~ frket: 1'**Qj#524 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and -1 . 4 Â¢ 1---t 11*..:14/2,1*4 appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and 4-,Wi taâ‚¬'4~Â·72.Vi,- : the reversion and reversions, lemainder and remainaers, rents, &*f-..#,PÂ·,} L.1.. issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, 91:9,2.NOA# *Â·Ari. interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in '' law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with ..,93.:iit'4~ the hereditaments and appurtenances. . I. , ..,047,4,>INâ‚¬$- t TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and LA I '4 Â·*:Ene/%4 j described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, his heirs and rA Wf*<3129* **u: assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs, ..v -Â·]Â¥'AÂ·~42%â‚¬~,Â·t,â€¢42*., Â·Â·'- executors, and administrators, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well i//1 /IRLE*'.0,Ff.*441Â·40.=.i seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee , ,yeeÂ»:~g.Â·184-*44.1 simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to Eft#*&re=Â·th.ge..01 ~t JILI[.gli~Râ€¢f.Â· I.- r-,4 grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments anrl encumbrances of whatever kind or nature, EXCEPT: mtoMMT, '-fÂ«1 1. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Deed from the City of Aspen as follows: "Provided that no title shall hereby be .1.191--9=F.9'tpa-7 1. acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any .Â¥1=.t 14:-Â·1 valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 4Â£- D- 1,LM -U 2. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Condominium Declaration as set forth in instrument recorded EEY<,i,311>+ 4=4 December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 483. 3. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Agreement Granting Exemption from Subdivision Regulations for ~agew~~ Condominiums recorded on December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at and the aboved bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable . .449*4*%01 possession of the Grantee, his heirs and assigns against all and .ly .1 -4 every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER *2%*- tk.Â¥9Â§Â©.i DEFEND. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural 4 37/hiwwÂ·'*E 1 the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to al 2 ' ,,4 /â€¢r,Il.:Â·6';4Â·~'4,Â· gender. 7#14442 - , ' .*. e Â· Â·Â· - 4/02-1-tti.0 /- 1 -Â·AW-T 3Â·.5.,lfit.9-;23;DjjlgiW~-12Â·Â·*442'*4~*UNK -'Â·~'1WEE + cs*t +Â· ,~,,~4764*4*1/*-*i,4**hu,-â€¢'~' I 4Â¥34.:I *16 - 1 ..Af Â¥31 Â¢V.:6.524411 - :,.1-.*.2.*.e-%31,!Â®f. - 54 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto â€¢et his hand and seal che day and year first above written. 1 , 17:- 3- &.84.' Â· 1 4.. Robert F. Nelson Â¢,Â·, b.. 641- 121' State of Colorado ) >.do., L 1... fe County of Pitkin ) : E*Â·19 4 '4' -. 9=* 6 , 41 1 The foregoing Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this 4th day of August, 1987 by Robert F. Nelson. ~ 9 4.: .NS-- WitnesÂ® my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 21'ru.1 Notary Public . + 1 1,4 1 -ft / o Ilci,22-1 M......r, - 4 14: 47- Joy S Hlgâ€¢n,Notory Public (4â€ž *u i'f 2-6/ 64 Comml-ion expi- 4/22/90. .. u ty~ r r 9 : J 801 E-1 Hookin, M $/-Â·. r 4/4. 0.01(â€¢r/80 8181' c .4 '1 1 ....247 s, il, . 3:10 /9, 4 '4935 ek.mazza.dâ€¢â€¢ 97 â‚¬ , . I -- I -el .. . n 9 -46 . 11 -- - r "&,7.1 -1.- 1 .it,%=3%'le â‚¬ Er./4 r 4/1-;1 7 p>:N '* I I :f. ,, ./ I ..%/ 1 '.. â€¢.1,# *f- d ht 6 1 Â·41 .25Â¢. -:*2404:#tr#, fÂ·.. -~ 2,J~ I ..t. 7.t.%:*~1'et. ~4 + .... -- , .. - P ..2.1 Â· Â· .Â· Â· I.,.61:42.6 - *11 ..1 4 4-4.iy!4 4 ..4 1 '* .. PARCEL ID: ~ DATE RCVD: | 01/27/03 #COPIES: ~ CASE NO~A006-03 CASE NAME:~Sagewood Condo PUD & Rezoning PLNR:~Scott Woodford PROJ ADDR:~Sagewood Condominiums Hallam S CASE TYP:~Condo PUD & Rezoning STEPSi OWN/APP: Sagewood Condo A ADR|910 W Hallam St Unit C/S/Z: ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:| REP:~Scott Gallagher ADR:~910 W. Hallam St Unit C/S/Z:~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~970-544-0809 FEES DUE:~ FEES RCVD~$1205.00 STAT: F REFERRALS~ REF:~ BY~ DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| CITY COUNCIL:1 REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:~ BY:~ DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ - PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: 1 : 'Do Viu, Claut Effrctic.l Ol cal owÂ»-h) fitilellhtâ‚¬ 7 --- 4\243 0& .A'.4 'll\% 1 ~fir CA ~Â·13Â©L 61 (ALL< 0(4-#24 (zkcl<T~ 3. lt'(~cr ct (41 +A 60 (-u | 4. 141 Aul Â·ft; Ar:3 13\1*j:40 (414.-tu,u 7-au, 1Uv (1+ â€ž&+ (cu 15.-9VS ll;4 #A,11 Â¥4 7%Â·re Mfy:bl cÂ·l ,;p knictv f kid (Â£-M _M au EDÂ·k -(~\64 klebel 6 AU lezi Sup.vl it 4.*41.94, k 7 6 4(44-\ p(klus i.wd -6 B <F~~~~j {10--Fi~ H HoA (if~rceat luk. 1 /\Atut 64,<Ft*(r-AD rpÂ· ,{004-44-t<& 13't fij f,\Â£.TA;cln-#(Â·ctÂ«Â·1â‚¬t ALO,Â»0Â»4 43 0 62-6 Ain i 26 '197-6 00.-0\- C I <90,4Â« 4- 193 0?40- Â°--~*O 3 4-54e- Â«1 + 6-4 .. *55 September 12-2003 Scott Gallagher - THE CITY'OF ASPEN Sagewood Condominium Association 910 W. Hallam Street #4' Aspen, CO 81611 RE: REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICE-NSE DUMSTER IN ALLEY . , Dear Scott, This letter is follow up to the on site meeting at the. above referenced address between you, me and the City Engineer Nick,Adeh, oIl Thursday SeptemberÂ· 11-2003. The application for an encroachment license to let a dumpster remain oIl City property has been re fused. Nick Adeh fek that the dumpster could be contained on site by some re striping of your current parking arrangement and that an encroachment license was noc warranted. The City-is requesting that the. dumpster be conmined on-site within 30 calendar days of this letter. If you have any question regarding call me at 970 920 5087. Please find your-application fee check enclosed. Sincerelv, - Ty-,-6. Â·Â· -- -u uouicing cc: Nick Adeh P.E., City Engineer Dave Hoefer, Assistant City' Attorney 130 SouTH GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5000 Eu 970.920.5197 Printed on Recycled Paper Scott Gallagher 91() West Hallam Street #1 Aspen, CO 81611 Community Development Department Julie Ann Woods, Director AuguM 1.2003 To Whom It Mav Concern: The Board of Directors of the Sagewood Condominium Association met last week to discuss possible alternative locations for the large dumpster that is currently encroaching upon the right- of-way on the north side of the building. Due to the pre-existing topography and presence of surrounding right-o f-ways, the south, east and west sides of the property are not viable options. The south side has a sidewalk, steep slope and highway 82. The west side borders a neighbor's property, while the east side is primarily composed of a steep slope and exteiisive vegetation. A small portion of the north-east side could potentially be used to relocate the diinipster, bill is still beyond the property line and in the right- of-way mid would require removal of significant amounts of vegetation. The north side ofthe property is the only easily accessible area where a large dumpster could be potentially relocated. However, this side of the property is occupied entirely by 9 parking spaces for the existing 11 units. It is the Board of Directors' opinion that it would be highly uiidesirable to lose 1 of these 9 parking spaces to accommodate relocating the durnpster. Therefore, we respectfully lequest tliat the dunipster remain in its current location and we would like to put-sue application for an encroachment license. Furthermore, if aesthetics are an issue, we would be happy to enclose the dunipster if that would be desirable on the part of the City of Aspen Conimunity Development Department. Please inform us of what action to take next. Sincerely, A 'Ar Lk.W 1. lilk> - /1 -xr Scott A. Gallagher Vice-President, Board of Directors, Sagewood Condominium Association ,IOR SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATF THE CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHECKED RY DATF SCAI F 0411014- Egiut +Ff. 04*- tpor. Ar#u l -* Dukr Sldl $*plact a(l 416- 36&40 ~ AM- 6vit#acf talÂ»45 646 6 141- t-aIL*l ics -6 4Â£4 Â« 44. e A~. S+Jâ‚¬ I 496*4 ~0014 &#asmâ‚¬ i (*(c.} 64. - 864< Sull 0 BAL all gU ar 1*6~r6gl *-2.5 al*1 fflf, 4,4,& baÂ·- â‚¬* â‚¬4Â£ 64 paÂ°~"~ t-04 + 84 6:. e. AÂ° 14 pod#ks OU. râ€¢4+ a.6 94 (Mt'6lk L far 6 04- If) 44dj * POP Gerd U Q 94,42 ~cÂ®6(1(/4Â·tr *0 4- - All -44 &4~kuS 4â€¢(c l' coald o~ f ofe~-5 4 6%. 9&t,44 ~wrklyh 9 95,94Â«4 4 Wl tmoack GA *{IL - fokc E- O - (UÂ· PRODUCT 204-1 (Single Sheets) 205-1 (Padded) -3. 1 - -I C ~ x-~ 4 1*1, -7149 Â· i El -1 GIl / z,/ -(RA nel,vt>uvr 1 POV *OF ':,flam#6.1 4 _I-_2~4+- Wep +R/,TH# A F 81 4Â»--C C Â»4Â»Â©a -2 - 1 1 - -47 1-- flmvAl'ID {4 - ek 6'TUÂ«' beve\ EUEN - -~'kILITA~J~,iVl~77,ll~:11~7~.Al-9-PS-~ 1 f 11 11 1 l 1 1 - . -4--3=22-7.- - 1 . -__2~. - ----n â€¢ 1 h M-NE of 6010'vvft (n,ER- Â· 44<Â»~A 00 CAK- Not 1 DETAIL/ - lf//r 1/ - fdofÂ»9 110 91*,4 400-4 . N\,7 441 L * ago/4-38Â¥9 4 Al _3 24 L ~019 i flo *94 0 - eN1%.46 4003 DOJ Nt_la I 9 NivukÂ¢4 400/4 11Â·bs 9.0[8 1 ' ld ONt,1 kil,2 E lINn (1*Mal'-04,9* 1 4"-VI 1 1 11 1 1 L 1 211 -1 1 // i- ~ _ 1 11 11 '1~11 / 1 2-74 4 4, q 11Â·bs 9'0L8 11-bs L-21714 E LINA L liNA 1111 -1 0-1 P I lili - L I 0 . 0 1 . - 1 1 f L 0 11 1 1 1 CNIT 1 UNIT 2 ~42.7 sq.11 810.6 sq.ft 1 -i 6,5. 1 / 111 1 -1 / -- 11 2 -f 1 tty i ZLI] 1 UNIT) 1 Nt 14/ E NT, T CA M)f T 810.6 sq M Mer,ru MOOF INe , 1 Woo P FR-A M EP \ I epe,4 44 3 410 6. 4 1 SAGEWOOD - LEVEL 2 3 ~ 3680 sq.ft SAGEWOOD-BLOCK 4 8344.5 sq.ft .. -*/ -!f . -6 -Â»-T--1 68,1 1 "EL ~ 1 - METin, boF}46. i 34 4 - - -- i -19/EX*n or,/ - < woo D FyfeD 91.VC,TVAE . 40 v-IM EUP/Â· ~ ~./7-/i/3'*===t\. , 1/ 1 4 i \.-i 1- - 1 1 ~ L- ------1 4:6~ WOOP MsT . ' - 46 of cANOM 626/- 1 2 064 Vip j : 1 3 .~ 1,1 f-Lil-7 1 2 UNIT 1 2 UNIT 2 1442.7 sq.tt 810.6 sq.ft 1 L 0/0, 1 E- 11 [ 1 irl] 1 / 11 11,1 1-1 1 1/ / f i i 1 1, - 1 /1 1 - - 1 lili 1 / 1 L_ ~ 1--L-4, 5 It 1 1 1 5= C NE~64/rflevek.E-D UNIT 3 810.6 sci.tt 1/wÂ¢p FA/rÂ¢pli,46Â· evTRY lÂ«ort Â· 41-21 TOLY ROOF iti %11 Ne - lili 0 ?6~v ON '3.67 005 0 11 11-'J 1 9 11 1 1 1 460614980 4 1 Â»L,AN . - I~--fil-- *-~ - -li*--.1I~i - Fo'of- tlÂ« 04 0-Â«fOr~ t 1200?Prfu C[92 0002 TAK BtrvANE 2 -PiFFEEWT- OFFIDAQ: A +13 - il R 1 1 10/ Ir---- 1 7 Â¢\ ij # f 9-i 5 4 - -a 6> 8 2 -- 2 -0 jf , ./ 1 e ,/lit f#fl SCOTT A. GALLAGHER 1207 RiSOUN HENG 910 WEST HALL-AM ST/ 82-340/1021 ASPEN,CO 81611-lp i 9 lin 4-7 DATE , 2. RAY-roTHE 'Â·4â€žw~ 9~2 A,-1~ L.(t ~ h-/-9.1 1,60. A $ GPO a ORDEROF /1 \ 11 S.currl ~fli~*_-~,32#lor:J -te*% 35*40u DOLLARS 1 -r~~ Datalls un 1, 1------- 1 0-~Bank ~C~ ;f %4~12 ~4'r,;'in2~17f#*-E~~q~*~0*~_~ j F/4- - 4;56/%46/96- P FOR - ---I.--I'. 1: 10 21034071: 6060 204404'IN 1 20 7 HAA.NO 2000 ee [d. ot 0 4- 011) [!Ida 'll --~-MI '' >?:.1 F=============-=============21==un - IL_ O :-[ro 11 01 7 -- ~-I -~ - ---~ -1921 -093~ ~ 11==JI -4[Â£ Jpt W -Al cr :.Â·Â·Â·: t [Â© c 0 r- r . BE 0 88 , fr=-1 - -01$1 003-11 Fill E-1-14---- Â·- <-Â·i F1~1171 d 1 1 9 2 HIU ii L J L j i i i ii i Ld L J i i J U 4EAST_ELEVATION-_EXISTING 31 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 8*Eg - SCALE: 1/80 = 11-0" \~__j SCALE: Veâ€¢ = I-o" LU L) M.. r61 r ..4.1 . 4 1,3 1, i ...lt:.4 1 >1111111 1 /7- B B 20--/-1~1 2 --- @ H E '. E- = ~ 1, - 11 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 4 BB r T- EE 0 El _ _ 1- 1 L J L J 2*WESTEUMATION-_EXISTING 01) NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING ~ (~_~ SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O" 5CALE-1Â»7Â«------~ SAGEWOOD ELEVATIONS lau jojÂ©uads.D6O:3 LLE L 8=ILSE I1VAON3N Date ee [d. 0% 4- 12 NEWFASCIAWYTH METALCAPATEAST AND WEST WALLS - 3%2 Fl----- -------- rn w 1 .1 Q~ S 1.1.1- .1 1 - - M - - I - - - - i- ~C-- NIMUCCOAr Aer ~Â·*%1-~ -- 3 E:11 i 1111-EEEII~I-ioÂ·-~ *OvatÂ¥,Aus 4 - 1 Ill_O â€¢ I .%' Â· ~ r#~~~~fre*~i/. T?*f#/ -F=TE=]lialp====1 I- r 1 - 11 1, 1~ 11- 0. . ic,i, - .idal *Aill~Ill.Jt:.:1 1 -.dill k '..-~ ~Â·.....Â«.1Â·~HIN:mn:M/M==========gT..-laERIIIIF=====191 E:EM-Fl i ' Â·Â·'1' EMS , E----4 -11-11 1===:==*m=X===F-,"Â·-11 /- %Â· t=z=L!]MIP-litz=zi,~,t==========e'Â·Â· i.i . 1111 IÂ·Â·Â· Â·Â· -Â· ' ||||~'.Â·1'I- |||' -- ~0*1~/S ~/~MIE=====iNl Â· ~. ..1 - - LkÂ·Â·: ' i ElE#fllt===r===1H 1 1---1 k------Â·-==mr==rrmT=-:m,rrr"-m,â€¢r-,Irr L ~~--1 IL:=-~L=1~9#&11t~~. NIEWSYUCCOATCHIHIVEY ~4~ [1,1 / r--1 HMV[fefT====~~~27~ 1Â·'~~ ~~,- -,~~ -Â·. I v~-r==:i~~,r=mi- 14 *21-iMI-Il~~Â·~1lk-~9 ~~Â·11~111'91'[07]"n' ~; ~'I- -,Â· - ].~Il[,Illl.IlF#:.Â·iBI~-;vÂ·,-6 luei , .\4.~11:......lialiÂ·. ..Â· 1 L--_.,-------, u - - =1 Il 41 ., . Â· Â·,-0 Â·Â·tr.WOODL,IL IHEd.lt=3162:Ult==EZZI~~. ' - - ' ' Â· --mr-L.......| E--4 IL-21-H EEMEN Lal Z L ' OVERWINDOWS . 1 1 I i â€¢--Â·----Â·------Â·-Â·------â€¢u--u=u*----,-u-u--Â·. 0 Â· , :m===xm -- --4 141 -NEWCULTUREDSTONE '1 Â· r7-'â€¢-1 t~ 1-~-- - â€¢â€¢ . - :11173E-111[;VE,1 24*.r AROUND FROM ADJACENT 04 1-1 *z py... -1~ - Â¥;777711 IrT~": ~ ' ., Â·Â· . ., .~ -- [33 PiASTERTO WRAP 111- 1'.IL....1 1%1~ t.#k.~F#*~' -* il i 47 1,..7 11 1 1, Â· i F E-i .6,1 040. I 4 0 4/,3 4 --- 1 ~<21-1: i-- .u~ ~qei:Il. ~ ft-t:.>li -. ELEVATION 1'1 ' 41,7 2 -h U .4 r , 111 IL= =1 L 21 1 11 11 1 L J L===11 111 U.L_-------2------2-------~~-----_L____________Unt H 5 Â¤D 2Â«EASTEUVATION /41 SOUTH ELEVATION 02 i ~ SCALE: 1/8" = 11-011 Or ~__~~ SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O" 98 N 50 1 < U EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN FA8CIA WITH METAL CAP AT EAST ANDWESTWALLS - --=%---1 . 1 M, --=-- ~ - --li . A-= r=-1 . . IL_11 ld--1 - '- ~ 1.1 1 e m#41 : - 3 1 -11 11.1 11Â»KM. : 1 ~ LLII IFI' -1~1 lip' 1 , -- #9 '4449 Il L.- Â· . -- .Â· .1, I ----, --JI ~ 01 li. im - Â· ' ,- P lt/ j#~ ~ 45,6beogroli-leâ€¢/ I -3- 7---77"~ ~f,4 .' *..% |...M. 11 1 1. 1.1, - 1 . . - . N,>9'*24 ~- 11 10' TIMBER BANDAT 1 ' " *.ff Al M . '1 4 1 '0 LW PREFINISHED REGLET-t-7 . . i - .. p=======2 . le..1 -IF=-1- 1 1 "*0 11 ..1 119*1Mil- 11 -.'.- i FI--11 4*49 ~1- . .1 . -1.1,11 1. 1 F.71 ruu,1 1 ' ':"'' ''~ lei; r . 11).2.41 1.'Â· Â·Â·rÂ·Â·4 402 NEW 1 X 4 8IAT RAUNG .6 m.. PiCKE,8 -r *1 n I *4994 ' 0,-m-[,ill 4%.9 . '' hti~I'l'~~It kiP'IM ' ' f It.~1 11 -9.-11- . 1 ' 'Z~~EIm. I - t.11 1 1 1 #*i E--1 I . . 1 . [i''--/''I/7Â·2 ~ :,iÂ· t.-:At: &42 .1-7 1,C. .. - D....1 . - . 42455. t.:' Â· 1 L '2'42 f.40Â· , --2 (11-E F 1.1.1.1.- 114 4 1 '*1 FLU 4 240, 4/ 11 -1 1. 44 7/ .' + ' f 0.12 4_WESTEUVATION 3-NORTH_ELEVATION____~ ~ (<_1) SCALE: 1/8," = I'-O" ~~ SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O" -- [2*Â£2**i*Â¥iI] lauÂ·Jomueds.060:3 LLet SNOUVAON31 | Date n 2, 7 1-4 ST REET $$ 5 Irq t* SUB J * Ul 0 2 14 4-0 - OF 4 4 lj{ 2 / fak &31.VAL 4 2,24 - 4 1 NY ./ 46 - i f. o v -PE: *th / . - 1 0 0) $1: . -Â£ I m.. -Â»Alk 32-, 1. 1- + . F ~A #PA $ 1 # It I + 4 r.Â· 1 iA J i r h 77/: 1 ..94 $ e i F :41 I /1 r 0/ 0 4 4 Lp 4 , . i li 5 i 4- Â¢ /4 A 41'4 '65Â» j v ve Â·Aff,7///-/f' 24 2. ..-4 : 3 G.: 4 ~-\44141 / 933-43% . \/, 7 10 f. FUMB'rE~21 - -Â»: ,.t<f :-4 *reÂ«UT Ille - I , i ''93 -j:%2-L#~ ii* 4, 0 p d \ '14 mÂ¢13â‚¬ /-12/2047.- . tx f /Â£ J*#'' ~,~ 4-c- -- I - < N 14.95'* IDe. 0, ~ -4.. ../7 -- ... ,~e.=*A /54 -9924-5221-4 .- d -- 1 1 h , M'. -3 - 0Â£-N k:~~ ~-e:~.~~ - I - 11(1 4/3 B ,-LÂ»=1 -7/....6 -11, - -- 4 /.=izt\<h 4Â£ 4 ~ ,0. ~ \-I*04*4*3 N.....2â€ž,â€ž,0.gal 4 #.4 4-10 /1 '64{144>*2/*9/1/11cbb,* b.-47 ./ 14 / 0 , * 14 f.%,- Jg ..,15 mm 2 ./ .1 ~1 l. & h.i.. I,- Del.\E IV 1 74?v \\rith . l~ 1 V - \\ 0@ 0+413*-4 4. Â« 131-======Clgh 4 4 I .11(ki\\ 4 . 71 < Al,. . .1 ./ . 64Â®,1' 14Â« 4/,ft ..1 -- 1 Mer.ta . 0 Â¢ t . di OA Wh' 0,89 \ >1 'OUGâ€¢. Arr~ WN.'70 ' . Femo * . 9041,4,11 -:9Â¢ '2"F r. U i (221 El~ 112 adl > h~ 1 0~0% L < OE C - . 0 ' f. 1 1// f Â« - -11 1/4 i I a Â©24 i ~*%* j\~~4/{' ~~ f 1, i 1 1.Â¥ 1 Ci ,/r Â« .4, I i ~ f 0.1 OF. 0 ./0/ * 1 44, i 0 GO O. \ h fitt . // re..1,- i 4. .7 . \4 . 45 LP 0/1/ 4// - ' - 2% !. 41. 2 N R LY - .3-- * /1 4 341%42Â». -.6=Â» - 4 12 ~ r . 7/7.\\ ,]%At=Â»= . I. 0 /7 7 1 V Al,154.4 ~ ..Â« / A-11- : ./ :,14& I C/-11 1 0 ''34 /, / 1, 1,GY#40 ie troy -1 4 <~ td'Â« 1 ELI Air lilli U .. .,4 uk-/ . Â¥ f fit . /1 , ON . % -7 0 ~ 0 0 5 - ~teU61014&_ 1 ji , U.] ~~~- IEZI ai }4 120 -if 0 Ae// - /1 lit iÂ¥>1 -33 - r >ili"i,8 * I ' 1 / diAe, L. . 1,4 0 7/ I -01 - & #-*./Â·D -3 F. -4/1 0. 1 7, 4 + I. ''i::2. 1 0 *41 i a , 1/%0/ : %04 Z b.-Il--1/=6. / ly ~ uj 0 -- 12.1'-01, . I J. /0 ' C > 12 ff - -3 1/~,,,,,,2 4Â« - 0 . r C ' 1- 1 1.1," 1 + . - . -6.4 e. , 0 | \11 .. . , _rwoo , 1' 4 .- \\ C 2 ~34 /j - t. 5 - 1 tJ -%0 8/GL t. - 1 1 .\ R. 22.0-=1~ ty 1- - 1 \ 4 ~'1*-/7r f.Â· CK -STLECF L.1 o.rIT it-1 'El V.4.: E --= rf .' , N - k- - Al> -,r / 4 f. ' 9 1 ' 1 -7-b\'Â·W- C--1 6-i'-Phi -pÂ·~A . remic , 0.1 f L 1 / - -9 1,2 ~09' 14 140.01'jo ~ < - 1 47 Â£ 4 1 0 -5 -_ NORâ„¢ 44 ./ -- 00*694 ..q ..9 7 +6964$ 1 4-â€žr 1.1/ - 0%*-#Â».4 Â£- Al.0 tUE*T 4 0~3 SITE PLAN com*u' PW= & 0,oci,tes, pc (4__;j SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-O" }@uÂ·;03Â©uidsoo60:3 LLE L Egu-936-0Â£6 A 11919 00 'N3cISM '3AV SNI>IdOH -3 +21 * r--3 E--d 11 L_____-_ .I.Pil. F-li--' 00 00 -n- -m- Oa* mi 4-09 0% i UNIT 9 UNIT 10 690,0 sq,ft 818.0 sq.ft Hh -12/2 mom ]*m 7 1 If 1 ] . [Der G) DEi J - 1111% DN F , A~ 1 =AB - 91 Joi UNIT 12 UNIT 11 636,0 sq,ft 764,0 sq,ft - 1 1 Al/fg ~ U&11 01 - deck deck 55 sq,ft ~ ~ 55 sq,ft LEVEL 3 3489,0 sq, ft, ~ ROOF PLAN 41 THIRD LEVEL PLAN (~-~j SCALE: 1/8" = 11-OIl SCALE: 1/80 = 1'-0" oleck ~ deck 55 sq.ft 55 sq,ft W.---4 ++ S ' d-1 Il '- >11llllI UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 636,0 sq.ft 764,0 sq,ft 1362.0 sq,ft. 818.0 sq,ft Af-- up L 11 < ~] DI: > r 11 1] 1 | DIL L 1.1 - 01 it LOBBY lilli 11 4 uÂ« 1 1 - [ -1 , DN F ~ IL .1 / 1-1 1 L_ r Jj' L Il UNIT 8 UNIT 7 4 UNIT 3 636.0 sq.ft - - . 4. 818.0 sq,ft 764,0 sq,ft / le*,4. X / H---+2-I -' 1- 1 *b- ~, - t â€¢ I._. -Lâ‚¬ \ -LE 3_3- f.*0'113 ty:,12'Ail deck deck , 55 sq.ft T' ~ 55 sq.ft 4,1 f.4, -6-3 - .1,1 1-''NO NORTH LEVEL 1 EXISTING LEVEL 2 3680 sq,ft SAGEWOOD PLANS 3304.0 sq,ft ~ SECOND LEVEL PLAN ~ LOWER LEVEL PLAN Al.0 SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O" SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O" ooP* cad git:flon &.ochtes, P.c uads.060:3 WAINBNOGNOD aOOM3DVS SNOI1VAON32I OaÂ¥210100 'NildSÂ¥ '133211S WVTIVH 1SEIM 016 01201 .--p 8899 4 C~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMI~T 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 4 (970) 920-5090 City of Aspen Land Use: 1 ' A (9 5032 1041 Deposit 1042 Flat Fee 1043 HPC 1046 Zoning and Sign Referral Fees: 1163 City Engineer 1205 Environmental Health 1190 Housing Building Fees: 1071 Board of Appeals 1072 Building Permit 1073 Electrical Permit 1074 Energy Code Review 1075 Mechanical Permit 1076 Plan Check 1077 Plumbing Permit 1078 Reinspection 1079 Aspen Fire Other Fees: 1006 Copy 1165 Remp Fee 1303 GIS Fee 1481 Housing Cash in Lieu 1383 Open Space Cash in Lieu 1383 Park Dedication 1468 Parking Cash in Lieu 1164 School District Land Ded. 1$ 17090 TOTAL .Â·1 f NAME: AofÂ·./.63 Â£,,!-18 7.I i,*,s,c . 1-1-~Au c ADDRESS/PROJECT:. '/U I /~A ( (it i,j., 9 r /, '4â‚¬ i//1 10 >Â·.1 Gil # Or DA 4 q . f )7 1.3 R, . -~ PHONE: CHECK# 5,Â·- 7F CASE/PERMIT#: 'Â· /r ' # OF COPIES: DATE: '' - 4 3 3 INITIAL: , ~ - 3 1 -