The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.100 N 8th St.21A-88VILLA- o� �TW-P3 -o5LW / jai-zlza F� U ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY - 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER 1 1 I Name: JI I �Lq-pf r1 0f.Ir1lL!.: Address: ``" Check If Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: I r Ui i;` �:V; ; w-)%i✓ust� 1 1) 4114) PP- ,7r�ii-t E n f Date: If of Hours: c C CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: a6 DATE COMPLETE: PROJECT Project nn APPLICANT• (b 1 Applicant Kddressit16 1 - Qi� �,�✓ICJ . REPRESENTATIVE- _ / � � , Representative Address/Phone: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. STAFF MEMBER: -'Va-- PAID: ==YES== NO AMOUNT: 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z CC PfJBttC HEARING DATE: VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: P&Z CC N/A DATE REFERRED: Q l �U INITIALS: REFERRALS: —V,t— City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief B1dg:Zon/Inspect Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FIN/AL ROUTING: J DATE ROUTED: City Atty City Engineer VBldg. Dept. `"- J Other • FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:c,�j l- �� Op CASE DISPOSITION 'f Villas of Aspen Townhouses PUD Amendment approved with the following conditions: o Any landscape material destroyed during construction will be replaced with comparable or better material. o Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, submit a Final Plat which conforms to the requirements of the Municipal Code. o Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide a resolution of the Board of Directors approving the Plan as submitted. o The proposed carports are not approved and must be deleted from the amended plat. ,6L 0 0 Reaular Meetina Aspen Citv Council July 25, 1988 condominiumization plat and #3 that the applicant will join in an improvement district and that the impact fee for employee housing is being waived; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. PUD AMENDMENT - Villas of Aspen Townhouses Tom Baker, planning office, told Council this is a PUD amendment for the Villas located between Hallam, Main and Eighth streets. This amendment is for the old Villas. Baker told Council P & Z approved the PUD amendment, deleting the carport aspect of the proposal. P & Z is concerned about potential highway alignments, especially the direct alignment coming in Main street. Baker pointed out the city attorney's office prepared a waiver allowing the owners on the south portion of the site to sign so that if the highway were to come through there and there was compensa- tion, these owners would waive the added value of these improve- ments. Baker said the P & Z also wanted to make sure the condominium owners as a whole are in favor of this proposal. Baker told Council this PUD amendment is done in total, rather than piecemeal like the Aspen Club. Staff reviewed the charac- ter, visual impact, landscaping, FAR, density, potential impacts to open space, and transportation. Staff found that the proposal was compatible with what exists. P & Z has recommended approval with conditions that any landscape material destroyed during construction be replaced with comparable or better material; that prior to the issuance of building permit the applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the engineering department, submit a final plat which conforms to the requirements of the Municipal Code; that the applicant shall provide documentation that the Board of Directors are acting with the support and knowledge of the homeowners, as indicated in the Association rules; that the proposed carports be deleted from the proposals; and that units 31 through 36 be required to sign the attached waiver in case the highway requires compensation on a direct connection. Welton Anderson said they have no problems with the first condition regarding landscaping. Anderson told Council there are 3 options; one is doing all the units at once and does not involve an increase in square footage; the other two are options of individual owners adding a small amount of square footage. Depending on what option is chosen is what can be submitted to the building department. Anderson said the third condition involves the knowledge of the homeowners. Anderson told Council there was a meeting held July 12 which was duly notified by registered mail; proxies were sent in. the meeting was continued until the Villas could get the required 85 percent of the homeowners to verify the change to allow this amendment. Anderson said he feels this is sufficient for the city to 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 1988 acknowledge there is authorization from the Association as a whole, with the Board acting in their interest. Anderson said the fourth condition is that the carports be deleted. Anderson showed pictures of what the carports would look like from across the street. Anderson told Council this would be a horizontal line that is transparent. The applicants want to get east light into the carports. Anderson said he does not feel P & Z's recommendation about the carports was based on enough information. Anderson said he does not feel there is any way to convince the owners in units 31 through 36 to sign the waiver. Anderson said P & Z's intent was to let the owners know there may be a highway coming through and the city does not want to be liable for approving this amendment. Anderson told Council the prices for that block of units has always been 25 percent lower than the rest of the units in the complex because of the possibility of the highway location. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, said P & Z was going to deny this application if there was no atten- tion paid to the fact these six units may be effected by the highway alignment. Gannett said P & Z wanted the owners of these units to waive any increase in additional value. Gannett said he does not feel this has to be done, but it was a concern of the majority of P & Z. Councilman Gassman said he cannot see why the city would require this waiver. Gannett recommended that the waiver is not necessary. Mickey Herron, representing the condominiumium association to the east and Herb Klein, said the reason they are against the carports is the majority of the trees lose the leaves during the winter and the carports would be visible from all around. Herron said the nice thing about both of the Villas is that people can see through them. Herron said the particular carport area is elevated and putting a structure on top of this would be blocking the view. P & Z was unanimous in not approving the carports. Anderson said the height of the carport is 8 to 10 feet and will be built into the berm that currently exists. Herron said cars are much less intrusive than seeing a solid wall along Eighth street. Councilman Gassman said the carports do not bother him, but if P & Z and the neighbors feel they are a problem, he will go along with deleting them. Baker requested clarification on condition #3. Anderson told Council the Association did an information mailing to see if they should proceed with this amendment. The feedback was overwhelmingly in favor. There is a rather lengthy formal process to change the declarations and by-laws to allow this. Anderson said at this point, there is no written documen- tation they can give the city showing they have a majority of the 15 4F . • Reaular Meeting Aspen City Council Julv 25, 1988 Association behind the proposal. Anderson suggested a time factor be put on the third condition that prior to the issuance of a building permit, documentation be provided to staff to illustrate that the Board is acting with the approval of the homeowners. Gannett said this should be a resolution of the Board that they have had a vote and whatever the by-laws require for an amendment. Councilman Tuite moved to approve the Aspen Villas PUD amendment with conditions 1 and 2 as outlined in the memorandum; condition 3 with the amendment that prior to the issuance of a building permit it be shown that the PUD is be acted upon with the consent of the Board of Directors of the condominium association; 4 as is and condition #5 be withdrawn; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #20, SERIES OF 1988 - Marolt Ranch Exhibit Tom Baker, planning office, said this is a request for endorse- ment for an amendment to the existing parks/recreation/open space/trails element. Baker told Council Carl Bergman and the historical society have been working with the planning office for the last 18 months on the idea of renovating the Marolt barn and having some historic exhibits. This has been refined in a work session with Council. This would be a historic ranching exhibit including the barn and 1.9 acres. Carl Bergman, representing the historical society, told Council they have gone before the HPC. P & Z's only major concern was that the highway may come straight through the Marolt property. Bergman said the city can come up with a solid decision that the highway will not effect this project. P & Z otherwise favors this project. Bergman told Council there has been a lot of work on this project. One point was to have to no cars in this area. Bergman agreed it would be a good thing not to have automobiles on this property. Bergman said it would be better to have the entrance to this off of Castle Creek. Mayor Pro Tem Fallin asked if the historical society will take the responsibility for maintaining this exhibit. Mayor Pro Tem Fallin said she would like to see a formal agreement between the city and the historical society regarding this maintenance. Bergman said they would agree with this. Councilman Isaac said according to the sixth penny ordinance, this project has to be taken to a vote of the electorate. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, said the exceptions for this are, the city shall not permit the change in use of real property acquired for open space purposes other than recreational, agricultural and undergrounding easements. Gannett said if a museum falls into recreational or agricultural definitions, this does not to be taken to a vote. 16 .• • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Tom Baker, Principal Planner J6 RE: Aspen Villas PUD Amendment DATE: June 29, 1988 SU4MARY: Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment with conditions. APPLICANT: Aspen Villas Townhouse Condominium Association APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: C. Welton Anderson LOCATION: Eighth Street between Hallam and Main,(see exhibit 1). ZONING: R-MF PUD, (see exhibit 1). PARCEL SIZE: 100,188 square feet, excluding the steep slope and valley floor. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: This development is part of Aspen's west end neighborhood. The neighborhood is essentially a mix of single-family and multi -family residential with nearby lodge and restaurant uses along the SH 82/Main Street corridor. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: PUD Amendment, (see exhibit 2). The applicant proposes to update the design of the Villas, to remedy some existing design flaws and to provide the opportunity for modest expansions at the option of individual owners. This would include enclosing of existing balconies and expanding existing bedrooms and living areas; new decks may also be added and carports similar to the type found in Snowmass Village are proposed. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department states that the plat must conform with the Municipal Code, (see exhibit 3). STAFF COMMENTS: The criteria which the staff will use to evaluate this amendment as provided in the new Code, is whether the amendment is consistent with the basic intent of the original PUD. The record of the original intent of this PUD is incomplete; however, the staff feels that the intent was to cluster the housing and parking to create a multi -family environment which takes best advantage of open space associated with the development. More specifically, staff will review the amendment's effect on character, visual impact, landscaping, FAR, density, open space and transportation impacts. D• • • Character- The staff finds that the proposed changes to the PUD do not compromise the general character of the development, that is the development will still be a multi- family, clustered, residential development similar in scale to what currently exists. Visual Impact- Staff feels that the view from Hallam Street provides the greatest exposure to people travelling through the area and, therefore, the Hallam units have the greatest potential for visual impact. The staff feels that the architectural changes to the residences will not be negative and that since carports are not proposed for the Hallam Street parking lot there will be no negative visual impact created by this development. Landscaping- This proposal will not effect existing vegetation, although it is possible that plant material may be damaged during construction. The applicant also proposes to construct a carport on the east property line which will require variance in the side yard setback. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the Engineering Department with drawings of this proposal, including topography, to determine if the right-of-way is negatively effected. FAR- Even with full buildout of this proposal the development would be under allowable FAR. Under Plan C the floor area (including basements) would increase from 63,360 to 71,280, a 12.5% increase. This seems like a significant increase, however, it is still considerably below the FAR of 1:1 allowed in the R-MF zone. Density- The applicant is proposing no expansion in unit count, so there is no effect on the development's density. Open Space- In staff's opinion the applicant's proposal does not significantly reduce the development's open space. Transportation- This proposal will not create additional automobile trips. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment for the Aspen Villas with the following conditions: o any landscape material destroyed during construction will be replaced with comparable or better material. o the applicant provide the Engineering Department with construction drawing of the carport, retaining wall and berm so that the Engineering Department can determine that no impacts to the r-o-w will be created. o Prior to the issuance of a building permit the 2 •• 00 applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, submit a Final Plat which conforms to the requirements of the Municipal Code. be s • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City/County Manager FROM: Tom Baker, Principal Planner RE: Aspen Villas PUD Amendment DATE: July 6, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Aspen Villas PUD Amendment with conditions. BACKGROUND: At the regular P&Z meeting of July 5, 1988, the P&Z approved this PUD amendment without the carports due to the neighborhood concerns regarding views and the visual enclosing of the open space from east of Eighth Street. Further, P&Z had concerns regarding the increased value of the southernmost units and how the improvements would effect the decision regarding future highway alignments. Due to these concerns the P&Z required a condition of approval which called on the City Attorney to develop language which would require the owners of those southernmost units to waive the increased value of the improvements in case a new highway alignment caused compensation. Additionally, the P&Z wanted the applicant to document that the Board of Directors are acting with the support and knowledge of the homeowners. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The following information was part of the P&Z packet which led to their recommendation. APPLICANT: Aspen Villas Townhouse Condominium Association APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: C. Welton Anderson LOCATION: Eighth Street between Hallam and Main,(see exhibit 1). ZONING: R-MF PUD, (see exhibit 1). PARCEL SIZE: 100,188 square feet, excluding the steep slope and valley floor. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: This development is part of Aspen's west end neighborhood. The neighborhood is essentially a mix of single-family and multi -family residential with nearby lodge and restaurant uses along the SH 82/Main Street corridor. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: PUD Amendment, (see exhibit 2). The applicant proposes to update the design of the Villas, to remedy tI some existing design flaws and to provide the opportunity for modest expansions at the option of individual owners. This would include enclosing of existing balconies and expanding existing bedrooms and living areas; new decks may also be added and carports similar to the type found in Snowmass Village are proposed. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department states that the plat must conform with the Municipal Code, (see exhibit 3). STAFF COMMENTS: The criterion which the staff will use to evaluate this amendment as provided in the new Code, is whether the amendment is consistent with the basic intent of the original PUD. The record of the original intent of this PUD is incomplete; however, the staff feels that the intent was to cluster the housing and parking to create a multi -family environment which takes best advantage of open space associated with the development. More specifically, staff will review the amendment's effect on character, visual impact, landscaping, FAR, density, open space and transportation impacts. Character- The staff finds that the proposed changes to the PUD do not compromise the general character of the development, that is the development will still be a multi- family, clustered, residential development similar in scale to what currently exists. Visual Impact- Staff feels that the view from Hallam Street provides the greatest exposure to people travelling through the area and, therefore, the Hallam units have the greatest potential for visual impact. The staff feels that the architectural changes to the residences will not be negative and that since carports are not proposed for the Hallam Street parking lot there will be no negative visual impact created by this development. Landscaping- This proposal will not effect existing vegetation, although it is possible that plant material may be damaged during construction. The applicant also proposes to construct a carport on the east property line which will require variance in the side yard setback. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the Engineering Department with drawings of this proposal, including topography, to determine if the right-of-way is negatively effected. FAR- Even with full buildout of this proposal the development would be under allowable FAR. Under Plan C the floor area (including basements) would increase from 63,360 to 71,280, a 12.5% increase. This seems like a significant increase, however, it is still considerably below the FAR of 1:1 allowed in the R-MF zone. 2 00 00 Density- The applicant is proposing no expansion in unit count, so there is no effect on the development's density. Open Space- In staff's opinion the applicant's proposal does not significantly reduce the development's open space. Transportation- This proposal will not create additional automobile trips. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council can approve, approve with conditions or deny this application. RECOMMENDATION: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Aspen Villas PUD Amendment with the following conditions: o Any landscape material destroyed during construction will be replaced with comparable or better material. o Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, submit a Final Plat which conforms to the requirements of the Municipal Code. o Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide a resolution of the Board of Directors approving the Plan as submitted. o The proposed carports are not approved and must be deleted from the amended plat. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Aspen Villas PUD Amendment with the above conditions. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS: aspenvillascc 3 EXHIBIT 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Villa of Aspen Townhoues Condominium Association DATE: 25 April 1988 RE: PUD Amendment to Villa of Aspen Townhouses PURPOSE: The owner's of the Villa of Aspen Townhouses have been in the process of developing a set of designs that would update the image of the Villas, remedy some existing design flaws, and provide the opportunity for modest expansions if individual owners wish to. Problems identified by owners include upstairs bedrooms that are very dark and have severly restricted views because of the 4' deep and low (6'-3") overhangs as well as high railings. In addition, 48 bedrooms (half of the total bedroom count) are 9'-5" x 10'-711, 100 sf) which they feel are much too small and should be enlarged out onto the balconies which are themselves too small and dark to be used for anything but storage. Downstairs, in the 2-bedroom units, the living/dining rooms are only 16' x 17' with views and sunlight restricted by the overhangs of the bedroom balconies. Additionally, many owners want some sort of covered parking similar to several of the condominium complexes at Snowmass. SOLUTION: Through the course of numerous meetings it was agreed that there would be three levels of exterior remodeling: Plan A (the base level plan) would be undertaken and paid for by the whole association and done to every unit as a complex wide upgrade to solve the above mentioned problems. Plan A does not involve any additional square footage but can easily accommodate future expansion (Plans B or C) . Plan A will cut back the roof overhands at the upstairs bedrooms about 3 feet by the width of the sliding glass doors to bring in more light and views. The rest of those balconies that are typically used for outdoor storage) will be walled in for ...outdoor storage. Balcony railings on both levels will be lowered about a foot and steel pipe rails will be added. All entry porches receive a glass windbreak. Plans B & C are the expansion plans that are to be undertaken by individual owners. They differ only in size and degree of structural alterations. For both plans upstairs, the balconies get enclosed with a greenhouse treatment that fills in the openings created for Plan A. Downstairs, Plan B encloses about 2/3 of the exisiting living room deck (91 sf) with a greenhouse; and plan C encloses the whole deck (140 sf) . In limited locations, where no vegetation would be disturbed, where no walks or views would be encroached upon and with the (written) approval of the Board of Directors, deck space that is lost to new enclosure may be replaced. About 1 /3 of the owners have expressed a desire to do Plan B or C immediately, and we are expecting more conversions from Plan A to Plans B or C in the future. •• • • Page Two To avoid the case by case, piecemeal approach that you are familiar with on the additions to the Aspen Club condos P.U.D. , we are re- questing to have the full buildout (Plan C) for all units approved. In this fashion, the City can look at the impact of the maximum potential at buildout at once, and individual owners (most of whom are local employees) won't have to make individual applications to the City at a cost of $1570 each to add 140 square feet to their living room. Carports: In the parking lot off the 8th street loop there is an ideal location for providing covered parking for approximately 18 cars. On either side of the entrance off of 8th street is a berm approximately 4' high that now shields the parking lot from the street. The berm is entirely in the public Right -of -Way but has been landscaped, sprinklered, and maintained by the Villas for 16 years. We propose to construct a 4 to 5 foot retaining wall along the east property line between the existing pavement and the berm. Approximately 2 to 3 feet above the retaining wall and supported on columns, a shed roof will extend 20 feet to the west and cover 6 cars on the south and 12 cars on the north of the entry. The berm will be slightly recontoured to rest against the retaining wall and additional landscaping provided to screen the carport roof. This approach will require a variance in the side yard setback to allow construction of the east wall of the carports on the property line which can be granted as part of the P.U.D. amendment. In reality, the perceived side yard along 8th street (which is 35 feet deep at its minimum) will be essentially unchanged. VISUAL IMPACTS: The area of main concern is the view of the Villas from State Highway 82. Currently the complex looks like a group of very uniform and rather boring structures that look vaguely threatening with their pill -box gun slot balconies perched on the edge of the Castle Creek bluff. The homeowners wish to update the look of the complex with the plan A up grade and add visual interest and variety by providing standards for Plans B and C. The visual impact on the Castel Creek Bluff is already there. We feel these alterations and small additions will provide a more positive image of the Villas as one enters Aspen. Carports: The area where these would be visible is the one block segment of 8th street that connects the west ends of Main and Bleeker Streets. All one would see is the fascia of the shed roof 2 to 3 feet above the berm and screened by mature landscaping. F.A.R.: Not counting the land owned by the Association of the steep slope and in the valley floor of Castle Creek, the flat area above totals 2.3 acres or 100,188 square feet. Counting basements at 1000, the total existing floor area is 63,360 square feet. The full Plan C addition adds 80 square feet upstairs (fully enclosing both balconies) and 140 square feet downstairs for a total of 220 square feet. If all 36 townhouses opted for Plan C, it would add 7920 square feet for a total of 71,280 square feet, well below the 1 :1 allowed on a 100,188 square foot RMF lot. Carports: Total square footage of covered parking is 3360 square feet. Even if parking is counted in F.A.R. , it will not exceed what is allowable. *0 00 Page Three EFFECT ON EXISTING LANDSCAPING: Since all additional square footage is to be located where there currently are decks, and new decks are prohibited where they disturb existing vegetation, there will be no effect on existing landscaping. Carports: The only area being covered is already asphalt. Any disruption to the berms will be restored and new landscaping will be added. CREATION OF ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS: The addition of a 7'x20' greenhouse enclosure in the primary view area of the living room doesn't seem a logical location for a new bedroom. Upstairs, adding 4 feet to the depth of the existing bedrooms doesn't provide enough space to create any new bedrooms. In fact, in at least 2 of the 3 bedroom units the wall between the 2 small (9'-5" x 10'-7") bedrooms has been removed to create one larger bedroom for an overall reduction in bedroom count. EFFECT ON PRIOR CONDITIONS OF APPROACH: At this time there appears to be no record of any conditions of approval in existence. DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS: At this time there is not change in the siding materials which is a textured grooved plywood called T 1-11. The greenhouse enclosures are annodized dark bronze aluminum cladding over wood frames. Glass will all be insulated double glass (the Villas are all single glass now) . All new construction is 2 x 6 to allow for insulation up to current requirements. Carports: The carports will be open on all sides except the portion that is bermed. The shed roof will be covered with shingles (to match the townhouse roofs) . Framing will be post and beam. N N PRE —APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: Villas(' Aspen TDkAkD,'ntf POD APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: we KDn Any REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: �I�la� !>Q�^ l ��>I�rl' jwnerS asl�L�aTloh SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: PJD AAliJrm'lt CSej;ob o U-�•� 6 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: �I C a c D w n r,/q ,, art'?. < t td L 0p 1�>�J1 r�t r e !h o d Zr' s L " I sa to el,L�o,z �tck�rt[pntl�iJr� G�tckS a0 �� sv111La{ IVI�W�Ae'�G! fly , 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments �' 1 I �T)n1 �slap� re�VtTIJ/'I /%'�IY2�Z�t �1>IlitlySl1��U��iy�y u (1 I )vfl I Yhn f (�S l � sli v{ {\ 1M 1�yStln or. nl u MV1g1M% 1 f 1 I J 6 Ef(Qf PA Ay �riDr gprbvAII e0,.� "pPrD'A /� ttDrnt y' �ifrf ar .T C, PU0 AaVtnan<wi 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (PiZ then to C /BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) O(NO) 6. Did you tell ap cant to submit list of ADJACEN —PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) Ll�r'{cgfw� 6'f 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: �15'7 isf�.S��rcFnfd /V�Y,p�Lti rep/01<11��I IJf �D 8. Anticipated date of submission: �N�vrt.�4.��lltff,fti . 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: I Apoi IL,' Y'iINtivf� .,�.Letfer,'X�tA'n.,,f1I�pVYPOS bP'0 t( i,pl� t>v DPIIJ✓1dlMAn^�//�1n`� IJ J'I l'.' �1tit �3\) UAI II%pfill �•�(y�l/1K Nh ly�i �/� QM� Unl0�l1�Q� TIDb�A%PA CXnphs in <Il�tlh� inTir U {�PI�nTIJ) ��oi�l a�� >J� FAIV �{ I,7�� R.I-p.✓� �6�-( It��1��i3U� dtu�l (7�C✓p' /iNv► fl </�Yvrn ; /l Gti�� Dj"� t1 A)jtb i ;� L11�n Lnn ��ti�/ �j Qlr�(16 i g�`'611 ovt�n L Irk 7�' �� /7P-jk ,II l �IZVAiions/-�1 AJ 1ft/r.� —lS�f(IhII7titlotppl4��t`(1h Navy.�� . Te I r /�er/st�P{ P1Rh �. PIrtDr � a\ �-_.,�-✓'_"'Y-'�-•y - , ... �^ E�t`�'�fJ�71/C?>'�N\1/iXjD�i / 3 �V zA.�� . cr, IR�Is{At"IIDId priGrla. - l . � _� a ®. - ® o � O v �A , � 9 � A C 0 � �' �• <t �j,,:.-.._.,� 5 � . ,;, n 2. i 1 N e'y *%' cp6' B I I ,, IG06o'44"w sy All ♦ ,� - ��r ,.{ /%i uNrr '� , • - I 7 �E".-fr',ct:- UNE. lik I t 11Nnlif _ , 7 71 711 —AD � ; / '�1 P i1tilG� u ayr I UNrT '3s UNIT? (` %I ✓ II MS tf \ `;� `r �� A 1 � f I� ' I -a � • .,` } l � .>- � I ,� � Y � I 5 Y� `/- � -- -• . � r r ..,� � `� �_ . -� ,:r 4 � ��,�.% � . ♦ � ' U Ne'r 34 t i � � 1 • ', f. "�_?� ` { i �� v 1 '' UNrt f4 UNrr Zs I UNrr ZG UNrT 33 LNIT to / x a „n y r! - _ - - I ✓ / 1 1 9 14' 1, e.74'Woo E Eel H4i-i' 'E ly.z3 W N </r�,•, _ Ln4rr Iqlp �jN�'i^ UNr-r27 Ufa; Z6 UNrf L� UN TKO UN r3l � j uNrr lb uNrr n UHrr 3 �' zcc PA I A5r 463b 4d4 L ' 3 o � I — -- 04cwS� Uppee 6 Lo\v6e t�car� r� i I t AW.E.4, vil-r4IN \VuiGN N6.\/ - —_ —t pEgt. HAY ft ewlcr 6W.64 of N6v p60. MAY NOT FJ c W 9tx AIZEA eoRP4 eT - . -- ownoos e�e,freAN -reef- t 0Os7lN4 i7[fl a10u-5 'f2f.t I I I + L"�%, N eo_ 1pr F- POtl 4&Q 9,OqI N I J N MAP PN7jE:O 47�. */ M 7Z. ?W�Aec,7 1?�y -1 ei-ce MANAC-AF_ mENT • G nJt-eAL N?rFh INTttrf: -;T: t/,t P9A\1ANGt A t GwY�'TGdcCTui GS 610,VIN4 AVAe&ly of N701fIC�TbN`i r�ia6LE rc,z T1+tvIL.A OP &weIj -roM: Nabts, At� t.►44 OPfaM rot-: M PFPeL&*4T GN EAc++ Uka� AOU.4f: MA36j 1N6 ON 0,Wte'. PUFf4l! C 4bX?d4.T+A& 1Vtw AA, Uv,^110N A C05Y Y OF U?41`1�, 64fnN4 -Qrrs, �iAwLL m 0*4lSL wl�olrl�Is,eTo. r,:trtsa�. Au_ jowctrnt* TO ALL. 3L Wr16 C NNar rE W^09EO A-r of DEA"04. T1%C eL•E Lf5✓fa-Y UPPEe L-Euei- Fi18445 ,J1'ilO1J 'A' (m-oe) 0"04 `c, (MAJOC) I Orno,4 18 CMIuni1_,.I I _ p- wane i >uuGo-7(FVI� �Y�OflI� I 1 lµ.I 5V \ I oP�f.►r. / N.�•, caaa c e OF n•P/1OATON b AIL AS Rouov.. II - _c`. t, t-J A. (Mir.wc): Lo� sa,0 rown04 or RMuNsrs ,!M ecr: LE T-L6 SIt' ONO ii a4uX N4w/,fiV46 I »E CA. -•+ii -fb "CeT 400&. GJf A "-V = 3 Fda' = F [.00 ON 00T A+OI 41 / kf .Cc A-r C4i�innr-� b�-.ntiM ,: JSs DmrL, -1N�% Feu. IN RPiu11:[ .ps; _nis acccr .•/rt. c..v .w..uc. . p:/at r,'(r.wri): s,rbs.ti L►.p✓t es* GNr✓-e I � r '- --� w AQI•Y,44A•51.y "Cis oI Lour EaT+ poac rn-'J I j. —� • ._ -^ - �•__., 4rtGj rOI.wE ( P6 ►, M*4eVV4, Cr ) A5-60 t✓, r AS'r,e te.-444" ;%" Fi+c•.oasv �•ml• c.etw.+ouoE ,is w: , LNO N�yv C O4-r tvm ). V.441W 1 PfLY5 ow ;MC- . SI:.t riky Ve 'A"4• #r "ftW' A .&, /Art Oe t.!/f PI ftJ.- u1AN6 G/ori X..0 e-M I a..f o�.t D.I •NJ�+ Lw,%,j dgew.3oJaF- M/.NCO•/ IN berrolpJ �I •y;i 'G' C►•w:01t)1. --Awe 4... •e, 0✓r LlifflN •• IV ..ou6e RWy FUk. M�TY OF LP-AiA ZgVN Ptlr AW A w./.N Ie 6iS4aJ 1a1DC ALarCS AT ruRFwe --.-.--- L ZG1iIOH. IF A►+ ~4" tiwTS TD Riri" of TI.G .^Lww -r a JUF 'Ut OV-.N6r - TnL S�L7[A Frv/I..-W, rl,�. Q N[v,/ ow."-sr.fS'l8.� ,./ILL Pe NlGv LMNfr aw" okacx . H•.v fE pah.T A/r+aa¢ �v Tue bI6c ai NDUN'1S) NJ1�i+CC OF JNR•i -A...l.. ti✓J (/IAS: v�1.1, ai .2x," 61AVS c n oT uGK T+N IS* Ftai WE SOJn+) 9fr•T f i •i Fwiv l.�Afh �w�CJOaifi+.0 _ i-�n� rJ t✓e�/EL P�Ns TT 1 3 I• & crichiled 616f1 JOJ92•i 4515 Z 3 �0 = LL Q f' � V r N_ 1till St)B9i f1Q acNecY IS 301PM4576 �Z achhxct IWI 3039Z4Sb aw QW n aZ 0 �b • `y � 1. '+ ,aoaa� g s�snoMNn�oy d�� PBIDGLP Aq unna� d- epos i �5 Z K%l • 11 EXHIBIT 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Baker, Planning office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: June 14, 1988 RE: Villa of Aspen Townhouses PUD Amendment The submitted plat must conform to the requirements listed in section 24-8.12 of Municipal Code. jg/villapud � s Ip'Eo'4a' w Z9g. aji , i uwr 36 � 1 1 ' uNrr 35 It le. 'i UNri f4 UNIT 2ri UNrf ui r UN r-r UN''rP UN- Zg UNrT E'1 UNrrso LJ ` - Pt • • EXHIBIT SUBJECT PROPERTY/ZONING = 9 W Z RM6 R15 PU D); ' 1 F�1 W, FRAN • 0 C. Welton Anderson and Associates Box 9946 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Welton: Upon reviewing your request for an "Insubstantial Amendment" to the Villas of Aspen Townhouse PUD the Planning Office has determined that your application qualifies. We will, however, require that you address each of the criteria in sec. 7-907 A in writing for our records. Additionally, the Planning Office will require as a condition of approval that the homeowners and the homeowners association agree to rebuild these units if the Planning and Zoning Commission makes substantial changes to or disapproves the PUD Amendment. I will be preparing the appropriate documents between now and the time I receive your letter. sincerely, Thomas M. Baker Principal Planner cc: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Fred Gannett, Assistant City Attorney insub N M C. Welton Anderson & Associates Architects Alan Richmann 6 May 1988 Planning and Development Director Dear Alan, Pursuant to Sec. 7-907 of the revised code, the Villa of Aspen Townhouse Association wishes to make an "Insubstantial Amendment" to the PUD in order to build 5 prototype units identical to the plans A,B, and C shown in our PUD Amendment application now in your office. By sionina off administratively, this will permit us to 1).anticipate potential construction problems in advance of the construction of the full project, 2). provide physical examples for association members to choose from (model houses), and 3). allow several owners to expand their units now. This request is in conformance with all provisions of Sec. 7-907 A and will not exceed 2% of the existing 63,360 SF FAR or 1267 square feet. The association agrees to be responsible for rebuilding these units to conform to the approved PUD if it is changed in any substantial way during the PUD Amendment approval process. Sincerely, C. Welton Anderson Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925-4576 VILLA OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION C/O Computer Accounting Services P.O. Box 9166 Aspen, Colorado 81612 May 2, 1988 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: This letter is to serve as a formal request for your consideration of the PUD amendment for the Villa of Aspen Townhomes. We are requesting the approval for additions to some of our units as well as some minor exterior improvements which we are hoping to complete this summer. We've enclosed all the appropriate applications, proposed building plans and other drawings which should be sufficient for you to make your determination on our application. We look forward to your approval of our plans and working with you toward full compliance and approval as defined by the City of Aspen Code. Sincerely, Villa of Aspen Townhouses Association Directors CF/ j 1p M t'7 so 40 VILLA OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION C/O Computer Accounting Services P.O. Box 9166 Aspen, Colorado 81612 May 2, 1988 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Council , 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: This letter is to serve as a formal request for your consideration of the PUD amendment for the Villa of Aspen Townhomes. We are requesting the approval for additions to some of our units as well as some minor exterior improvements which we are hoping to complete this summer. We've enclosed all the appropriate applications, proposed building plans and other drawings which should be sufficient for you to make your determination on our application. We look forward to your approval of our plans and working with you toward full compliance and approval as defined by the City of Aspen Code. Sincerely, Villa of Aspen Townhouses Association Directors CF/ j 1p N VI _M * 11 3 \ b JN TO: City Attorney City Engineer FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office RE: Villa of Aspen Townhouses PUD Amendment DATE: May 9, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by the Villa of Aspen Townhouses, requesting PUD Amendment to construct one of three remodel schemes so to enclose the deck as part of remodeling and upgrade of the project. Please review this material and return your comments no later than June 9, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. Thank you. M 00 ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S_ Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 A� 00�l �� (303) 925-202p0�j InX/lXX V,,, �f�f Date: 4 1 1 0 a A0A )I Cc RE. Dear This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT complete. Additional items required include- b!k! X- A.. Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorizat4o`l n 1by owner for representative to submit applica- tion h Q A \�K R ^-A Ass o o %- n-" — o f 6 04 -CL Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ Your applicatio is completenand we have scheduled it for review by the ��- o n _1 J-! I_ S' We will call you if we need any additional information prior to that date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee.. B.. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE `i p.ti t �nA � (�C.. wo tL.�. �� „i • V � C,-..,� � +2e A- �� 0 ti C"On�"�+