Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Pitkin Reserve.15A-88?OUI� �j )--o 1���qkfzD 0---� J/D I ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE „ . b7& 130 South Galena Street 13j�1"" Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY - 63723 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES. 00125 - 63730 -47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING 170 Obi SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47"1 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER Name: Address: - Check # �y Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: /fL 1 f':. Fi ilt^ Date: S # of Hours: • • MEMORANDUM TO: Land Use Files FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD allowable FAR DATE: December 8, 2006 In the Pitkin Reserve Land Use Files there are discrepancies regarding the allowable FAR in the PUD. This Memorandum is intended to clarify the various documents in the Land Use Files. There were a number of PUD Amendments dealing with allowable FAR that do not appear to have been recorded. The findings in this Memo are intended to govern the allowable FAR in this PUD. On October 10, 1988, the City Council approved an FAR change between lots 3 and 4 on the consent agenda. Part of the motion stated that the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 40,350 square feet. Other items in the Land Use files indicate the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 45,850 square feet. There are no Planning or other City Official signatures , and there are no documents in the Land Use files stating this larger FAR number is correct. There are Planning Staff signatures on other documents, including a 1991 letter signed by Diane Moore, that agree the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 40,350 square feet. Based on these signatures the Community Development Staff has determined that the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 40,350 square feet. In a June 30, 1987 document, then Planning Director Alan Richman approved of the moving of 196 square feet FAR from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Based on this document, as well as the above referenced 1991 letter, the Community Development staff has determined the following FAR figures to be correct: Lot 1 6,528 sf Lot 2 6,920 sf Lot 3 6,724 sf Lot 4 6,724 sf Lot 5 6,724 sf Lot 6 6,724 sf Lot 7 6,724 sf •t CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: D AN CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE:IrE ' STAFF MEMBER: C PROJECT NAME: Project AdgrPss : APPLICANT Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE - Representative Address/Phone:_- 1,44)li __-� ----- ______________ _ ---- --- --- ----- -- PA_I_D__:_YES NO AMOUNT: 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: I P& Z CC 6 HEARING DATE: (o a 1 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: / P&Z CC v N/A DATE REFERRED: ` "lJ ,1 INITIALS: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District V City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief ✓ Bldg:Zon/-14ispeet Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 111�1IS+INITIAL: ✓ City Atty City Engineer B+dg. Dept. Other: G FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: 016 CASE DISPOSITION TO: File FROM: Cindy Houben RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment DATE: October 25, 1988 On October 10, 1988, the City Council approved the Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment as a Consent Agenda Item. The City Council's motion was as follows: it Motion to approve the PUD amendment to use the 2,260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. This space shall not count against the total square footage allowed in the PUD (40,350 square feet). The applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement to be reviewed by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office as the third amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. The :square footage of the house on lot 2 is 7,115 square feet." MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager �2 FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office N-k RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: October 10, 1988 -------------------------- -------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend partial approval of the amendment request for 2 PUD Amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. REQUEST: Approval of 2 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. LOCA`.CION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the re- contcured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of the following 2 PUD Amendments: 1. Lots 3 and 4 include one finished house and one house which is under construction. These houses have additional usable space which was created due to the construction methods used to build into the hillside. The total square footage of this space (for the two houses) is 2260 square feet. The proposed use of this space is proposed to be limited to storage, gym and circulation. The request is to be allowed to use this square footage and not have it count against the total square footage of the project which will remain at 40,350 square feet. t 0 2. The second request the house on lot 2. 6,725 square feet. STAFF COMMENTS: is to determine square footage of The applicant believes the house is 1. The request for the use of the underground space (2260 square feet) was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 6, 1988. The rational for this approval was based on a great deal of history recited by the applicant, changing regulation regarding how FAR is calculated and a determination that there would not be any visual or other public impacts created by the approval. The space the applicant is requesting to use is 2,260 square feet which was built as part of the structural element of the houses on lots 3 and 4. The creation of this space was a result of substantial re -contouring into the hillside. At the time the Pitkin Reserve was approved, the method of calculating FAR counted the entire story of a structure even if a portion of it was totally below grade. The new FAR calculations take into account the fact that the portion of a story which is totally below grade does not impact the bulk of the structure (see attached drawings). Both the Planning Commission and Planning Office felt that since the space is totally below finished grade and since the space already exists, that no greater impacts would be created by allowing the use of this space. No additional bulk will be added to the project as a result of this approval since all the homes have already been designed. 2. The second request is for a decision regarding the as built square footage of the house on lot 2. The Planning Commission made a motion for the Planning Office to make the determination of the correct square footage calculation for the house on Lot 2. The applicant contends that the square footage is 6,725 square feet. The Building Department and Zoning Office were going through several personnel changes at the time the final FAR calculations were being done for the house on lot 2. Therefore, the applicant is concerned that the Building Department figures are incorrect. The Building files show that the house is 7,115 square feet. These calculations were determined by the Zoning Official and the Planning Office concurs with their calculations. PLANNING OFFICE and PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the use of the 2,260 square feet on lots 3 and 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Office make the determination of how many square feet of house exists on lot 2. 2 • • The Planning Office agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow the 2,260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 to be utilized. The Planning Office has determined that there are 7,115 square feet of house on lot 2. RECOMMENDED MOTION: " Motion to approve the PUD amendment to use the 2,260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. This space shall not count against the total square footage allowed in the PUD (40,350 square feet). The applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement to be reviewed by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office as the third amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. The square footage of the house on lot 2 is 7,115 square feet." CITY MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION: ch.pres 3 M so MSI;iW, CS) 01.1►I0l�10i TO: Patsy Newbury FROM: Alan Richman RE: Pitkin Reserve FAR DATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- October 9, 1987 This memo is to confirm our conversation yesterday, at which time I decided the FAR for houses at Pitkin Reserve should be measured from natural grade, not from finished grade. This decision does not change my prior interpretation that height be measured from finished grade, subject to the 25 foot limitation. Please call if you need further guidance in this regard. TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: September 26, 1988 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- -TG- (C C� SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend partial approval of the amendment request for 3 PUD Amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. REQUEST: Approval of 3 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. LOCATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the re - contoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of the following 3 PUD Amendments: 1. Lots 3 and 4 include one finished house and one house which is under construction. These houses have additional usable space which was created due to the construction methods used to build into the hillside. The total square footage of this space (for the two houses) is 2260 square feet. The proposed use of this space is proposed to be limited to storage, gym and circulation. The request is to be allowed to use this square footage and not have it count against the total square footage of the project which will remain at 40,350 square feet. 2. The second request is to verify that the house constructed on lot 2 is 6,725 square feet. 3. The third request is to continue to use the gatehouse as a project office until the last house in the Pitkin Reserve PUD is completed. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The request for the use of the underground space (2260 square feet) was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 6, 1988. The rational for this approval was based on a great deal of history recited by the applicant, changing regulation regarding how FAR is calculated and a determination that there would not be any visual or other public impacts created by the approval. The space the applicant is requesting to use is 2,260 square feet which was built as part of the structural element of the houses on lots 3 and 4. The creation of this space was a result of substantial re -contouring into the hillside. At the time the Pitkin Reserve was approved the method of calculating FAR counted the entire story of a structure even if a portion of it was totally below grade. The new FAR calculations take into account the fact that the portion of a story which is totally below grade does not impact the bulk of the structure (see attached drawings). Both the Planning Commission and Planning Office felt that since the space is totally below finished grade and since the space already exists, that no greater impacts would be created by, allowing the use of this space. No additional bulk will be added to the project as a result of this approval since all the homes have already been designed. 2. The second request is for a decision regarding the as built square footage of the house on lot 2. The Planning Commission made a motion for the Planning Office to make the determination of the correct square footage calculation for the house on Lot 2. The applicant contends that the square footage is 6,725 square feet. The Building Department and Zoning Office were going through several personnel changes at the time the final FAR calculations were being done for the house on lot 2. Therefore, the applicant is concerned that the Building Department figures (� are incorrect. The Building files show that the house is-------"� square feet. These calculations were determined by the Zoning Official and the Planning Office concurs with their calculations. o�rF�Q 3. The applicant is requesting that the existingAuse be allowed until the last house in the project is completed or until April of 1990, whichever is first. 2 The gatehouse was red tagged by the applicant was using the structure architectural staff. An office is District in addition to the fact that as an employee dwelling unit. Zoning Official because the for an office for his not allowed in the Zone the gatehouse was approved The Planning Commission made a motion to recommend to City Council that the applicant be allowed to remain in the gatehouse using it as a project office for 3 more months. The applicant requests that the gatehouse be allowed to be used as a project office until April of 1990. The applicant feels that there is less traffic generation to and from the site since the office is on site. In addition the applicant feels that the owners in the project can more adequately be served by having an on site project office. See attached letter from applicant dated August 8, 1988. The gatehouse was approved as an employee dwelling to be used to house an on site caretaker of the property. The approval was based on the housing authority rent and occupancy guidelines. The unit was recently red tagged by the zoning official for a violation of the agreement. The charge was that the unit was being used as an architectural office housing six employees. The Planning Office recognizes the need for an on site project manager but also feels that the community had reliance from the applicant that the unit was to house a middle income employee who was a caretaker of the project. It seems reasonable that a project manager, during construction, could be this person if the project manager meets the occupancy guidelines of the Housing Authority. However, it's explicitly contrary to the approval and the home occupation rules to allow the applicant to operate an office, with a staff employed by other projects, in the gatehouse. Therefore the Planning Office recommends that 1 (one) project manager be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project and that the office use be terminated immediately. PLANNING OFFICE and PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the use of the 2260 square feet on lots 3 and 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Office make the determination of how many square feet of house exists on lot 2. The Planning Commission makes the recommendation that the applicant be allowed to use the gatehouse as a project office for the next three months. The Planning Office agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow the 2260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 to be utilized. The Planning Office has determined 3 that there are - /- square feet of house on lot 2. Finally, The Planning Office recommends that one (1) project manager who qualifies under the employee guidelines be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project, and that the office use be terminated immediately. RECOMMENDED MOTION: " Motion to approve the PUD amendment to use the 2260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. This space shall not count against the total square footage allowed in the PUD (40,350 square feet). The applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement to be reviewed by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders `z Office as the third amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD.�1� The square footage of the house on lot 2 is ----- square feet. O V The gatehouse may be used as a residence for a project manager who qualifies under the employee guidelines. The office use of the gatehouse shall be terminated immediately." CITY MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION: ch.pres 4 GI Do_� NJ 01.1 " oil) ; TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: September 6, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Approval of 3 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin. LOCATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: This application to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD contains 3 separate amendment requests. These are summarized as follows: 1. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR: The applicant requests that an unresolved question of how to calculate FAR in the PUD be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. It was the applicant's understanding that due to the substantial regrading of the site, the FAR calculations for this project would be measured from finished grade rather than natural grade. This issue has been an on going question in the Building Department and Planning Office, therefore, the applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement in order to clarify the situation. 2. TOTAL FAR: The Applicant and the Planning Office have also been reviewing the issue of how to calculate total FAR on the site. The applicant states that the FAR for the entire PUD has been incorrectly calculated. The applicant contends that there is actually additional FAR available for the project. The recorded documents indicate a specific amount of FAR was allotted to the project which the applicant is requesting to amend upwards. 3. GATEHOUSE: The applicant has been using the gatehouse as an office for his architectural staff. The Building Department has red tagged the gatehouse because the use as an office is not allowed in the zone district and because the unit was approved as an employee unit, deed restricted to an employee in the middle income category. The applicant is requesting that the existing use be allowed to be continued until the last house in the project is completed. HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve went through the PUD review process in 1982 and 1983 and has come in for several amendments regarding the PUD agreement. The latest PUD amendment was approved and recorded in 1984. STAFF COMMENT: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the recontoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. Unfortunately, we did not think to address FAR calculations at the same time, necessitating this further review. The following staff comments will address each of the three proposed amendments separately. 1. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR: The project FAR has been calculated under the old FAR methodology since the project began under those regulations. The new FAR methodology allows the applicant to delete all areas which are subgrade from the FAR calculations (as measured from natural grade). The old methodology only allows for those stories which are 100% subgrade to be deleted from the FAR calculations. Therefore, under the new regulations additional square footage could be added to the project. The applicant is requesting that the new regulations be applied to the project and to additionally allow the subgrade areas to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade. The applicant feels that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) The below grade area is not visible and in that sense does not increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. In addition, if the proposed FAR methodology is approved, approximately 7,463 sq. ft. will be divided up among the 6 homesites for additional FAR. As noted earlier in this memorandum, this issue has been discussed for several years among the applicant, the Planning Office and the Building Department. The unique conditions in this case are that the approval bodies have allowed the applicant to significantly regrade the site and measure height from finished grade. The question before the Planning Commission is whether or not these circumstances warrant allowing the applicant to measure the FAR on the site using the new code and measuring from E finished grade rather than natural grade. The application states that approximately 1/3 of each of the existing three houses are below finished grade (the 3 existing houses are all 7,463 sq. ft in size. The request is to allow that square footage to be divided up among the 6 lots in the PUD. This means, to date there will be approximately 7,463 square feet of additional FAR to be divided among the 6 lots. This is greater than 1,200 additional square feet per house. If the FAR is interpreted as proposed, each house will be allowed to be almost 8,600 square feet. (The Subdivision Improvements agreement allows each house to have an average of 6,700 square feet.) In reviewing the original files on the PUD, the major concern from the Planning Commission and Council was that the bulk of the homes be keep as unobtrusive as possible from the public ROW (Rio Grande Trail). The applicant agreed with the concept and proposed to build the homes into the hillside, thereby eliminating a significant amount of the perceived bulk. The applicant is now requesting to be allowed to be given credit (FAR) for the portions of the homes which are being hidden from view. The Planning Office contends that this design was part of the approval and intended all along. To now allow the applicant to get credit for what was presented as a perceived reduction in FAR seems inconsistent with the original approvals since the additional 7,463 square feet would be allowed above grade and would definitely add to the bulk as perceived from the Rio Grand Trail. Additionally, it should be noted that the project was developed pursuant to specific design criteria and limitations (The Land Use Code Regulations in effect at that time) and was approved on that basis. As a general rule, once a PUD is approved, it is governed by the rules in effect at the time of its approval, to insure that the representations about architecture, bulk and design are adhered to. Therefore the Planning Office is opposed to the request to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade using the new code. 2. TOTAL FAR: The applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement to allow additional FAR on the total site. The applicant's calculations are attached. The latest PUD agreement recorded in 1984 states that the total allowed FAR for the project is 40,350 square feet; 6725 square feet per residence. The applicant contends that there was a mistake in the FAR calculations and that the correct figure for the development is 45,850 sq. ft. Attached is a copy of the applicant's FAR calculations. The applicant has developed this calculation by using 7 lots rather than 6 lots. Because of the way FAR is calculated in a PUD, (a chart illustrating the slide scale approach will be provided at the meeting) by using 7 instead of 6 lots, the total FAR permitted on the site can be increased. However, in actuality 3 the 7th lot is limited by the prior approval to a 1000 square foot gatehouse for use as employee housing and should not provide the basis for increasing the project's overall FAR by more than the 1000 sq. ft. The Planning Office feels that the original approvals were based on the reliance that the project build out was to be no more than 40,350 square feet. The application states that the applicant has already built 22,389 sq. ft. plus 7,463 presently under construction for a total of 29,852 sq. ft. which has already been allocated. According to the recorded figures, there is approximately 10,498 square feet of additional square footage to be allotted between the two houses which have not been built. By accepting the applicant's calculations there would be approximately 14,926 sq. ft to be used between the two remaining lots. Section 24-8.26(b) regarding PUD amendments states that "such amendments shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in community policy." The Planning Office recommendation is that the applicants are bound by the past approvals and that there is no justification for the additional square footage. 40,350 square feet was satisfactory at the time of the approvals and in light of the community concern over excessive bulk, the additional square footage is not in the best interest of the community. The Planning Office therefore recommends that the applicants be required to go by the existing approval of 40,350 square feet for the total buildout of the project. 3. GATEHOUSE: The applicant requests that the gatehouse be allowed to be used as a project office until April of 1990. The applicant feels that there is less traffic generation to and from the site since the office is on site. In addition the applicant feels that the owners in the project can more adequately be served by having an on site project office. See attached letter from applicant dated August 8, 1988. The gatehouse was approved as an employee dwelling to be used to house an on site caretaker of the property. The approval was based on the housing authority rent and occupancy guidelines. The unit was recently red tagged by the zoning official for a violation of the agreement. The charge was that the unit was being used as an architectural office housing six employees. The Planning Office recognizes the need for an on site project manager but also feels that the community had reliance from the applicant that the unit was to house a middle income employee who was a caretaker of the project. It seems reasonable that a project manager, during construction, could be this person if the project manager meets the occupancy guidelines of the Housing 4 Authority. However, it's explicitly contrary to the approval and the home occupation rules to allow the applicant to operate an office, with a staff employed by other projects, in the gatehouse. Therefore the Planning Office recommends that 1 (one) project manager be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project and that the office use be terminated immediately. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request for the PUD amendments to measure FAR calculation using the new code and calculating from finished grade and to increase the overall project FAR. The gatehouse may be used by a project manager as a residence and project office until the last house is completed, at which time it shall be occupied by a caretaker who meets Housing Authority guidelines, as was previously agreed to. CH.PITRES 5 • Aspen/Pi1 130 aspe September 6, 1988 Mr. Michael Lipkin P. O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael: ing Of f ice treet 81611 It is the Planning Office's understanding that your request for amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD is limited to the following: 1. Lots 3 and 4 have houses which are currently under construction and/or are finished. These houses have additional usable space which was created due to the construction methods used to build into the hillside. The total square footage of this space (for the two houses) is 2260 square feet. The use of this space shall be limited to storage, gym and circulation. Your request is to be allowed to use this square footage in these two houses. Your request is that this square footage will not be used to count against the total square footage of the project which will remain at 40,350 square feet. 2. The second request is to verify that the house constructed on lot 2 is calculated at 6,725 square feet. 3. The third request is to continue to use the gatehouse as a project office until the last house in the Pitkin Reserve PUD is completed. Please sign this letter if you concur that the above information accurately reflects your PUD amendment request. Sincerely, Cindy Houben, Planner ch.m1200 Michael Lipkin L I P K I4k '� A S S OP IAA T E S ARCH ITECTU R E& P L A N N I N G October 20, 1987 Mr, Alan Richmond Planning Director Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena. Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Alan, OCT 2 I 987 -JA I realize FAR and building heights have become issues that raise the flag of caution, however, I fail to understand your recent decision not to exclude below grade construction from FAR calculation at Pitkin Reserve. The Code measures building heights and the exclusion of below grade construction from the FAR calculations from a common grade line. It is the intention of the Code, especially your rewrite of the calculation of FAR, to regulate visible bulk and not that which is below grade and, therefore, not visible. There seems to be some concern about these below grade areas "daylighting". This is inevitable for a building on a sloping site, or if not inevitable, is certainly an ideal opportunity. On a flat site we now get light wells (which look a good bit more like moats and don't seem like a great idea) in the current FAR grab I've enclosed several exhibits that I'd like you to take a look at, I think they show pretty clearly what I'm trying to do. As you know I take the design and siting of my houses pretty seriously. Exhibit 1 is a photograph of our first Pitkin Reserve house, which fits the site very comfortably and has not raised concerns about either buiding height or below grade FAR. House 3, currently under review by the building department, is just two feet taller. Vhile roughly 1,500 square feet larger, it should sit in the hillside with equal ease and comfort. Exhibit 2 is a site plan showing the heights of the first 3 houses in Pitkin Reserve. Exhibit 3 consists of elevations and floor plans so you can identify the storage and laundry areas in question and see how completely below grade they are. Vhile the space in question is primarily a bonus due to the structural system required to hold the house on the hillside, it is of significant value for storage, a gym/workout area. and a laundry. In any event, I'd like to sit down with you, review my drawings, try to understand your objections, and see if there is any way they can be overcome. As a last resort, I'd need to know what appeal process, if any, I have available to me. I realize the Pitkin Reserve process seems to be an endless one, however I know that we both take our roles in this process and the resulting product very seriously. I appreciate your prompt and thorough attention. Yours truly, JL----, L Michael Lipkin POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET -NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 0 Aspen /Pitk-hf-TIoAn ing 130 souttree aspen; colorad,u 861h1 g Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P.O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, Of f ice 1987 This letter is in response to your written request of July 8 to obtain a clarification of the building height situation at Pitkin Reserve. As you know, I have given this matter a great deal of thought, and have even gone so far as to bring it before the Planning Commission to determine whether they had any input on this matter. Essentially, the issue is whether the height of the six homes at Pitkin Reserve should be measured from natural or finished grade. It is quite clear that the Code requires heights to be measured from natural grade, and it is equally clear that your project received no explicit variation from this requirement when it was originally approved as a PUD. However, it is apparent from my review of the discussion which took place during the review process that we all knew that substantial grading would occur on the site to permit integration of the homes into the recontoured hillside. Therefore, it is my determination that it was the intent of the City to have the height of these residences be measured from finished, rather than natural grade, and that the PUD should be administered in this manner. By copy of this letter I am hereby instructing the Building Department to measure heights for your project as follows: 1. Heights shall be no greater that 25 feet, as measured from finished grade; and 2. Heights shall in all cases be below that of Willoughby Way. I hope this addresses your concerns. Sincerely, Oi--\ Ala Richman Planning Director August 12, 1987 Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P.O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, This letter is in response to your written request of July 8 to obtain a clarification of the building height situation at Pitkin Reserve. As you know, I have given this matter a great deal of thought, and have even gone so far as to bring it before the Planning Commission to determine whether they had any input on this matter. Essentially, the issue is whether the height of the six homes at Pitkin Reserve should be measured from natural or finished grade. It is quite clear that the Code requires heights to be measured from natural grade, and it is equally clear that your project received no explicit variation from this requirement when it was originally approved as a PUD. However, it is apparent from my review of the discussion which took place during the review process that we all knew that substantial grading would occur on the site to permit integration of the homes into the recontoured hillside. Therefore, it is my determination that it was the intent of the City to have the height of these residences be measured from finished, rather than natural grade, and that the PUD should be administered in this manner. By copy of this letter I am hereby instructing the Building Department to measure heights for your project as follows: 1. Heights shall be no greater that 25 feet, as measured from finished grade; and 2. Heights shall in all cases be below that of Willoughby Way. I hope this addresses your concerns. sincerely, Alan Richman Planning Director 0 0 09 !1 U(= i MEMORANDUM TO: Patsy Newbury, Building Department FROM: Jay Hammond, Public Services DATE: August 11, 1987 RE: Fill at Pitkin Reserve Per your request, I am writing to verify approval of the proposed fill on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve development. Insofar as the proposed fill is within the building envelopes, the initial concern was that the fill would be a change to the approved plan requiring amendment. Alan Richman has apparently indicated that this is not the case and forwarded the plan to me for review and comment. My basic concerns were to see that the additional fill would not adversely affect drainage, road grades or the floodway. Having found that drainage and the roadway are not impacted and that the fill zones are not within the areas required for review of stream margin impacts, I recommend approval of the amended grading plan. JH/co/FillPitkReserve cc: Alan Richman L I P K I4�"! A S S OP 1*A T E S ARCH I T ECTU R E& P L A N N I N G August 8, 1988 Me. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 137 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Proper Calculation of FAR at the Pitkin Reserve Dear Cindy, This is a request for either a minor modification or a Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUB. The request is that the FAR allocation and distribution be recorded as shown on Exhibit A which represents the proper calculation of project FAR I think the following points are revelant. 1. Last fall Alan Richman pointed out that FAR had been improperly calculated at the Pitkin Reserve. At his direction I went ahead and corrected my methodology. I think we were both suprised when this resulted in a modest increase in project FAR. 2. The Pitkin Reserve PUB has twice been amended to reduce both density and FAR to their current levels. However, twice both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have approved total project FAR well in excess of what is currently proposed. APPROVAL NUMBER OF PROJECT DATE FREE MARKET UNITS F.A.R. ORIGINAL P.U.D. 1982 12 61,204 FIRST P.U.D. AMENDMENT 1983 9 55,523 SECOND P.U.D. AMENDMENT 1984 6 41,423 m PROPERLY CALCULATED FAR 1988 6 45,850 3. Since the Pitkin Reserve PUB was originally approved, the Planning Office and Building Department have refined the methodology for calculating FAR to eliminate the bias against sloping sites. The intention for the Code in regulating FAR is to control above grade bulk and mass. However, the Pitkin Reserve PUB is governed by the old interpretation of FAR. The three houses we have built at the Pitkin Reserve have at least a third of their bulk and FAR below grade. That area below grade would be excluded from FAR under the new Code. (See Exhibits B, C, D and F) 4. If this correction of FAR is approved, the allocation would be distributed equally to each of the six lots, including those we have already completed. It is not our intention to use all of this additional FAR to increase the size of the final two houses. POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET -NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 Page 2 5. We are about to complete House 3 and have begun construction on House 4. These are being built on the steepest portion of the site and the structure required to hold them on the hillside has created a good bit of area well below grade. (See Exhibits B, C, D end E) An approval of this request would allow us to use this space that has been created out of structural necessity. It would not be suitable as living space, but would be appropriate for a gym, storage space, workshop, etc. There would be no increase in bulk and the span will exist whether or not you allow it to be used. If I can supply any additional information to qualify or illustrate this request, please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours truly, Michael Lipki F.A.R. DISTRIBUTION AT THE PITKIN RESERVE NUMBER OF UNITS 7 TOTAL DEVELOPABLE AREA 367,481 S.F. DEVELOPABLE AREA/LOT 52,497 S.F. AVERAGE F.A.R./LOT 6,550 S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. 45,850 S.F. ALLOWABLE F.A.R. LOT 1 7,463 Construction to begin spring 89 LOT 2 7,463 House completed LOT 3 7,463 Under construction LOT 4 7,463 House completed LOT 5 7,463 House completed LOT 6 7,462 Lot sold LOT 7 1,073 Gatehouse completed TOTAL F.A.R. 45,830 'E MMT A' a � a z J n a 3� rn w x x m f 1 0 t I� �.. L - TV TV c 1 L ' Ti tI �._.i.►--3--!•-..-fir•.+-•� JJF.��i'_: }""C"�.'i"' f �!1._y-,..tee.+,•-.1.•„d.,.' 1-[ 7 �w I/ T •; • C, 0 w K • O • I 93=low I � I `'t`� I � ►-Ida: ,w-jq or WIAPA� i _ - ORY �tacFRn l� awtlTt 0� /IK FY /M.�/� ter t /� C .lKf. w 1'W1Y.1 • � © � ® 1 K p�jy.� 4* .r nne,u j �" •. I�I IhAtD'� kd. 91 � ROOM �t is:—', _. -- - � �-- — ei- i •^is_ i-• '� Ijy .. 9I I' t AM I L v oo 1-1 M Lie Shr4 t-or -_ .f Ye N'• •i-d i P► 6�i fti fi .r✓_ i•►'�9�s=✓ i-c' ' *e 4.A " (gip^J'�. �p- 11' —_._- f• � f ri'bt1M v CO�Q) M c S R I r - � Qe _ � � -Gto - IH IIO I© 0 lJ I bl �q 11► /i R- �•, �` I ' �! � 0 � _ �.e�. I ri: d lel e•e 6'•�• � (D i.• �a=, / -} � � r I I=' I e•n. Ilir Heil "� Ims6 SW ,r \ ...._ _.. I7.t171141 'r:R•�..� / rp V bLY *01r�V,l 61LAD6s AHV l M"VDOD ! tq G'vzI rant r '- or QA E�Ow/ t�6 aG G G A v Y � Ah � N l i� 2 ��rt' 4'd I ♦;e w'-I' i • ----- Z-9---ly'to'1fs.• q'.ptb �' . L o W E L F L- O e R I L A M i L L♦ w L L L i V'. -' i ,, •a 1�4 . I - o ,. � -s —� z THE PITKIN July 8, 1987 Mr. Bill Drueding Zoning Official Aspen/Pitkin Building Department W East Main Street aspen, C0 81611 RE: Building Heights at the Pitkin Reserve. Dear Bill, R-E S E RV E There has been some confusion in the past about building heights at Pitkin Reserve and I'd like to resolve that question since I'm designing the next tvo houses there. My assumption is that building height at the Pitkin Reserve should be established from proposed grades rather than existing grades. Let me give you a little history. Pitkin Reserve is a PUD. Vhen it vas undergoing the revlev process, I madA it very clear that the hillside would be dramatically changed and the houses would be plugged into the landscape rather than overhanging it and that there would be massive changes in the grading of the hillside. Ve agreed that no buildings would be built higher than Villoughby Vay. However, when the Subdivision Agreement vas dray up, I naively thought that the reference to no buildings higher than Villoughby Vay vas our only height restriction. The Subdivision Agreement did not clearly state that ve vere exempt from any building height constraints or that building heights vould be established from the nev grades as opposed to the existing ones. Vhen 1 mbmitted the first and second houses for building permits I atterr�' to my application references from the Subdivision Agreement that building heightsvould not be greater than Villoughby Vay. I recieved those permits. Ve poured the foundation for House 2 and then waited 2 }roars before gearing up for construction again. I had to have my building permit updated last fall and Peggy raised some ques tions about building height. Alan Richmond intervened and ruled that in that particular instance the building heights would be established from finished grebe not original grade. POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 • ASPEN, COLORADO 8 1 6 1 2 • 3 0 3- 9 2 0. 1 1 8 4 I recently suggested to Alan that ve'd better resolve something about building heights to vie don't this same question raised again once construction has started. Alan said that the appropriate procedure for making this determination vas first to submit this question to the Buinding Department. I do feel very strongly that all parties involved in the original reviev of the Pitkin Reserve subdivision, the Planning Office, the Engineerig Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, understood our landscape and grading intentions. I think the two houses ve have completed evidece the success of this approach. So I vould like nov to b<.t a i cuv'ing, 'A"O tho remaining thres lots w iltkziil Resei:vt% thal eJJubllsheS DWiding heights being regulated from proposed grades rather than existing. I look forward to your response. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin l2 MBL/jeh -u 17 rA 4u u'C 7� ' 6l�-7 1 H JLs July 8,1987 PITKIN RE SERVE Mr. Alan Richmond Planning Director Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Building Heights at the Pitkin Reserve. Dear Alen, As you recommended, I've gone to the building department trying to get a clarification that building heights at the Pitkin Reserve vrill be measured from proposed, as opposed to existing, grades. I first spoke to Bill Drueding vfho refered me to Patsy suggesting that she had more familiarity vnth the Pitkin Reserve PUD. She in turn refered it back to Bill Drueding as not falling in her jurisdiction. I drafted the enclosed letter to Bill, and got the response that if there is to be aclarification of this issue it vtill have to come from you. As I'm trying to design the next mo houses at Pitkin Reserve, I'm anxious to get a reading on this as soon as possible. I realize that Pitkin Reserve requires frequent attention from you and minor modifications to our Subdivision Agreement. I apologize for this, but I'm afraid I Vas fairly naive vrhen I originally vent through the subdivision process, and consequently I find that I am continuely attempting to refine and improve our subdivision. I appreciate the time and attention you have given this project. Thank you. Yours truly, ,L---� Michael Lipkin MBL /j eh POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 • ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 16 1 2 • 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 .. r MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding FROM: Alan Richman RE: Amendment to Pitkin Reserve FAR DATE: July 9, 1987 Attached are some documents which I have signed with respect to the Pitkin Reserve PUD, shifting 196 s.f. of floor area between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the PUD. The purpose of this shift is to permit the construction of a mud room on Lot 2. In signing this amendment, I have been unable to determine from my files that 40,344 is the actual floor area allowed for this property. Therefore, please do not construe my signature as verifying this number, but merely as authorizing the 196 s.f. exchange of floor area between the two lots. If, however, you are able to verify that 40,344 s.f. is the accurate floor area for this property, then please consider that to be the case. I would appreciate it if you would file this memo in your zoning files on this project and refer to it henceforth. I will also provide a copy of the signed amendment to Michael Lipkin, for his recordation by the County Clerk. Thanks for your help. JUL 9 1987 BUILD,, J INSPECiO,,l 9 s�FN/pl�k THE PI'TKIN RESERVE AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE FAR AT THE PITKIN RESERVE JUNE 30, 1987 LOT NUMBER APPROVED FAR AMENDED FAR 1 6724 6528 2 6724— 6920 3 6724 6724 4 6724 - 6724 5 6724 6724 6 6724 6724 TOTAL FAR Alan Richmon4 Planning Director 40,344 Date 40,344 POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 • ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 16 1 2 • 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 THE E PITKIN RESERVE June 30, 1987 Mr. Alan Richmond Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Alan, "3 0198i � I expect the enclosed chart adequately explains the reallocation of FAR at the Pitkin Reserve. If there is any additional information or background you need j ust let me know. Otherwise, when you've had a chance to sign off on this give me a call and, in the intrest of time, I'll stop by and pick it up and zip it over to the building department where they're currently reviewing the 196s.fmud room addition. I appreciate the prompt attention you've given this, thank you. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin MBL/jeh Enlc. POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 • ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 16 1 2 • 3 0 3- 9 2 0. 1 1 8 4 • Aspen/Pitk`1Plan.ning Office 130 south"galena street aspen, col.orado 81611 June 10, 1987 Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P. O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, I have reviewed your letter dated June 4, 1987, with respect to shifting up to 300 square feet of allowable floor area from lot #1 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD to lot #2 of the PUD. Under the provisions of Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code, as Planning Director I am permitted to authorize amendments to approved PUD's, provided certain limitations are met. Since you indicate that the overall FAR for the PUD will not increase, but will instead be shifted, and since the development will still occur within the approved building footprints and not therefore cause additional building coverage, I believe this proposal meets the standards for my approval. I hereby authorize you to proceed with this amendment to the PUD. In order to accomplish this amendment, you will need to prepare an exhibit to this letter which shows in one column the approved FAR for each of the six lots of the PUD. In the second column, you should show the amended FAR for each of the six lots. Obviously, the total FAR for all six lots would remain the same. Once you have prepared this exhibit and I have reviewed and initialed same, I,..will authorize you to proceed to building permit review for'your addition to lot #2, subject to recordation of the letter and exhibit. I hope that this letter meets your needs. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance. Sincerely, ) L ,,r` Alan Richman Planning Director THE PITKIN RESERVE ju.ne 4, 1987 Mr. Alan Richmond Planning & Development Director Planning Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan, As we discussed I would lire to make an adjustment to the FAR allocation at the Pitkin Reserve. In our initial PUD .aced subdivision %reement we established a net developable area which we allocated equally among the 12' lots despite the fact that they varied somewhat in size. In subsequent reductions of our free market development lots - from 12 to 9 to 6 - Tm continued this equal distribution of FAR. ale Trould now like to shirt ::00-300 s.f, . of FAR from our smallest, and most constrained, lot (*l) to the adjacent lot (021), where we are just completing construction. The purpose of this additional FAR would be to add on a mud room and storage shed. This would, of course, fall TIthin the established building envelope for Lot 2, and not be increasing the overall building coverage of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. In your capacity as Planning Director you are authorized to make mirror modifications to a PUD as outlined in Section 24-8.26 in the Building Code of the City of Aspen. I will, as you suggested - when you have signed off on this, and I have an exact FAR requirement established - r•rodu e a document that shows the redistribution of developable area. and the appropriate i:`n allocations for each lot and have this document recorded with the city clerk. I appreciate }-o«r attention. Yotws truly, Michael Lipkin MBL/jeh POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 - ASPEN, COLORADO 8 1 6 1 2 - 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 L I P K I *N A S S O C I A T E S ARCH ITECTU R E& P L A N N I N G August 8, 1988 Its. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offioe 137 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 /117 c'? 1988 BE: Use of the Pitkin Reserve Gatehouse as a Project Office Dear Cindy, This letter is a request that the Pitkin Reserve PUB be amended to allow the continued use of the Gatehouse as a project office through completion of construction at the Pitkin Reserve which we anticipate will be between January 1 and April 15, 1990. Since its completion three and half years ago, we have used the Pitkin Reserve Gatehouse as the project office. It has recently been pointed out that while consistent with the spirit of the extended public review process of the Pitkin Reserve PUB, the ase of the Gatehouse as project office was never spelled out in our Subdivision Agreement. This summer we will complete construction of House 3 and House 4 is already under construction - we are currently pouring concrete and expect to finish that house next spring. Next spring we will begin construction of House 5, our final house at the Pitkin Reserve, and intend to finish it between January and March of 1990. We would like to maintain use of the Gatehouse until the completion of the construction of House 5 or April 15, 1990, whichever comes first. With the current level of activity at Pitkin Reserve, it is both convenient and very efficient to us to be working this close to these projects. From this location, we can not only manage construction, but provide the caretaker services that are a significant amenity of the Pitkin Reserve. In addition, it was outer proposal that the Gatehouse be a caretaker/estate keeper facility for a qualified employee. This was not a requirement of subdivision or a GNP application. We built it as a project amenity, not as a contribution to employee housing. I think we made an ample contribution of employee housing to the oon wnanity with the upgrading and expansion of the Smuggler Mobile Home Fork to an owner/occupied cooperative of 104 mobile homes and 250 to 300 residents. I feel that our current use of the Gatehouse as a project office is appropriate in that it allows as to manage this project as closely, sensitively, and efficiently as possible. We are in contact with our job sites on almost an hourly basis. If the office were in another location we would be doing a lot of commuting, probably from the Airport Business Center. The residents of Pitkin Reserve are of course those potentially most impacted by having an office in the Gatehouse. I know they feel that our presence here is a real plus. It gives them a great deal of personal attention and coordinates their lifestyle needs with the construction proceess. I appreciate your consideration. Yours truly, L A-LI I-- -- Iticbael Lipkin POST OFFICE BOX 3004-ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET -NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 • 0 ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMEN A ( 21988 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Gannett, City Attorney a FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer DATE: July 11, 1988 RE: Pitkin Reserve Gate House - Zoning Violations I responded to the attached memo from Janet Raczak of the Housing Department on July 7, 1988. At 11:00 I went to the Gate- house at Pitkin Reserve. I identified myself and was permitted entry. I observed a drawing table on the first floor of three levels. On the second floor were three more architectural drawing table. This was the area of the kitchen -dining. Three gentlemen were working. One summoned Michael Lipkin. Not knowing the extent of cooperation I would get from Mr. Lipkin or the method of enforcement we would pursue, I felt it advisable to advise him of his Miranda rights which he did waive. Michael was very cooperative and frank. He said he had occupied the building as the "employee" and used it also as a office, with 1 or 2 employees for a number of years until June 15, 1988. At that time he vacated all living activities and converted it solely to an office use with 5 employees. He said his wife was pregnant, his business was expanded And office space was hard to get, thus the expanded office activity. He said the Gatehouse contained about 750 square feet of living space and about 750 square feet of storage space. I told him I felt he was in violation of the terms of his P.U.D. agreement concerning the employee unit Gatehouse and also in violation of City Zoning Codes by having a professional office in a residential zone. I discussed the fact that his operation did not conform to a home occupation. I further advised him that I felt he should bring the building into code compliance as soon as possible and every day that it is not could result in penal- ties. He said he would act as quickly as possible to come into offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 compliance with the P.U.D. and City Zoning Codes. I told him I would advise you and we would decide on what further legal action we would take emphasizing that code compliance was our main objective. Please advise me what steps you feel necessary for me to take at this point. I'm prepared to write a show cause letter with a date of your convenience. cc: Alan Richman Janet Raczak I.� 40 m i 17 40— XA AteOr- 4�i 2 Li a r� July 8, 1988 Mr, Alan Richman Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alav, I had a visit from Bill Draeding yesterday with regards to the current use of the Gatehouse. I guess I have some explaining to do. The Gatehouse at Pitkin Reserve was completed three and a half years ago. Upon completion my wife and I moved in as certified employees within the appropriate income guidelines. Since that time we have both lived in the Gatehouse and I have used it as an office for my architectural pratice which is primarily centered around the activities at Pitkin Reserve. During this period I have either worked alone or with one or two staff members. This past spring,. with the real estate market quite strong, we decided to up the pace of our activities and rather than build one house and wait for its sale to begin the next house, we decided to get a couple going at a time. What that now means is we have two under construction and are planning a third and my staff is up to five. At the same time as my office has swelled, so has my wife as we are expecting our first child in August. When it became clear that peaceful coexistence between my office and my family life was no longer possible, I began looking for suitable and affordable office space. That just doen't seem to exist in Aspen. However: at that time: friends of ours, Tim and Ana Griggs, decided to take a job out of the area for the next eight months and offered their house to us. We leapt at the opportunity without thinking much about the significance with respect to the approved use of the Gatehouse. We moved out of the Gatehouse in June. With the current level of activity at Pitkin Reserve: it is convenient and very efficient for as to be working this close to our projects. And while it was never reflected in our Subdivision Agreement, it was always our intention to use the Gatehouse as a project office. From this locatiori.I can not only manage construction, but also provide the caretaker services that are a significant amenity of the Pitkin Reserve. It was our proposal that the Gatehouse be a caretaker/estate keeper facility, this was not a requirement of Subdivision or a GMP application. We built it as a project sawnity, not as a contribution to employee housing. I think we made an ample contribution of employee housing to the community with the upgrading and expansion of the Smuggler Mobile Home Park to an owner occupied cooperative of 104 trailers and 250 to 275 residents POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 • ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 12 • 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 page 2 We teal that our current use of the Gatehouse as a project office is appropriate in that it allows as to manage this project as closely, sensitively and efficiently as possible. We are in contact with our jobs on almost an hourly basis, if the office were in another location we would be doing an awful lot of commuting, probably from the Airport Business Center. The residents of pitkin Reserve are of course those most potentially impacted by my having a office in the Gatehouse, I know that they feel that my presence here is a real plus. I give them a great deal of personal attention and coordination their lifestyle needs with the construction process. I would like to come in and discuss the continued use of the Gatehouse as a project office through the completion of this project and I would be glad to tie that into some reasonable ticr*table My alternative is to relocate the office and put myself and family back into the Gatehouse, please give me a call when you have had a chance to think about this. I appreciate your consideration. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin cc: Bill Drueding lulpIuCO) RAk"IDili u TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement James Adamski, Housing Director Fred Gannett, City Attorney FROM: Janet Raczak, Housing RE: Pitkin Reserve Deed Restriction - Violation DATE: July 6, 1988 The information I have received indicates that there is a violation of the use of the employee unit located at Pitkin Reserve in that it is being used solely as office space for Michael Lipkin's architectural firm. The following is information compiled so far, to determine the exact deed restrictions on the employee unit. Research indicates that the following is a history of the restriction on the employee unit located at Pitkin Reserve. 1. PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve Section I.A.1. - The free-market units are restricted to 6 month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. Section I.A.2. - One employee unit was to be constructed, us and occupancy restricted, to a resident caretaker -employee for and of the owners of the free-market units. The caretaker -employee may be charged a monthly rental (which may be offset against salary) not to exceed employee "middle income" guidelines applicable at the time hereof. The employee housing unit may also include storage facilities for maintenance equipment and the like. Further, the Agreement in Section III. - Employee Housing and Dedication and Restriction states: "The Owner hereby covenants with the City that the employee unit described above in Section I . . . shall be restricted in terms of its use and occupancy to a resident caretaker -employee for and of the Owner of Lots 1-12 (or a collective association thereof), to whom a monthly rental (which may be offset against salary) may be charged not to exceed "middle income" guidelines from time to time established by the Cityif . NOTE: As you can see, Section I.A.2. deed restricts to middle income guidelines "at the time hereof" which the second reference to restriction states middle income guidelines "from time to time established by the City." This section further states: "In the event owners of Lots 1-12 . . . shall determine not to employ a resident caretaker -employee, as above provided, they (or it) shall have the right to lease the unit to an individual(s) who shall otherwise meet the income and occupancy eligibility requirements generally established and applied by the City in respect of employee housing and who may be charged a rent not in excess of "middle income" guidelines from time to time established by the City, the proceeds . Further, of as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City by any appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement, eviction or rescission of any non -complying tenency, for the period of life " Section VII.A. relates to other exemptions and states: "There are no exemptions from the application of Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code that apply in respect of the development activity contemplated for Pitkin Reserve. In the event the Owner hereafter agrees to deed restrict the employee housing unit to be installed on Lot 13 to low or moderate income and occupancy eligibility guidelines, the City agrees at that time, and upon the recording in Pitkin County real property records of such a restriction, to exempt the employee housing unit from the application of Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This paragraph indicates that there may possibly be a deed restriction which restricts the unit to low or moderate income levels instead. I will be researching the Clerk's records for any such restriction unless someone out there knows that this does not exist. Please let me know. Subsection C - Common Area -- Lot 13 states that this lot shall be improved with if . . . an employee -caretaker unit of approximately 800 square feet of living space, together with approximately 800 square feet for storage space . . . " 2. Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Pitkin Reserve This Amendment includes a change in Section III which only changes the number of lots from 1-12 to 1-9. Otherwise it states the same as the original PUD Agreement. Section IV.A of the Amendment changes Section VII - Other Dedications, subsection A. to Lot 10 instead of Lot 13. The Amendment changes Subsection C - Common Area -- Lot 13 to read Lot 10, and changes the access easement to 20 feet. 3. In Exhibit "A" to the Amendment - Development Summary and Site Tabulation the applicant refers to the Number of Units: as: 9 free market units 1 PMH rental unit. If the unit is, in fact, a PMH unit, then it should have been restricted to the Moderate income guidelines. If any of you have any information which I may not have found as yet, I would like to hear from you. In addition, if you don't have any other information, please let me know. As soon as I get responses from you, we will be able to start some type of corrective proceedings. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: June 21, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of a PUD Amendment for the Pitkin Reserve. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin. LOCATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way North of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. rip 4U t2 ,r 6 , 1 t e_ i�i.i. CEs:�� ed DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests that an lo,Wetrtstanding question of how to calculate FAR in the PUD be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. It was the applicants understanding that due to the substantial regrading on the site that the FAR calculations would be measured from finished grade rather than natural grade. This issue has been an on going question in the Building Department and Planning Office, therefore, the applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement in order to clarify the situation. cTb rA 1. VA"?_ Z The Applicant and the Planning Office are also reviewing the issue of how to calculate total FAR on the site. This will hopefully be taken care of by the time of the Planning Commission meeting, however the issue may be discussed at that time. HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve went through the process in 1982 and 1983 and has come in for several amendments regarding the PUD agreement. The latest PUD agreement was recorded in 1984. STAFF COMMENT: The project was a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the recontoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, it was agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. Unfortunately, we did not think to address FAR calculations at the same time, necessitating this further review. 0 • The project FAR is calculated under the old FAR methodology since the project began under those regulations. The new methodology allows the applicant to delete all areas which are subgrade'from the FAR calculations. The old methodology only allows for those areas which are 100% subgrade to be deleted from the FAR calculations. Therefore, under the new regulations a substantial amount of additional square footage could be added. The below grade area is not visible and in that sense does not increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. The Planning Office feels in general that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD Agreement to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade with the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit a revised copy of the PUD Agreement for approval by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This amendment shall reflect that the height and FAR for the structures shall be measured from finished grade. In addition, the PUD amendment shall state that the total developable square footage on site is 40,350 square feet plus a 1,000 square foot employee unit. CH.PITRES 2 a increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. The Planning Office feels in general that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD Agreement to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade with the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit a revised copy of the PUD Agreement for approval by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This amendment shall reflect that the structures shall be measured from finished grade. In addition, the PUD amendment shall state that the total developable square footage on site is 40,350 square feet plus a 1,000 square foot employee unit. CH.PITRES 2 fIIII I I I ° 11L lil �:• II � III �� w 11 li I !i I N 4 CITY F ASPEN APR 2 6 130 uth galena street asp Ni,3-925-2020 olorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 1988 TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: City Attorney RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment In addition to ordinary notice requirements, we recommend that notice be given to all owners of record who own property within the area contemplated by the original PUD. PJT/mc _r "L I P K I A S S O �,. I A T E S ARCH ITECTU R E& P L A N N I N G April14.1988 -windy Houbern Aspen%Pitkin Planning Office 137 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Door Cindy; Enclosed is Exhibit A - the F.A.R. Distribution At The Pitkin Reserve If this document is approved it will be recorded after the completion of the amendment process for The Pitkin Reserve PUP. If there is anything else I can supply you with just let me know Yours truly. Michael Lipkin POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET•NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 Post -it 'telephone message pad 7660 • To Date Time WHILE YOU WERE OUT M of Phone No - TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL BACK WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED Y UR CA L Message • f-C_G_. Operator Post -It 'telephone message pad 7660 To Date Time WHILE YOU WERE OUT M t, of � . . Phnne No TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL BACK WANTS TO SEE YOU T RETURN Mess ge' �. ' Operator 0 • DENSITY CALCULATIONS Total Acr cage Less Excluded Areas River 3.2637 ac. Floodplain 4.8652 ac. County Owned R.R. 5.9974 ac. Water Line 0.1911 ac. 26.08 acres 14.3174 ac. 14.3174 acres Slope Reduction - applied to 11.7626 acres 0-20% slopes- 7.5848 ac. x 100% = 7.5848 ac.. 21-30% slopes- 1.1640 ac. x 50% _ .5843 ac. 31-40% slopes- 1.0687 ac. x 25% _ .2671 ac. 40+ slopes- 1.8058 ac. x 0 = .0 8.4362 ac. Total Developable Area 8.4362 acres A do M F.A.R. DISTRIBUTION AT THE PITKIN RESERVE NUMBER OF UNITS 7 TOTAL DEVELOPABLE AREA 367,481 S.F. DEVELOPABLE AREA/LOT 52,497 S.F. fj ��i% • �� AVERAGE F.A.R./LOT 6,550 S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. 45,850 S.F. LOT 1 7,463 LOT 2 7,463 LOT 3 7,463 LOT 4 7,463 LOT 5 7,463 LOT 6 7,462 LOT 7 1,073 TOTAL F.A.R. 45,850 q�e � gu 'EXHIBIT A' ct�ly MA 2- March 22,1988 Cindy Houben AspenlPitkin Planning Office 137 South Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUTT Exclusion of built area below finished grade from calculation of FAR Dear Cindy, This letter is a formal application to the Asp. en Planning Office for the Third Amendment to The Pitkin Reserve PUD to allow for the calculation of below grade areas excluded from FAR to be determined from finished grade rather than natural grade. Pitkin Reserve was originally reviewed as a PUD back in 1981 and 1982. It was the only PUD I had ever worked on and the first one handled by Alan Richmond vho Wes:. then a stag' member of the Planning Office. Certain issues that were raised during the review process were never adequately reflected in the Subdivision Agreement, and Alan and I have been able to work together to resolve these fine points. However one issue continues to raise confusion with the Building Department - the exclusion from the calculation of FAR of areas that are belov finish grade but above natural grade. Alan Richmond feels that it is appropriate that this be resolved by an amendment to our PUD and another visit to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, Vhen The Pitkin Reserve vw originally reviewed it was made very clear that the hillside would be dramatically changed, the houses would be. plugged into the landscape rather than overhanging it, and there would be massive changes in the grading of the hillside. In his memo to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on September 8, 1981 and in his subsequent memo to the City- Council, Alan Richmond said that "the applicant has proposed a very enlightened approach toward site design and final landscaping of the property in the interests of creating privacy for the residents and to minimize the impact of the mass of the buildings. The design concept also takes advantage of solar orientation and uses the hillside by embedding the runts within it rather than having the houses project from it". Since that time we have. built three houses at The Pitkin Reserve and I think the success of this "enlightened approach" is very apparent. The houses sit well within the hillside and the terracing along the houses allows us to support a much richer landscape than the steep hillside was ever able to substain. POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 • ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 16 1 2 • 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 Pitkin Reserve is a PUD and to accomodate the construction v+ithin this massive regrading plan building heights have been varied to that they are measured from finished grade rather than natural grade. iiovrever it was never spelled out that FAR v oWd be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade and this is where the confusion sets in. The code measures building heights and the exclusion of below grade construction from FAR calculations from a common grade line. It is the intention of the code to regulate visible bulk and not that which is below grade and therefore has no visible impact. Because it is necessary for us to bear our foundations on undisturbed soils and then bring in massive amounts of fill to set the house within the hillside, we are trapping space below grade that has no Vindovrs or exterior access but could be very useful for storage, laundry or perhaps a gym/workout room. I have included drawings of Lots 3 or 4 where the situation becomes most accute. A visit to Pitkin Reserve will make apparent how comfortable and naturally these houses are fitting into the hillside and the success of our approach to regrade and rev+egetate this landscape. Finally Pitkin Reserve is a PUD, and when it went through the review process, the developable area and, therefore applicable FAR vim: greatly reduced in compliance with the Codes reduction in density for steep slopes. If I can supply any additional background or support materials please let me know. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin �t k, + DEVET.OPMF?4T 811MMARY i1ND 82 r Names TA Pit Number of units: 6 tree a{ark and 1 PMH re Amenities: caretaker/op storage , Unit Size: �t dev*1cpablik,i i•.A.R.�o:: f • .• resides f�, Project Populations approxit"b Parking: 2 indoo .100' 6 •paces. its d Structures: tree stands,' residences. ` Acreage, 26t acreq tit railroad rig Public open Space: lot acr0s.?. Development Site: 72 acres — Building coverages approximtely Paved Areas: approximately EXHIBIT "A" TO SECOND AMENCIMi SUBDIVISION ACREEIIF.NT FOR THE p -10+ .1 40 PITKIN RESERVE HOUSE THREE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ALLOVABLE FLOOR AREA• 6,925.00 S.F. LIVING AREAS APPLICABLE TO F.A.R. Lager Level Middle Level Upper Level (includes 10 S.F. garage) TOTAL AREAS NOT APPLICABLE TO F4A.R. Mechanical (sub basement) Garage ALLOVABLE NON SOUTH FACING GLASS AREA: (12.517. E 6,922.12 st.) 865.27 S.F. NON SOUTH FACING GLASS AREA Lover Level Middle Level Upper Level TOTAL Garage 2,582.76 3,324.05 1,015.31 6,922.12 S.F. 4 571.25 600.00 178.83 410.13 184.00 772.96 S.F. 13.23 2j1161- 616, (-:1 I r PITKIN RESERVE HOUSE THREE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 30 'F!� 4(� 7-2)�- ALLOg1ABLE FLOOR AREA_ 6,635• S.F. LIVING AREAS APPLICABLE TO F.A.R. DESCRIPTION Lower Level Middle Level Upper Level 2,625.75 3,123.90 891.90 6,631.55 TOTAL AREA APPLICABLE TO E.A.R. AREAS NOT APPLICABLE TO E.A.R. Mechanical (Below Grade) 200.00 72.00� Laundry (Below Grade) (Below Grade) . 00 0 Vine Storage Garage (Below Grade),,. 580 50 1586.00 Storage (Belot/ Grade) TOTAL AREA NOT APPLICABLE TO E.A.R. 1,918.75 TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE AT HOUSE THREE �""� � 8,550.30 TOTAL GLASS AREA: (12.57o X 6631.55 S.f. ) 828.44 OCR AT ION '* Lower Level 186.00 Middle Level 543.50 Upper Level 39.00 768.50 TOTAL GLASS PROPOSED ( '* SOUTH SIDES ARE NOT APPLICABLE) PITKIN' RESERVE - HOUSE 11 ALLOWABLE F.A•R. Total Developable Area (see attached sheet from preliminary submission) Divided by number of Units Allowable F.A.R./Unit 8.4362 acres 6 = 61,247 S.F. 6,724 S.F• r SUMMARY OF COUNTY TRADE AGREEMENT OF OCTOBER 7 Objectives 1980 * - Control scale of development to less than existing zoning density - Environmentally sensitive river front property to be restricted as open space - Evolution of going dispute concerning location of bike path - Owner to obtain more contiguous land to be associated with adjacent development Parties to Agreement - Pitkin County - Developer (Aspen Mountain Partnership) Agreement Concept I- County and Owners trade by deed, in order to relo- cate right of way providing larger area for project's open space I - County agres to facilitate annexation of developed property to the City of Aspen Agreement Specifies - County and owners trade, by mutual conveyances, properties described specifically in Settlement Agreement exhibits to effect relocation of right of way - Development on Pitkin Reserve will be limited to 12 units, on that portion of the property north of the revised right of way - All property south of the right of way, adjacent to the Roaring Fork River, will remain park and open space N - The general public will retain access to the relocated right of way and park space, and development will not intrude on recreational use of the public land - Pitkin County agrees to cooperate in facilitating the annexation of this property by the City of Aspen - Any disruption to existing trails will be repaired by owner *The Agreement was later amended (June 1, 1981) in order to permit consideration by the City of the inclusion of a caretaker unit. 8( i k q r AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the-7 4L day of Qc 4tr, 1980, by and between ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK, a Colorado general partnership ("AMP") and THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ("County") W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, AMP is the owner of certain real property more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto through which runs a strip of real property formerly known as the Aspen Branch right-of-way of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Right of Way") more particularly described in Exhibit "B" hereto; and WHEREAS, the County has an interest in the Right of Way by virtue of those certain instruments of purported conveyance recorded in Book 312 at Page 560 et seq. in Book 310 at Page 340 and in Book 243 at Page 217 of the Pitkin County records, copies of which are attached hereto marked collectively Exhibit "C"; andl WHEREAS, the County and AMP are, subject to the terms and conditions hereinbelow contained, mutually desirous of con- trolling the development of the Exhibit "A" property to the end that development is restricted to those areas of the property lying to the north of the Right of Way, as the same shall be relocated to the area described on Exhibit "D" hereto, and all areas to the south of the relocated Right of Way shall thereupon be and remain park and open space. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and thel making and keeping of the mutual covenants and obligations here- inafter contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. MUTUAL CONVEYANCES. As soon hereafter as in the circumstances may be practical, AMP and the County shall each cross convey by Bargain and Sale Deed, unto each other such of their respective interests in the Exhibit "A" and "B" properties as may be required to effect the relocation of the Right of Way to the location described in Exhibit "D" hereto. There shall at all times thereafter be afforded to the general public access over the relocated Right of Way for purposes of ingress to and egress from the park and open spaces hereinbelow described. 2. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. AMP agrees that development activity on the Exhibit "A" property, modified as above provided, shall be restricted and subject to the following: a. Development shall not exceed twelve units, some or all of which may be clustered at various locations on that portion of the Exhibit "A" property available for development, as below provided. b. Development shall be restricted to that portion of the Exhibit "A" property lying to the north of the relocated Right of Way, such that the portion of the Exhibit "A" property lying to the south of the relocated Right of Way shall be and remain park and open space, all of which shall be confirmed by recorded deed restriction, easement or the like, as the County shall deem appropriate. C. Development shall be done in a manner not inconsistent with the use at anytime hereafter of the relocated Right of Way for railroad purposes. I d. Development shall proceed in the manner least in the circumstances intrusive upon the recreational uses to which the Right of Way, relocated as above provided, has been and is put and AMP shall, as promptly as in the circumstances may be practical, restore and realign any trails or other systems, including sewer systems and appurtenant easements, that might be disturbed in connection with the development and, at its own cost,' relocate any portion of such trails or other systems that may in the circumstances be required, and grant such easements therefor -2- _ r as may be necessary. . e. Development shall be set back from the re- located Right of Way by no less than fifteen (15) feet. 3. COOPERATION. The County agrees to cooperate, including if necessary by joining therein, in such proceedings as may be necessary in order to cause the annexation of the Exhibit "A" property by the City of Aspen, for the purposes and as is more clearly set forth in a Settlement Agreement by and among AMP, the City of Aspen and the Smuggler Trailer Park Homeowners' Association. The parties agree to execute such other and further documents hereafter as may reasonably be necessary in order more fully to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. 4. CLOSING. The closing of this Agreement and the delivery of the instruments of conveyance described in Paragraph 1 hereinabove shall be conditioned upon and shall occur upon and in conjunction with the adoption by the City of Aspen of a Specially Planned Area plan for the development of the Exhibit "A" property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this AGREEMENT the day and year first above written. ATTEST: ---- lkw � V, ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership By Ilk -I' �7 Alexander E. Lipkin, A General Partner PITKIN COUNTY by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County The foregoing terms, conditions and provisions are approved and accepted this day of _ 1981. I Attest: THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY By a r AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT S� THIS AMENDMENT is made this day of -Af—, , 1981, to that certain Agreement dated October 7, 1981, by and between Aspen Mountain Park, a Colorado general partnership ("AMP") and the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ("County"), to which Agreement this Amendment shall be attached. W I T N E S S E T H The parties hereby mutually agree that notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2a of the Agreement above -described, AMP shall, in connection with its seeking the approval of the City of Aspen to the development activity contemplated by the Agreement, as well, have the right to seek the approval of the City of Aspen for one (1) additional unit to the twelve (12) units described in the Agreement; provided, however, that such unit (a) shall not exceed 700 square feet of living space in size, exclusive of space for the storage of utility and mainten- ance apparatus, which storage space shall not exceed 1250 square feet; (b) shall be used only as a caretaker -employee unit for a (caretaker -employee of the owners (or an association thereof) of jthe twelve (12) units to which this caretaker -employee unit shall lbe a common appurtenance; and (c) shall, as with the twelve (12) units, be constructed to the north (above) the relocated right- of-way; and provided further that the City of Aspen shall be free Ito impose any further limitations or restrictions, including with respect to size, that it determines to be appropriate in connec- tion with any approval of the additional unit hereby contemplated. In all other respects, the parties' Agreement above -described is unchanged and unmodified and is in full force and effect as writte 447 p 5� F Al•'ENDMENT mn PUD AND SURDIVISIQN AC—REEMENT ,JU4 1j 4 21 (U—� � FO_R _PITKIN RRSLRVlr THTS AMENDMENT d+Y of ,January, 1983, is made end entered COLORADO, a municipalby nratlond be 'en Tiff CI into aPFNf the loth City"), PTTKIN corpo IhereinafterOF AR referred to as "LIMITED, a Colorad- cor referred the Owner" P°ratior. (hereinafter to s general partnership Ihereinefter ASPPrefered MOUNTAIN PARR +e AMP")° Colorado RF.CC,TAI,S certain P111. The City, end SuhdivisionnAgrrementPfare parties to that corded i nrealk 423 at Pages 117- 116 of Pitkin re - or Pi Reserve Agreement)• property records (the PUD the Pitkin County, an'} Subdivision 2• Pursuant to Section V Agreement and to to 24-8.26 of the PUD City of Aspen, Colorado of the and Subdivision dated October 12 the he did by Code of The Owner's Memorandum1982 (which letter Y letter application an amendment of December 10 M2) 'uPPlen,ented b to the PUD and Subdivision Petition Y the ubdivision A the City for 3 greement• of 'to PlanningFollowing the recommendation e a its City Councileaa ihel�g on City, pprOVe1 therefor January 10 my conatitutedhe y, actin the PUD 1983, approved the meeting q through Of Confirming anSubdivision A Petition of the g thereof held herein Agreement end Owner to amend amendments. Now, such the the Parties are desirous THERF.FORF, en'1 setting forth such AMENDMENTS IN CONSIDFRATTON of the contained herein and in the• pUD and Parties herebyPremises, the mutual covenants Agreement foregree to and do amondsuhdivision Agreement, the enythin Pitkin Reserve tjs followse pUD and Subdivision q for to tha contrary contained and notwithstanding AmendedI.it is agreed that, and ceusad F—recr Final Plat. The at Page to be recor e e mu teneoual parties have of the Pitkin C Y herewith executed records Of plat County, Colorado in Plat Book "Amended Plat"), which th�°,f The Pitkin P real property accepted as Owner has eserve (hereinafter Pitkin Reserve (a) supercedin submitted and the City eserve recorded in Plat g °f the Final p Y has ook 12 at pa plat for The pages 91-100 of the 00, Pitkln County, BAN 447 conformal„•, Colorado real property approvsle"Ith the pfirntea,d n A3n0PmentoforrThedP and the PUA (b) !n amended• van and ltkin Reservv sr above recited, as Plan, II Amendments to :action I - General Dove nt opment Parcel, A• The third sentence is emended to read as f of subsection A ollowat nevsl- "APProximetel)• 76% of been subdividedsthe DevolopmentParcel has contruction into o fee simple lots that area. Tlimited to approximately with herefore all construction50l of take place to the north of the Greenbelt Line deslgneted on the P will south of that Plat, with all land to the vIIIOmmonl line remeasing a$ o Pace to Y maintained Pen s Paragraph C, below "provided in Section Lots 1-12 B. Subparagraph I is amended to read as followst Market Develop., .. t _ "(11 Pr__•e Market Develo 9 - ant - Lots 1 throw h The Development p than nine s Parcel shall contain not more lute, each esmhcwn a"atelyadeaignated fee simple Plat. Each such fee sim le on t.ye augmented in size b simple lot ohm ll Amended (1-9th) interest my an undivided be deed component Lot 10 _ one -ninth below• °f the uevelo - the Common Area a., Prior to its ,.o�ent Parceldescribed o Y third party, each on yanoe h, deed or covenant eachreptfee simple lot a Owner t shall provide Pon such all be such fee that in the event an terms as simple lot shall wish to 10480the home constructed o elzsuch lease r to be constructed thereon (6) month terms shall, at a mini (2) shorter duration with no sore �, be of manta tenancies per then two of conveyance to an year, and the docu- shall, as well, ex Y such fee simple lot Property is so restricted,:ecite that the subsection A is amended Subparagraph 3 amended to read - Common Area - Lot 13, of as f011ower -2- i "(3) Privatel om 447 pu 61 APProshallx�ete y ow Area consist - 1pt 10, shall be of commonly owned eareaent arse] owned by the owners of Lots Iwhich nonpartitionable undivided appurtenanc9as a their lots, The Common et Area shall he managed and maintained as provided in Section VIII, Paragraph C, below. The deed restricted employee housing unit shall be looted in Lot and SubdivisionDA The site data Agreement tabulations annexed to the PUD °uPerceded by the as Exhibit "C" are dFleted and annexed as Exhibit ���mmnrl� tr,C Tito Data are hereto -A-. hereby Space I ]as E• The heading of S and the 14, to to reed "h "Ction followstest fulI sentence of Subsection Open ection b is B - Public Open Space - Lot 11, amended to read ship of Pitkintkin Counttyy such open space shall , Colorado elwe s / rovida be in that the benefit o�'�'�---b however, and open space restriction and dedication ��ri ec specifically enforceable by (1) the City be f2) the Owner, its successors assigns, includin grenteesya�ad�Or tion thereof) of 9 the owners for n an ment Parcel,- Lots 1-9 within associa- the Develop- Pitkin Reserve Amendments to Section II - In hereby amended to Subsection C - Develo -_- of the nineteen provide that nine Pment Allotmenta, is units f19) otherwise (9) rather than twelve I1?) at therSmulting from the converaionxendt free_m uggler Mobile le construction housing tion with The Pitkin Re ore Park are to be Processes Reserve utilised in connec- hereb B• Subsection C - Develo mean y further amended by the addition of sentence, P t Allotments, is the following new "All of the nineteen free market housing 119► otherwise utilized g unit developmentnr1exempt In connection with the actual ghts not construction Of homes at The transfer shell he Pitkin Reserve retained by Owner and shall be freely able to other properties . and -3- a■ NAI F a n 447 m;: 62 develoble.these pur Pment proP'aal poses, however, u any Portion of the free m tilisinq ell or an develol,ment rights housing y shalleL applicable be subject unit Municipal processes all the Code satorth° single ode of the Cit in The Management ionSystem, underpthi Growth he necessary.- �Ota 8 which shall not be , Iv, Restriction,'endmenta to Lin la ee He:sin ere y emended n ic'lts P oyes pediCation and entirety on to read s r c on, a as follows that The Owneemploy hereby the pmpl° ee with the covenants City 8aetion I, deaeriyed Paragraph above In terms of i g ph J1121 shall be in In terms0 is use and restricted Ployee for and to a resident I-9 for r a collective of and of the Owner whom a monthly rental cation thereof), against to salary) may (which may be offset middle ■ bcharged Income, not to exceed guidelines establishee b hecit from owners of Y the City, In tine to time tiveent the thereof) shall eecermini Collectiveassociation resident caretaker- emplo employ a they (or it) shall have the'raa above provided, unit to an Individual(s) ight to leasemeet who the the income and shall otherwise re uirs a y eligibility e generally lyCu by the cittin established beYchar?epect of + "middlwho e nmLloyee housing and Income -gad a rent in excess of established b guidelines from time to time shall the City, be used to the related to defray Proceeds of which costa essocietadcommon maintenance and facilities used in commonwbth Lot 10 or association thereof) the °they goingowners (or an of Lots 10 acovenant shall 1-9• The fore - a burAen to thoretoeforemed run with Lot shall be a the benefit Of by pePiiatelle any a enforceable y and injunction' r gal action Inc the city abatement, luding Of an eviction the lifeforrthe6periodnof the ofthel]onvestnlivin presently existing City Council of Aspen, Colorado, Plus twenty-one t of for a period of fiftyY of recordirhe (S0) years f Years, or ? reof in the �c°+uncye date i Pitkin -1- wa 447 p4a 63 colcrA40 rQal property records, whichever period'ehall be less.. Wa V• Amendments and Relo,•,,t to Section VI one. - EesPments Pi hts of amended to readAas sejiOP.efatory 1"g usge In Section VI is "The Amended Plat sets forth certain easem"'ts, rights of way, and antics improvements that will be necessary to ceu.e the improvements be thereon, which ease - the f, rights of way, and relocations include the followings• amended to B' Subsection D reed as follow.• - Access Easement, IN hereby "The owner hereby dedicates and grants owner(•) of :.ate 1-9 of The Pitkin Reserve the twont unto the shownyendot 120-) access and utility easement their indicated on the Amended Plat solo and exclusive use and an for that of their truest•, invit,•os and licensees.• joyment and VI. Amendments to Section VII - Other A. Dedications, Exemption, is The second sentence emended to read a. f of Subsection A - " ollowes In the event the Owner hereafter a deed restrict the em,otployee housing installed uric• to and upon 119 to to low or moderateunit d be occupancy eligibility qufAelines agrees at that time income the Pitkin Count and 'Pon the recording iln a restriction y real property records of unit from the �aPPlicationtof he employ°° housing the Aspen Muni,ipal Code,• Section 2 of o—le to read ea ion S - Land folls. Subsect ows• Dedication, is am ended "In respect Of the free-market development Occur on and within Lots 1-9 and housing unit to �A°lo to be installed the emPloy°° lltjnh°reby (1) accept. the A�di�n Lot tlo10 the tions ,he manner and upon the torms and Lot et forth in Section I, Paragraph eondi- above, in lieu Of the cash payment referred to -5- I 1 r BOON 447 P46E 64 in Section JO-l8 of 12) ronfirmR the Alpen Munir.l al valuation of es accurate end a P Codet Perk DedicationtF11 and cceptR the in the Land y se ban calculation calculation of the calculation !al"atio^ thereupon set forth ttached a i Park Dedication Fee (1) agrees that hereto an Fxhibit " eufficlent the value of Lot I1 G 1 and Section 10_18 least to meet the °° such to . aforesr requirements of requirement of the id concernin dedication," g the vrr, AmendCow^ Area Menamenment to Section VIII t, a--^te^ance ai-a-,, _ en Space and as follows; A. :;uhAection A general, is amended to read "The Amended plat provides fr,t• a inter Al open space dedicated for Parcel Inter Of the cit then ponent of the Uevelo and a commons benefit, undivided ownership Pme^t Parrr•l area provided, shall bopinf which, as her^;ne ch above rately designated fee simple °f the se pectiv�e responsive si ple lots, 1-9 sops- Respective and agre@mentm , limitations, ment, m�intenence end rs9ardin inrludin use of the g the men°ge_ Line, and commono the Routh of thep�reen epace' ment Parcel area component ofnbelt include the followinq,■the Develop - Lot 18 amended tSubsection 8 _ Publicl Co reed ee follows: y Owned Open s 1 "Publicl pace fi-n-_Y Owned ° _e owne en 9 ace -- Lot as such shell ^ ounty, oloradot 11 entl i ma^a9sA and maintained and, y and °^tirely by Pitkin framework as Count hin hall not be it may establish b within urpowea in inconsistent with the but which edicatedas pa pe ova set t for which thepla space respect referenceeises forth, and In land was rights of the Cit Pacifically made \Section r, y therein, as describetoithe paragraph g, above.• hereby amendedd�4_ '* subsection c ` tosad as follows, Common Area - 1 - Lot rJ, is "C. PrivatoI - Lot 11J"an rea Owned Common Area Iot 'reen e t 10, --� __T ne w thin Z -6- :a- "-Nk m 447 Pact 65 lots 1-9 - The common area component of the Development Parcel aha]1 in its entirety be th owned i) common by the owner• of hots 1-9, the owner(s) of each lot to own an undivided Interest therein as a non -severable appurte- nant• to his or her lot, As Indicated else - will ba where herein and upon the Amended Plat, Lot 10 unit of Improved with an employ,N -caretaker space, DProxlmat0ly Soo square feet of living feet for storage Space, approximately sOp Square twenty -foot 20, •Pace, will accommodate a lots and for' ) easement for access to the the landscaping Purposes and will support once of p 9 Plan. Management and wainten- CreenbeltoLi10 ne within the area South of the responribilit Lots 1-9 Shall be the association consistinollective homeowners' 1-9 and shall b g of the owners of Lots such and sh ll by it be undertaken pursuant to recorded covenants Shall be set forth in and procedures goverProvining theing for such policies maintenance of governing the use and maintenance b the common area, including for asasssudya budgets and financial reserves to be insure against association ne•�Ders, and shall maintenanceanontthe fit and proper first rate safayy repair, replacement and enduring development, Includin and quality of the entire coasson utility systems and its landsoaped features, Responsibility of the assoclPatlonaved area•. respect may by it be contractually in this a private property managee►ent c y delegated to •a]Srled employee of the a,soelaotP4ny or to a following as well shall apply to the Thu association hereinabove referred toy• Subsection D. eubparagrarti (3) - Mu0bershi is hereby amended to read asP Mandatory, of follows, 0(3) Memberahl Mandator associat on • a e man ator�rship in the of the fee Simple lots Y for each owner f automatic u (1-9) and shall be aunt automatic upon the arecoation of any Ont transferringlegalequitableinst re to (O an g standard security interests) iineorat Y of such lots.* amended to read"ar follow.�graph 15) of Subsection t , is hereby -7- e, aw -WWAW Ate. an 447 ,w 86 .The `""ska.rurs• as on hall �` Mr' lM2v.ewls~entsiwhtctl will w it'a he PC rpa" „ * fee s t asp t o ' n. �'osfe d oslntLlnina �- Paying the ccs♦ �!� t1 �,ffor '�' fa'ilftlest otr M and r, 4110ndod tti read as lolllo *IraM+ 161 Of fatb,.low ►oard of MOn"ors Zso.•ist� shall c°nsls' t ars• �bRrs lots (1_" vs�iw heo�ers of the f etslapl)1 SubPa tteded b +s r•cov Yrthe Dsclarl ��t� ar *""to rafwrree to to or 1WO ►itkin iheseOf �'enants, l«� ai r _ Provided that •hse ,der r'e lvre!,o aR Coodn_xdi t i ons and hereby the saws to*srsearv.s t right .os Flefblt prm and subdivlsiow Aqr 09 Provithe rthsretor as the �Iarhi� �'ett. as -sde in ••,e hereby asis .' tro rs� as fOj j f ltul leina Pestrfcty�s. f c owe der oarOadwees Pin °f units thsa� is! i ''�venants that ihs lheits p shall a be built yithfo the unit and thatDas ��l aesp"d snine netafree be l esq q�n • rwa s shown on t,ys ker at so Porpetual1v�f or c`�n area she11Oresin I. deleted in its entirety, cinn . - Party Nall b+claratfow, is ' Ave L4Rb VIII, Jya*►dWoents to Xocti" ' s"tonce o ct on X is y*Me4 • road s 1X -Meter Ii s sec 'A l6 !oIlosesr porav r Parcel aVin vaterllos crosses . as show, on the yt will w lots and 91 Ind ywdeQh/i �/lle, she"s.0lnstallyd as nh� ater �rrl iloss onthe utility rCe ca Ix' ►-rhfbtc c �ulatlan is fe - Land valuation Park e uat M an ark fie- an anQ 4aicatlorr Exhibit -r- Dadt.-s.l� superce fee Calculattoet h,erw of •nest as -v- It i am 447 ev 67 extent rx X. Remainirq Provisions U Inconsistent a preaml era ne ave Rat rafteCted ant herewith, ng anT ex;, Except to the Subdivision A the remainin sof a manifestly effect as tt,. nt for Pitkin g provisions h& the PUO end the PitkinwCountn and recorded Reserve are in gook unchanged and in Y, Colorado real 12J et Pages 417 - 116 of property records, Amendment IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the of the IOttodPOD and Suhrlivision Apatties have executed this y of January, 1903. grP`'ment fir Pitkin Reserve as ATTEST; CITY OF ASPEN, .`+unicipal orporation Pre- r� "r �...:r^ 6ocur. •� ATi'ESTr P1T11IN LIMITED corporation a Colorado �lt / e t�V g u sa, cre sry ' Y ee n, ras on ASPEN MOUNTAIN general/ PARK, a Colo> / / rtnor hi L AY o an a partner, by.Rcbe n, a genera his attorne t W. Hughes, STATE OF COLORADO Y"in- act COUNTY Of PITRIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged day If Aspen, and9eJ' by WILLIAM L. STIRLING, before I Of Aspen, attested by as Mayor me this �MRyW Ceti► Clerk the � City WITNESS my hand and offs r•, MY commission expiresr qqta} seal. ec:,t' 7/!AP /r6 N'otary�Q lltr Addreast "ft • \ \ UAy ;F C'' lack �:wEPr �K kk -' FOPC NON, MoTct��td Ni AND -K, "t • 1 IN P DL-'7K j t�- f iNlPv7t°r V�' 1 `�� ''t,S 1C�t'i AF4 �1,r ', 1't Hrocefs', It t— R 35 TIL ' • '4C"f�EV5 TO �' v un uy _WIC �? A�N6ALL 44alNGTf LINLE� ..; ANC �►+z '�? , i' ',/7.' ` -► A6t2FF_S r F •a?r + 1 ` \ti i�j► y� ��F 4tVD ��E'SCRtF'T7p�P1�ANL' fZ6r�1eC�LR ;; •�-•._._..--' ~ -? r---, ,.`:;"' i_ L • 3gG►.2a . i f �� cogs ?ar�.,ne,� �►„�PLfTCN � �' x� re- __- . ,W21 Z4 ir. .+� \\ \ Chi :NG'.a THfRECXyi 'f :� �_. : �_• J i . IRANr ,, ``�`' � • >\1''"' � /• 'GI'{��E\`\\ cr�y oTLiE6A�- OyyN-E_f ��. �,• r-u;.c:-•''t •,f.,o,�� MoM j �� -U'F`tgTMIETt�7 3G 14.44 T32Fxrr 0AMC Fta'r''09'E 3itGb scW�ApIJ� c 1(r2.4 t"r aorar co,eEarA� t \ - ��__ _ -A" �+' #4bc PptJL' TIAIL inew{�T `�•�� ♦ r ~ram + 8 t ci ! / Z \ :`,`� FT AM • \� �LIMIT � TI��--KW4A$ tMp At�y OF g or C'tZ �e ANp OMM �' T} ... - rioN Ica, ~ 'E 41, V ` wmof i` ; ` �► Am ET yjvE cj74,crAW vim, �A RAT (( i +�► ` \77 ► ,'+L •` IN, vc I 0434 AC 10 Woo t t IAMENDE D PLAT INAGE WEST era AN EAST �dw - ►' 3� �f � � LOUT • ��•�. t�'ap�W cat! ?� �tET Tohn ��i �J[{' • E ���r SMER LINE f r;. TE TICN,I/ W. *T/lTC G` Q ft"low" It PAM ME/lUNIT FLAN E ISrAFE PLAT - Uft& Wl& MOM_W. 1 7D A i IA 3 � 4 E''�'*E' Tms $ ,- AO TTk � �P 94 ThL try AM