Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Residential Refferral Comments.1981 Aspen/Pitki ; ./1 , ; ,j ping Office 130 so '-e treet aspen , " . 1611 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineering Department City Water Department City Parks Department City Electric Jim Reents, Housing Director Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell Aspen School District City/County Environmental Health Office Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 1981 City Residential Growth Management Competition Applications DATE; January 5, 1981 Attached for your review are fi've Residential Growth Management Competition applications: 1. Sunny Park 2, Snare/Baker Duplex 3. Ute City Place 4. 1015 East Hyman Avenue 5, Gilbert and S, Aspen/Third and Main The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with respect to their impact upon available public faciltties and services and would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your particular area of expertise. The above applications are scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zonign Commission on February 3, 1981. In order to prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 20, 1981? We realize that this provides you a relatively short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed applications, please contact the Planning Office. Thank you. PUBLIC NOTICE • . RE: 1981 City of Aspen Residential Growth Management Applications NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 3, 1981, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 2nd floor, City Hall , 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider applications for Growth Manage- . ment quota allotments for 1981. The applications to be considered are as follows: 1. "Sunny Park" - 155 Park Circle, submitted by James J. Costley. 2, "Snare/Baker Duplex" - 111 West Hyman, submitted by Edwin W. Baker 3, "1015 East Hyman" , submitted by John Vincenti 4, "Gilbert & South Aspen/Third and Main" - 700 S. Aspen/400 Block of West Main Street, submitted by HBC Development • • 5. "Ute City Place" - 900 Block of East Cooper Avenue, Lots C, D, E, F & G, submitted by C.M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar Further information may be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext, 298. • • s/ Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 29 , 1981 City of Aspen Account • • • • • "0 04 61-1 elA/7° Coc WC)), Co, vhf C /a`-N,1) s� � a iku P.. a ^ 51.. fa 6(CVc- 4L-� 'Z1. q1, ;' AQs i l N QQi b ti � ( Z-- L� \ ` A \ ( V ���lll p A � Ili rqqt- 1 d oEc QAvt1L, o r l� • Fir CJA L>i ` L„ .-.-1�; ) 9 �.J_CL ,',C,.,S4L �j R p4?..., - � 6A d i � 5A 04,,E ictpe.d--) 3-ti-JL__, - d-- L , AL\ Li- • 111 WEST HYMAN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR 1981 CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED BY: EDWIN W. BAKER, JR. 650 South Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Denver , Colorado 80222 (303) 320-0600 (Agent for William D. Snare) S e/QO3r_ ci /-/AS (3 EE . APreO.en Pole se„2_,,� JAY Tf •F P /St2 , cr. potos,erf Fo.. ree / S ASPENOPITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Tom Dunlop, Director -D Environmental Health Department DATE: January 7, 1981 RE: 1981 City Residential Growth Management Competition Applications: Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main This application represents public water and public sewer service to the project. This is in agreement with policies of this department for utility service. It is strongly recommended that any fireplace units installed in the structure be designed with energy conservation in mind, and that the numbers of installations be limited to a realistic amount to minimize contributing to an already visible winter-time air pollution problem. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ASPENOPITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Tom Dunlop, Director D Environmental Health Department DATE: January 7, 1981 RE: 1981 City Residential Growth Management Competition Applications: 1015 East Hyman Avenue This application represents public water and public sewer service to the referenced project. This is in agreement with policies of this depart- ment for utility service. It is strongly recommended that any fireplace units installed in the structure be designed with energy conservation in mind; and that the numbers of installations be limited to a realistic amount to minimize contributing to an already visible winter-time air pollution problem. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Tom Dunlop, Director '-so Environmental Health Department DATE: January 7, 1981 RE: 1981 City Residential Growth Management Competition Application: Snare/Baker Duplex This application represents public water and public sewer service to the referenced project. This is in agreement with policies of this depart- ment for utility service. It is strongly recommended that any fireplace units installed in the structure be designed with energy conservation in mind. Also, that the numbers of installation be limited to a realistic amount to minimize contributing to an already visible winter-time air pollution problem. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Tom Dunlop, Director, Environmental Health Department �th DATE: January 7, 1981 RE: 1981 City Residential Growth Management Competition Applications: Sunny Park This application represents public water and public sewer service to the referenced project. This is in agreement with policies of this department for utility service. It is strongly recommended that any fireplace units installed in the structure be designed with energy conservation in mind. Also, that the numbers of installation be limited to a realistic amount to minimize contributing to an already visible winter-time air pollution problem. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 01611 303/925-2020 Aspen / Pitkin tinning Office 130 south g r ; e1ta street aspen , colorado X81611 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineering Department City Water Department City Parks Department City Electric Jim Reents, Housing Director Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall /Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell ;pen School District City/County Environmental Health Office Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 1981 City Residential Growth Management Competition Applications DATE: =Annary 5, 1981 Attached for your review are five Residential Growth Management Competition applications: 1. Sunny Park 2. Snare/Baker Duplex 3. Ute City Place 4. 1015 East Hyman Avenue 5, Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with respec' their impact upon available public facilities and services and woulr :J ate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your par{iri;': .•na of expertise. The ab+?e cations are scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and • Zonign i;. uoii . un on February 3, 1981. In order to prepare our responses, may t:r Maar•' L-ve your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 20, 1981? Wo that this provides you a relatively short review period; howevem we v?u1c4 appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Shou'w y hJ„a ny questions concerning the enclosed applications, please cons I :1 r 'ng Office. Thank you. G/ tlbeH4. 5 . AsPe/ hr11 PR o Jew r _ /sees._ ..s r4 Teo.-- 1'esrt,c, - Arero,,en Fez SA.- 111 -- Sen-v, ct /3Y THE /asPr_ _ SA tire CITY .' HIS raoJec /4,41 ,yea .– /4-er ea I.,: n ro n- 1L S- CE /iY tr{2 , TATs0_ ♦7/ ] i r,_.tci U F_. !�Y'>q" �v�-' UP/ /'•e o�rrcr /{Rs Ate.-- Arr•w...�an f��- sFR� / /5 7HE /AsPej.- SM=- 1' "-" Ws 7a — MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: January 21, 19814c RE: 1981 Residential G.M.P. Applications Having reviewed the 1981 G.M.P. applications for residential. development and having inspected the various sites involved, the Engineering Department has the following comments : The five applications were reviewed and given tentative scores in the various areas appropriate to Engineering review accor- ding to the attached checklist. The checklists generally explain reasons for low scores or insufficient services . The checklists also comment on transportation and utilities on applications requesting residential bonus zoning. Final scores from a possible 21 in the specific areas rank as follows : LOCATION SCORE 1 . Gilbert and S . Aspen/3rd and Main* 15 2 . Ute City Place 14 3. 1015 East Hyman 13 Snare/Baker Duplex 13 4 . Sunny Park 12 Again, please note that these scores are based on a review of the various projects in terms of a partial list of criteria. *Due to the two-site nature of this project, each site was scored individually and a weighted average obtained based on the number of units on each site. Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name , - `1 . , Z.Address /0(5- E. 4//w,v\ Owner 4ehen Vhc.ctt& (t) A1 Attorney/Agent/Representative �Q o, -i./]li )4SSOi. Address r�;ol�� q,o` ± Attu"- CO /(�i/ em∎_ Reviewed by � — I 11 Date -!�/ $I II I. Residential Application (section 24-10. 4) A. Public Facilities & Services O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) . 3 - No forseeable deficiencies • * Water ( 3 pts. ) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. Z * Sewer (3 ,pts. ) Capacity without system upgrade. NI xtid•e2 Co-.t., ! . Storm Drainage (3 pts. ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff . ,Z Parking Design (3 pts. ) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. ad) s _ Z` Roads (3 pts. ) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns ter overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. Page 2 Growth Management D iew Checklist w B. Social Facilities and Services • O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service J Public Transportation (2 pts. ) 2 On existing route. 1 Within 520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts. ) 0_ Design Features. for /H-andicapped (2 pts. ) I /1 / l^( Ac ea k� / ur�J 4' 07 48,, (� Nc 9 oven /( OLir 44 A��Cl'c ��0 \ II. Commercial and Office Development Application (secti. 24-10 . 5) A. Quality of Design 0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major flaw . 2 - Acceptable , 3 - Excellent Site Design (3 pts. ) Quality and character of landscaping,. extend of under- grounding of utilities, and e /ficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. Amenities (3 pts. ) Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. Trash and ut iity access areas (3 pts. ) III.Lodge Development Application (section 24-10 . 6) A. Pub c. Facilities and Services (same as residential) / • / gage 3 Growth Management Rdmdew Checklist .,.,i B. Social Facilities and Services . i 0 - Requires new service at public expen.e. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of servi e. Public Transportation (6 pts . ) 6 - Abuts transit, within 52; feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus oute and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bu- route or lift. • C. Quality of Design Site Design (3 *ts. ) _. Amenities 3 pts. ) Visu. Impact (3 pts. ) Sal, and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts. ) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt. ) . Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt. ) . Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt. ) . IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual ✓ Lot Area bobs QnnO • Lot Area/Unit /,000 S ,?;r 1000/45r Lot Width GO 76v/ Front Setback (() Side Setbacks ✓ , Rear Setback /0 v/ Page 4 'Growth Management Ow Checklist 'Th Required Actual Maximum Height -e.,5 ✓ Building Dist. /0 rU 4 Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space NC.. — External F.A.R. ( , L 1; Internal F.A.R. — V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption / C Exception C� I ��1�� �`JJ Stream Margin View Plane Q�ir, , * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. 6445 of &"taut lid?. dreghw�// CS//m�> / / (.tins agtc va,4 aari-e,r ed. /a �; d/�k 4 at • • • Growth Management Review Checklist (13 ) City ,of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name Address /// 1/04cs i //;nn,w S,- Owner Attorney/Agent/Representative )---75,74u,/,0 a- Acifte Je. Address 7,.5`o �.�r1h72i Sr %c. /Son .04,7✓4y-,c (1 90 4.?„ Reviewed by 705 Date /- /S- 87 • I. Residential Application (section 24-10 . 4) A. Public Facilities & Services 0 - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency • 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies _AaL_* Water ( 3 pts. ) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. • Sewer (3 pts. ) Capacity without_ system upgrade. • 2, Storm Drainage (3 pts. ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. • • ,.Z Parking Design (3 pts. ) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. Roads (3 pts. ) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. Page 2 Growth Manacjement RCiew Checklist wJ B. Social Facilities and Services • O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Public Transportation (2 pts. ) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. • / Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts. ) o Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts. ) II. Commercial and Office Development Application (section 24-10 . 5) A. Quality of Design 7 / '0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major flaw 2 - Acceptable . • 3 - Excellent - . 0 Site Design (3 pts. ) , Quality and character of landscaping, extend of under- grounding of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. ,' • Page 3 Growth Management ReCew Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. Public Transportation (6 pts. ) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design Site Design (3 pts. ) Amenities (3 pts. ) Visual Impact (3 pts. ) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas . Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts . ) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt. ) . Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt. ) . Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt. ) . IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone e2 q - If) F NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area € 6i.)O 70-00 OeD. /G Lot P.rea/Unit n ^/ . _, Ha !� n 3 pe Sep - ,_?_•_: .. Lot Width GCi 7, Front Setback /O i'-r /v /0 Side Setbacks Rear Setback i' � • ' ' • Page 4 Growth Management R$ i.ew Checklist Required Actual Maximum Height Building Dist. 0 i n • Bldg. Sq. Footage 4/,4 • Open Space /R External F.A.R. 414 Internal F.A.R. Ne —V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption 't./e- Exception Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. 1 ca."PIoaA;o,. _tea • 1 e.'{e-'. -\,. 1--60 a.-y\nti1 0.l cesAY F"X; > 0,0\-,0,.,12,,d, 40 • • . , Growth Management Review Checklist \ • City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name S,. v r_ Address ' 4- 17 1.>"__Li 11- k Owner �h,,,_ C.0-x4te.L i / Attorney/Agent/Repres ntative ectn"T' `/ Address I cc. c • k_ Ccrr\E_ Y `{ Reviewed by Date /MI I. Residential Application (section 24-10 . 4) A. Public Facilities & Services 0 - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency . 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies * Water ( 3 pts. ) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. ve/o ntit lk. go' ,/tICmn.E Krip C1 441 � Cc �,..a t4,1 t . rti e(Qct1 7 * Sewer (3 pts. ) Capacity ithout system upgrade. "Z Storm Drainage (3 pts. ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff . ( Parking Design (3 pts. ) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. Co-b Col ,;4 6eit _ �_e_ e,o J.Q- \-"\- I CS-Y.-0) - \c- rc-.k ,,,L c -'- o- • l A"-A-- 1 Roads (3 pts. ) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more. maintenance. e / Ciotti.° e•vt e-c Co-,�R,'4or` i /ecosocieg.ctacc7 ii-geA ! .t . Page 2 'Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Z Public Transportation (2 pts. ) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. - 0 - Not near service area. • Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts. ) 0 Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts. ) II. .r7rcial and Office Development Application !ction 24-10 . 5) A.Quality of Design 0 Totally deficient 1 - Major flow 2 - Acceptable • 3 - Excellent N Site Design (3 pts. ) Quality and character o landscaping, extend of under- grounding of utilities; and efficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. Amenities (3- pts. ) Usable open/ space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. Trash and utility access areas (3 pts. ) III.Lodge Development Application (section 10 . 6) A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) ' Page 3 :Growth Management heview Checklist ' B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. • 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. Public Transportation (6 pts; ) 6 - Abuts transit, within/520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bus 'route or lift. C. Quality of Design Site Design (3 pts. ) • Amenities (3 pts. ) Visual Impact (3 pts. ) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas . • Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts. ) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt. ) . Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt. ) . Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt. ) . IV. Zoning (All applications) f Zone rot 1�� t--oc Kra rot e, tiq ovPh �� NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area ✓ (0,000 I? j0 ( Col.: Le- tote: Lot Area/Unit ? Crop I-5 '}o t (t7-t: Lot Width (c© Ii v Front Setback tO Side Setbacks Rear Setback (0 �/ Page 4 Growth Management E iew Checklist Required Actual Maximum Height Z-S Building Dist. IC Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space Nk. External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. \(� V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption 4b+ ti Exception I Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. • GetA • Jr l'ic 1 i s 0 •Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name 6://),:,+- r �� . 71- �n (S) ? l r ka,wti Address Owner 4 C_ .1-?c44 Tmo4t A Attorney/Agent/Representative ti k,,L 1� ,,,; eUcw-' Address yin S 9-a Reviewed by Date f - / - QI I. Residential Application (section 24-10. 4) A. Public Facilities & Services . O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) . 3 - No forseeable deficiencies Z.(27 * Water ( 3 pts. ) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. * Sewer (3 pts. ) Capacity without system upgrade. z Storm Drainage (3 pts. ) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. Z Parking Design (3 pts. ) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. Z Roads (3 pts. ) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more- maintenance. • _ . Page 2 Growth Management Review Checklist • B. Social Facilities and Services O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Public Transportation (2 pts. ) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. • Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts. ) Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts. ) II. Commercial and Office Development Application (sect • •n 24-10. 5) A. Quality of Design 0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major flOW 2 - Acceptable 3 - Excellent Site Design (3 .pts. ) Quality and character of lands2.ping, extend of under- grounding of utilities, and fficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. Amenities (3 pts. ) Usable open space, _ edestrian and bicycle ways. Trash and ut' ity access areas (3 pts. ) III.Lodge Dev opment Application (section 24-10 . 6) • /ic Facilities and Services (same as residential) • Page 3 Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. `!I 2 - Project improves quality of service. Public Transportation (6 pts. ) o- 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. - 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design Site Design (3 pts. ) • Amenities (3 pts. ) Visual Impact (3 pts. ) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts. ) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt. ) . Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt. ) . Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt. ) . • IV. Zoning (All applications) • Zone .. NS = Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area/Unit Lot Width Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback , —Page 4 Growth Management Review Checklist • Required Actual • Maximum Height Building Dist. Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption Exception Stream Margin ' View Plane * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. Nar � 6111 15` l ado Wl l Sakk I 4..., ,� �uo�n�rt Ord i V�laYA • <\\ 11Y pitkin county, 506 east man street aspen, Colorado B1611 MEMORANDUM TO: Allan Richman FROM: Brian Stafford, Trails Direct. V DATE: January 12, 1981 RE: Sunny Park Application I have received the Sunny Park application to determine whether any of the subject property falls within an existing or proposed trails corridor. I have found that Lot 4, Sunny Park does not fall within either an existing or proposed trails corridor and, therefore, a trail easement dedication should not be required as a condition of subdivision approval . However, I think that sidewalk pedestrian access along Park Avenue should be provided by the applicant since this is a growing area in which pedestrian/ automobile conflicts will continue to grow. cc: Pat Dobie ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS DATE: JANUARY 14, 1981 1. Ute City Place: Reference our letter of November 21, 1980 included in the Applicant's submission. 2. Sunny Park: Reference our letter of December 12, 1980 included in the Applicant's submission. 3. Snare-Baker Duplex, 111 W. Hyman: As stated in the application, there is a 6" cast iron main located in Cooper Street of sufficient capacity to supply water for this particular project. It appears that the applicant may have the wrong address. The attached map shows the address as 111 E. Hyman. 4. 1015 E. Hyman: As stated in the application, AA Water, there is a 12" main in Hyman Street with ample capacity and water would be available to the site. 5. Gilbert & South Aspen: As stated in the application, available capacity for this particular project is predicated upon the construction of a 12" ductile iron pipe interconnect between Monarch and S. Aspen Streets. However, it should be specifically understood that this interconnect is contingent upon the developer's cooperation in providing the necessary easement and participatory support in a monitary sense towards the construction of such an interconnect. Unless this interconnect is constructed, the additional 36-unit complex would have a negative effect upon the water supply in the neighborhood. Therefore, it should be specifically understood that approval of this project at the aforementioned location should be conditioned upon the developer's willingness to participate in a resolution of the local water supply problem. Reference our letter of December 29, 1980. 3rd & Main Reference our letter of December 29, 1980. It is specifically understood that water will be available to this site on the condition that the developer connect to the 8" cast iron pipe located in S. 3rd St. There is sufficient capacity at this location to supply the proposed project. Aspen/Fitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen ; colorado - 81611 J., r MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineering Department City Water Department I City Parks Department City Electric Jim Reents, Housing Director Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall • Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell Aspen School District City/County Environmental Health Office /Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 1981 'City Residential Growth Management Competition Applications DATE; January 5, 1981 Attached for your review are five Residential Growth Management Competition applications: 1. Sunny Park.- " (27c« (a >c; 2, Snare/Baker Duplex 20 ^ 3. Ute City Place cz--c-ra--24 • 4, 1015 East Hyman Avenue -- " 5. Gilbert 4nd S. Aspen/Third and Main C? t' C( -G'- G -G� : ,. � d��• The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your particular area of expertise. The above applications are scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zonign Commission on February 3, 1981. In order to prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than Tuesday, January 20, 1981? We realize that this provides you a relatively short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed applications, please contact the Planning Office. Thank you. — LI / (.tJ"( 2 =7 l' �r� v / �' 1 C, MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Stafford, County Manager Assistant Patrick Dobie, County Engineer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 1981 Growth Management Plan Residential Applications DATE: January 7, 1981 There have been submitted five GMP residential applications to the City for the 1981 competition. These applications are: 1. Sunny Park 2. Snare/Baker Duplex (Hyman and Aspen) 3. Ute City Place (Cooper and West End) 4. 1015 East Hyman Ave. (at Cleveland) 5. Gilbert and S. Aspen / Third and Main Among these applications, the only one which appears to be of interest to the County is that for Sunny Park. I have attached a copy of this applica- tion for your review by January 20, 1981 . Could you please comment upon any relationship to trails issues and plans for Red/Smuggler Mountains. If you are interested in seeing any of the other applications, please let me know and I 'll forward them to you. Thanks. LAW OFFICES GRUETER 8c EDMONDSON • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 430 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 01611 909-925-4544 ROBERT- P. GRUETER ROBERT B. EDMONDSON GARY S. ESARY December 18, 1980 Andrew V. Hecht GARFIELD & HECHT 601 E. Hyman Ave. , #201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hans Cantrup' s Employee Housing Dear Andy : This letter shall confirm the agreement between the City -- of Aspen and Hans Cantrup concerning the application for a G.M.P. allocation to construct employee housing at the site now known as the Swiss Villas. ( cL&(e( S This site is located on Main Street. At this time there is a moratorium for projects on Main Street which prevents review and approval by the H.P.C. According to Section 24-11. 3 (d) of the Aspen Municipal Code, in order to submit an application for G.M.P. allocation to construct these employee units prior final H.P.C. approval is required. The City, realizing that this prior final H.P.C. approval is impossible at this time, will allow the applicant to submit an application without prior H.P.C. approval. The applicant understands and agrees that if he is granted an allocation for these units, this allocation is contingent upon receiving final H.P.C. approval and that no building permit will be given by the Building Department for this construction until final approval is granted by the H.P.C. The applicant understands and agrees that if he receives an allocation, that he can not significantly modify this aunt when seeking H.P.C. approval. Andrew V. Hecht December 18, 1980 Page Two For this agreement the term "significantly modify" shall be construed to mean any modification which would change the point allocation. If modifications must be made that would change the point allocation, the applicant would have to go back to counsel for approval. -----Th The applicant understands and agrees; if the modifications that the H.P.C. demands are of such significance that the applicant ' s score for G.M.P. allocation would be changed to such an extent that the applicants score would not have qualified for G.M.P. allocation, the original allocation shall be null and void. The applicant understands and agrees that this agreement does not, in any way, waive the H.P.C. approval requirement but merely defers the approval until that time when the moratorium is no longer in effect. The applicant agrees.. to submit his application for review by H.P.C. at that time when the moratorium is no longer in effect. Very truly yours, GRUETER & EDMONDSON, P.C. i fr el obert B. Edmondson Acting City Attorney • RBE:djf Approved: Andrew V. Hecht Hans Cantrup A ••CITY oF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen', colorado:, 81611 0 December 12, 1980 Mr. Jeff Costley Archdeacon Ltd Box 884 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park Dear Jeff: As per our discussion on 12-12-80, it i- my understanding that you wish to construct a 14-unit project consisting of 7 PMH and 7 free-market units and that said project will be located adjacent to an 8" maim in Gibson Avenue or a 6" main in Park Circle. Therefore, water would be available from either of the aforementioned lines. However, since this project is located very near a marginal service area, and since the project will, no doubt, have an adverse effect on the existing facilities, it is my recommendation that the Planning Office encourage you, as a condition of approval, to connect the 6" line on King Street to the 6" line on Neal Street. This is a rather short section of line and would increase the reliability of service to the project, as well as increase flows during peak periods of consumption. If the proposed interconnect is made, I see no problems for the Water Department regarding this project and would certainly recommend its approval. incerellyy�, '-_.Pim Markalunas Director Aspen Water Department cc: Planning Office * _., tr, 46 - ii NI* ----Ab ,,,,,. @)19reyze/R, 4fla€ ja; gPV-zaA/ziene/n/ ri, r,_A 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 i _Th \ /26 7 y. 9 1.,; 1..-1 .,.......61 . l ,(4 ie -4:----. ,t .,,t/i, (9 41 ot,i -972-e, if / jj ... c? _ _ . . 7/2KL,2 tu_iti_ f/, _--cat-s--e- i‘ / /& v--zz- I' • .--, Ap ---ec' —rcl—frtc ,- kó n- 9 c-22 !„-zi. 7„, 7-Th 4 z--) 1 i . ')d zyi 7"../.2/( 7/ e'- .( >7,6 (.4:fi-til ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. P.O.BOX 2059 • ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-2323 n /7// 2/V / ?...&')//..Cl't 11/ (21.R"'--7 2 '-ii i 1 n ^ i Cam''J�J� L I" -el 6l -- ,.,,,c1 --7 Il-, (",-,1042t:,,,, %--p_X v,. ` c? 6_ 777./ . 3 _it/kr" 7( (I / 22 1_,o i i -� -----01-/ 5 � .-- � 7 7_ ( I � ��o- -, 74 ,... j.„ r (4..) ti ____(„„ei,„.4 J--- \.oti--C) C‘/ e,�,/ 4L e„ `Y- 0-L__I' ! < F-(/rfe-�i�p 1 0 /6 _ <,„„,,,,, C -ire,,./..„ , ,, +( ) .. 7�,7 is ter?_ � 1 2/a- LC z -<) a AichdeocoA , ltd . ,i December 29, 1980 City of Aspen Planning Department Enclosed per your requirements are twenty (20) copies of the G.M.P. Development Proposal for Lot 4 , Sunny Park Subdivision as submitted by James J. Costley. The City of Aspen planning department hereby acknow- ledges receipt of this proposal on December 29, 1980. Received by: Si/ (- 1(ChT4i hnx RR4 asnPn colorado 81611 • (303) 925-4605