HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment.1989Pitkin Reserve Amendment to PUD
ScA-k) Ax--b a 3/m
It
•
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 sI'
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
Gide*aufman
2/4/92
Diane:
Per your request.
lt344694 O 1 / 1 i / Win
:.-28 fCec $1-S- Cep Pl' 667Silvia Davi.�i, Ciity CIL-r•I;, Doc
I1FG 3 0 -
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 TELEPHONE
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 AREA CODE 303
925.8166
ASPEN, COLORADO 91E11 TELEFAX 925,1090
December 19, 1991
Diane Moore
city Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen CO 81611
Re: Pitkin Reserve Lot 6 FAR Qu65tion
Dear Diane:
Pursuant to our meeting with Bill Drueding and Ron Austin, I
write this letter to confirm the understanding we reached with
the Planning office and Zoning office concerning Pitkin Reserve
Lot 6 and its FAR so that my client can purchase Lot 6. This
agreement will serve to supersede the letter written by you on
�} October 31, 1991, to Marc Friedberg and the conclusions
contained therein. It became apparent to all of us during our
meeting that, with the additional information presented, a
different, interpretation than contained in your October 31,
1991, letter is appropriate. The owner of Lot 6 Pitkin Reserve
subdivision granted an access easement across her property as
reflected in Book 607 at Page 806 and rerecorded in Book 609 at
Page 874. The granting of this easement affected the lot area
eligible for FAR calculations.
As verified on the attached letter from Jim Reser, the total
square footage of the easement is 3,968 square feet; therefore,
the lot area eligible for FnR calculations would be reduced by
3,968. In the R-30 Zone on lots over 15,000 feet, you get six
feet of FAR for every hundred square feet of lot area.
The 31968 square feet would, therefore, deduct 240 feet of FAR
from what is currently permitted. The FAR on the site was set
in the Amendment to Reallocate FAR of the Pitkin Reserve dated
June 30, 1987, and signed by Alan Richman, Planning Director,
and it shows an FAR of 6,724 square feet for Lot 6. When you
reduce 240 square feet 6,724 square feet, the FAR allowed on
Lot 6 would be 6,484 square feet. It is the intent of the
parties that this letter shall serve to confirm that after the
grant of easement permitted FAR for Lot 6 is 6,484 square feet.
This letter is being signed by the current owner of Lot 6,
Helen E. Bahl, and will be signed by you as the Planning
Director and Bill Drueding on behalf of the Zoning office. It
is further our intent to record this letter so that everyone is
aware of the modified FAR, as well as the grant of easement.
1:3. 22 F'I'ec '£ 15j, CSC; V667 F'G 62
Sil.vi 17,avi.s, Pi-FRin CnLy Clerk, Doc $.00
We appreciate your willingness to work with us and help to come
up with a fair and equitable resolution to this matter.
GK/b
cc: Ron Austin
Marc Friedberg
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
BY 1_
--
Gideo aufman
Di_"�e Moore, City of Aspen Planning Director
Bill Drueding, Cit .6f Aspen Zoning Office
Hii an E. Bahl
11,341-1694
-k 1 5�, -o 6:3 9-:L 1. v i tol 17/92 1 F:
CnfY Clerk, Doc: $.C)I)
• AII)MG Surveys, Inc_
PostOffice Box 1730
ASpet), Colorado 81612
303 925 2608
I)F'(% 3 1 1, ,
Deoember 26, 1991
Gideoll Eaufmal,
315 E. Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Gideon:
This is to confirm calculation of the area of
the 20 feet wide access easement across Lot 6,
Pitkin Reserve at 3968 square feet.
sincerely you,
J a4� -` el:
Z
JFR/nil
0
cr_
v"
Lo
W
C
C=
Cn
cn o
U
.
a a`
�1
�
�
a
_—
>z
N Z
CW)
a¢
NOTICE OF ACTION OF
CITY COUNCIL CLARIFING
APPROVED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that:
WHEREAS, the owner ("Owner") of Lots 3 and 4 of The
Pitkin Reserve, according to the Second Amended Plat thereof
recorded June 25, 1984 in Plat Book 16 at Pages 15, et sect., of
the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records has sought
from the City of Aspen clarification that its usage (for
storage, gym and circulation purposes) of some 2,260 square
feet of space resulting from the below -grade structural ele-
ments of the house constructed on Lot 3 and the house being
constructed on Lot 4 is not includable within the total build-
ing square footage of 40,350 square feet approved for all the
lots comprising The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Office and the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission have considered the foregoing
request for clarification, along with the history of the
approvals culminating in The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision, the
fact that those approvals were given at a time when, unlike
now, the method of calculating floor area ratio did not take
into account that portion of a building structure lying below
grade, and that the space involved in the request of the Owner
lies entirely below grade, already exists and no additional
bulk to the total building mass approved for The Pitkin Reserve
would result and, based thereon, have each recommended that the
clarification sought by the Owner be given; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the
request aforesaid of the Owner for clarification along with the
recommendation of the Aspen Planning Office and the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission and is of the same view;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Aspen City Council of the City of
Aspen hereby gives notice to all now or hereafter acquiring any
interest in The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision that the utilization
by the Owner (s) of Lots 3 and 4 of The Pitkin Reserve, their
heirs, successors, grantees and assigns of the 2,260 square
feet above described resulting from the below -grade con-
struction of the structural elements of the two houses does not
count against and shall not be considered to have consumed any
portion of the total building square footage of 40,350 square
feet approved by the City for The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Notice is made and given,
effective as of the loth day of October, 1988, for the purpose
of its recordation in the Pitkin County, Colorado, real
property records in order to impart notice hereof
Pony 588 PAGE L �
to all hereafter acquiring any manner of interest in The Pitkin
Reserve.
� F " ATTES ,
ath* jn Koch
City Csrk
OF COLORADO )
s s .
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE CITY OF ASPEN,
a municipal corporation
Bv:
William L. Stirling, M er
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /'"_ day of
1989, by William L. Stirling, 3ayor, and
Katherine Koch, City Clerk, respectively.
,y,L+�"•:Sig ,.,
x'.`. Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:0 TA
%'� U8"� lol"
taoublic
e
Cr t t
IWAM
1 6
N
to
CD
N
`
W
C MI
y
468 53
wa
�
zo
�
N
ca [C
co SECOND AMENDMENT TO PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
f- ~
w Uz m FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE
a;
n_ _cv —
x
�Bj WRX57H THE AMENDMENT
PITKIN RESERVE RECORDED
COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS
TO PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE
IN BOOK 447 AT PAGES 59-87 OF THE PITKIN
IS TO BE SUPERCEDED IN ITS ENTIRETY)
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the 19th
day of March, 1984, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"),
PITKIN LIMITED, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to
as "the Owner"), and ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK, a Colorado general
partnership (hereinafter referred to as "AMP")
RECITALS
1. The City, Owner and AMP are parties to that
certain PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve re-
corded in Book 423 at Pages 417-446 of the Pitkin County,
Colorado real property records (the PUD and Subdivision Agree-
ment), and the Amendment thereto dated as of the loth day of
January, 1983, and recorded in Book 447 at Pages 59-87 of those
records.
2. Pursuant to Section V of the PUD and Subdivision
Agreement and to Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code of The
City of Aspen, Colorado, the Owner did by letter application
dated December 21, 1983, petition the City for a second amend-
ment to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement.
3. Following the recommendation of approval therefor
of its Planning and Zoning Commission, the City, acting through
its City Council at the duly constituted meeting thereof held
March 19, 1984, approved the petition of the Owner for a second
amendment to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement and the parties
are desirous of confirming herein such approval and setting
forth such amendments. NOW, THEREFORE,
AMENDMENTS
IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, the mutual covenants
contained herein and in the PUD and Subdivision Agreement, the
parties hereby agree to and do amend the PUD and Subdivision
Agreement for Pitkin Reserve as follows, and by these presents
do hereby supercede for all purposes the Amendment to PUD and
Subdivision Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book
447 at Pages 59-87 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property
records, and notwithstanding anything in either the Agreement or
the Amendment to the contrary contained it is agreed that:
SECTION 04 468 F,,'��_854
I. Second Amended Final Plat. The parties have
executed and caused to be recorded simultaneously herewith in
Plat Book L at Pagei -17of the Pitkin County, Colorado real
property records the Second Amended Plat of The Pitkin Reserve
(hereinafter "Amended Plat"), which the Owner has submitted and
the City has accepted as being (a) superceding of the Amended
Plat for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 92,
et sec., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records;
and (b) in conformance with the proposed development for The
Pitkin Reserve and the PUD approvals first given and, as above
recited, as amended.
SECTION TWO.
All reference hereinafter is to the PUD and Subdivi-
sion Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 423 at
Pages 417-466 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property
records, to wit:
I. Amendments to Section I - General Development
Plan.
A. The third sentence of subsection A - Devel-
opment Parcel, is amended to read as follows:
"Approximately 79% of the Development Parcel
has been subdivided into 6 fee simple lots with
construction limited to approximately 50% of
that area by established building envelopes."
B. Subparagraph 1 - Free Market Development -
Lots 1-12, is amended to read as follows:
"(1) Free Market Development - Lots 1 through
6.
The Development Parcel shall contain not more
than six separately designated fee simple lots,
each as shown and noted on the Second Amended
Plat. Each such fee simple lot shall be deemed
augmented in size by an undivided one -sixth
(1-6th) interest in Lot 7 -- the Common Area
component of the Development Parcel described
below. Prior to its conveyance by the Owner to
any third party, each fee simple lot shall be
deed or covenant restricted upon such terms as
shall provide that in the event an owner of
such fee simple lot shall wish to lease the
home constructed or to be constructed thereon
any such lease terms shall, at a minimum, be of
-2-
8OUIA 468 P.1G 855
six (6) month duration with no more than two
(2) shorter tenancies per year, and the docu-
ments of conveyance to any such fee simple lot
shall, as well, expressly recite that the
property is so restricted."
C. Subparagraph 3 - Common Area - Lot 13, of
subsection A is amended to read as follows:
"(3) Privately Owned Common Area - Lot 7.
Approximately 21% of the Development Parcel
shall consist of commonly owned area, which
shall be owned by the owners of Lots 1-6 as a
nonpartitionable undivided appurtenance to
their lots. The Common Area shall be managed
and maintained as provided in Section VIII,
paragraph C, below. The deed restricted
employee housing unit shall be located in Lot
7."
D. The site data tabulations annexed to the
Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement as Exhibit "A" are
deleted and hereby superceded by the Summary and Site Data
Tabulations hereto annexed as Exhibit "A".
E. The heading of Subsection B - Public Open
Space - Lot 14, is amended to read Public Open Space - Lot 8,
and the last full sentence of Subsection B is amended to read as
follows:
"Ownership of such open space shall be in
Pitkin County, Colorado; provided, however, and
always, that the benefit of the above -described
open space restriction and dedication shall be
specifically enforceable by (1) the City and/or
(2) the Owner, its successors, grantees and
assigns, including the owners (or an associa-
tion thereof) of Lots 1-6 within the Develop-
ment Parcel."
II. Amendments to Section II - Interrelation of The
Pitkin Reserve and Smuggler Mobile Home Park.
A. Subsection C - Development Allotments, is
hereby amended to provide that six (6) rather than twelve (12)
of the nineteen (19) otherwise nonexempt free-market housing
units resulting from the conversion and construction processes
at the Smuggler Mobile Home Park are to be utilized in connec-
tion with The Pitkin Reserve.
-3-
Bou 460FacF856
B. Subsection C - Development Allotments, is
hereby further amended by the addition of the following new
sentence:
"All of the nineteen (19) otherwise nonexempt
free market housing unit development rights not
utilized in connection with the actual con-
struction of homes at The Pitkin Reserve shall
be retained by Owner and shall be freely
transferable to other properties, and alien-
able. For these purposes, however, any devel-
opment proposal utilizing all or any portion of
the free market housing unit development rights
shall be subject to all the applicable review
processes set forth in The Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, with the single exception of
review under the Growth Management Quota
System, which shall not be necessary."
III. Amendments to Employee Housing Dedication and
Restriction. Section 3 - Employee Dedication Restriction, is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"The Owner hereby covenants with the City
that the employee unit described above in
Section I, paragraph A(2) shall be restricted
in terms of its use and occupancy to a resident
caretaker -employee for and of the Owner of Lots
1-6 (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 City. In the event the
owners of Lots 1-6 (or a collective association
thereof) 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 of which
shall be used to defray common maintenance and
related costs associated with Lot 7 or other
facilities used in common by the owners (or an
association thereof) of Lots 1-6. The fore-
going covenant shall be deemed to run with Lot
7 as a burden thereto for the benefit of and
shall be specifically enforceable by the City
by any appropriate legal action including
1XIM
Bou 468 mr=857
injunction, abatement, eviction or rescission
of any non -complying tenancy, for the period of
the life of the longest living member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or
for a period of fifty (50) years from the date
of recording hereof in the Pitkin County,
Colorado real property records, whichever
period shall be less."
IV. Amendments to Section VI - Easements, Rights of
Way, and Relocations.
A. The prefatory language in Section VI is
amended to read as follows:
"The Amended Plat sets forth certain
easements, rights of way, and anticipated
relocations that will be necessary to cause the
improvements anticipated thereon, which ease-
ments, rights of way, and relocations include
the following:"
B. Subsection D - Access Easement, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"The owner hereby dedicates and grants unto the
owner(s) of Lots 1-6 of The Pitkin Reserve and
to the owner(s) of Lot 7, Block 1, Pitkin Green
Subdivision, their successors, grantees and
assigns, the twenty -foot (20') access and
utility easement shown and indicated on the
Amended Plat for their sole and exclusive use
and enjoyment and that of their guests, invit-
ees and licensees."
V. Amendments to Section VII - Other Dedications.
A. The second sentence of Subsection A -
Exemption, is amended to read as follows:
"In the event the Owner hereafter deed res-
tricts the employee housing unit to be in-
stalled upon Lot 7 to low or moderate (rather
than middle) income and occupancy eligibility
guidelines, the City agrees at that time, and
upon the recording in the 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."
-5-
BOOK 468 �.:;_ 858
B. Subsection B - Land Dedication, is amended
to read as follows:
"In respect of the free-market development to
occur on and within Lots 1-6 and the employee
housing unit to be installed upon Lot 7, the
City hereby (1) accepts the dedication of Lot 8
in the manner and upon the terms and conditions
set forth in Section I, Paragraph B, above, in
lieu of the cash payment referred to in Section
20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) confirms
as accurate and accepts the valuation of Lot 8
and the calculation of the Park Dedication Fee
based thereupon set forth in the Land Valuation
and Park Dedication Fee calculation attached
hereto as Exhibit "G"; and (3) agrees that the
value of Lot 8 as such is sufficient at least
to meet the requirements of Section 20-18,
aforesaid concerning the requirement of the
dedication."
VI. Amendment to Section VIII - Open Space and
Common Area Management, Maintenance and Use.
A. Subsection A - General, is amended to read
as follows:
"The Amended Plat provides for a parcel that
includes open space dedicated for the benefit,
inter alia, of the City and a common area
component of the Development Parcel, the
undivided ownership of which, as hereinabove
provided, shall be in the owners of the sepa-
rately designated fee simple lots, 1-6.
Respective responsibilities, limitations,
covenants and agreements regarding the manage-
ment, maintenance and use of the open space,
including that to the south of the Greenbelt
Line, and common area component of the Develop-
ment Parcel include the following:"
B. Subsection B - Publicly Owned Open Space --
Lot 14, is amended to read as follows:
"Publicly Owned Open Space -- Lot 8. Lot 8
shall be owned by Pitkin County, Colorado, and,
as such shall be managed and maintained perma-
nently and entirely by Pitkin County within
such framework as it may establish but which
shall not be inconsistent with the open space
purposes in perpetuity for which the land was
dedicated as above set forth, and in this
B o @ x � V'8 f rifi 859
respect reference is specifically made to the
rights of the City therein, as described in
Section I, paragraph B, above."
C. Subsection C - Common Area -- Lot 13, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"C. Privately Owned Common Area -- Lot 7. Lot
7, the common area component of the Development
Parcel, shall in its entirety be owned in
common by the owners of Lots 1-6, the owner(s)
of each lot to own an undivided interest
therein as a non -severable appurtenance to his
or her lot. As indicated elsewhere herein and
upon the Second Amended Plat, Lot 7 will be
improved with an employee -caretaker unit of
approximately 800 square feet of living space,
together with approximately 800 square feet for
storage space, will accommodate a twenty -foot
(20') easement for access to the lots and for
utility purposes and will support the landscap-
ing plan. Management and maintenance of Lot 7
shall be the responsibility of a collective
homeowners' association consisting of the
owners of Lots 1.-6 and shall by it be under-
taken pursuant to such provisions as shall be
set forth in recorded covenants providing for
such policies and procedures governing the use
and maintenance of the common area, including
for necessary budgets and financial reserves to
be assessed against association members, and
shall insure permanently the fit and proper
maintenance, repair, replacement and enduring
first rate safety and quality of the entire
development, including its landscaped features,
common utility systems and paved areas.
Responsibility of the association in this
respect may by it be contractually delegated to
a private property management company or to a
salaried employee of the association. The
following as well shall apply to the associa-
tion hereinabove referred to:"
D. Subparagraph (3) - Membership Mandatory, of
Subsection C, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(3) Membership Mandatory. Membership in the
association shall be mandatory for each owner
of the fee simple lots (1-6) and shall be
automatic upon the recordation of any instru-
ment transferring a legal or equitable interest
-7-
BOOK 468 P ,F860
(excluding standard security interests) in or
to any of such lots."
E. Subparagraph (5) of Subsection C, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"The homeowners' association shall have the
power to levy assessments which will become a
lien on individual fee simple lots (1-6) for
the purpose of paying the cost of operating and
maintaining common facilities;
F. Subparagraph (6) of Subsection C, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"The Board of Managers of such homeowners'
association shall consist of at least three (3)
members who shall be owners of the fee simple
lots (1-6) within the development."
G. Subsection D - Building Restrictions, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"The Owner agrees and hereby covenants that the
number of units that will be built within The
Pitkin Reserve shall not exceed six (6) free
market units plus one (1) employee -caretaker
unit and that all areas shown on the plat as
being open space or common area shall remain
perpetually so."
H. Subsection E - Party Wall Declaration, is
deleted in its entirety.
VII. Amendments to Section IX - Water Rights and
Availability. The first sentence of the second full paragraph
of Section IX is amended to read as follows:
"A 16" main waterline crosses the Development
Parcel and water service lines will be in-
stalled as shown on the utility sheets."
VIII. Exhibit G - Land Valuation and Park
Dedication Fee Calculation is hereby deleted and superceded by
the Land Valuation and Park Dedication fee calculation hereto
annexed as Exhibit "B".
IX. Remaining Provisions Unaffected. Except to the
extent expressly hereinabove set forth, and except as manifestly
inconsistent herewith, the remaining provisions of the PUD and
Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve are unchanged and in
boon" 468 pm -Mt
effect as written and recorded in Book 423 at Pages 417 - 446 of
the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin
Reserve as of the loth day of January, 1983.
CITY OF ASPEN, a Municipal
ATTEST: corporation
BY
Kathryn Ko Clerk William Stirling, May
LIM%Z
'O
PITKIN LIMITED, a Colorado
S �1 ^corporat on
)I,- -i
rt W. ghes, Sec etary
\� l
7 /
By 1-1
M c
, President
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PALartnership
OyItorrad en r 1
r
B
r lexa der E. L kin, a
general partne , by Rober4
W. Hughes, his
attorney -in -fact
6010
aoox
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AND SITE TABULATIONS
Name:
The Pitkin Reserve
Number of Units:
6 free market units
and 1 PMH rental unit
Amenities:
caretaker/employee facility
above
storage
Unit Size:
developable area establishes
a
F.A.R. of 6,725 square feet
per
residence
Project Population:
approximately 43
Parking:
2 indoor spaces and 2 guest
parking
spaces in driveway per residence
Structures:
free standing single-family
residences
Acreage:
26± acres (includes 6 acres
of
railroad right-of-way)
Public Open Space:
19± acres
Development Site:
7± acres
Building Coverage:
approximately 25,000 square
feet
Paved Areas:
approximately 30,000 square
feet
EXHIBIT "A" TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO PUC AND
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE
-10-
900iS 468 nA�,,F86.3
LAND VALUATION AND
PARK DEDICATION FEE CALCULATION
(calculated to the nearest 0.5 acre)
In accordance with Section 7-143 of the Aspen Building Code and
Section 20-18 of the Aspen Subdivision Code, the cash equivalent'
for the park dedication fee and its determination for The Pitkin
Reserve Subdivision is as follows:
Purchase Price of Total Parcel
(20 acres)
Price Per Acre
Value of 7-Acre Development
Parcel
Value Per Unit (6 units)
1% of Land Value Per Unit
Fee per 4-Bedroom Unit*/
Value of 10.5-acre parcel
dedicated to open space
Difference between cash
equivalent of park dedi-
cation fee and value of
open space parcel
($2,500.00 x 6 = $15,000.00)
$1,250,000.00
20 71,428.60
x 7 500,000.00
6 83,333.33
x .01 833.33
x 3 2,500.00
750,000.00
735,000.00
*/The park dedication fee for the employee housing unit to be
constructed on Lot 7 was calculated in the same manner as
above set forth and will proceed from the same land valuation.
EXHIBIT "B" TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO PUD AND
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE
-11-
a�r}i
E
E
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan
DATE: November 16, 1982 PI-(
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD
pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. Originally the PUD was
approved for 12 attached zerA lot line housing sites with a private
access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property.
The proposed amendment would permit the developer to build single
family housing sites in lieu of some portion of the attached zero lot
line sites that were approved. The applicant is not yet certain what
combination of single family and zero lot line homesites will be
used, but would like to have the felxibility, depending on market
conditions, to develop (or sell for development) various combinations
of the two types of housing sites. The attached chart shows the 15
different alternatives which may be built ranging from the original
12 attached zero lot line sites to 9 free standing single family
units. The proposed amendments would also relocate the private
access road (and the utility easements underneath) from in front of
the homes in the center of the property to behind the homes along
W �u0u�y _Ww*PP}y Way. The new alignment is less visable and reduces the.
vertical change from 62 to 50 feet, but increases the visability of
the homes which were originally to be built into the hill.
Planning Office
Review: Section 24-8.26(b), Amendment of the PUD Plan, states that PUD amend-
ments should only be made if the changes are shown to be required by
changes in conditions that have occurred since final plat approval or
by chances in community policy. The applicant has stated that the
proposed amendments have been made due to changes in the market, a
result of continued study of the site and a better understanding of
the housing opportunities and needs in Aspen.
The proposed changes will not result in an increase in overall site
coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility
problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The
overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed
between the actual number of lots developed. Development will still
occur within the building envelope originally approved. Any of the
12 approved units which are not built at the Pitkin Reserve will
return to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights. These
units arose from the conversion of Smuggler Trailer Park to owner -
occupied employee housing units.
The subject property has a significant slope dropping from Willoughby
Way down to the Rio Grande trail. The original site plan called for
the 12 attached homesites to be built into the slope near Willoughby
Way with the road down below. The amended proposal puts the road up
by Willoughby Way and the houses down below. The houses were less
visible from the road and the Rio Grande trail in the original appli-
cation, so from a viewplane standpoint, the amended application is
less desirable.
Another Planning Office concern is that the development alternative
that is ultimately chosen be reviewed, approved and shown to be one
of the requested alternatives and that the final development plan be
recorded as it is to be built. Since the original submission of
this application, the applicant has refipped his request and has
agreed to stay within the confines of 3`bf the alternatives requested.
These 3 development alternatives will be presented by the applicant
at the P & Z meeting on November 16, 1982. We feel that the Planning
Office can approve the final plan, if it fails under one of the 3
possible alternatives requested. Any change outside what has been
requested in these 3 alternatives would require further review by P &
and Council.
Memo: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan
November 16, 1982
Page Two
The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design
changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for
the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed
gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard
setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but
Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given,
the setback provided and approved in the original PUD.
Incidently, although it was not required, the Planning Office scheduled
a public hearing for this PUD review since there was so much interest
and input from the public during the initial application.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend the approval of ro {
the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD subject to the
following conditions. l ,
( � V (\ 1 5\ '-s pupta� s
1. The final development plan must be one of the �2r alternative
combinations of single family detached units and attached, zero
lot line units requested by the applicant. Su.bmrw 4- a`
2
2. The Planning Office must review and approve the final mix of
unit types. The final plan must then be recorded, amending the
original Pitkin Reserve's PUD plan prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised
detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance
of a building permit. Pp. �evt�u7/Gf�PCa�h° any C"es to -tW-
-4. The gatehouse must be a minimum of 5 feet from the front property
line.
M�� t a It re- e sen��r� ��1 ieof r le f-r
Q4-Z mud i�2u� - � �► n2� �1�-� -!�
�M'Q�17 qr' 1. o � -p 4 v 0
i
,.,
A
x cn E-
-
U D 0 U
N
(
O
O
O
O
O
N
O O
O
N
N
N
N
N
o< O Fi >
M
M
M
M
cal
M
M
M M
m
M
M
M
m
M
E A: 3
r i
.-i
r i
.- i
-4
rt
ri
Ei
C7
z
H
�
_
Z
awh^'
f
E-' rA 0 0
I
N
N
O
fV
%D
O
to
N N
%o
O
%D
%O
%D
I
U1 H >
r`
o,
ON
r`
r-
co
ao
r- r`
r`
ON
4.0
W
I
103l
W
W
W.
w
Q
I
z
xcnwcn
•
W WwE-
a
ra U 3 H
in
oo
r`
%o
m
r-
110
in
oo r`
it
co
Ln
�<E-+z
ca
�aw�
w
z cn ai
0
a
z z
a
=)wWM04
-
to
C
C
. t M
t:'
to
m
N
Ln
H Q 3 H
Z w Ei Z
N
'-+
14
O
M
Ol
O
w
in M
N
r
c
w
M
cr
0
1-1 V] .']
v
to
to
9.0
M
in
to
M
m
in
z W
w
a x cn
>
K E-4 E-+
-
H
E-i [] fJ4 H
N
co
C'
O
ko
lD
O
O
%r O
co
O
N
N
N
rV
H
O H 0 z
ON
114r
O
r-i
O
-4
r I
O
lD to
C
C
ON
m
Ol
O1A
E-4 3 a
t-
\o
r-
i-
2
a
EW-i
cwi z
a
a�Wcn
�d
Q a w E-
-
Ei cn 3 H
M
N
to
O
IT
IT
O
O
kD O
N
O
CC)
co
00
co
Ca
O E-+ Z
i-
M
r`
r-
r`
110
r-
w
r-+ M
M
v,
oo
m
m
co
W
E•i 2 W a
N
d'
Cl)
M
M
M
M
m
M M
M
M
N
N
CV
N
rn
W m
O
a
a
o
0
a
a
o
W cn
w
x E-A
O
U H
N
O
N
lC'
N
C
W
oD
ko
03
O
to
OD
O
N
z
Ea
0
E-4
Ul
FS.
H
a
Q
u
a
z cn
z
W H H
O
W 0 H
O
a%
r-
to
co
%D
r- to
m
rl
ko
N
CDu
azz
wf<a
E•H
N
a cn
a E-4
E-i H
N
ON
a%
a%
O
O
O
O
r-i r i
-4
r4
N
N
N
N
ri
` r-1
r-1
ri
r•1 \ ri
.-i
e-�
r-I
r-1
r-i
r-i
o
0
w
w
>
cn
0
0
a
a
a
o
a
a
'
I
i
U
� 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office 'A
DATE: November 8, 1982
RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P.U.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application for an amendment to the
Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. plan, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
1. As expressed in a letter from the project engineers at
Eldorado Engineering, there will be no major design changes
or new problems associated with the revised plan relative to
water, sewer, and drainage. Approval of a revised P.U.D. should
be contingent on recordation of appropriate utility and drainage
designs for the new configuration of units.
2. While the proposed amendment may result in fewer units, the
revised configuration may result in more disturbance to the site.
Relocation of the access road to the north requires more radical
cut slopes and the proposed unit locations will require a fill area
extending further to the south. While the impacts of the revised
design may be an improvement when viewed from the south, pulling
the structures out of the hill and placing them on fill may result
in a visual impact when viewed from Willoughby Way.
3. The Gatehouse has been relocated closer to the Willoughby
Way right-of-way. The applicant should be required to leave at
least the same setback included in the original P.U.D. of about
five (5) feet.
It
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
DATE: December 7, 1982
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve
PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. When P&Z first
discussed this amendment at the November 16, 1982 meeting, the
applicant requested an amendment which would allow any of four
different development alternatives. Each of the four alternatives
represented a different mix of single family and duplex structures
on the Pitkin Reserve parcel. The applicant has now amended his
application and is requesting an amendment to allow one develop-
ment scheme, 11 units on the subject parcel - five single family
units and three duplexes. The original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access
road in front of the houses through the middle of the property.
The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where
the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment
has been moved from in front of the homesites to behind the home -
sites along Willoughby Way.
Planning Office
Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall
site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation
or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space
provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but
will be redistributed between the 11 lots developed, Development
^� will still occur within the building envelope originally approved.
Since only 11 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units
originally approved, the remaining unit not built at the Pitkin
Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as an unused
development right.
The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual
impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property.
The road is now located above the house creating less visual
impacts and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no
longer face the trail. The visual impact from Willoughby Way
will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street
and the height of the structures will still be limited to the
same height as in the original plan.
Referral
Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major
design changes, but will require further drainage and utility
studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented
that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The
30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied
through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback
of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in
the original PUD.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that F&Z recommend the approval
of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will
move the access road further north toward Willoughby, move the
dwelling unit a few feet to the south and provide a unit mix of
five single family units and three duplexes. Approval is subject
to the following conditions:
Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD amendment
December 7, 1982
Page Two
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letter dated October 12, 1982 from Michael Lipkin.
5) The applicant must meet ail the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment.
C�
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
DATE: December 21, 1982
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve
PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. When P&Z first
discussed this amendment at the November 16, 1982 meeting, the
applicant requested an amendment which would allow any of four
different development alternatives. Each of the four alternatives
represented a different mix of single family and duplex structures
on the Pitkin Reserve parcel. The applicant has now amended
his application and is requesting an amendment to allow one
development scheme, 9 single family units. The original Pitkin
Reserve PUD plan approved 12 attached zero lot line housing
sites with an access road in front of the houses through the
middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites is only
a few feet south of where the original homesites were located,
but the new road alignment has been moved from in front of the
homesites to behind the homesites along Willoughby Way.
Planning Office
Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall
site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation
or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open
space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the
same, but will be redistributed between the 9 lots developed.
Development will still occur within the building envelope
originally approved. Since only 9 units will be built as opposed
to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining 3 units not
built at Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park
as unused development rights.
The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual
impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property.
The road is now located above the houses and the proposed
units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail.
The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since
the property slopes down from the street and the height of the
structures will still be limited to the same height as in the
original plan.
The road realignment will create a need to revise the Pitkin
Reserve landscaping plan. The Planning Office would like to
review and approve the changes to ensure they are as complete
as the original landscaping plan.
Referral
Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major
design changes, but will require further drainage and utility
studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented
that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line.
The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be
varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum
setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and
approved in the original PUD.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that P&Z recommend the approval
of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which
will move the access road further north toward Willoughby Way, move
the dwelling units a few feet south and provide 9 single family
units. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
•
n
LJ
Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
December 21, 1982
Page Two
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letter dated October 12, 1982 from Michael Lipkin.
5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment.
MEMORANDUM
•
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Alice Davis, Planning Office
Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
January 10, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to t Pitkin Re Verve
PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. The amended
application is requesting 9 single family units while the
original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan approved 12 attached zero lot
line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses
through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites
is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were
located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in
front of the homesites to behind the homesites along Willoughby
Way.
Planning Office
Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall
site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation
or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open
space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the
same, but will be redistributed between the 9 lots developed.
Development will still occur within the building envelope
originally approved. Since only 9 units will be built as opposed
to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining 3 units not
built at Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park
as unused development rights, to be added to the other 7 units
which the applicant accrued within the Smuggler Mobile Home
Park settlement agreement.
The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual
impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property.
The road is now located above the houses and the proposed
units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail.
The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since
the property slopes down from the street and the height of the
structures will still be limited to the same height as in the
original plan.
The road realignment will create a need to revise the Pitkin
Reserve landscaping plan. The Planning Office would like to
review and approve the changes to ensure they are as complete
as the original landscaping plan.
Referral
Comments:
The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major
design changes, but will require further drainage and utility
studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented
that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line.
The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be
varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum
setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and
approved in the original PUD.
P&Z and
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the
Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further
north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units a few feet
south and permit the construction of 9 single family units.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
0 r
Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
January 10, 1983
Page Two
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and
December 10, 1982.
5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment.
Council
Motion: Should you concur with the recommendations of the Planning Office
and P&Z, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"Move to grant approval to the amendment to the Pitkin Reserve
PUD, subject to the following conditions:
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and
December 10, 1982.
5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment."
0
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office V
DATE: November 8, 1982
RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P.U.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application for an amendment to the
Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. plan, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
1. As expressed in a letter from the project engineers at
Eldorado Engineering, there will be no major design changes
or new problems associated with the revised plan relative to
water, sewer, and drainage. Approval of a revised P.U.D. should
be contingent on recordation of appropriate utility and drainage
designs for the new configuration of units.
2. While the proposed amendment may result in fewer units, the
revised configuration may result in more disturbance to the site.
Relocation of the access road to the north requires more radical
cut slopes and the proposed unit locations will require a fill area
extending further to the south. While the impacts of the revised
design may be an improvement when viewed from the south, pulling
the structures out of the hill and placing them on fill may result
in a visual impact when viewed from Willoughby Way.
3. The Gatehouse has been relocated closer to the Willoughby
Way right-of-way. The applicant should be required to leave at
least the same setback included in the original P.U.D. of about
five (5) feet.
4
Lipkin, .4,,eritt & Barclay
Nsign Partnership
Buz 3(K)d
Aspen. CO. 81611
Phone:303-9_5-5689
October 12, 1982
Aspen City Council
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Pitkin Reserve
Ladies and Gentlemen:
• This letter is intended to serve as the formal request of Pitkin,
Ltd., under Section 24-8.26 of the City Code for an amendment to the
• P.U.D. Plan for development for The Pitkin Reserve that was approved
by the City of Aspen in the fall of 1981. In response to a signifi-
cantly changed real estate market, request is hereby made to include
as possible alternatives to the existing P.U.D. Plan:
1. The right to develop (or sell for development) single-family
house sites in lieu of some portion of the two -lot, attached, zero
lot line house sites that have already been approved.
2. The right to replat the development parcel for Pitkin Reserve to
accommodate up to nine free standing single family houses, rather
than the twelve zero lot line house sites envisioned under the
current P.U.D. Plan, or a combination of free standing and attached
zero lot line houses.
3. The right to relocate the private access road and the utility
easement under that road from in front of the houses to behind the
houses.
In our preliminary submission we stated that our planning objectives
and architectural concept were "...a response to a series of
decisions that resulted from our commitment to low -impact land
development and a belief that the opportunity exists for built forms
to both enhance our site and support a rich landscape. Our initial
decision was to preserve as much open space as possible for the use
A.
Lipkin, Averitt g Barclay
Dtsi�n Partnership
of the public as well as the residents of Pitkin Reserve and to avoid
development in the corridor along the Roaring Fork River ... We also
felt that both the public recreational space and the private
residences would benefit from maximum separation..."
Our interest in relocating the road and mixing attached and free
standing houses is a result of continued study of the site and a more
sophisticated understanding of the opportunities that exist, merket
conditions, and of course a response to the concerns of the neighbor-
hood and community at large that were raised during the review
process.
Practical Effect of Proposed Changes in Unit Types. The changes we
are proposing (free-standing single family houses and attached houses
accessed from the rear) will not result in a change of character for
the approved P.U.D., will not be an increase in the overall coverage,
will not increase the problems of traffic circulation and public
utilities, and perhaps most imprtantly, will not reduce the open
space or in any way negatively effect the Pitkin Reserve development,
the surrounding neighborhood, or the Aspen community at large.
To assure compatability with the proposed Pitkin Reserve attached
• houses, the concepts already approved by you, and to preserve the
integrity of this Planned Unit Development, the following criteria
• will apply to any free standing single family houses or attached
houses now accessed from behind.
1. Building height will be limited to that of Willoughby Way (with
the exception of the Gatehouse).
2. Buildings will have 15-foot sideyard setback requirements,
except from the common lot line of the two -lot building site.
3. An obligation to involvement in the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners'
Association.
4. A commitment to the landscaping program outlined in the Pitkin
Reserve Subdivision Agreement and Improvement Schedule.
5. Natural earth tones will be used on the exterior with brighter
colors permitted for accent. The exterior building materials will be
limited to wood siding, wood shingles, metal roofing, brick, stone,
glass and cedar shakes for pitched roofs.
During the review process of the approved Pitkin Reserve P.U.D.
density calculations established a developable area of 8.4362 acres.
As our development plans now stand, the allowable F.A.R. for each lot
would be based on one -twelfth of the 8.4362 acres. However, any
change in the composition of the Pitkin Reserve would result in a
-2-
•
Lipkin. Averitt & Barclay
Design Partnership
reallocation of that F.A.R. among the actual number of building
sites/lots.
Limitations on Replatting. In lieu of the twelve zero lot line,
attached single-family houses, we would like to consider as an
additional approach that might enable us to be more responsive to
market conditions - the alternative of developing the Pitkin Reserve
for up to nine free-standing single family houses or a mix of
attached and free-standing houses (see attached chart).
The attached chart compares all possible alternative mixes of
free-standing and attached houses with the approved scheme for 12
attached houses. In all cases, the proposed alternatives provide
more open space between houses and never results in an increase in
total width of houses. We feel that any of the proposed mixes with
result in greater variety and richness within a consistent
architectural imgage.
This would, of course, require a replatting of the current configura-
tion of the twelve approved zero lot line house sites. This would
not affect in any way the open space allocation of the current P.U.D.
Plan -- replatting would be limited to that portion of the entire
tract which has already been approved for development (the "Develop-
ment Parcel"). Moreover, replatting would conform to all Engineering
Department concerns and criteria.
Needless to say, chart any reduction in the twelve approved dwelling
units at the Pitkin Reserve will result in the return to Aspen
Mountain Park of the unused development rights. These, of course,
arose from the conversion of Smuggler Trailer Park to an
owner -occupied, controlled employee housing cooperative.
The Implications of Relocating the Access Road and Utility Easement.
This new road location has the following advantages:
1. More sensitive and sophisticated integration of houses, access
road and landscape.
2. Garage doors no longer face the Aspen Institute, bike path or
recreation area. They are only visible from the access road.
3. Road is far less visible.
4. Road and driveway lengths are reduced.
S. Disturbed area requiring revegetation is reduced.
6. Vertical change of access road is reduced from 62' to 50'.
-3-
' i
i
IV
y
•
Lipkin, A,critt R Barclay
Dk- ign Partnership
These proposed changes have been reviewed by our civil engineers, El
Dorado Engineering, and our structural engineers, ADG (formerly Coe,
Van Loo and Jaschke) who agree that there would be no significant
negative effects resulting from this change. The utilities would be
relocated to the new road right of way with the exception of the
sewage line which would remain in roughly the same location on the
downhill side of the houses.
The proposed utility system and drainage plan would require limited
redesign and the use of a Gabion retaining. wall would present no
structural problems.
Conclusion. As we indicated above, it is a refinement of our site
plan, and marketing conditions that suggest we make these requests.
It nonetheless remains our intention to proceed with the Pitkin
Reserve development at the appropriate time in substantially the
format and spirit that was approved by the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission and the City Council of the City of Aspen.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on these
approaches. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Lipkin, President
Pitkin, Ltd.
-4-
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to PUD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVE! that a public hearing will be held before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 16, 1982 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall,
130 S. Galena. Street, Aspen to consider an amendment to an approved PUD
plan for the development of Pitkin Reserve. The amendment includes permitting
the developer to construct either single family or duplex residences, re -
platting the development parcel, and relocating the private access road and
utility easement. For more information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 227.
s/Perry Flarvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 21, 1982.
City of Aspen account.
r
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this ��� day of ( `C'q,�°J�7982� a true
and correct
correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding
was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and
addressed to the following:
4Ce Cva6�v6 --
•
F
0
a
r
E
U
I
n
U
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. John Loren Yaw
P.O. Box 2678
Aspen, CO 81612
2. Evelyn Putney
P.O. Box 2614
Aspen, CO 81612
3. Donad M. Ruggles
P.O. Box 34
Aspen, CO 31612
4. Kathryn K. Reid & Royal S. Reid
P.O. Box 496
Aspen, CO 81612
5. Frederic A. Davies & Frances M. A. Davies
P.O. Box K
Aspen, CO 81612
6. Arthur Russell Jones, III
P.O. Box 3853
Apen, CO 81612
7. John Wright Cronin & Virginia R. Cronin
P.O. Box 1164
Aspen, CO 81612
8. Robert Miller & Deborah Miller
P.O. Box 15097
Aspen, CO 81612
9. Investors Group of Florida, Inc.
720 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
10. Gerald B. Kagan
c/o Schwartz, Alschuler & Grossman
1880 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA
11. Paul Joseph Bush & Mary Lou Bush
240 Saratoga
Mexico City 10, MEXICO
12. William A. Gruenberg, Charles E. Worth & Ann G. Worth
P.O. Box 930
Aspen, CO 81612
-15-
•
s
Leonard A. Lauder & Eve Lauder
2 East 67th St.
New York, NY
3. William Lauder & William Lauder as Trustee for
Gary Lauder
2 East 67th St.
New York, NY
15. Leonard A. Lauder & Eve Lauder
2 East 67th St.
New York, NY
16. Graham Loving
P.O. Box 1368
Aspen, CO 81612
17. Scott Van DeMark
880 Roaring Fork Rd.
Aspen, CO 81611
18. Elizabeth H. Paepcke
as Executrix of the Estate of
WalterP. Paepcke, deceased
c/o Morrison & Morrison
105 W. Adams
Chicago, IL
19. Albert Kern & Susan Kern
P.O. Box 389
Aspen, CO 81612
20. John H. Cheek, Jr.
Clonmel Road Box 1633
Nashville, TN
21. Marvin Josephson
40 W. 57th St.
New York, NY
22. A. Ray Lavender & Rosemarie Lavender
P.O. Box 2780
Aspen, CO 81612
23. Anderl Molterer
520 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO 81611 _.
-16-
0
•
Fitzhugh Scott, III, & Susan Scott
P.O. Box 1815
Aspen, CO 81612
25. Hans B. Cantrup
P.O. Box 388
Aspen, CO 81612
26. Robert 0. Anderson
P.O. Box 1000
Roswell, NM
-17-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORK N C. F. KOF[KFL K. B. a L. CO.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1982
i
Perry Harvey called the meeting to order with members Al Blomquist, David White,
4 Roger Hunt, Pat Fallin, Jasmine Tygre, Welton Anderson and Lee Pardee.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
Pat Fallin said that last Spring the P&Z gave a conditional use to Arthur's Restaurant
to put tables up outside. Fallin said that part of the conditional use was
that he use the parking in the rear of the building and to put a sign up advising
patrons that there is parking in the rear . Fallin wants to see this enforced.
Roger Hunt comments on the Police parking on both sides of the street which
is not in compliance with the decision from Council on where the Police should
park.
Welton Anderson said that after the last meeting concerning the Smuggler Area Master
Plan it was suggested to get together with some County P&Z members and get a study
session together.
Perry Harvey introduces the Planning and Zoning Commissions new alternate
David White.
PUBLIC HEARING
Pitkin Reserve Amendment to PUD
Alice Davis, of the Planning office said that this is a request for an amendment to
the Pitkin Reserve PUD. The applicant is requesting is that the twelve attached
zerfo lot line housing sites,with a private -access road in front of the houses
through the middle of the property, be amended. The applicant wants to do a different
combination which will be determined at a later date. The applicant would like
the option of doing whatever the market calls for, different combinations
of duplexes and single family dwelling units.
The Planning Office recommends that the P & Z recommend the approval of the requested
amendments to the P:Dtkin Reserve PUD subject to the following conditions:
1. The final development plan must be one of the three alternative combinations
of single family detached units and attached, zero lot line units requested
by the applicant.
2. The Planning Office must review and approve the final mix of unit types.
The final plan must then be recorded, amending the original Pitkin Reserve's PUD
plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The Engineering Dept. must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and
' utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a iuilding permit.
4. The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line.
5. There are representations made in their application, their revised PUD amend-
ment al so be made since they did list a few things that they promised to do
such as open space going to be changed.
Al Blomquist asked what the provisicm-for th- trail connection from Pitkin Green
to the Rio Grande Trail?
Michael Lipkin said that there is no provision because at the time they attempted to
resolve that the applicant met with resistance on most fronts.
Perry Harvey asked Lipkin about the attached unit in the second proposal where
they haveseven free standing, two attached, is that two duplexes?
Michael Lipkin said that it is two units.
Bill Dunawav asked if all of these units that are represented include or exclude
employee units.
Michael Lipkin said that is excluding employee unit.
Perry Harvey opens the Public portion of the Public Hearing.
Kay Reed said that she has many question because she cannot tell from the drawing::
exactly what is happening. Reed asked that if in the new plan the applicant is using
more of the 26 acres.
Michael Lipkin said that the development takes place in the same development parcel
that has been established. Lipkin said that the applicant started this process
well over two years ago and received final approval from this body about a year
ago , in that time the applicant has had a chance to go study the site and hear
what many neighbors have had to say during the Public Review process and also
understand a little bit more about the market. Lipkin said that the changes the
applicant is asking forare directly in responde to that.
Jack Kruemena said that he is not here to object but he would like to know what is
going on by seeing a complete map of the elevation etc.
-2-
Perry Harvey asked Alice Davis of the Planning Office what the height restriction
would be.
Davis said that it is 25ft.
Jack Krueman asked about the fill.
Perry Harvey said that when the road was on the downhill side of the residences,
it required a large amount fill to put the road in, now by putting the road in above
the homes and just below Willougbyway, it is more of a cut into the hill and it does'ni
require it to be built up to the level of the homes because the homes are on
an angle.
Virginia Cronin, neighbor in the Pitkin Green section, she wonders about the road
and how people get into the drive and how far the road will extend.
Michael Lipkin said that it is a dead end road, a private road and it stops
where it stops. Lipkin tacks up one of the plans on the wall to clear up some
of these questions.
Walter Mueller asked if there is any time limit to the whole project?
Michael Lipkin said that everyone is anxious to see it built and completed as
quickly as possible but there is not a deadline set on completion.
Mueller said suppose that this things drags for the next ten years?
Alan Richman said that there is a construction schedule in the original subdivision
agreement and if it is of interest to Mueller the Planning office can pull
this out and tell him what the schedule consists of.
Kay Reed asked if the original plan showed clustering of the houses?
Michael Lipkin said yes.
Perry Harvey closes the public portion of the meeting and asks for questions and com-
ments from the Board members.
Roger Hunt said that he has not seen sufficient information to amend the PUD.
Hunt said that the Commission does not have a PUD before them with specified foot-
prints.
Al Blomquist takes the opposite position of Roger Hunt. Blomquist thinks that
this idea of downzoning as options from what was approved before is a real nice
concept.
Jasmine Tygre said that although this is a PUD, one of the things that was attractive
at the previous submission was that it was going to be more open space and that the
units were going to be joined now the applicant is going to separate single
family units. Tygre does not understand how much space is going to be between
the three standing units and how that will compare.
Michael Lipkin said that the steepness of the hill makes it very desirable to keep
a certain width as narrow as possible.
Perry Harvey said that Tygre's attempt to understand this is similar to the
rest of the Board understanding and that they would all like to see this in in its next
step. Harvey is not that comfortable either even though he understands what they
are doing and understands the restrictions that are imposed upon it but
given the fact that the Engineering Dept. has to review and approve and the Planning
Office must review and approve and the representations and the original PUD
must be carried over and it would be a little easier for this Board if we could
see it again.
Michael Lipkin said that the last alternative on the Planning Office memo is what
the applicant would like to fly off as a final plat and what they would like to come
back and ask for is any one of the three downzonings above that and that requires
the applicant to come back before the P&Z to do it.
Perry Harvey said that at some point during this marketing the applicant will
come to grips with what the market wants and the applicant wants.
Jasmine Tygre thinks that the Board should see a liitle outline of where each house
is going to be on each lot on these plans.
Michael Lipkin said that there is a front line of construction that designates
where one can build and this represents that.
Welton Anderson thinks that looking at these plans in a more specific form would
be nice but he can visualize it by seing the buildings transposed and that
by making up a new plan, Anderson is not sure it is really going to be that productive.
Roger Hunt states that he wants to see specific plans.
David White said that he likes what he visually sees and one of the first things the
memo says is "the right to develope" and Whites first concern is that he doesn't know
what it is going to look like. White likes it conceptually but he needs to see speci-
fic plans.
Al B lomquist feels comfortable with the plan the applicant has presented.
Alice Davis said that the Planning office recommendation is to approve this and the
other three alternatives.
Michael Lipkin said that the applicant has spent an incredible amount of time in
this review process and to have the P&Z ask us to go back and prepare showing the Board
the four alternatives and taking that kind of time with the applicants need now
in this market to be able to attempt to market these things it is a cost that
becomes very difficult for the applicant. Lipkin said he understands what the P&Z is
asking for but he doesn't see what they think they will see differnetly because
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM U C. F. MOECKEL !. 1. • L. CO.
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 1982
Chairman Perry Harvey balled the meeting to order at 5:05 with members
Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist and Welton Anderson present.
Commissioner 1. Roger Hunt brought up the parking situation on the south
Comments side of City Hall. The police department has moved to the
our 3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM 1C C. F. MOECKEL S. B. S L. CO.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
mm
100 Leaves
NOVEMBER 16, 1982
one of the things the applicant is designing into this process is a degree of flexi-
bility to work with each of these people so you don't stand up and see six identical
duplexes or eight or nine similar single family houses. The applicant is
trying to design in a richness and a sophistication into this process. Lipkin
feels that the P&Z is asking for the kind of review and approval that makes it
impossible for the applicant to design the quality into this project and the
flexibility we would like to give these subsequent owners.
Perry Harvey said that at some point the applicant is going to go to the planning
office and present to them the final mix of the unit types..
JasmineTygre said that everytime the P&Z trys to short-cut something on a PUD
sooner or later a year down the line or two years later all the sudden we have a prob-
lem.
Alice Davis suggests that the P&Z give approval to this one; one duplex and seven
single family, nine total units.
AL Blomquist said that it seems to him that what the applicant is doing to reduce
the impact by whatever means. Blomquist said that we know he has to file one
plat and he can pick anyone of those four.
Welton Anderson recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission give approval
of the request for amendment for Pitkin Reserve PUD for no more than 11 units,
comprising five single family pre -standing units and six attached duplex units
comprised in three buildings subject to following conditions;
1) The Engineering Dept. must review and approve the revised detailed drainage
and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit and landscape
design.
2) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line.
3) That all the representations of the original PUD are carried over to this revised
PUD.
Gary Esary said that the recommendation was for the representations of the application
letter of Oct. 12, 1982.
Welton Anderson adds the letter of application to his motion.
Perry Harvey asks for a second to the motion.
The motion fails for lack of a second.
Perry Harvey entertains a motion to table this pending more detailed site planning
from the applicants.
Pat Fallin seconds.
All in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Davis told P & Z there is no heighth change. The
engineering department has the same comments as at the last
meeting. The planning office recommends approval of the PUD
amendment
memorandum
approval.
0
subject to the five conditions listed in the
as well as the conditions on the original PUD
Michael Lipkin told the Commission they are asking for nine
single family dwelling units, which is much less than the
city or county zoning would have allowed on the property.
Lipkin had drawings to show the original approved project,
and what is proposed now. Lipkin showed comparative sections
which illustrated that the road is now a cut rather than a
fill. Lipkin showed the Commission the areas that will not
have to be distrubed on the site as a result of this change.
Lipkin said the original proposal was a massive transforma-
tion of the hill.
Lipkin said that single family houses are easier to site
sensitively on the hill and can sit more gracefully. The
nine houses are more in scale with the neighborhood. Also
nine single family dwelling units is much less continuous
building frontage.
Harvey asked the heighth of the gatehouse. Lipkin answered
it will be one story above Willoughby Way. Ms. Tygre asked
what happens to the three units that have been deleted.
Richman said there are seven units left from the agreement
and with these three they will have ten units somewhere.
These units will have to go through the process. Hunt said
he is much happier with this proposal than the earlier one.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the requested amendments
to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road
further north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units
a few feet south and provide nine single family units. This
approval is subject to the five conditions in the planning
office memorandum of December 21, 1982; seconded by Ms.
Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. The plats presented
by Pitkin Reserve were entered into the record.
y4?S r
t
Continued Meeting Aspen City_Council
ORDINANCE #77, SERIES OF 1983 - Campaign Expenditures
January+ 12, 1983
Monroe Summers said if Council passes this ordinance, they should delete any reference
to the election question of Rubey Park because it is not relevant at this point. Bil
Dunaway said there is only one ballot question, and it is being presented by the citizens
and not the City and tax monies should not be spent on the election. Councilman Knecht
agreed it is the responsibility of the resort association to push their question. Mayor
Edel agreed that in promoting a question, the city should not take part in. Education
of the electorate is another thing. Councilman Knecht suggested that the proponents go
to the League of Women Voters for promotion for this issue. N
There was no motion to approve the ordinance.
RUBEY PARK VISITOR CENTER PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
Monroe Summers reminded Council he had brought this resolution to them in December and
their wishes were that the project hsould be sufficiently through the review process in
order to give the public a clear picture of what the city plans to do. Summers told
Council the updated plans make significant adjustment to the issues. Summers said he
cannot get to P & Z before February 1, and requested that the election question be post-
poned.
Councilman Knecht moved to postpone the Rubey Park election question; seconded by Council-
man Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
GOLF COURSE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Jim Holland, parks director, told Council he has come up with a first draft of a site plan
which he will take to P & Z. This is for the parking lot area. The berming will be
smoothed off, and blue grass planted. Holland said the landscaping will cost about
$44,000. Chapman told Council the city has the cash for this part; the rest of the
parking lot and landscaping is around $120,000
PITKIN RESERVE PUD AMENDMENT
Bob Hughes told Council this is an amendment which requires the Mayor's signature. This
project has approval for twelve units. There are no objections from the planning office.
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve this subject to the conditions on page 2 of the
January loth memorandum from the planning office; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in
favor, motion carried.
1983 GOLF FEES
Jim Holland, parks director, told Council he has discussed these fees with the golf
associations, both men's and women's. There are very minor changes from last year. This
year the city will be offering a full unrestricted season pass.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the golf fees according to Jim Holland's memorandum of
December 22, 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1983 - Regulation of Satellite Dishes
Alan Richman, planning office, said the staff has been looking at satellite dishes, and
held a work sescion with P & Z and the HPC to develop information and understand what
the problem is, and determine whethere there is a need for regulation. In the city's
codes, there is no regulation of these dish structures. This is to amend the city's
building code to bring satelitte dishes within the purview of the building department so
that they can make sure the dishes are installed in a safe way.
Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilwoman
Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1
(Series of 1983)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 EDICATION, AS ADOPTED
BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, AS STRUCTURE REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT, SATELLITE RADIO
FREQUENCY SIGNAL RECEPTION AND TRANSMISSION DEVICES; SETTING FORTH A DEFINITION
OF SUCH DEVICES; AND EXPRESSLY ADOPTING PENALTY PROVISIONS was read by the
city clerk
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman
Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael
aye. Motion carried. (Mayor Edel abstained due to a conflict of interest).
RESOLUTION #2, SERIES OF 1983 - Urging Federal Antitrust exemption for Local Governments
City Attorney Taddune told Council before the Boulder case, everyone assumed that
municipalities were exempt under the provisions of the federal anti trust laws. Over
the past two years, this has not been the case. Municipalities are now finding themselves !
exposed to anti trust liabilities. The Colorado Municipal League has requested each
municipality to adopt a resolution and direct that resolution to various elected official.
Councilman Knecht moved to approved Resolution #2, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #1, SERIES OF 1983 - 1983 Pay Schedule and Classification Plan
City Manager Chapman told Council this implements the 3 per cent general wage adjustment
as of January 1, 1983.
Councilman Knecht moved to approved Resolution #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Office
FROM: Michael Lipkin
DATE: December 10, 1982
RE: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan
I apologize for the confusion I created at my last
Planning and Zoning Commission appearance in requesting
multiple approvals. What appears to me to be obvious
improvements and refinements because of my constant involvement
in this project for the last two years is not something that is
easily communicated. This memo will address the points that
were raised at the previous meeting, compare this proposed
change to the approved plan and narrow down our request to a
single plan.
1. We request a downzoning from twelve (12)
attached houses (6 duplex structures) to nine (9) single family
houses.
2. At the time of our preliminary submission, it
was established that County zoning would have allowed for 15
lots (each could have been a duplex structure for a total of 30
units) and that City zoning would have allowed 12 lots (each
could have been a duplex structure for a total of 24 units).
3. When we had our initial review before the
Planning and Zoning Commission, there was significant
opposition to our duplex structures because of their size
relative to single-family houses from both the Pitkin Green
neighborhood and the second Aspen Company Subdivision across
the Roaring Fork River.
4. The typical single family houses we are
proposing are 70 feet wide (with the option of expanding to 76
feet). The duplexes that have been approved are 132 feet wide.
The total width of the approved duplexes would be 792 feet and
the width for our proposed single family houses would be from
650 to 732 feet.
5. The open space between units in our approved
duplex scheme is 273 feet. In our proposed scheme there would
be at least 333 feet between units and perhaps as much as 415
feet.
6. While we have designed a prototypical unit that
is 70 feet wide, we have established a slightly larger building
footprint so that we can work with each purchaser to make
modifications in our basic plan or to custom design a house
that maintains the integrity of the master plan and assures
each house unobstructed views.
7. Architectural design criteria have been
established that preserve the architectural integrity and
consistency of Pitkin Reserve, however custom design and
modification will add a richness and variety to the houses at
Pitkin Reserve.
8. The smaller scale of each single family house
not only is more in keeping with the neighborhood, but allows
for more sensitive siting on this hillside that slopes in two
directions.
9. The approved duplex scheme required moving
25,000 cubic yards of earth and importing 5,000 cubic yards of
fill. The proposed scheme requires moving about 17,000 cubic
yards and importing a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards.
10. The disturbed area would be reduced from 5 acres
to approximately 4 acres.
11. The buildings are at almost the same elevation
and location relative to Willoughby Way and the Rio Grande bike
trail.
12. As stated in my letter of October 12, 1982,
formally requesting this amendment, these changes will result
in:
a. The road and garage doors no longer face the
Aspen Institute, bike path, or recreation
area; they are only visible from the
access road.
b. Road and driveway lengths are reduced.
C. Vertical change of access road is reduced
from 62 feet to 50 feet.
d. There is a more sophisticated and sensitive
integration of houses, access road and
landscape.
13. And finally, all our marketing efforts indicate
a very strong market for single family houses at Pitkin Reserve
and a very limited market for attached houses.
Thank you for your consideration.
PITKIN LIMITED
B
Y
Miclia-e-1 Lipkkhesident
Partner, Lipk �, Averitt &
Barclay
Achitects and Planners
W
Cr
O
W
> o
Cr o
D (D
in C?
0)
0 M
Z N
QM
J p
W
I o
W co
T) �0
00
W U
W
O
co 0
cr z
w Q
W cr
z�
0
z
W N
C7 cD
Z N
x
J O
�m
`f) o
z
O o-
U
r r
z W
a�
O `)
U
C7 w
z W
Fr w
WU)
Wz
z
(.DQ
z 2
W
O
o `*
Q
O
0
J
W
0 •
October 15, 1982
Jay Hammond
Engineering Department
City of Aspen
P.O. Box U
Aspen, Colorado 81612
GOT 2 5 ley
ASPEN PITht�l
60P
Re: Pitkin Reserve
Proposed Amendment Changes
Dear Jay,
Michael Lipkin, has asked me to review the proposed amendment
changes with regards to site engineering for the Pitkin Reserve
Project. After a review of the proposed changes, it appears
no major design changes will be required. Briefly; SEWER -
gravity collection for all units by two collection lines that
would tie in to the existing manholes on the property, WATER -
connect into the City's 16 inch line that runs through the
project and run distribution lines down the relocated road,
DRAINAGE - direct the stormwater flow into the already proposed
detention basin.
The actual re -design would be computed prior to a final plat
amendment submission. Yet, it is my opinion that the proposed
changes would have a limited effect on the utilities as they
are now approved.
Yours truly,
BryanyDuff, P.E
1
BD:ps
cc: Alan Richman, Planning Office
Michael Lipkin
OFFICES: GLENWOOD SPRINGS • RIFLE • DURANGO
PA. M W
December 1, 1983
Mr. Sunny Vann
Planning Department City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Vann,
r
!i DEC Q 51983
ASPEN i +l-MaCY).
KANNiF� OFFICE
�yp;�„jic..: sii • . r �n- r i .'Y.. � � ' Poi`
Re: Residential Unit above
Willoughby Way, Five feet
from road (setback) in the
Pitkin Reserve Development
I live at 1130 Willoughby Way which is just past the Pitkin Reserve
Development and the residential unit being built within 5 feet of
the Willoughby Way roadway.
This area as you know has a 30 foot setback and it seems that some-
how this residential unit over a guardhouse below slipped in very
suspeciously. What I mean is that a hearing was held in October
of 1982 approving the Pitkin Reserve Development from 12 units to
9 residential properties, but the issue of changing the guardhouse
and residential unit to be above it was somehow mot discussed in
any detail.
I find it hard that your office would recommend to the City Council
a situation that now exists. (Unless you do feel that a 5 foot set-
back in a residential area as ours is good planning today). Now,
lets examine this from an Environmental Impact standpoint also, and
you will see it is very significant.
It seems that what has happened here is that the City of Aspen has
come into the County, annexed some land and without prudent think-
ing of the residence in that area has significatly changed the
environmental structure of our area.
I can only hope you will give this your upmost attention and that
someway, something can be done to rectify this matter.
Cordial you s
B uce Konhei
cc: Bill Stirling, City Council members, County Commissioners
COAIFS
REID &VVAIDRON
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management
December 1, 1983
Mr. Sonny Vann
Planning Director ��(; �983
City of Aspen/County of Pitkin_ I
130 South Galena Street ASPEN i Pi -Co.
Aspen, CO 81611` PLANNING OFF ICE
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Mr. Vann:
In an effort to be unemotional and brief, I am making 8 simple request
that you and your department members thoroughly research and study
the events leading to the building of the now visible Pitkin Reserve
Residential Unit and Guardhouse.
As a resident and homeowner in the Pitkin Green Subdivision, I believe
I was present at all of the publically announced and held discussions
regarding the City's annexation of the area named "Pitkin Reserve."
At no time do I recall seeing a plan of or hearing about a structure
called "The Guardhouse Residential Unit", which could be built with
only a five (5) foot setback off Willoughby Way containing Three Thousand
(3,000) square feet of living space, plus a double garage and thirty-
three (33) feet in height.
What I do recall, is that none of the Pitkin Reserve houses (living
units) would be higher than the road (Willoughby Way) level and would
be discreetly hidden from view. I also recall the Guardhouse (which
is now fast becoming a residence) would be on the east side (downhill
side) of the access road to Pitkin Reserve. It now sits on the upper
West side of that access road.
Another question I would like answered is the status of Willoughby
Way. Is it a county road when it turns west off the Red Mountain Road
and does it become a city street as it crosses the Pitkin Reserve property
line? And, after leaving Pitkin Reserve, is Willoughby Way again a
county road? Please advise.
Lastly, I would like you and your department, the present mayor and
city council and the past mayor and members of the city council to
visit said "guardhouse residential unit" to view in actuality what
they may or may not have approved on paper and if so, if they can live
with the knowledge that the so called "guardhouse" for their city community
called "Pitkin Reserve" is something they wish to accept as their responsi-
bility? If they made an error, surely there are methods by which such
an error or misunderstanding can be rectified.
Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-1400, (303) 925-7691
Snowmass Office 9 Box 6450, Snowmass Center, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 9 (303) 923-4750
6
Mr. Sonny Vann
Planning Director
City of Aspen/County of Pitkin
December 1, 1983
Page two
Since time is of the essence, it is my hope that your research into
these matters can be expediated as quickly as possible.
RespectXul ,
i'
Keay Reid
(Kathryn K. Reid)
KKR/ssw
cc: Mayor Bill Stirling
Ms. Charlotte Walls, Councilwoman
Mr. Al Bloomquist, Councilman
Mr. Charles "Chic" Collins, Councilman
Mr. Dick Knecht, Councilman
Mr. Wayne Chapman, City Manager
Mr. Herman Edel
Mr. Bil Dunaway
W COAS
REID &WALDRON
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management
Mr. Sonny Vann
Planning Director
City of Aspen/County of Pitkin
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 0
HAND DELIVERED
720 East Hyman. Aspen, Colorado 81611
ASPEN*PITKIN AGIONAL BUILT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official �\
DATE: December 7, 1983
RE: Pitkin Reserve - Gatehouse
The residential gatehouse in Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is a total of
1,680 square feet. The square footage is set out in the following
uses:
Garage (not counted) 502'
Boiler Room totally below grade
(not counted) 48'
Square footage of Storage and Office 259'
Total Area of Living Unit 809'
(Including Walls over thickness of
6" of stairway at lower level to
second) 60'
As far as I can tell from the agreement on record there was no square
foot limitation on Gatekeeper office and storage.
Contours indicate existing grade has a twelve foot drop from
Willoughby Way to the lower edge of the building. Measured perpendicular
to the slope, the maximum height of the building is 26 feet. The
allowable height of a gable roof would be 30 feet. It is only one
story above Willoughby Way or twenty feet at the highest point of the
gable roof above Willoughby Way.
PN/ar
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado B1611
--------------------------------------
0
•
3.
4.
11-M
Pl o nrl n q 0'- j c�-, /l ,Ilya nd om 5
NoU, 1�, 992 Z.
De-. -7, 1 Sl Z
Tan , i o, 1923 - C� ty Co�nci
PUA 50b&ui3ion Agreeffe -t 4- QrnctXimer�}5
Amended plat
wtLr.5-�rornn 1h i c fi-v! L �P l� i n "(X5-�J n� ,
am�Pjrnorrb frofosed -fir 4pproo:)/
r Qr+'41(-Qf10n C: - AC6 (e df pu bll'r � hW r 11y of-d
mililij -i) cdjocmt proper y owne S - Nam- regoiml zfir
-6ke ar nd�ren t. b� t done d� t� the ec�f rvc�aia� eta furl
Ato- 6e t .
to �jj1tl;"o+e5- CQc rcl opPro vzd 5 /Zvi w
0
MEMORANDUM
,t3ruce
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Alice Davis, Planning Office
Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
January 10, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to t Pitkin Re Verve
PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. The amended
application is requesting 9 single family units while the
original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan approved 12 attached zero lot
line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses
through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites
is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were
located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in
front of the homesites to behind the homesites along Willoughby
Way.
Planning Office
Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall
site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation
or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open
space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the
same, but will be redistributed between the 9 lots developed.
Development will still occur within the building envelope
originally approved. Since only 9 units will be built as opposed
to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining 3 units not
built at Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park
as unused development rights, to be added to the other 7 units
which the applicant accrued within the Smuggler Mobile Home
Park settlement agreement.
The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual
impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property.
The road is now located above the houses and the proposed
units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail.
The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since
the property slopes down from the street and the height of the
structures will still be limited to the same height as in the
original plan.
The road realignment will create a need to revise the Pitkin
Reserve landscaping plan. The Planning Office would like to
review and approve the changes to ensure they are as complete
as the original landscaping plan.
Referral
Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major
design changes, but will require further drainage and utility
studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented
that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line.
The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be
varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum
setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and
approved in the original PUD.
P&Z and
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the
Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further
north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units a few feet
south and permit the construction of 9 single family units.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
January 10, 1983
Page Two
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and
December 10, 1982.
5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment.
Council
Motion: Should you concur with the recommendations of the Planning Office
and P&Z, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"Move to grant approval to the amendment to the Pitkin Reserve
PUD, subject to the following conditions:
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and
December 10, 1982.
5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment."
J
•
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office v
DATE: November 8, 1982
RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P.U.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application for an amendment to the
Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. plan, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
1. As expressed in a letter from the project engineers at
Eldorado Engineering, there will be no major design changes
or new problems associated with the revised plan relative to
water, sewer, and drainage. Approval of a revised P.U.D. should
be contingent on recordation of appropriate utility and drainage
designs for the new configuration of units.
2. While the proposed amendment may result in fewer units, the
revised configuration may result in more disturbance to the site.
Relocation of the access road to the north requires more radical
cut slopes and the proposed unit locations will require a fill area
extending further to the south. While the impacts of the revised
design may be an improvement when viewed from the south, pulling
the structures out of the hill and placing them on fill may result
in a visual impact when viewed from Willoughby Way.
3. The Gatehouse has been relocated closer to the Willoughby
Way right-of-way. The applicant should be required to leave at
least the same setback included in the original P.U.D. of about
five (5) feet.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan
DATE: November 16, 1982
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD
pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. Originally the PUD was
approved for 12 attached zerio lot line housing sites with a private
access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property.
The proposed amendment would permit the developer to build single
family housing sites in lieu of some portion of the attached zero lot
line sites that were approved. The applicant is not yet certain what
combination of single family and zero lot line homesites will be
used, but would like to have the felxibility, depending on market
conditions, to develop (or sell for development) various combinations
of the two types of housing sites. The attached chart shows the 15
different alternatives which may be built ranging from the original
12 attached zero lot line sites to 9 free standing single family
units. The proposed amendments would also relocate the private
access road (and the utility easements underneath) from in front of
the homes in the center of the property to behind the homes along
Waverly Way. The new alignment is less visable and reduces the
vertical change from 62 to 50 feet, but increases the visability of
the homes which were originally to be built into the hill.
Planning Office
Review: Section 24-8.26(b), Amendment of the PUD Plan, states that PUD amend-
ments should only be made if the changes are shown to be required by
changes in conditions that have occurred since final plat approval or
by chances in community policy. The applicant has stated that the
proposed amendments have been made due to changes in the market, a
result of continued study of the site and a better understanding of
the housing opportunities and needs in Aspen.
The proposed changes will not result in an increase in overall site
coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility
problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The
overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed
between the actual number of lots developed. Development will still
occur within the building envelope originally approved. Any of the
12 approved units which are not built at the Pitkin Reserve will
return to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights. These
units arose from the conversion of Smuggler Trailer Park to owner -
occupied employee housing units.
The subject property has a significant slope dropping from Willoughby
Way down to the Rio Grande trail. The original site plan called for
the 12 attached homesites to be built into the slope near Willoughby
Way with the road down below. The amended proposal puts the road up
by Willoughby Way and the houses down below. The houses were less
visible from the road and the Rio Grande trail in the original appli-
cation, so from a viewplane standpoint, the amended application is
less desirable.
Another Planning Office concern is that the development alternative
that is ultimately chosen be reviewed, approved and shown to be one
of the requested alternatives and that the final development plan be
recorded as it is to be built. Since the original submission of
this application, the applicant has refined his request and has
agreed to stay within the confines of 3 of the alternatives requested.
These 3 development alternatives will be presented by the applicant
at the P & Z meeting on November 16, 1982. We feel that the Planning
Office can approve the final plan, if it falls under one of the 3
possible alternatives requested. Any change outside what has been
requested in these 3 alternatives would require further review by P &
and Council.
Memo: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan
November 16, 1982
Page Two
The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design
changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for
the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed
gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard
setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but
Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given,
the setback provided and approved in the original PUD.
Incidently, although it was not required, the Planning Office scheduled
a public hearing for this PUD review since there was so much interest
and input from the public during the initial application.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend the approval of
the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final development plan must be one of the 3 alternative
combinations of single family detached units and attached, zero
lot line units requested by the applicant.
2. The Planning Office must review and approve the final mix of
unit types. The final plan must then be recorded, amending the
original Pitkin Reserve's PUD plan prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised
detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance
of a building permit.
4. The gatehouse must be a minimum of 5 feet from the front property
line.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
DATE: December 7, 1982
Applicant's
Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve
PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. When P&Z first
discussed this amendment at the November 16, 1982 meeting, the
applicant requested an amendment which would allow any of four
different development alternatives. Each of the four alternatives
represented a different mix of single family and duplex structures
on the Pitkin Reserve parcel. The applicant has now amended his
application and is requesting an amendment to allow one develop-
ment scheme, 11 units on the subject parcel - five single family
units and three duplexes. The original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access
road in front of the houses through the middle of the property.
The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where
the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment
has been moved from in front of the homesites to behind the home -
sites along Willoughby Way.
Planning Office
Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall
site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation
or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space
provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but
will be redistributed between the 11 lots developed. Development
will still occur within the building envelope originally approved.
Since only 11 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units
originally approved, the remaining unit not built at the Pitkin
Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as an unused
development right.
The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual
impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property.
The road is now located above the house creating less visual
impacts and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no
longer face the trail. The visual impact from Willoughby Way
will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street
and the height of the structures will still be limited to the
same height as in the original plan.
Referral
Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request.
Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major
design changes, but will require further drainage and utility
studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented
that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The
30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied
through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback
of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in
the original PUD.
Planning Office
Recommendation. -
The Planning Office recommends that P&Z recommend the approval
of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will
move the access road further north toward Willoughby, move the
dwelling unit a few feet to the south and provide a unit mix of
five single family units and three duplexes. Approval is subject
to the following conditions:
Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment
December 7, 1982
Page Two
1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the
front property line.
2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the
revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary
changes in the landscaping plan.
4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the
letter dated October 12, 1982 from Michael Lipkin.
5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi-
tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan
that are not affected by this amendment.
•
MEMORANDUM
0
TO: City Attorney!
FROM: Alan Richman and Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Amendments to the Pitkin Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision
Agreement
DATE: April 27, 1983
This memo is provided in response to your memo of April 21, 1983,
requesting our comments on the proposed revisions to the Pitkin
Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement. It is our understanding
that these revisions are designed to reflect the recently approved
PUD amendment granted by City Council on January 10, 1983. Based
on our processing of the original PUD application and the amendment
to the PUD, we have several problems with the proposed revisions to
the Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement which are discussed below.
The most significant problem that we can identify at this time is
that whereas the original agreement showed a common area (which was
to remain as open space) amounting to 65 percent of the size of the
total development parcel, this area has been reduced to only about
23.6 percent of the parcel in the revised agreement. A close exam-
ination of the original and the amended Final PUD plat documents
that the decrease in common area is the result of a substantial
increase in the size of each of the lots proposed for residential
development beyond that originally approved by Council.
Our concern with this matter is twofold. First, as part of the re-
view of the original PUD plan, much attention was given to the•open
space and landscaping features of the proposal. One strong factor
in favor of the development was the presence of a large common
area, to be maintained jointly by the Homeowners Association. This
approach insured the maintenance.of a consistent open space and
vegetation pattern in this most visible location and was a principal
selling point for the development during the public hearings on the
project.
We do not believe that the decrease in common area was discussed or
approved as part of the PUD amendment process. The focus of the
discussion during the amendment was the location of the road and
the change from six duplex structures on twelve lots to nine single
family structures on nine lots. No mention was made of increasing
the size of each lot to encompass what was formerly the common area.
Since sunstantial public reliance on the presence of the common area
was created during the original reveiw and since no change to this
arrangement was discussed during the amendment process, we cannot
accept the Final PUD plat on the subdivision agreement in their
current form.
Should the applicant wish to obtain approval for these documents as
currently rpoposed, it would have to be as a result of a repetition
of the PUD amendment procedure. We would prefer, however, that the
plat be revised to again designate the southern portion of each of
the nine lots as common area and that the percentage of common area
be recalculated to approach the original promise of 65 percent of
the parcel being reserved for this purpose. It is interesting to
note that this information has already been provided on the building
envelope/landscaping sheet of the final plat set and would only need
to be transferred to the plat itself to satisfy our concern.
Following is a detailed response to the pago-by-page issues you
have raised in your memo:
Page 1: Proceedings representations are accurate. Final plat is
acceptable, except as mentioned below.
Page 2: We do not feel that the PUD amendment allowed an increase
in developable land from 35% to 76.39%.
Amendments to the P' in Reserve Final PUD and
Subdivision Agreeme
Page Two
Page 3: This change reflects our major concern regarding
common areas. We recommend an additional PUD amend-
ment process to approve this change or an increase in
the common areas back to the originally approved per-
centage (65%).
Exhibit "A" removed the original clarification that the
employee unit must be deed restricted to low or moderate
income guidelines. This should not be eliminated.
Again, the new size of the development site (76.30%)
and the decreased common area (23.61%) is a problem in
Exhibit "A". Building coverage has also been increased
by 4,430 square feet, but an increase was alluded to,
although not specified, in the amendment process.
We do not believe that the development allocation approach en-
visioned herein amounts to a "density transfer". As a result
of the Settlement Agreement for the Smuggler Mobile Home Park,
the developer was granted the right to'19_free mardet units.
These units were permitted to "float" with no site being desig-
nated for their development. The developer may use these rights-
on.anv parcel for which all the other development approvals required
by the Municipal Code are obtained. Therefore, if only 9 units
are used on this site, then 10 remain for development potential
on another site(s).
Page 4: In both the original and revised agreements, the
employee unit is located on the lot designated as
common area. We feel this is no problem and that this
does not represent a change from the original agreement
except for the size of the lot designated as common
area (lot 13 in the original agreement, lot 10 in the
amended agreement).
Page 5: The Planning Office does not understand why the applicant
has decreased the access easement from 30 feet to 22 feet.
It appears, however, that paragraph C, section VIII, of
the revised agreement gives the full 30 foot access
easement originally proposed and approved.
Lot 11 on the amended plat is identical to lot 14 on
the original plat and therefore there is no apparent
reason why the City should not accept the dedication
of the parcel. The calculation of the park dedication
fee is discussed below.
Page 6: Lot 11 (amended plat) and lot 14 (original plat) are
identical.
Page 7: We have no problem with the employee unit being located
on the parcel which is designated as common area.
Page 8: �To issue - We could not find Exhibit "H".
Pages 8
and 9: Exhibit "G" in the amended agreement gives a new cal-
culation fee for Pitkin Reserve using the same formula
as the original agreement. The numbers have changed
due to the following:
1. Total parcel size'was reduced from 20 acres to 17.5
acres ( less 2.5 acres). The Planning Office does
not understand why this reduction has taken place.
2. The units, understandably, have increased from 3 to 4
bedroom units and therefore, the park fee multiplier
found in the Code (Section 7-143) is different.
3. The open space parcel has decreased in size from 13
acres to 10.5 acres (also less 2.5 acres). The Planning
Office does not understand why this reduction has
taken place.
Amendments to the Pin Reserve Final PUD and •
Subdivision Agreement
Page Three
The calculations make sense, but the 2.5 acre reduction in open
space and total parcel size does not.
in summary, we have identified for you a series of major and minor
concerns associated with the proposed revisions to the Pitkin
Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement. These concerns
require that we sit down as a group to consolidate our feelings
on this matter and then discuss them with the applicant. We will
be available for such a meeting at your convenience and will await
your response prior to any further action on this matter. We
recommend that the applicant be contacted as soon as practical to
inform him that we(� are unable to approve his submission at this time.
L.� tit +V LV
� CITY OF ASION
a ..rw aM,S
MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS
�2
35�0 7 3q�o
i ,rC re -Frame
•
23.E t`f. Qar�l
® �xLubi� C " (or) 05.c�`
cited -to tou-) or rrcd
o .S (Cove Qua
v u t
�rnpl- Vn- i5 oh tof ib �r -EhL cow
CITY OF AS*.N
MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS
eq
Pam. Ili Cct�
7t*aA Po,fr.'21 si 2� uCp� �rt
..D «.(-. -k> lZ-j -
New �� gR L' �' 10
L3 dues -z. 5
rocs (0.5 acKS
t+ 'r-f-e
Atoe5
•
•
F0uN:_►D 1
TO: Planning Director
City Engineer
City Manager
FROM: City Attorney
DATE. April 21, 1983
RE: Amendments to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Pitkin
Reserve
Annexed is a copy of a Proposed Amendment to PUD and Subdivision for
the Pitkin Reserve delivered to my office by Beb Hughes on April 15, 1983.
Please review the proposed amendments as being in conformity with Planning &
Zoning Commission and City Council approvals, and comment as appropriate.
In comparing the Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreanent (hereinafter
"Amended Agreement") with the original PUD and Subdivision Agreement
(hereinafter "Original"), I observe the following changes:
Page 1. The recitals of the amended agreement refer to the
letter application dated October 12, 1982 which was supplemented by a
memorandum on December 10, 1982, and proceedings before the Planning &
Zoning Commission and the City Council (held on January 10, 1983) approving
the terms of the Amended Agreement. I request that the Planning Department
check proceedings for accuracy. I request that both the Planning and
Engineering Department verify the amended plat of the Pitkin Reserve
for accuracy and conformity with approvals.
Page 2. The original agreement stated that approxir,�ately 35% of
the development will be used for the construction of not more than 12
residential free market units and one detached. The Amended Agreement
now states that approximately 76.39% of the development parcel will be
used for the construction of not more than 9 residential free market units
and one detached deed restricted employee housing unit. This raises the
question of what will happen to the remaining three residential free
market housing units. Additionally, the original agreement (see Page 3 -
subparagraph (1) ) has been amended to reflect Lots 1 through 9 rather
than Lots 1 through 12.
Page 3. The reference to Common Area - Lot 13 in the original Agreement
(see Page 3 of original Agreement) has been altered to reflect that
the development parcel shall consist of approximately 23.61% rather than
65%.
- The site data tabulation annexed to the original Agreement as Exhibit
"C" are superceded by the site dated tabulations annexed to the amended
Agreement as Exhibit "A". Please review Exhibit "A" in detail for conformity
to the amended plat and approvals.
•
Page Two
Memorandum to Planning
April 21, 1983
Director, City Engineer, City Manager
- The reference to public open space Lot 14 (see Page 4 of original,
Paragraph B at top) has been changed to reflect the public open space as
Lot 14 and a more accurate reference to Lots 1 through 9 within the
development parcel rather than Lots 1-12 as appears in the original Agreement.
- Section C of Article II concerning the interrelation of the Pitkin
Reserve and Smuggler Developments (see Page 5 of the original Agreement) has
been amended to reflect that nine otherwise non-exempt free market housing
units will be governed by the Smuggler Agreement rather than twelve as
appears in the original Agreement. Again, keep in mind that rising to
the surface is what is the City's response to the remaining 10 units
to which the developers are entitled; i.e., the Smuggler Development
gave the developers approximately 19 non-exempt housing units, 9 of which are
now going to be developed in connection with Pitkin Reserve, leaving
approximately 10 housing units which are non allocated to any actual develop-
ment parcel. In this regard, additional language is being proposed in the
amended Agreement (III, B at bottom of Page 3) indicating that all of the
19 otherwise non-exempt free market housing units not utilized in connection
with the construction of homes at Pitkin Reserve shall be retained by owner
but be freely transferable to other properties. The consequence of this
additional language appears to permit the transfer of density to other
presentlyunascertained developable parties properties. I question whether
or not this additional language has been reviewed and considered throughout
the approval process. In particular, I would like your continents as to the
extent to which this has been approved, as well as your comments on the
concept in general.
Page 4. Article 3 regarding employee housing dedication and restrictions
(see Page 6 of the original Agreement) is amended to reflect Lots 1 through
9 on the amended plat rather than Lots 1 through 12, and a deed restriction
of Lot 10 to employee housing. Remember that earlier in the amended
Agreement Lot 10 was designated as common open space. I would like your
comments.
Page 5. The prefatory language in Section IV has been amended to
reflect an amended plat (see Page 9 of original Agreement).
- The provisions for an access easement on Page 10 of the original
Agreement, Subparagraph D is changed to reflect the owners of Lots 1
through 9 and the reservation of a 22 foot access and utility easement as
indicated, rather than a 30 foot access easement as appears in the original.
- The dedications provisions appearing in Article VII in the original
agreement (see Page 11 of the original Agreement) has been changed as
follows: Paragraph A now will read Lot 10 rather than Lot 13; the land
dedication provisions have been revised to reflect Lots 1 through 9 and
the employee housing unit to be installed upon Lot 10 and that the City would
Page Three
Memorandum to Planning Director, City Engineer, City Manager
April 21, 1983
accept the dedication of Lot 11, rather than Lot 14 as in the original
Agreement, in lieu of cash payment and affirms as accurate the valuation
of Lot 11 in the calculation of the park dedication fee based on a
schedule which is attached as Exhibit "G" of the original Agreement. I
would request your comments concerning the clarity and effect of this
amended language.
Page 6. Paragraph A of Article VIII has been changed to reflect the
amended plat and Lots 1 through 9 rather than Trots 1 through 12.
- Paragraph D has been revised to indicate the publically owned
open space now as Lot 11. My concern is whether or not the amended plat
changes the understanding with Pitkin County in any respect. In other
words, is Lot 14 on the original plat identical with Lot 11 as appears
on the amended plat?
Page 7. Paragraph C of Article VIII pertaining to open space in
common area, specifically common area - Lot3 (see Page 12 of original
Agreement) has been changed to reflect the common area Lot 10 rather than
Lot 13 (remember Lot 10 is also being dedicated for employee housing, is
this the understanding that was reached before P & Z and Council?)
and the paragraph changed to reflect Lots 1 through 9 rather than Lots 1
through 12.
Page 8. Subparagraph (3) of Section C of VIII (see Page 13 of original
Agreement has been altered to reflect fee simple Lots 1 through 9
rather than 1 through 12.
- Subparagraph (5) and (6) of Subsection C of VIII of (see Page 12
of original Agreement) have been amended to reflect fee simple Lots 1
through 9, rather than fee simple Lots 1 through 12.
- The proposed covenants referred to in Subparagraph (6) of Paragraph C
of Article VIII (see Page 13 of original Agreement)have been amended to,
in effect, alter Exhibit "H" to the original agreement by superseding
Exhibit "H" with the draft declaration which appear as Exhibit "B" to the
amended PUD Subdivision Agreement. My comments regarding the new
declaration are as follows:
I would like some comment as to the real property described in Exhibit
"A" as appears in the new declaration; Lot 10 is referred to as the common
area rather than 13 in the original covenants; please review and
compare Article IX, i.e., architectural standards with Article IX on
architectural standards in the new agreement. There are changes throughout
regarding the establishment of a "new construction committee" and
"modifications committee" comprising members of residents of Pitkin
Reserve: Section 11 pertains to "homes" rather than "residential units".
•
Page Four
Memorandum to Planning Director, City Engineer, City Manager
April 21, 1983
- Paragraph D of Article VIII has been changed to reflect that the number
of units to be built within Pitkin Reserve shall not exceed 9 rather
than 12 free market units.
- Subparagraph E of Article VIII (see original Agreement, Page 14)
pertaining to party walls has been deleted in as much as there is no
longer a condcminium concept.
Page 8 and 9. The Article pertaining to water rights availability
is amended to read that the sixteen inch water line will cross the
development parcel on the amended lot between Lots 8 and 9 and that service
lines will be shown on the utility sheets.
Please review Exhibit "G" with respect to the land valuation and
park dedication fee calculation. This exhibit has been changed
completely and I would like continents from the Planning Office and the
City Manager as to whether Exhibit "C" is accurate in light of the amended
plats.
Please provide me with your comments as quickly as possible in as
much as the owner is interested in commencing construction immediately.
If necessary, I am available to discuss this at a meeting with all
concerned.
3-200491 UIVI;SION OF ACCOUwis nivu
FUND 6200 AGENCY ND
16 W ARRANT �,r<I,� DAY YE Ali
.. AGENCYNO. Y')mC IERNI). ACC Ol/N1
ON THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF COLORADO O
9� 4 21_0 ll$5
CHARGE TO ACCOUNT OF
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DMLI. ARS i ENT1 I
r4 7 A! 151
Ay URDE R OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
RDE
130 S GALENA ''�•�
ASPEN CO 81611 ` �MT£ C0!,TR0U&(l
OUT OF ANY MONEYS NOT UTHER\115F APPROVRIATf_D _ FZ+y�+/ �C� �-''- .',E�3..4CSL'1..•r-}�z ..::�
u°0 3 200 E, ;Julio F: L0 00000 181: 10�.1 ►, � �'_8011° ,
1 F 0. 3- 2 Q a 4 7 5 STATE OF COLORADO -
ANABLE BANKERTHROUGANY
BANK
HANK OR BANKER
3-2004 75 DIVISION OF ACCOUNTS AND CONTROL
LIM
�,
FROM AFTER 6 MONTHS
FROM ISSUE DATE
FUND 6200 AGENCY FUND
WARRANT
f
AGENCY NG. vOUC:HE R NO. ACCOUNT
_
THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
DAV vEnRr91s!ON
FO4
CHARGE TO ACCOUNT OF
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
AY TO THE
P C:'.1Y OF ASPEN
IF
ORDER OF
1320 S GALENA
co C161i
ASPEN
'LIAM CO ,Trl=V( t;
f
- --_ -.
-
,:.�.�--
0 ?C1C)0(J ' �''1<< i OE I
n
S
MEMORANDUM
T0:
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Manager
PLANNER:
Alice Davis
RE:
Pitkin Reserve Amendment to PUD
DATE:
October 19, 1982
Attached please find an application requesting an amendment to an approved
plan for development of the Pitkin Reserve. The proposed amendment includes
permitting the developer to construct either single family or duplex residences
on the property, replat.ting the development parcel, and relocating the private
access road and utility easement.
Please review the application and return your comments to the Planning Office
no later than November 3, as the item is scheduled to go before the Aspen
P & Z on November 16, 1982.
Thank you.