HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Victoria Square. Agate court 025-84-85A r:
-AGATE COURT PROJECT
SUBDIVISION/PUD 5)
liven P't fk_
�gc
C'r
U
I
Iw
,..,.Stevenson, Redevelopment of 'LL --
Agate Lodge Property
'r
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 -
63721
47331
52100
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
63722
47332
52100
GMP/PRELIMINARY
63723
47333
52100
GMP/FINAL
63724
47341
52100
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
63725
47342
52100
SUB/PRELIMINARY
63726
47343
52100
SUB/FINAL
63727
47350
52100
EXCEPT/EXEMPTION
63728
47350
52100
REZONING
63729
47360
52100
SPECIAL REVIEW
SUB -TOTAL
County
00113
63711
- 47331
- 52200
GMP/GENERAL
63712
47332
52200
GMP/DETAILED
63713
47333
52200
GMP/FINAL
63714
47341
52200
SUB/GENERAL
63715
47342
52200
SUB/DETAILED
63716
47343
52200
SUB/FINAL
63717
47350
52200
SPECIAL REVIEW
63718
47350
52200
REZONING
63719
47360
52200
SPECIAL APPROVAL
SUB -TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 -
63061
09000
- 52200
COUNTY CODE
63063
09000
52200
ALMANAC
63062
09000
00000
GMP
63066
09000
00000
COPY FEES
63069
09000
OTHER
SUB -TOTAL
TOTAL
Name: Phone:
Address: Project:
Check No.
Additional Billing:
Date:
No. of Hours:_
CITY OF AS*N
MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP ` -I\ `1 I ,
Assistant Planning Director w' pN ()�`'`�
l
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Discussion of the Agate Lodge as a PUD
DATE: October 2, 1984
Tom Wells, on behalf of Butch Clark (the property owner) , is requesting
that you consider an approach to the mandatory PUD on the Agate
property that does not require the review of architectural design.
Section 24-8.9 of the Municipal Code requires that the Preliminary PUD
Plan "be in sufficient detail to enable the Planning Commission to
evaluate the architectural, landscaping and design features of the
planned unit development." Subsection (a) goes on to say, "the plan
should show the location and floor area of all existing and proposed
buildings, structures and other improvements, including maximum
heights, types of dwelling units "
Subsection (b) asks for a construction schedule, indicating dates of
construction commencement and completion and subsection (c) reads that
"preliminary elevation and perspective drawings of proposed structures
and improvements shall be included."
The proposal by Tom Wells is for full subdivision of the property into
single-family and duplex lots which would be sold as building sites
with no architectural design. The Planning Office feels that the PUD
overlay was placed on the property because of its visually sensitive
location at the entrance to Aspen, and that it is therefore important
for us to review more than a site plan for this property.
There are two responses to this request, if you are inclined to go
along with the concept. One is to sponsor a rezoning to remove the
mandatory PUD from the property, leaving it zoned R-6. A second
approach is to amend the PUD section of the Code to allow this degree
of flexibility.
The Planning Office feels that the removal of the PUD is not advisable.
The underlying rationale for designating the property PUD continue to
apply whether the site is to be developed as a lodge ( its use at the
time of the overlay placement) or long-term residential (its present
use) . Seventh Street is one of the busiest streets in town and the
intersection which is the entrance curve to town is second only in
traffic volume to the Mill and Main intersection. The PUD overlay
will allow for innovation in the site plan, retention of some major
trees, provision of a buffer along seventh, and clustering of lots or
structures.
We also do not support amendment of the PUD sections of the Code. The
specifics of landscaping, building sizes and appearance, and construc-
tion timetables are all important elements of a Planned Unit Development
review.
To summarize our consideration of this request, we want you to consider
the following points:
1. It is advantageous to the City of Aspen for the Agate Lodge
block to be redeveloped.
2. The present owner is reluctant to develop it as a Planned
Unit Development, but, if keeping the PUD overlay on the
property is in the best interests of the City, another
developer may be willing to take on the project.
3. The block is one of the most visually sensitive in Aspen and
should be developed in a manner which enhances the image of
• 9
the community.
4. Dealing with this property through only the subdivision
process gives you very minimal control over the final product.
5. The elements of the PUD section which are being asked to be
waived are the very basic elements of that section and are
fundamental to the planning and review of a PUD site plan.
In summary, the Planning Office is not aware of any convincing arguments
for the removal of the PUD overlay from the property, nor do we support
the concept of amending the PUD Code sections. It is likely, in our
opinion, that a subsequent purchaser would desire the flexibility
offered by the PUD in developing a site plan for the block.
— 2 —
0 9
THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
314 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303925-7817
September 14, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny:
I am writing to request being placed
planning and zoning agenda at th,.- n,--�x
ble-
7�n
SEP 171984
iJ
0 n
e.
ins t
no_•rg1.1 tt7 i 7; h i F_ -f t the 1 1-1 d I E! v E_ 10 1) Q
t 711 T Z: 1.
' he 1 e I
tmat-4, er wit.,h P rry
- * - - , '; 1, 1- -1-1
tlh�� fa"--t �. at PL,!.; t c
not want to -:es,,.qn .-Yx
owl
ve c an Scat i r e u r o -,? e c t u t wife h to s e
lots- for building sites with no architectural
design being involved. Perry asked that I
request being placed on the P&Z agenda to
discuss the manner in which the PTJD process
can properly be applied in this instance.
Please let me know the date of the meeting
which our discussion will be considered.
Vary truly yours,
7homers 0. Wells
3 r rz
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Redevelopment of the Agate Property - Conceptual Subdivision
PUD
DATE: April 3, 1984
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I K, L, M, N, 0 P, 0, R and
S)
ZONINGi R-6 PUD
APPLICANT' S REM-STTI
The applicant proposes to demolish all structures presently existing
on Block 17 and to build six single-family homes and two duplexes.
The requested approvals needed include full subdivision, PUD and
The City Transportation Director points out that the bus stop at
Bleeker and 7th has been utilized by both the City and County for
years, and recommends that a bus shelter be constructed on 7th Street
(approximately 75ft. north of Bleeker).
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District responded that they can
serve the project. They caution that the trunk line is quite shallow
in this area and may have to be accommodated if basements are planned.
The Housing Authority notes that pursuant to the affidavit submitted
by the owner of the Agate on November 8, 1983, five of the twenty-
four units listed fall within the present employee housing guidelines.
These five units consist of eleven (11) bedrooms. Their recommendation
is conditional approval based on the following conditions:
1. That the developer, under the condominiumization requirement,
provide eleven (11) bedrooms of middle income, deed restricted,
rental units in a manner consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin
County employee housing guidelines.
2. The applicant will file the deed restriction with the City
Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The Water Department sees no problem in supplying the development
with Aspen Water. Their requirements are:
1. Application must be made to permit the necessary taps and
fees paid for any new construction.
2. Disconnection of any abandoned services at the main.
3. Individual service and meter for each single family home
and/or duplex.
The Building Department cites Section 24-3.7(f) (3) which deals with
corner lots and Section 24-3.7(f)(6) dealing with yards adjacent
to arterial roadways, and has determined that 6th and 7th Streets
require 10 foot setbacks while Hallam and Bleeker Streets require
a 6-2/3ft. setback. If the alley is not vacated, the rear yard must
be 15 feet and the swimming pools encroach. The Building Department
considers the media rooms to be bedrooms and feels parking should
•
Page 2
be provided for them.
The comments of the Director of Parks concerning removal of trees
to accommodate construction are attached. He focuses on seven particular
trees and feels that anv of the other trees of significance on the
property can be transpolanted "with a high degree of success." Three
of the trees he singles out (A, B and C) are being retained in the
site plan. Trees designated D, E, F and G all fall within units.
Attempts should be made to design around them.
The comments from the Fire Department were submitted for the previous
plan. Since the access solution is unchanged, their comments are
still valid. Thev found no deviations in the project from the 1979
Uniform Fire Code. They did say, however, that "firefighter and
apparatus access to the center of the block as developed and landscaped
per your plans will be extremely difficult when compounded by winter
conditions."
The City Engineering Department's comments are attached.
PLANNING OFFICE_ REVIEW
Background
At _your meetinq of December 20, 1983, you held a pre -application
conference with representatives of the Stevenson Building Company
concerning redevelopment of the Agate property. At that time, their
concept was to construct six duplex structures with access from Bleeker
and Hallam Streets (requiring 12 curb cuts). The structures would
have been in excess of the allowable FAR, thereby requiring a variance.
The parcel (Block 17) is a mandatory PUD. A PUD overlay is often
placed on a property with particular sensitivities or constraints
(e.g., steep slopes, proximity to floodplain). In this case, the
PUD overlay was likely placed on the parcel because of its location
at the entrance to town, the fact that the entire block is in one
ownership and would probably be planned as an integrated project,
and to allow greater flexibility in the site and architectural designs.
At the meeting, you expressed concern over the mass of the buildout,
the proposed access solution and the difficulties associated with
emergency and utility access. The applicants revised their plan
to the present submission based on those comments.
PLANNING OFFI_CB _.REVIEW
The plan before you proposes six single-family houses and two duplexes
(a reduction of two units from the twelve previously proposed).
These units are exempt from Residential Growth Management Competition
by virtue of the fact that at least this requested number of units
has been verified as existing in the present Agate Lodge.
The unit verification completed by the Building Department and the
Planning Office indicated that 24 units make up the Agate Lodge (eight
of these are in the Lodge building). All the units have been used
for long-term rental. Since the applicant proposes to condominiumize
the two duplexes, the question of the reduction of low and moderate
income housing was addressed. Five units (for a total of eleven
bedrooms) fall within employee housing price quidelines. The applicants
will replace that number of bedrooms in an off -site location and
are meeting with the Housing Authority to explore options.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development overlay (as per Section
24-8.1) is to encourage flexibility, innovation and variety in the
development of land and to provide performance criteria for planned
unit developments (PUD) which will:
"(a) Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout
of buildings;
•
Page 3
(b) Improve the design, character and quality of new development;
(c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services;
(d) Preserve open space as development occurs;
(e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type,, design and
layout of residential development to a particular site
and thus encourage the preservation of the site's unique,
natural, and scenic features; and
(f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
areas."
The objective is to create a more desirable environment than would
be possible through strict application of other Code sections. Density
cannot exceed the allowable density of the underlying zone in which
the PUD lies and the maximum density shall not be allowed as a matter
of course. "The actual density for any planned unit development
shall be determined in the PUD plan finally approved in accordance
with the purposes and requirements of this article." (Section 24-
8.4)
The applicant has chosen not to make use of the PUD overlay, but
rather to develop the parcel under conventional R-6 zone parameters.
As stated in their application, they "decided to approach the project
in a more conventional manner, i.e., developing single-family houses
and duplexes on the existing lots without a change in existing lot
lines." They submit that this approach will break up the massing
of a clustered project and will be more consistent with the Nest
End residential neighborhood.
Each single-family residence will be located on two existing townsite
lots and each duplex will be located on three existing townsite lots.
Subdivision will occur along these lines. All setbacks and floor
area ratios will comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone. The
conceptual site plan does not provide sufficient detail to determine
if the setbacks are all in compliance. The preliminary plat submission
will require greater detail for this determination. It appears that
the swimming pools may encroach in the rear year setbacks on the
present plan. One variance that the applicant intends to request
is in the height requirement. The maximum height for principal buildings
in the R-6 zone is 25 feet. The single family structures proposed
are 32 feet high and the duplexes are 32.6 feet high. This variance
can be requested as per Section 24-8.3 and the applicant must justify
to your satisfaction the necessity of an increased height. The allowable
floor area ratio on this site (for 6 single-family houses and 2 duplexes)
is 28,440 square feet, and the proposed project floor area is 28,238
square feet. We find these to be somewhat bulky structures, and
the applicant should submit their reasons for the requested variance
at preliminary submission.
The criteria for determination of density to be allowed under mandatory
PUD (Section 24-8.13) generally do not apply to this parcel. The
site is on City water, sewer and other utilities are in place, the
City street system is the access and the parcel is flat and buildable.
The alley through the middle of the block has not been vacated.
Criteria (8) in this section raises the one element of concern:
(8) The placement and clustering of structures and reduction
of building height and scale to increase open space and
preserve the natural features of the terrain.
As evidence by the comments of the Director of Parks, at least two
trees of considerable significance are being sacrificed by this con-
ventional approach to the siting of structures.
The applicant has proposed extensive new landscaping to be introduced.
The alleyway will be landscaped and is proposed for use as an interior
Page 4
pedestrian access that still accommodates emergency access and maintenance
access to utilities. Updated comments from the Fire Department will
be part of the Preliminary Plat review.
The Planning Office and Engineering Department were encouraging the
applicant to use the alley for active access and to thereby remove
parking from view of the general public and eliminate curb cuts.
The applicant feels very strongly that the alley should not be used
for access. The application proposes a total of nine curb cuts (which
is a reduction from the current situation). Section 19-101 allows
that in the R-6 zone there can be one 10 foot wide curb cut for each
building site with 60 feet or less frontage. If the building sites
have over 60 feet of frontage, the curb cut shall be 10 feet for
a single driveway or 18 feet for a double driveway. There may be
slight adjustments in the locations of these cuts required by the
Engineering Department, but they are generally allowed under the
Code. 2
The applicant proposes parking spaces. The residential units
contain a total of 26 bedrooms and 10 "media rooms". The applicant
acknowledges that these "media rooms" may be utilized in some instances
as bedrooms. At one parking space per the 36 potential bedrooms,
the 44 proposed exceed a one space/bedroom norm by eight spaces.
This number should be more than adequate since a bus stop exists
at the corner of 7th and Bleeker Streets and all ski buses stop within
one block of this development (in front of Poppie's Bistro).
Since the applicant is proposing full subdivision, the common facilities
maintenance agreement of Section 24-8.19 is not applicable. --
-requireme-nts -for condominiumization have been addressed earlier.
-The four units will be restricted to six-month minimum leases and
a Statement of Subdivision Exception and Condominum Declarations
-must be submitted to the Ci tv Attorney' s Office for approval prior
to recordation.
In summary, we feel that this is a generally acceptable concept for
the development of this parcel. The design flexibility offered by
the PUD overlay could have been utilized, in our opinion, to produce
a more innovate site plan and structures that would be more architectur-
ally varied. The plan, however, adheres to the requirements of the
underlying zone, making it difficult to find fault with specific
aspects of the proposal.
PLANNING_. OFFICE_ RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends that you recommend to Council approval
of the Conceptual Submission for subdivision/PUD for the redevelopment
of Block 1.7. -ire--f-urther recommend that _you recommend approval of
subdivision exception for the condominiumization of the two duplex
sty-uctures.
The following conditions are recommended:
1. The Engineering Department be consulted for determination
of location of curb cuts, trash areas, alley width, etc. prior
to submission of Preliminary Plat.
2. A license be obtained for use of the alley as proposed.
3. The Aspen Fire Department submit assurance that the alley
proposal is adequate for emergency access.
4. Detailed reasons for the necessity of the requested height
variance be submitted for review at Preliminary Plat.
5. Detailed landscaping plans be outlined as per Section 2.4-
8.16.
6.1 A specific design concept for the bus stop at 7th and Bleeker
be generated by the applicant and Transportation Director.
Page 5
i
The employee housing solution be submitted to and accepted
by the Housing Authority prior to the review of preliminary
plat.
A Statement of Subdivision Exception and Condominium Declara-
tions be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and
recordation.
9. The applicant must agree (as part of the Statement of Sub-
division Exception) to join future improvement districts
in the event they are formed.
10. The three requirements of the Prater Department be met.
11. Adherence to all setback requirements as outlined by the
Building Department or detailed requests for variances
for review at Preliminary Plat.
ZONING COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
R-6 PUD
Floor Area Improvements
Set backs from lot lines sides
Minimum lot size - single family
Minimum lot size - duplex
Minimum front yard
Minimum rear yard
Curb cuts
Allowable
Actual
28440
28238
5
(min)
5
6000
(min)
6000
9000
(min)
9000
10
(min)
25
15
(min)
15
--
9
C
M
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGLE
JAMES H.DELMAN
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE'
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET _ - -
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8700
February 21,
Alan Richman
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:
Dear Alan,
198 _
t2;l
FEB 1984
ASPEN / PITKIEN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
OF COUNSEL
JEFFREY H.SACHS
Agate Lodge Application
Please find enclosed twelve (12) site plans and typical
elevations for the proposed development of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 17, City and
Townsite of Aspen (Agate Lodge property). I am also enclosing
twelve (12) surveys of the property.
You will notice that the enclosed site plans reflect a
significant departure from the earlier proposal which was
submitted to the Planning Office and the Planning & Zoning
Commission for their review. After considering the comments of
the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Planning Office and
looking closely at the neighborhood, Stevenson Building and
Design decided to approach the project in a more conventional
manner, i.e. developing single-family houses and duplexes on the
existing lots without a change in existing lot lines. This
approach will be more consistent with the residential nature of
the west end and would break up the massing of any clustered
project.
Each single-family residence would be located on two
existing townsite lots and each duplex would be located on three
existing townsite lots. All set backs and floor area ratios
would be in compliance with the underlying R-6 zone requirements.
The applicant proposes to do extensive landscaping of the site
which includes substantial landscaping to the alleyway. Unlike
almost any other block in town, the applicant will landscape the
alley and, as shown on the plan, intends to have a winding
roadway constructed either with brick pavers or, more likely,
with pressed concrete. Essentially this would be for interior
pedestrian traffic but would allow for emergency access by fire
vehicles as well as access for maintenance of any underground
utilities. It is contemplated that the trash will be handled by
each structure having concealed recessed container area. The
•
r7l
Alan Richman
Page Two
February 21, 1984
applicant does not want to place dumpsters on the property as it
feels that that would be very unsightly given the extensive
landscaping that will be done. No trash would ever be placed on
the streets and the trash company would merely go to the recessed
concealed receptacles in each structure.
The applicant does not request any variation from the zoning
code required except for a height variance. The single-family
residence roofs are 32 feet high and the roofs on the duplexes
are 32.6 feet high.
There are 26 bedrooms in the project plus 10 rooms
designated as a "media room". Conceivably these media rooms by
some other person could be utilized as a bedroom. If this were
the case, there would be 36 bedrooms in the project and the code
requires parking of one space per bedroom. Each unit has a
two -car garage and ten of the twelve units have additional
two -car parking in the driveways for a total of 44 spaces.
Further, the application contemplates a total of 9 curb
cuts. All curb cuts are in compliance with Section 19-101 of the
Code. These 9 curb cuts will be a reduction in the number of
existing curb cuts.
After giving due consideration to the constructive comments
of both the Planning Office and the Planning & Zoning Commission,
the applicant has determined that the development as contemplated
by the site plan is the most appropriate for this "gateway piece"
to Aspen. The visual impression of one entering Aspen of this
property will be that of a conventional west end neighborhood
rather than that of a "condominium complex". As I indicated in
our initial letter of November 16, 1983, I think that the City is
presented with a rare opportunity in having Stevenson Building
and Design, one of America's premium builders and interior design
groups, be involved in the redevelopment of the Agate property.
Thank you very much for your assistance in processing this
application. I believe that the application as now submitted
fully complies with the requirements of Section 24-8.1 et. seq.
I further believe that the applicant, given the explanations set
forth in this letter, has fully complied with the provisions of
Section 24-8.5(i) in that the design concept as set forth in the
site plan is clearly within the intent and purposes of the PUD
process. I would appreciate it if you would please distribute
the enclosures for review as promptly as possible and schedule
this matter as quickly as your schedule permits.
•
•
Alan Richman
Page Three
February 21, 1984
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed or require
any different information, please contact me immediately so that
we will not jeopardize any tentative schedules established.
JDS/aop
Enclosures
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By_ i
Jon David Seigle
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: COLETTE PENNE, Planning Office
FROM: JIM HOLLAND, Director of Parks uw__
DATE: November 30, 1983
RE: STEVENSON BLDG. CO. - REDEVELOPMENT OF AGATE PROPERTY
I am returning the Site Plan and the Property Survey with the following
comments. It will be necessary for you to look at those sheets in order
for you to determine to which tree or building I am referring. Since the
landscaping is only "conceptual" at this point of the submittal process, I
found it necessary to make a few assumptions as to which specific trees
might be affected by this development. There are a lot of beautiful ever-
greens on this property, and I appreciate the fact that this issue is
being brought out early in the process.
My comments will be directed at 7 trees in particular. The developer
should be able to transplant any of the other trees within the property
with a high degree of success.
A & B (SEE SITE PLAN)
These are two of the largest Spruce in town. They cannot
physically be transplanted, and chances are good that they'll
outlive all of us if we don't bother them. Given the fact
that they are not within the construction area, nor or they
prohibiting the owner from "economic enjoyment of the pro-
perty" [Sec.13-76(d)(6)], I can't think of any other justi-
fication for disturbing these two trees at all. According
to the Site Plan, it appears the designer agrees since they
are shown intact.
0 '
C
0
E
F
G
This 12" Pine also appears intact on the Site Plan. If it
were smaller and the designer wished to relocate it, I would
be more than happy to agree, even though it is in the public
R.O.W.. This tree is too close to the street and intersection,
but I don't think it would be worth the risk of losing it to
chance a transplanting.
This 14" Pine appears to be in the way of one of the conceptual
units. I wouldn't give it a 10% chance of survival during trans-
planting. Given the other number of nice trees on this property,
I would recommend designing around it if possible. If not, then
cut it down and replace it with comparable substitutes elsewhere
in the development.
This 20" Spruce is about as close to a perfect tree as you can
get. This is the classic example of a tree that one should
design structures around in order to preserve them. If you try
to move this tree, its chances of survival are minimal. I
would strongly recommend doing everything possible in order
to leave this tree undisturbed.
This 17" Spruce is a close runner-up to "E". It's a beautiful
tree also, which appears to fall into the conceptual construction
area of a unit. I would recommend first trying to design around
it. The best I'd give it on a transplant would be a 50/50
chance of survival. It would be a shame to lose a tree like this.
This 14" Spruce appears to fall within a unit also. While it
too would be better off, if it could be designed around, at
least its chances of survival after transplanting would
represent a marginally acceptable risk in my opinion.
Thanks.
MEMORANDUM
TO: .:Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
-A-
DATE: March 28, 1984
RE: Stevenson Bldg. Co./Agate Lodge Conceptual
Subdivision/P.U.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
My apologies for the tardiness of this reply.
Having reviewed the revised submission for conceptual subdivision
and P.U.D. approval for the Agate Lodge property, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. The revised treatment of the alley is a significantly better
design than that suggested by the prior application. Subject
to approval by the Fire Department, it would appear that emergency
access could be maintained by the landscape and roadway plan.
The utility corridor is also maintained although access to
underground facilities would be complicated by the landscaping
and brick or concrete roadway. One suggestion might be that
the project be granted a license for the alley, much like the
one for the Aspen Alps on Ute Avenue, allowing them to landscape
and maintain the alley with a provision that the owner's would
be required to replace the landscaping or custom roadway in
the event a franchised utility needs to excavate to expose their
facilities.
2. The reduction to nine curb cuts would also represent an
improvement although two of the cuts onto Hallam violate 19-101
(d) requiring twenty five feet between driveways.
3. The applicants proposal with respect to trash facilities
is excellent in theory. It still requires access from the street
frontage for collection purposes, however, and subsequent prevention
of a proliferation of trash cans in driveways or on the street
may be difficult.
JH/co
Agate
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
DATE: December 20, 1983
LOCATION: All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen
ZONING: R-6 PUD
Stevenson Building Company has made application for the redevelopment
of all of Block 17 (which currently is the Agate Lodge). A conceptual
site plan was submitted to our office which proposed the construction
of six duplex structures in place of the existing units. The Engineer-
ing Department and Parks Department had substantial objections to the
placement of structures, and upon recommendation of the Planning Office
the applicant is re -designing the site plan. Several options are being
considered concerning number and configuration of structures.
Some 24 units make up the Agate Lodge, 8 of which are found in the
Lodge building. All units have been used for long-term rental in
the recent past. Five units (for a total of 11 bedrooms) fall within
employee housing price guidelines. It appears from our discussions
with the applicant's representatives that the maximum number of units
they will construct will be 12 and they have met with the Housing
Authority to explore options for meeting employee housing provisions.
Other pertinent information for your consideration is that several
very significant trees exist on the property which we would hope to
see preserved, and the alley has not been vacated possibly limiting
the applicant's design flexibility. This entire block is a mandatory
PUD, which will allow some flexibility in site design.
Since time for conceptual PUD review was scheduled on this agenda, the
applicants want to make a brief presentation and ask you to voice
preliminary concerns and thoughts to incorporate in their planning.
Given the very sensitive nature of this property and its influence on
the perceptions of visitors and residents of the entrance to Aspen,
we ask that you aid the applicant in developing a project which will
be of benefit to the community.
MEMORANDUM
TO: .amity Attorney, Paul Taddune
City Engineering Dept., Jay Hammond
,_Mousing Director, Jim Adamski
Aspen Water Dept., Jim Markalunas
en Consolidated Sanitation District, Heiko Kuhne
,,,As
Department, Jim Holland
✓Vi_e Chief, Steve Crocket
leuilding Department, Bill Drueding
..Transportation Dept., Greg Fitzpatrick
FROM: Janet Weinstein, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Bldg. Co./Agate Lodge - Subdivision/PUD Conceptual
DATE: February 28, 1984
Enclosed for your review is a resubmission made by Jon Seigle on be-
half of his client Stevenson Building Company for the reconstruction
of the Agate Lodge property (Conceptual Subdivision/PUD Submission).
This resubmission is significantly different from the one you reviewed
previously and this office would appreciate it if you could please
conduct a thorough review of the new materials and return your revised
comments to Colette Penne no later than March 20, 1984, in order to
give Colette adequate time to prepare for this case s presentation
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3, 1984.
Thank you.
•
•
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
TO: City Planning Office - Colette Penne
FROM: City Transportation Director - Duane A. Fengel
DATE: November 22, 1983
SUBJ: Agate Property Redevelopment
The location of this development happens to incorporate a bus stop
location that both the City and County have utilized over the years.
If it is possible, I would recommend a bus shelter be constructed
on 7th Street - east side - approximately 75' north of Bleeker.
Thank you for your consideration, and the information on this
development.
• •
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Tele. (303) 925-2537
--r/4f 4vl-'RTE /-VArr_ %'AvTEGr GAr- f3P_ SEK,-arm /3 y TNL
,AS PC,- Cc►-sa-#nATtr-,o SAP- IYA7-lo— slt&icr- A-•rrij o#-R 'Sri ow
J F THE PRO Posa� /3viapi x-s 1.1- /,4a6-P- /3A n rJ / A_ T�a�
r1i � �R A C w l �-� /' a e lm T
/ i- r7 / S t r E S /,F i'4 �-�- o / �-- Thi S A 2 e A.
oo�
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado B1611
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: James L. Adamski, Director of Housing
DATE: December 7, 1983
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
NAME OF APPLICANT:
Stevenson Building and Development Company of Colorado
NAME OF PROJECT:
Redevelopment of Agate Property
NATURE OF THE PROJECT:
The Agate Property (owned by Butch Clark) has 24 units on it,
five of which fall within our present employee guidelines.
The applicant intends to develop the property with six
condominiumized duplex structures consisting of twelve free
market units.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING STOCK:
The owner (C. M. Clark) presented an affidavit, dated
November 8, 1983, stating that the property unit description
consists of 24 units ranging in bedroom size from studios
to four (4) bedroom units. Of these twenty-four units, five
fall within the present employee housing guidelines. These
five units in total account for 11 bedrooms.
Housing Authority
December 7, 1983
Page Two
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION
It is the Housing Authority's recommendation that the
Stevenson Building Company application be conditionally
approved based on the following conditions:
1. That the developer under the condominiumization require-
ment, provide 11 bedrooms of middle income, deed restricted,
rental units in a manner consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin
County employee guidelines.
2. The applicant will file the deed restriction with the
City Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
0 {7il ! V�_ ?
DEC 0 8 1983
ASPEN / Pt
PLANNING OFFICE;
•
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
f'uWu INXIMI-1106
TO: JANET WEINSTEIN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: MARCH 2, 1984
RE: STEVENSON BLDG. CO./AGATE LODGE
We have reviewed this application and see no problems in the City supplying
this project with water as there are existing buildings on the property
which are presently supplied with Aspen water. By copy of this memo we are
advising the applicant of our requirements concerning the existing service
to this property. They are:
1. Application and permit of necessary tap fees for any new
construction.
2. Disconnection of any abandoned services at the main.
3. We will require individual service and meter for each single
family home and/or duplex.
If you have any questions concerning this, please don't hesitate to contact
US.
JM:If
cc: .Ton David Seigle, Sachs, Klein & Seigle
•
•
Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
Plans Check Committee
December 5, 1983
Planning Office
Pitkin County
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: Colette Penne
DEC 0 7 1983
--'t��
ASPEN / PITOTM
PLANNING OFFICE
Re: Stevenson Building Company
Redevelopment of Agate Property
Persuant to the 1979 Uniform Fire Code, no deviations were determined with your
project as outlined.
Please note however, firefighter and apparatus access to the center of the
block as developed and landscaped per your plans will be extremely difficult when
compounded by winter conditions.
Thank you very much for your solicitation.
Since
Darryl b
Paul R Hamwi
Steve Prudden
a V 0
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Dept.
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement V�
DATE: March 8, 1984
RE: Agate Lodge
MAR 121�4
-sr INTKIN CO.
OFFICE
Section 24-3.7(f)(3) reads, "Corner Lots. On a lot bordered on two (2)
sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to
which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet
minimum setbacks for a front yard in that district. The remaining
yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required
front yard setback distance for the district."
Section 24-3.7(f)(6) reads, "Yards adjacent to arterial roadways.
On a lot bordered by a designated arterial roadway, the minimum
front yard setback distance for the district shall be applied to the
portion of the lot adjacent to the arterial roadway, regardless of
building orientation. Where a lot is bordered on two(2) sides by
intersecting arterial roadways, the provisions listed under the corner
lot situation shall apply."
The applicant indicates 5 ft. "setbacks from lot line sides".
Considering the above code sections, the R-6 zoning would require
that 7th Street and 6th Street have a 10 ft. setback while Hallam
Street and Bleeker Street maintain a 6-2/3 ft. setbacks.
If the alley is not vacated the rear yard setback would, in an R-6
zone, be 15 ft. This would include an encroachment of swimming
pools.
The media rooms, containing closets and light and ventilation, would
be considered bedrooms by the Building Department and this application
should reflect that when it concerns parking.
WD/ar
cc: Pasty Newbury, Zoning Official
Jim Wilson, Building Official
•
•
I
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
September 29, 1983
Mr. Jon Seigle.
Sachs, Klein and Seigle
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Jon,
This letter is in response to your letter to me concerning the possible
reconstruction of the Agate Lodge. The property you refer to is zoned R-6
and contains an indeterminant number of long term units in a multifamily
configuration. The use is nonconforming in the R-6 zone district.
For me to identify for you the processing requirements for rebuilding the
units, I would need to know exactly the type of units you propose to construct.
The R-6 zone permits the construction of single family and duplex units.
Should you choose to build such units no rezoning of your property would be
necessary, although you would need to comply fully with the subdivision regula-
tion to create the desired number of lots.
Should your client wish to build units in a multifamily configuration, it will
be necessary for you to rezone the property to RMF. Private applications for
rezoning are only accepted on February 15 and August 15 of each year.
Should your client wish to build units in a row house or townhouse configura-
tion, it may only be necessary for you to rezone the property to R-6/PUD. I
refer you to Section 24-8.13(b) of the Code which reads as follows:
"(b) In mandatory PUD districts there shall be encouraged the
clustering of buildings and row houses may be authorized.
However, nothing herein shall be construed to permit the
construction of multifamily or apartment houses unless
otherwise permitted by the applicable zone district."
Given the nature of the property in question, I feel confident that the Planning
Office would encourage the use of PUD to cluster buildings, preserve open space
and achieve desired site design considerations. Therefore, it is likely that
we would permit you to apply under the provisions of conceptual PUD and, if the
project was found to be acceptable by P&Z and Council, to proceed with the
actual R-6/PUD rezoning at preliminary and final plat.'
•
•
Letter: Mr. Jon Seigle
September 29, 1983
Page Two
I suggest that you continue to work with the Building Department to verify
the number of existing units on the property for purposes of GMP exemption
and that you involve the Planning Office when you have completed an accurate
count. I also suggest that when you have decided on your design and are
clear on the details of your proposal, you call us to set up a pre -applica-
tion conference.
Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman, Assistant Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
AR:klm
n
U
•
JEFFREY H. SACHS
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGLE
JAMES H. DELMAN
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE'
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Department
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 8 161 1
September 26, 1983
City of Aspen
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-8700
Re: Stephen Chefan/Agate Lodge
This firm represents Stephen Chefan who has a contract to
purchase the Agate Lodge which is more specifically described as
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S,
Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen.
It is Mr. Chefan's intention to tear down the existing
improvements and renovate the property with multi -family units,
either in a townhouse, condominium, or duplex configuration.
Based upon our telephone conversation today, without respect to
the number of units that will be developed by my client, it is my
understanding that it is your office's position that any
development will require full compliance with the subdivision
regulations. I would appreciate a confirmation of our telephone
conversation regarding the appropriate procedure for the
redevelopment of the property. Also, I am presently working with
the Building Department for confirmation of the number of
existing units and also will provide you with a tenant survey for
purposes of the compliance with the condominiumization ordinance.
Your response to this letter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
!14
David Seigle
JDS/nlw
._.I
Ct.r
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
DATE: December 5, 1983
RE: Stevenson. Building Agate.Lodge Conversion
We realize. this is a.P.U..D. project and, therefore, variances
of height, setbacks, etc., are to .be considered by P&Z.
1) Letter of November 16, 1983, page 2 1. Setback Requirements.,
Section 24-3.7(6)
I feel that 7th Street is required to be a 10' setback as a.designated
arterial roadways for setback purposes only as stated, "regardless
of building orientation." The front setback should still be
determined by building orientation and access. It would appear
to me that. Hallam and Bleeker are the frontyards, requiring that
the alley be a rearyard setback of 151, not 6th Street.
Section 24-3.7(3).
In.this particular situation either Hallam and Bleeker Streets would be
6. 2/3' setback, not 5'.as indicated in the proposal because ofthe.
corner lots. Sixth Street would be required 101.
It is my understanding that Section 24-3.7(3) and Section 24-3.7(6)
are written to allow building setback from corner for purpose of
driver visibility, not to.determine which are frontyards f.or;the
purpose of building orientation or to take advantage of a,.
more desirable rearyard setback.
2) Parking and -Bedroom
In reviewing the.preliminary plan supplied by.the applicant, Models
D &, B both show ".Den" which contains` closets 'baths light and
ventilation and egress. The,•building.department would consider
this configuration as that of a bedroom.' The applicant, therefore,
has four additional bedrooms:requiringfour-more parking places.
3) Have we considered existing bedroom.count.versus added bedrooms
for park dedication fee purposes?
4) The "amenities building"'by the .pool appears to show a 3' and a
5'. distance between principal buildings...The R-6 code requires 10'
between accessory and principal building.
5) In scaling the renderings provided, it appears the height variance
needed may actually be between 3' and 5', not 3'. The, required height
on an R-6 lot is 25' as Per definition.
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official `
Jim Wilson, Building Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
BD/ar
• 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
-
DATE: December 6, 1983
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of the
Agate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application, and made a site
inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
The proposed redevelopment of the Agate property suggests six
duplex structures over the entire block. This conceptual
subdivision and P.U.D. application would require vacation of
the City alley within the block as well as creation of some
15 curb cuts from adjacent streets. The City Engineering
Department would not support the vacation request nor would
it support the current site plan for the following reasons:
1. Extensive landscaping of the vacated alley would
preclude fire or emergency access to the interior
of the site.
2. Landscaping and improvements in the vacated alley
would make normal access to utility lines within
the alignment extremely difficult if not impossible.
3. The15 curb cuts proposed from adjacent streets
would eliminate substantial amounts of on -street
parking and several of the cuts would violate code
section 19-101(d) requiring a minimum 25 feet between
driveways.
It is generally our policy to evaluate vacations on a case by
case basis with particular attention to how the site plan
serves to improve area circulation or otherwise compensates
for the rights being vacated. We do not generally support
vacation requests for developments that do not provide good
circulation alternatives or good utility corridors. In this
case it would appear that the vacation is intended to
accommodate the bulk of the proposed structures by pushing
all access, trash, and utility requirements onto the adjacent
streets.
JH/co
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: COLETTE PENNE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1983
RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF AGATE PROPERTY - STEVENSON BUILDING CO.
We have received the Stevenson application pertinent to the redevelopment
of the Agate property. Since the property is presently serviced by the
Aspen Water Department and located within the City of Aspen, water will be
available to the new development upon application and payment of any fees
required as prescribed by ordinance. Should the new development require
new service lines, it is the policy of the [dater Department to require aban-
donment of the old service lines at the point of attachment to the main
prior to connection of the new services.
JM:lf
NOV 1983
;:>f✓�iv i r I i KIN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
JAN
iibt1 .w / i'i TKIN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
RECORD OFF PROCELDINGS
100 Leaves
---.-Regular Meeting _ Corunissioii L`�'cc.11ibc r 20; - 19
Chairman Perry Iiarvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 with David White,
Paul Sheldon, Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tyq:-c and Roger Hunt present.
Commissioner Karen Smith, representing the Asper, Chance subdivision, said
Comments this is on the agenda for Jinuary 3, and they would like to
have P & Z come to a site i�ispection at 4:15 at Ute avenue
and Aspen Alps road. Ms. Smith said they will have the
p,-toper_ty staked out so the Commission can see what is
relative to their review.
Minutes Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes of November 22, 1983;
seconded by White. All in savor, motion carried.
Stevenson
Building Co.
Redevelopment
of Agate
Property
Colette Penne, planning office, said this is a conceptual PU:
and subdivision review. When the site plan was submitted,
the engineering department had problems with it. The appli-
cants would like to readdress the site plan. At this meetin(
they would like to introduce themselves and talk about their
plan, essentially a pre -application conference. Ms. Penne
said the plan is to level the Agate lodge of 24 units, 8
of which are in the lodge. There are 12 units that can be
verified, and the applicants plan is to build six duplexes.
There are some concerns with this block, the alley is not
vacated throughout the block. There are large trees on the
property that will have to be dealt with, and the six duplexc
will exceed the FAR.
Walt Warnicke presented a booklet of other projects their
company has done. The approach is to build and offer turnkey
fully furnished houses for living. Warnicke said they would
like to discuss this site with P & Z because it is on the
entrance to Aspen. Ms. Penne said when the conceptual plan
was done, the applicant was operating with the set back of
R-6 zone, not realizing in a PUD they could be varied. The
staff feels the plans can be changed. The engineering depart
ment has problems with the curb cuts and with the vacation
of the alley.
Harvey asked the size of the property. Jon Siegle said it is
54,000 square feet not including the alley. Siegle said they
anticipate an FAR of 31,200 square feet. Siegle said the
applicant is acknowledging displacing employee bedrooms and
is committed to replacing these bedrooms in the community
but not on site. The expenses of doing that is tied into the
concept of having 31,200 square feet. These will be 12 free
market units. The applicant will replace 11 bedrooms, not
units.
Ms. Penne said if the alley is vacated, probably the square
footage would go into the project area. Hunt said these are
residential units, and the applicant would have to present
good arguments for vacating the alley, like how the trash
will be removed. Hunt said he is not disposed to giving up
alleys, especially from a.service view point. Siegle said
he looked into why this has been zoned PUD and one reason
may be the view plane coming into Aspen.
Ms. Penne said the applicant would like some reaction to
removing the trees or designing around them, and the question_
of excess FAR, should it be lenient because of the PUD.
Iiarvey said he would like the trees preserved, if possible,
and the plan designed around the existing trees. Sheldon
agreed it is easy to build a building and hard to build a
tree.
•
•
Regular Meeting Nanning all'! zoll i w f �' nuni : i:;.i.on December 20, 1.983
Iiunt- said he doc:: net sc�c any advantage to the city in haviil:
six dupl.c::cs wit.}i a 1::1-o(c 1- i h,111 !vc�ragc FAR., anc_I t.hc apl�lic<<
is not. putting any employe o hju:'ing on site. 1IunL said he
is noG teri:i_I _D c_lispo ;(.,1 to .cn iiic).-cased F7,R. Siegle said
with the hou:. i irg regul ;i Li ons �lnd the cost of doir-,g
business in l,spc.n, this I-q.-,plicanL feels in order to do Lhis
project and meet the cmPl.oyee housing cornni.tment, they need
the extra square. footage. Sieglo said there are some design
considerations which dictate the size.
Harvey pointed out the FAR ordinan-:.e was written because of
the perceived. massing of duplexes and single family dwelling
Harvey said he does not know if the applic�nt coin deal with
the perceived size, or can deal with them so that they do non
look like mammoth buildings. Harvey said he is not inclined
to say right now the Commission will vary the FAR. The FAR
is a way to control the visual impact. Harvey said if the
applicant can handle the: visual impact, he would be willing
to look at it. Siegle said with the square footage and the
PUD, the applicant can mitigate the visual massing.
Sheldon asked the height. limitation. Ms. Penne said it is
25 to 28 feet. One of the �.pplicants said the highest ridge
is 31-•32 feet. Sheldon asked if they planned to underground
the utilities. Warnecke answered yes. Anderson pointed out
a PUD designation is not meant as a benefit for the property
owner but to allow the P & Z to say there are reasons certain
things should be varied if there is a benefit to the entire
community. Anderson. said he would hesitate to increase the
FAR just becauso this is a PUD. Anderson said he would like
to reduce the number of curb cuts wherever possible. Anderso:.
said he would .like the trash access to be handled on site.
Warnicke said the only feedback they have received on the
alley is about access for fire fighting equipment. Ms. Penne
pointed out the engineering department has objected to 15
curb cuts. One of the applicants pointed out there are only
six. Sheldon said the alley is also right of way for pedes-
trian traffic. In the West End there are no sidewalks and
people use the alleys. Sheldon said he would like some
pedestrian way through this alley.
White said he is not real disposed to increasing the FAR.
White said he would like to see something aesthetic at the
entrance to town, and would not like to see six buildings
all the same. White would like to see what the city would
get from the street vacation, and does not generally favor
street vacation. White said he would like to keep the trees
as much as possible. Siegle said one of the suggestions
was to see how the Commission felt about rezoning this parcel
to R/MF to allow the square footage they need.
Anderson said under PUD, there can be different configuration::;
clusters or row house, without rezoning. Anderson said rezon-
ing to R/MF would not get very far. Sheldon asked what is
the allowable FAR. Ms. Penne said 27,000 square feet and
the applicant is asking fog 4,000 above that. Warnicke said
they have tried many ways to cut the size down, and losing
square footage means losing the project. Warnicke said if
the applicant cooperates in every other way, saving trees,
moving buildings, keeping the alley open, elevation changes,
do they stand a chance of increasing the FAR.
Anderson said he is 60 per
and 40 per cent to see if
to mitigate the project.
opposed to increasing the
response to the community
cent keeping the underlyin(r FAR,
sonic -thing creative can be developed
Ms. Tygre said she is 100 per cent
FAR. The P & Z worked hard on a
that people did not want to see
•
•
100 Loavcs
Regular. 1-4ce-ting P1_anninc4_:rncl 9orinq Commission December 20, 1.983
Andrews/Pletts
Stream Margin
Review and
Commercial GMP
Exemption
houses that looked too big for the site. The community
wanted smaller houses and more landscaping. Ms. Tygre said
the P & Z event to a lot of work on the FAR and unless the
applicant can show ovea:-whelming reasons why these structures
should be this size, she will not support it. Mr. Tygre
noted this site is at the entrance to Aspen, and she would
like the project smaller.
Hunt said he is 95 per cent for using the underlying zone
district FAR. There is a slight chance they can come up
with good arguments. Hunt said if the acquisition costs are
too high, the project should not be done. White said he is
75 to 80 per cent against changing the FAR. Sheldon agreed
with Jasmine and said he feels very strongly about this.
If the price of land is too high, it will come down some
time. Sheldon said this project is too high, too big and
too dense.
Harvey said the P & Z are not economic arbitrators in this
community for profits of a project. Harvey said anything
on that site would be an improvement over the Agate. Harvey
said he would like to see the property redeveloped. Harvey
said there is a public hearing process for this for the
applicant to answer the neighbors and the P & Z's concerns.
Har�.ey said he could not see that 250 square feet per unit
will break the project.
Colette Penne, planning office, said there are two requests
herein; stream margin review and GMP exemption. The buildings
are .in the S/C/I and are requesting accessory units. Ms.
Pletts is requesting an increased green house adding 73,
square feet to the interior space. Ms. Penne said this will
be an artist's studio, and the applicant feels they need
the light. It does increase the FAR and the possibility of
this being commercial square footage increased by 73z.
Ms. Penne showed the Commi..--ion the proposed green house
window. There is a loft illegally placed which the applicant
proposed to rip out and replace. Ms. Penne said the decks
do not count in FAR but are important to the stream margin
review. Ms. Penne said she had just received the final
product and final numbers. The total expansion of 274.23
square feet is the green house, loft and new stairway. The
staff is putting this through the commercial GMP because
there is a chance it could be converted to commercial square
footage. The staff is recommending approval of this request.
In terms of the stream marging review, there are three decks
being added. The staff does not feel there is any effect on
the stream. The decks are on the second story and on the
side of the building nearer the park than the stream. Tom
Crews, architect for the applicant, showed plans, showed the
river bank. One deck has been constructed and is supported
from the ground with a 6 by 6 on a concrete foundation. The
deck on the east side of the building would be of similar
construction, and the other deck would be cantilevered from
the second floor so that there is nothing going into the
ground.
Hunt asked about the location of the river channel. Crews
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks Department
City Engineer
Housing Office
City Attorney
City Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Chief
Building Department
Transportation Department
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
DATE: November 18, 1983
Attached is material submitted by Jon Seigle on behalf of Stevenson
Building and Development Company of Colorado for the redevelopment
of the property on which the Agate Lodge is located (corner of
Bleeker and 7th Streets). The Planning Office would like comments
from you and specifically would like your comments with regard to
the following in addition to you general comments:
PARKS - A detailed look at the Conceptual Landscape Plan to help
determine the feasibility of transplanting mature trees to this site.
ENGINEERING - Specifically address the vacation of the alley, whether
or not the alley has already been vacated, and if not, the advisability
of doing so.
HOUSING - A recommendation on deed restricting a specific percentage
of units based on the requirements of Section 20-22 of the City Code.
TRANSPORTATION - Is there a need for any particular mass transit
facilities on -site, i.e., bus shelters.
This case goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December
20, 1983. In view of the complexity of this case, we would appreciate
receiving your comments no later than December 5, 1983, in order
for this Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation.
Thank you. !�
NO er e_0/5 "1 LSPP
S�,�V�CIs T-O T/IDS 00" O'er
}Sre.-- C.J—SO4-lAAf7-Lr Pr
rf ^... /C
COMBINED APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND PUD
Applicant's Name: Stevenson Building and Development
Company of Colorado
Name: C. M. Clark
Applicant's Attorney: Jon David Seigle, Sachs, Klein & Seigle,
201 N. Mill, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado
81611
Applicant's Architect: John Payne, 2170 S.E. 17th Street,
Suite 207, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
David Finholm, 0023 Pacific Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Property Description: A development consisting of six duplex
townhouses located on Lots A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R,
and S, Block 17, City and Townsite of
Aspen
Present Zoning: Planned Unit Development Overlay, R-6
Present Improvements: Eight lodge units, sixteen multi -family
units, one garage and storage building
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The property that is the subject matter of this application
is one of the most unique properties in Aspen. The uniqueness of
this property is evidenced by the special attention that City
Council has given it by its designation as a mandatory planned
unit development overlay district. For unlike most other
mandatory planned unit development overlay districts, it has not
been so designated because of any topographical or other
developmental problem, but rather because this property
represents Aspen's "first impression" to those entering the City.
The property is bounded by Sixth Street, Hallam Street, Seventh
Street and Bleeker Street. The property is presently known as
the Agate Lodge. This application contemplates the total and
complete demolition of every one of the existing fourteen
buildings on the property.
Applicant is a Colorado corporation which is headed by Mr.
Stephen Chefan. Mr. Chefan is a nationally recognized builder
from Florida who has been a summer visitor to Aspen for the last
six years. Mr. Chefan is known for the high quality of his
projects, both from a land use perspective and from an aesthetic
perspective. Applicant intends to develop the property with six
condominiumized duplex structures consisting of twelve free
market units. The thrust of this project, beside its tasteful
design, will be its landscaping to mirror the landscaping of the
Villas of Aspen. This will result in an understated first
impression of Aspen. A unique property such as Block 17,
requires a unique development. Applicant feels that his proposal
is consistent with the uniqueness of the property and the City of
Aspen.
Accompanying Material:
Exhibit 1. City Map, scale 1" = 400 showing project location,
all adjacent lands owned by or under option to subdivide are
commonly known landmarks and zoning on and adjacent to property.
(Requirement 20-10 (b) (1) and 24-8.7 (a) )
Exhibit 2. Sketch plan of proposed development showing property
boundaries, predominant existing site characteristics, public use
areas and existing and proposed land use patterns, including
street system of both the tract proposed for development and
adjacent land. (Requirement 20-10(b)(2) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 3. Tabulation of data for the development listing:
Proposed name, acreage, number, size and type of proposed lots,
structures and/or units and the development's total projected
population. Requirement 20-10(b)(3) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 4. Disclosure of ownership listing the names of all
owners of the property described in the sketch plan including all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
of record affecting the property covered by such plan.
(Requirement 20-10(b)(4) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 5. General landscaping plan and elevation (Requirement
24-8.7 e )
Exhibit 6. Statement of intention with reference to future
ownership of all portions of the planned unit development.
(Requirement 24-8.7(c)): The project will consist of six
condominiumized duplexes. The common areas will be owned and
maintained by a condominium association.
-2-
•
JEFFREY H.SACHS
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGLE
SM'II-4, KI.EI:N & SF,IGI,E
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H.DELMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE' November 16, 1983
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Alan Richman HAND DELIVERED
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Agate Lodge Conversion
Dear Alan:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925 8700
Pursuant to our discussion of a few days ago, the following
information is submitted to supplement our land use application
on behalf of Stevenson Building and Development Company of
Colorado.
You have requested additional information to satisfy Section
24-8.1 of the City Code - Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Section 24-8.2 - PUD Design Approaches. The project will
utilize a combination of several of the design approaches set
forth in this section including "Averaged Lot Area". The project
is a condominium project with common areas and does not envision
separate and distinct lots. This approach is particularly
appropriate due to the blend of densities in this neighborhood.
Across the street from the project is a multi -family apartment
building containing condominiumized apartment units. This
massive structure is not compatible with any of the existing
buildings in the neighborhood, however, it does exist and creates
visual impact. Diagonally across from the proposed project is
the forest service building having a very low profile and sparse
landscaping. Directly across Seventh Street is the Aspen Villas
with significant landscaping and clustered multi -family
condominium apartments.
The applicant proposes to locate the buildings to be
constructed on the site in a manner which provides open space
within the project and large setback areas along Seventh Street.
A review of the site plan indicates a 25 foot setback from
Seventh Street where the zoning code only requires 10 feet (front
yard). It is within this 25 foot area that the applicant intends
to provide significant landscaping in order to beautify and
enhance the "Gateway to Aspen". Under current zoning, the
applicant could have created a much more intense massing of
building areas which would have been compatible with the
multi -family apartment house across Hallam Street but would not
have been compatible with the applicant's aesthetic values for a
beautiful entry to the city.
Alan Richman
November 16, 1980 •
Page 2
The PUD will also utilize the Architectural Cluster in order
to allow the use of interior courts and common areas while
condominiumizing to provide separate ownership of the units. The
variations from the zoning code requirements requested by this
project and a brief discussion of those which are not requested
is as follows:
1. Setback requirements. The applicant requests a zero
lot line setback variation for the side yard lot lines of
contiguous lots within Block 17 in order to cluster the proposed
buildings. Otherwise, the applicant does not request any
setback variations. In fact, the applicant will exceed existing
setbacks for this district. According to the code, Seventh
Street, as an arterial roadway, is treated as a front yard
requiring a 10 foot setback. The applicant's site plan indicates
a 25 foot setback. The Sixth Street side of the project will be
the rear yard requiring a 15 foot setback with the site plan
indicating a 20 foot setback. Side yards (abutting Bleeker
Street and Hallam Street) are only required to have 5 feet of
setback with the site plan indicating 15 to 20 foot setbacks.
The applicant's reduction of distance between the structures and
the zero lot lines will permit additional landscaping to be
utilized together with architecturally designed placement of the
buildings in order to improve the overall views and amenities of
the project.
2. Distance Between Buildings. The applicant does request
a variance in code requirements for distances between two of the
buildings. There is approximately 8 feet between each of these
buildings which results in a 4 foot separation measured from an
imaginary center line between the 8 foot distance. This is
necessary in order to accommodate the architectural cluster of
the project.
3. Parking. The applicant does not seek a parking
variation due to the following parking plan. The plan indicates
26 bedrooms with the code requiring parking of one space per
bedroom. Two indoor garage spaces per unit will be provided plus
apron parking for an additional two cars per unit. It is also
anticipated that approximately 7 additional outdoor parking
spaces will be disbursed throughout the project. Therefore,
parking will be provided well in excess of current code
requirements. The applicant has the ability to provide
additional parking over the excess presently planned, however, to
do so would reduce usable common areas and landscaped open space.
4. Height Variation. The applicant requests a height
variance of approximately three feet. This is necessary to
accomplish the architectural cluster and provide additional open
space which would not otherwise be available if the buildings
were required to be spread out at a lower elevation. The
landscaping plan and existence of mature trees on the property
together with the architectural design of the rooflines will not
result in any adverse visual effects as a result of this height
variance.
Alan Richman •
November 16, 19840
Page 3
5. Floor area ratio. The applicant requires a variation
from the floor area ratio limitations in order to construct an
additional 3,000 feet disbursed throughout the entire project.
On a unit by unit basis, this only results in approximately 250
square feet over the permitted FAR for each unit. The FAR
variance is necessary in order to permit the applicant to develop
the project according to his well established and nationally
recognized design criteria. The applicant has successfully
developed properties in other parts of the country winning
national acclaim for his unique concept. Every room in the
project has a distinct function and purpose. Although we are
seeking only 250 square feet over the allowable FAR, this 250
square feet is an integral requirement of the overall design
concept. The applicant provides fully furnished living units
including linens, silverware, a fully stocked wine room,
televisions, stereos and even a stocked kitchen and pantry at the
time of purchase. All a buyer need do is bring their toothbrush
in order to move into the unit. Therefore, the additional 250
square feet is not needed merely to build a larger room that may
or may not be fully utilized by the ultimate purchaser or to reap
additional per foot profits for the developer, but rather to
complete a design and use concept that is totally new to Aspen
and one which will provide a unique and very attractive life
style for its occupants.
The applicant has carefully analyzed the design
possibilities and has determined that in the absence of the
additional square footage, the project will not fit within his
design requirements and, therefore, the City may well lose this
rare opportunity to have a high quality developer share his
expertise with our community and provide a superior project which
will enhance the entrance to Aspen and eliminate an unsightly and
deteriorating existing development. The applicant believes that
the removal of the Agate Lodge facilities and their replacement
with a beautiful and sensitive project will do more than visually
enhance the entrance to Aspen, it will also provide a new concept
in residential living amenities to our community. We believe
that the compromise of this nominal square footage through a
floor area ratio variation is well justified by the benefits to
the community.
The general provisions of Section 24-8.5(i) require the
applicant show the reasonableness of his application and its
compliance with the intent and purposes of PUD. Based upon the
foregoing, it is self-evident that the design concept of this
application is clearly within the intent and purposes of a PUD.
The only adverse effect related to this project is if it is not
approved by the City and the Agate Lodge remains in its present
condition. All other impacts of this development are carefully
and totally mitigated and the ultimate result will be a
significant enhancement and improvement to the "Gateway to
Aspen".
Alan Richman
November 16, 1980 •
Page 4
You have requested information concerning the alley running
through the project between Bleeker Street and Hallam Street. At
the present time the applicant has been unable to determine from
the engineering department whether or not this alley has been
vacated. If the alley has been vacated then this issue is
totally resolved, however, if the alley has not been vacated the
applicant would request as part of this application the vacation
of the alley with the applicant's granting of necessary utility
easements to the extent such services are presently located
within the alley or are anticipated. The applicant will provide
additional information concerning the status of the alley as soon
as it is available from the engineering department.
Under separate cover, the project architect is providing a
cross section visual elevation of the project as it will appear
to someone entering the City.
Thank you very much for your assistance in processing this
application. I look forward to our presentation before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 1983. Would you
kindly schedule approximately one hour for the presentation as
representatives for the applicant expect to provide information
to the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the applicant's
background and examples of his other projects so that they will
be better able to evaluate this particular developer's likely
ability to construct the project as represented and in a manner
which will benefit the entire community.
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed or require
additional information, please contact me immediately so that we
will not jeopardize our scheduling.
Very truly yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEII�LE
By: -
Herbert S. Klein
HSK:bsr
cc:Lou Scholnik
0 •
BUILDING SITES
ALLEY EASEMENT
TOTAL LAND AREA
UNITS
54000 SF
59580 SF (100%)
A
B
C
D
6 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
1st Floor
1225
SF
1452
SF
1540 SF
1933 SF
2nd Floor
935
SF
1050
SF
1228 SF
1368 SF
Total Heated
2160
SF
2502
SF
2768 SF
3302 SF
Basement
465
SF
500
SF
488 SF
696 SF
2nd Flr. Deck
82
SF
193
SF
252 SF
264 SF
Building
Footprints
7350
SF
2864
SF
3080 SF
3867 SF
Amenities
Building
120
SF
Total Footprint
Land
Area
17281
SF
(29%)
Pool & Deck
1216
SF
(2%)
Drives & Parking
6247
SF
(10.4%)
Walks & Patios
8766
SF
(14.7%)
Landscape
23363
SF
(43.9%)
SACIIS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW (303) 925-8700
JON DAVID SEIGLE
201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H.DELMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE' November 10, 1983
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Colette Penney
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Stevenson Building and Design Company
Application for Subdivision and PUD
Dear Colette,
Please find enclosed a memorandum to me from Nancy
Delacenserie regarding her search of the building records and the
tax records regarding the date of construction of the
improvements on Block 17.
According to our search, the Building Department has no
records either of building permits or certificates of occupancy
for any of the structures on the property. Patsy Newberry can
recall from her personal. knowledge the date of construction of
some of the structures and that is set forth on the memorandum.
I hope this provides your office with some of the
information it needs in determination of the number of units on
the property. I will be out of town from November llth until
November 28th. However, in my absence, Herb Klein will be
handling this case. Please feel free to call him if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
1
By
J 'David Seigle
JDS/aop
Enclosure
cc: Lou Scholnik
•
0
COMBINED APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND PUD
Applicant's Name: Stevenson Building and Development
Company of Colorado
Name: C. M. Clark
Applicant's Attorney: Jon David Seigle, Sachs, Klein & Seigle,
201 N. Mill, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado
81611
Applicant's Architect: John Payne, 2170 S.E. 17th Street,
Suite 207, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
David Finholm, 0023 Pacific Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Property Description: A development consisting of six duplex
townhouses located on Lots A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R,
and S, Block 17, City and Townsite of
Aspen
Present Zoning: Planned Unit Development Overlay, R-6
Present Improvements: Eight lodge units, sixteen multi -family
units, one garage and storage building
r
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The property that is the subject matter of this application
is one of the most unique properties in Aspen. The uniqueness of
this property is evidenced by the special attention that City
Council has given it by its designation as a mandatory planned
unit development overlay district. For unlike most other
mandatory planned unit development overlay districts, it has not
been so designated because of any topographical or other
developmental problem, but rather because this property
represents Aspen's "first impression" to those entering the City.
The property is bounded by Sixth Street, Hallam Street, Seventh
Street and Bleeker Street. The property is presently known as
the Agate Lodge. This application contemplates the total and
complete demolition of every one of the existing fourteen
buildings on the property.
Applicant is a Colorado corporation which is headed by Mr.
Stephen Chefan. Mr. Chefan is a nationally recognized builder
from Florida who has been a summer visitor to Aspen for the last
six years. Mr. Chefan is known for the high quality of his
projects, both from a land use perspective and from an aesthetic
perspective. Applicant intends to develop the property with six
condominiumized duplex structures consisting of twelve free
market units. The thrust of this project, beside its tasteful
design, will be its landscaping to mirror the landscaping of the
Villas of Aspen. This will result in an understated first
impression of Aspen. A unique property such as Block 17,
requires a unique development. Applicant feels that his proposal
is consistent with the uniqueness of the property and the City of
Aspen.
Accompanying Material:
Exhibit 1. City Map, scale 1" = 400 showing project location,
all adjacent lands owned by or under option to subdivide are
commonly known landmarks and zoning on and adjacent to property.
(Requirement 20-10(b)(1) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 2. Sketch plan of proposed development showing property
boundaries, predominant existing site characteristics, public use
areas and existing and proposed land use patterns, including
street system of both the tract proposed for development and
adjacent land. (Requirement 20-10(b)(2) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 3. Tabulation of data for the development listing:
Proposed name, acreage, number, size and type of proposed lots,
structures and/or units and the development's total projected
population. Requirement 20-10(b)(3) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 4. Disclosure of ownership listing the names of all
owners of the property described in the sketch plan including all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
of record affecting the property covered by such plan.
(Requirement 20-10(b)(4) and 24-8.7(a))
Exhibit 5. General landscaping plan and elevation (Requirement
24-8.7 e )
Exhibit 6. Statement of intention with reference to future
ownership of all portions of the planned unit development.
(Requirement 24-8.7(c)): The project will consist of six
condominiumized duplexes. The common areas will be owned and
maintained by a condominium association.
-2-
BUILDING SITES
ALLEY EASEMENT
TOTAL LAND AREA
UNITS
54000 SF
59580 SF (100%)
A
B
C
D
6 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
1st Floor
1225
SF
1452
SF
1540 SF
1933 SF
2nd Floor
935
SF
1050
SF
1228 SF
1368 SF
Total Heated
2160
SF
2502
SF
2768 SF
3302 SF
Basement
465
SF
500
SF
488 SF
696 SF
2nd Flr. Deck
82
SF
193
SF
252 SF
264 SF
Building
Footprints
7350
SF
2864
SF
3080 SF
3867 SF
Amenities
Building
120
SF
Total Footprint
Land
Area
17281
SF
(29%)
Pool & Deck
1216
SF
(2%)
Drives & Parking
6247
SF
(10.4%)
Walks & Patios
8766
SF
(14.7%)
Landscape
23363
SF
(43.9%)
9
JEFFREY H. SACHS
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGLE
JAMES H.DELMAN
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE'
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGI.E
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Alan Richman
City of Aspen Planning
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
November 16, 1983
HAND DELIVERED
Department
Re: Agate Lodge Conversion
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-8700
Pursuant to our discussion of a few days ago, the following
information is submitted to supplement our land use application
on behalf of Stevenson Building and Development Company of
Colorado.
You have requested additional information to satisfy Section
24-8.1 of the City Code - Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Section 24-8.2 - PUD Design Approaches. The project will
utilize a combination of several of the design approaches set
forth in this section including "Averaged Lot Area". The project
is a condominium project with common areas and does not envision
separate and distinct lots. This approach is particularly
appropriate due to the blend of densities in this neighborhood.
Across the street from the project is a multi -family apartment
building containing condominiumized apartment units. This
massive structure is not compatible with any of the existing
buildings in the neighborhood, however, it does exist and creates
visual impact. Diagonally across from the proposed project is
the forest service building having a very low profile and sparse
landscaping. Directly across Seventh Street is the Aspen Villas
with significant landscaping and clustered multi -family
condominium apartments.
The applicant proposes to locate the buildings to be
constructed on the site in a manner which provides open space
within the project and large setback areas along Seventh Street.
A review of the site plan indicates a 25 foot setback from
Seventh Street where the zoning code only requires 10 feet (front
yard). It is within this 25 foot area that the applicant intends
to provide significant landscaping in order to beautify and
enhance the "Gateway to Aspen". Under current zoning, the
applicant could have created a much more intense massing of
building areas which would have been compatible with the
multi -family apartment house across Hallam Street but would not
have been compatible with the applicant's aesthetic values for a
beautiful entry to the city.
Alan Richman •
November 16, 1983
Page 2
The PUD will also utilize the Architectural Cluster in order
to allow the use of interior courts and common areas while
condominiumizing to provide separate ownership of the units. The
variations from the zoning code requirements requested by this
project and a brief discussion of those which are not requested
is as follows:
1. Setback requirements. The applicant requests a zero
lot line setback variation for the side yard lot lines of
contiguous lots within Block 17 in order to cluster the proposed
buildings. Otherwise, the applicant does not request any
setback variations. In fact, the applicant will exceed existing
setbacks for this district. According to the code, Seventh
Street, as an arterial roadway, is treated as a front yard
requiring a 10 foot setback. The applicant's site plan indicates
a 25 foot setback. The Sixth Street side of the project will be
the rear yard requiring a 15 foot setback with the site plan
indicating a 20 foot setback. Side yards (abutting Bleeker
Street and Hallam Street) are only required to have 5 feet of
setback with the site plan indicating 15 to 20 foot setbacks.
The applicant's reduction of distance between the structures and
the zero lot lines will permit additional landscaping to be
utilized together with architecturally designed placement of the
buildings in order to improve the overall views and amenities of
the project.
2. Distance Between Buildings. The applicant does request
a variance in code requirements for distances between two of the
buildings. There is approximately 8 feet between each of these
buildings which results in a 4 foot separation measured from an
imaginary center line between the 8 foot distance. This is
necessary in order to accommodate the architectural cluster of
the project.
3. Parking. The applicant does not seek a parking
variation due to the following parking plan. The plan indicates
26 bedrooms with the code requiring parking of one space per
bedroom. Two indoor garage spaces per unit will be provided plus
apron parking for an additional two cars per unit. It is also
anticipated that approximately 7 additional outdoor parking
spaces will be disbursed throughout the project. Therefore,
parking will be provided well in excess of current code
requirements. The applicant has the ability to provide
additional parking over the excess presently planned, however, to
do so would reduce usable common areas and landscaped open space.
4. Height Variation. The applicant requests a height
variance of approximately three feet. This is necessary to
accomplish the architectural cluster and provide additional open
space which would not otherwise be available if the buildings
were required to be spread out at a lower elevation. The
landscaping plan and existence of mature trees on the property
together with the architectural design of the rooflines will not
result in any adverse visual effects as a result of this height
variance.
Alan Richman • •
November 16, 1983
Page 3
5. Floor area ratio. The applicant requires a variation
from the floor area ratio limitations in order to construct an
additional 3,000 feet disbursed throughout the entire project.
On a unit by unit basis, this only results in approximately 250
square feet over the permitted FAR for each unit. The FAR
variance is necessary in order to permit the applicant to develop
the project according to his well established and nationally
recognized design criteria. The applicant has successfully
developed properties in other parts of the country winning
national acclaim for his unique concept. Every room in the
project has a distinct function and purpose. Although we are
seeking only 250 square feet over the allowable FAR, this 250
square feet is an integral requirement of the overall design
concept. The applicant provides fully furnished living units
including linens, silverware, a fully stocked wine room,
televisions, stereos and even a stocked kitchen and pantry at the
time of purchase. All a buyer need do is bring their toothbrush
in order to move into the unit. Therefore, the additional 250
square feet is not needed merely to build a larger room that may
or may not be fully utilized by the ultimate purchaser or to reap
additional per foot profits for the developer, but rather to
complete a design and use concept that is totally new to Aspen
and one which will provide a unique and very attractive life
style for its occupants.
The applicant has carefully analyzed the design
possibilities and has determined that in the absence of the
additional square footage, the project will not fit within his
design requirements and, therefore, the City may well lose this
rare opportunity to have a high quality developer share his
expertise with our community and provide a superior project which
will enhance the entrance to Aspen and eliminate an unsightly and
deteriorating existing development. The applicant believes that
the removal of the Agate Lodge facilities and their replacement
with a beautiful and sensitive project will do more than visually
enhance the entrance to Aspen, it will also provide a new concept
in residential living amenities to our community. We believe
that the compromise of this nominal square footage through a
floor area ratio variation is well justified by the benefits to
the community.
The general provisions of Section 24-8.5(i) require the
applicant show the reasonableness of his application and its
compliance with the intent and purposes of PUD. Based upon the
foregoing, it is self-evident that the design concept of this
application is clearly within the intent and purposes of a PUD.
The only adverse effect related to this project is if it is not
approved by the City and the Agate Lodge remains in its present
condition. All other impacts of this development are carefully
and totally mitigated and the ultimate result will be a
significant enhancement and improvement to the "Gateway to
Aspen".
Alan Richman
November 16, 1983•
Page 4
You have requested information concerning the alley running
through the project between Bleeker Street and Hallam Street. At
the present time the applicant has been unable to determine from
the engineering department whether or not this alley has been
vacated. If the alley has been vacated then this issue is
totally resolved, however, if the alley has not been vacated the
applicant would request as part of this application the vacation
of the alley with the applicant's granting of necessary utility
easements to the extent such services are presently located
within the alley or are anticipated. The applicant will provide
additional information concerning the status of the alley as soon
as it is available from the engineering department.
Under separate cover, the project architect is providing a
cross section visual elevation of the project as it will appear
to someone entering the City.
Thank you very much for your assistance in processing this
application. I look forward to our presentation before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 1983. Would you
kindly schedule approximately one hour for the presentation as
representatives for the applicant expect to provide information
to the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the applicant's
background and examples of his other projects so that they will
be better able to evaluate this particular developer's likely
ability to construct the project as represented and in a manner
which will benefit the entire community.
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed or require
additional information, please contact me immediately so that we
will not jeopardize our scheduling.
Very truly yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SE LE
B
e ert S. Klein
HSK:bsr
cc:Lou Scholnik
AFFIDAVIT OF C. M. CLARK
C. M. Clark, being duly sworn, states as follows:
1. That I am the owner of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S, Block 17, City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
2. That the property is improved with approximately 14
buildings that include 24 rental units.
3. That to the best of my knowledge, the monthly rent,
square footage, and monthly rent per square foot, is set forth on
the attached Exhibit A.
4. That the property has historically rented for terms in
excess of one -month periods at prices in excess of guideline
prices for moderate and middle -income housing as determined by
the City Council and as adjusted fr
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn to before me in the County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado this �'j1 day of November, 1983 by C. M.
Clark.
Witness my hand and official sea ;J NOTARY PUBLIC
ILJ ,_ GF COLORADO
My commission expires:
Ji�w,, VIARWELL
Ivi, ..uwanission expires 11/26/83.
P.O. Box 566
Aspen, Colorado 81612
o atVy Public
•
Exhibit A
•
Summary of rents currently being collected at Agate Lodge for the
past 18 months. (There has been no increase or decrease in rents
since April of 1982.)
Unit
Monthly Rental
Square Footage
Monthly Rent/
Square Foot
1
$340
320
$1.06
2
320
216
1.48
3
300
216
1.38
4
300
216
1.38
5
300
216
1.38
6
300
216
1.38
7
320*
8
565*
9
340*
2517
1.21
10
355*
11
335*
12
400*
13
420*
17
315*
14
365
416
.87 J
15
390
320
1.22
16
750
740
1.01 ,
18
950
980
.97 —
19
420
319
1.31
20
1120
1065
1.05
21
675
870
1.29
22
600
870
1.45
23
700
962
1.37
24
640
962
1.50
*Units
contained in the lodge
building. Total
square footage -
2517;
monthly rent/square foot
- $1.21
AGRM1� ,,3IPITKIR! 9EGIONFAL SU'ILMoro r.3EPARTru ENT
Nobembe r 3, 1983
Jon Seigle
Sachs, Klein & Seigle
Attorneys at Law
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Unit Verification
Agate Lodge
Dear Jon:
This letter contains an inventory of what I observed during
our site inspection on September 30, 1983, at the Agate Lodge
property. This will appear similar to the format of your
letter of October 4, 1983, with additional comments on my part.
I will not comment as to whether these units are "lodge units" or
"multi -family units", but I feel my comments will allow the planning
department to make that determination. I also cannot comment as to
whether_ all the units were constructed legally. I feel the time
of construction of some of the units may proceed our records.
Basically, the following pages contain observations that I
made regarding present conditions. I hope this is the verification
you need.
cc: /manning j
Paul —'I a�_dune ,
Wayne Chapman;
Patsy Newbury,
WLD/ar
Sincerely,
W
William L. Drueding
Zoning Enforcement Officer
City Attorney
City Manager
Zoning Official
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 505 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Unit #1 Cabin Unit, containing kitchen facilities. (Sink,
range, refrigerator)
Unit #2 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #3
Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #4
Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #5
Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #6
Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Main Lodge - First Floor
Unit
#7
Unit
#8
Unit
#9
Unit
#10
Unit
#11
Unit
#17
I considered a studio containing: kitchen, bath,
illegal loft, illegal sleeping room.
Studio containing kitchen and bath.
Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Contained bath and kitchen. Two rooms appeared to be
combined into one unit.
Studio containing range, refrigerator, but
no kitchen sink or plumbing.
Main Lodge - Second Floor
Unit #12 One bedroom containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Unit #13 One bedroom containing bath and kitchen facilities.
Cabin #14 Various chopped -up rooms containing kitchen and bath
facilities.
Cabin #15 Two small bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Cabin #16 Two bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Page 2 • •
Unit #18 House containing three bedrooms, bath and kitchen.
Unit #19 Converted chicken coop - studio with kitchen and bath.
This unit also contains a loft and fireplace that should
be considered highly dangerous. I cannot see that this
unit was ever a legal dwelling unit.
Unit #A20 A three bedroom house containing one kitchen and two
baths.
Fourplex: House
Unit #A21 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A22 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A23 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A24 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
I feel it should be noted that the lower units A22 and A24 do not
contain proper egress from the bedrooms and should be considered
dangerous as sleeping rooms. I would have to question whether
these units were constructed legally.
Garage - contains a woodworking shop and availability for undetermined
parking.
JEFFREY H.SACHS
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGLE
JAMES H.DELMAN
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE'
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
•
SACIIS, KLEIN B: SEIGLE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 8 161 1
October 4, 1983
William Drueding
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Pitkin County Building Department
506 East Main
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill,
•
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-8700
Co
zrl
OPVT 111983
Re: Unit Verification - Agate Lodge
On September 30, 1983, you and I did a site inspection of
the Agate Lodge for purposes of verification of the number of
units on the Agate Lodge property which is specifically described
as Lots A through I and K through S, Block 17, City and Townsite
of Aspen.
Below is an inventory of the units based upon my notes of
our inspection. I would appreciate a written confirmation of the
inventory set forth in this letter with any comments you may
have. I have enclosed a xerox copy of a plat that was provided
to me by Mr. Clark's office to assist in the identification of
the units.
Unit No. 1 - separate kitchen, separate bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 2 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 3 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 4 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 5 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 6 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Lodge Building:
Unit No. 7 - kitchen, bath, two sleeping
areas, one fireplace
Designation: Multiple family unit.
William Drueding
Page Two
October 4, 1983
Unit No. 17 - no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 8 - separate kitchen, separate bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 9 - no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 10 - no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 11 - separate kitchen, separate bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 12 (upper level) - one bedroom, one bath
Designation: one -bedroom unit
Unit No. 13 (upper level) - one bedroom, one bath
Designation: One -bedroom unit
Unit No. 14 (separate building) - separate kitchen, separate
bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 15 (separate building) - separate kitchen, separate
bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 16 (separate building) - kitchen, two bathrooms,
two bedrooms
Designation: Two -bedroom unit
Unit No. 18 (separate unit) - three bedrooms, one bath
Designation: Three -bedroom unit
Unit No. 19 (chicken coop building) - one bathroom, one
kitchen, one fireplace
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 20 (separate building) - kitchen, two bathrooms,
three bedrooms, one fireplace
Designation: Three -bedroom unit
Fourplex:
Unit No. 21 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two -bedroom unit
0
William Drueding
Page Two
October 4, 1983
Unit No. 22 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two -bedroom unit
Unit No. 23 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two -bedroom unit
Unit No. 24 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two -bedroom unit
Garage (separate building) - contains woodworking shop and
storage and parking availability for at least two vehicles
I appreciate the time you spent with me in making the
inspection of the properties and I will await the verification of
the contents of this letter.
JDS/aop
Enclosures
cc: Lou Scholnik
Stephen Chefan
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By
�oi� David Seigle
L-
MEMORANDUM
To: JDS
From: NJD
Re: Chefan - Agate Lodge
Date: 9 November 83
This memorandum summarizes my search of the records filed in
the offices of the City/County Building Inspector and Tax
Assessor with regard to property known as the Agate Lodge, more
specifically Block 17, Lots A through I and K through S, City of
Aspen. The tax assessor's records reveal that Lots A through I
contain the following improvements:
(a) 8 single detached cabin units
(b) 1 attached double cabin unit
(c) a linen storage building
(d ) a shed
(e) the main lodge
The tax records also reveal that a ninth single detached cabin
unit had been removed from the property in 1976. Since these
cabin units were built prior to 1955, the year the City of Aspen
created a building inspection department, there are no records
with regard to the original construction of these cabins. In May
of 1959, however, a building permit was issued for the remodeling
of the main lodge building which revealed that the lodge
consisted of 7 living units with a total of 10 rooms.
The tax records reveal that Lots K, L, M, and N have been
improved with a structure which was originally the old office of
the Agate Lodge complex. The most recent tax records also reveal
that this structure has two bedrooms and one bath.
The tax records reveal that Lots O and P have been improved
with 2 structures referred to as house no. 1 and house no. 2.
The most recent tax records reveal that house no. 1 consists of 2
bedrooms and 1 bath and house no. 2 consists of 1 bedroom and 1
bath.
Finally, the tax records also reveal that Lots Q, R, and S
have been improved by a structure consisting of 4 living units,2
on the first floor and 2 on the basement level. There are a
total of 8 bedrooms in this structure.
See the attached drawing for the relative positioning of the
structures described above.
(r�J t��ll5t F ATI C
PL
�l
��� . 11 Ab-/A i t
)- ,
T I
4- PAL. Ott /LDI��r� I h�SPF1To25 G Fr
(PAR �'A- S i t5£►ti�l Q�'L� - t�o h C,�4LD:
RFr1Ar��I N� �T� ! �T Co�JSTF=uC1'iorJ
I
CoN:sf R UCT� D
N 7- `
/l;)VED /-vJ.D I {
T� � II ) TO
CoN5T1�UCTED
(u )
HS7 'VI
)q 5�
wl l°iq
j
I
commitment 40
for Title Insurance
h
USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies
of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or
interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor, all subject to
the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have
been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease
and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs,
provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
Schedule a Sept 16 1983 A83-421
1. Effective date p � Case No. __ Inquiries directed to_ 925-4444_
2. Policy or policies to be issued: at 8 : 00 A.M.
A. ALTA Owner's Policy Proposed Insured Amount S_ _1,600,000.00 _ Premium 5__1, 548. 70
Tax Certificate 5.00
C. ACTIVATORS, INC., a Florida Corporation
B ALTA Loan Policy Proposed Insured Amounts ____ —_ ___ Premium s
C. Amount $__ Premium $
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is
at the effective date hereof vested in.
C. M. CLARK
4. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows:
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S
Block 17
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Schedule B—Section 1 Requirements
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit:
1. Deed from C. M. Clark vesting fee simple title in C. Activators, Inc.,
a Florida Corporation.
2. Certificate of Good Standing for C. Activators, Inc., a Florida Corporation
issued by the office of the Secretary of State, State of Florida.
3. Evidence of compliance with the provisions relating to the Real Estate
Transfer Tax, Ordinance No. 20 ( Series of 1979).
(OVER)
Formerly DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY
FORM 106 (C0) 10M1077H
Schedule 0—Section 2 Exceptions
Street Address of Property _
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company-
1. Rights of claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or cli ••is of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroart lents. and any far , which a correct survey and inspection of
the pr •mises would disclose and which are -.it shown by the public records
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for service labor or material theretofore or hereafter furni;i ed. imposed by law and not shown by the
public records.
5 Defects lions, e-cumbrances rdvers4 r-larns or whpr matters, if any, c+^vrted, first al:r ,ring in the public records or attaching suh;equent
to the effective date hereof but prior to the dot( a proposed insured )squires of ,rd for value the estate or interest or mortgage
thereon covered by the Commitment
Exceptions numbered - —0— are hereby omitted
6. Taxes due and payable: any unpaid taxes and assessments due and payable and
any and all tax sales which have not been properly redeemed or cancelled. Tax
Certificate ordered, not yet received by Cotrl`;tny.
7. Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of the sitbject
property in Aspen Fite Protection District, Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District,
Aspen Street Improvement District and Aspen Valley Hospital District.
8. Encroachment of one (1) story house and car port onto r.h Street and encroachment
of one (1) story building onto Bleeker Street as shown on 'Jurvey by Johnson,
Longfellow & Associates, Tnc., dated May 24, 1982 as Job No. 20-47.
9. Financing Statement_ from C. M. Clark, Deb,or, to The Empire Savings, Building
and Loan Association, Secured Party, recorded June 16, 1983 in Book 427 at
Page 997, File No. 06931.
10. Deed of Trust from 0. M. Clark to the Public Trustet_of Pitkin County, Colorado
for the use of The Empire Savings, Building and Loan Association to secure $1,170,000.00
dated June 16, 1982, recorded June 16, 1982 in Book 427 at Page 992.
Assignment of above Deed of Trust to Public Employees Retirement Association of
Colorado, PERA as Nominee, recorded March 16, 1983 in Book 442 at Page 36.
11. Terms and conditions of Note and Deed of Trust Modification Agreement dated
June 1, 1983, recorded June 16, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 190A.
NOTE: A check may be made with the lender concerning possible limitations of said
Deed of Trust on the right to transfer the property and assume the loan.
Conditions and Stipulations
1 The term ''mortgage. ' when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2 If the pr A Insured has or acquire; actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumb;..; ce. adverse claim or other matter affecting
the estate or u, !rest or mortgage thereon revered by this Commitment other than those 0 in Schedule 8 hereof, and shall fail to
disclose stir-h knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from !fit,- for any loss or damage resulting from
any act of reliance hereon to the !.trot the Company is prejudiced by r •' ,re to so disclo,^ ;rich knowledge. If the proposed Insured
shall disclose such knr wledge to the rornoany, or if the Comnany otherwise acquires actual knov ' •dge of any such defect. lean, encumbrance,
adverse claim or oth- matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Con itmeni accordingly, but such amendment
shall not relieve the Company from Irabi! r. previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these `: mclitions and Stipulations.
3 Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall he only to the named proposed ' -ured and such parties included under the
definition of Insured in the form of policy or polir_ies committed for and only for ,-.dual los> ncurred in reliance hereon in undertaking
in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B. or (c) to acquire or create
the estate of inter, it or mortgage thr-r ,on covered by this Commitment In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule
A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the :•rsuring provisions, exclusion from coverage• and the Conditions
and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference
and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4 Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or
interest or the lien of the insured mnrr(j.tge covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and
conditions and stipulations of this commOment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Comp,,i . nas caused this Commitment to be signed and sea) :, to become valid w:,on countersigned by
an authorized officer tr agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Cor:nitment is effective as of the date shown
in Schedule A as ''Effective Date "
NF,AI. USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas
Pr. f/'dden 4Ch,@fE..n/tul�rve[/]fiJ l-1,fer/�j---_ _ --
Arr.rl .,, o r,wn...,
/* J Y
L-1
MEMORANDUM
TO: marks Department
City Engineer
Housing Office
Ciy Attorney
ty Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fib Chief
✓Su ding Department
ransportation Department
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
DATE: November 18, 1983
Attached is material submitted by Jon Seigle on behalf of Stevenson
Building and Development Company of Colorado for the redevelopment
of the property on which the Agate Lodge is located (corner of
Bleeker and 7th Streets). The Planning Office would like comments
from you and specifically would like your comments with regard to
the following in addition to you general comments:
PARKS - A detailed look at the Conceptual Landscape Plan to help
determine the feasibility of transplanting mature trees to this site.
ENGINEERING - Specifically address the vacation of the alley, whether
or not the alley has already been vacated, and if not, the advisability
of doing so.
HOUSING - A recommendation on deed restricting a specific percentage
of units based on the requirements of Section 20-22 of the City Code.
TRANSPORTATION - Is there a need for any particular mass transit
facilities on -site, i.e., bus shelters.
This case goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December
20, 1983. In view of the complexity of this case, we would appreciate
receiving your comments no later than December 5, 1983, in order
for this Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation.
Thank you.
BtE€KER STREET
EXISTING ALIGNME
PROPOSED S.H. 82
NOISE CONTOUR
DIETERICH-POST CLEARPRINT 1020 41
0 •
r
W
W
v/
2
v-
m
PROJECT:
A PUD
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
for CM CLARK
BLOCK 17
ASPEN COLORADO
ITHOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS I
ASPEN LOS ANGELES
1
\
i
REVISIONS:
TITLE OF SHEET:
1
SITE PLAN
- CITY LOT
BOUNDARY
LINE
PROJECT NO. DRAWING NUMBER
F�isTW (m RQ.0wa,y s� — 2
i�$Ocl
eroPosKb 8Cc)i J v, 115
SHEET OF SHEETS
DATE,
It, Dial Allre 7/(,/e4-
APPC.",d,Lx
CITY 01" ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
December 17, 1984
Douglas P. All_en, Attorney at Law
Courthouse Plaza Bldg.
530 East Main Street, lst Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Doug,
In regards to your letter of November 20, please accept my apologies for
the delay. However, I did not receive this letter until December 10. The
property in question is the old Agate property now presently owned by C.M.
Clark and the existing facilities are presently serviced by the City of Aspen
Water Department.
We now have water mains located in Bleeker, Hallam, and 6th Street and you
may access the existing City water main at any of these locations. Water
will be available to you for any new development upon application and payment
of any necessary tap fees. We will of course credit you with any existing
facilities now connected to the mains in accordance with our established
policy.
Should you install any new water services or abondon any existing services,
you must agree to physically disconnect any old services from the main in
accordance with our policy for the abandonment of old service lines.
If these conditions are met, I see no problem with your and your clients
obtaining water for your development.
4jncerely,
Markalunas, Director
Aspen Water Department
JM:ab
•
December 12, 1984
Douglas P. Allen
Courthouse Plaza Bldg.
530 E. Main St.
Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter dated November 20th
concerning the provision of telephone service to
block 17 in the City of Aspen I submit the following
information.
Mountain Bell is the serving telephone company
in this area and will provide telephone facilities for
this location.
nk you,
Ra7mond L. Carpent
Assistant Manager
Mountain Bell
• •
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
0132 ATLANTIC AVE. • ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, ASPEN, COLORADO F+177 PHONE (303) 925-2323
December 18, 1984
Douglas P. Allen
Courthouse Plaza Bldg.
530 East Main Street, First Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
To Whom It May Concern;
In reference to the availability of Natural Gas for your project at Block 17 in
Aspen.
We have a 4" gas line at the east end of your project on North 6th Street. We
also have a 2" gas line that runs through your project in a gate court. At this
time, the line serves the Agate and a portion of the Villas project accross 7th
Street.
I feel we can adequately serve your project and will look forward to supplying
gas to your project.
S' erely,
Willard C. Clapper
District Manager
Rocky Mountain Natural
Gas Co., Inc.
canyon cable tv
5�
December 19, 1984
Mr. Douglas P. Allen
Attorney at Law
Courthouse Plaza Bldg.
530 East Main St. First Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Block 17, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Subdivision Application
Dear Sir:
This letter will confirm the availability
and adequacy of CATV service facilities pur-
suant to the provision of such service to the
above referenced subdivision.
Any facility extensions, relocations, or
connections shall be provided for according to
Canyon Cable policies in effect at the time of work.
Sin erely,
K ly Bloomer
JKB/mjs
cc: George Ryerson, Chief Engineer
Division Of United Artists Cablesystems Corp.
50 Ventnor Avenue Aspen Colorado 81611 303 925-4098
0 i
CITY Oil -'ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
December 21, 1984
Douglas P. Allen
Courthouse Plaza Bldg
530 E Main St, First Floor
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Mr. Allen,
In reference to Block 17 of Aspen, availability of single phase or
three phase is there and is more than adequite to serve the site.
The present utility service is of the overhead type, but the new
utility service will have to be of the undergound type.
Sincerely,
r. Jim Capperalla
Acting Head
City Electric Dept.
ASPENo0PITKIr*,qEGIONAL BUILG DEPARTMENT
NOV 4
Nobember 3, 1983
Jon Seigle
Sachs, Klein & Seigle
Attorneys at Law
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Unit Verification
Agate Lodge
Dear Jon:
This letter contains an inventory of what I observed during
our site inspection on September 30, 1983, at the Agate Lodge
property. This will appear similar to the format of your
letter of October 4, 1983, with additional comments on my part.
I will not comment as to whether these units are "lodge units" or
"multi -family units", but I feel my comments will allow the planning
department to make that determination. I also cannot comment as to
whether all the units were constructed legally. I feel the time
of construction of some of the units may proceed our records.
Basically, the following pages contain observations that I
made regarding present conditions. I hope this is the verification
you need.
cc: Planning
Paul Taddune,
Wayne Chapman,
Patsy Newbury,
WLD/ar
Sincerely,
William L. Drueding
Zoning Enforcement Officer
City Attorney
City Manager
Zoning Official
offices:
110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-5-
Unit #1 Cabin Unit, containing kitchen facilities. (Sink,
range, refrigerator)
Unit #2 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #3 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #4 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #5 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #6 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Main Lodge - First Floor
Unit #7
Unit #8
Unit #9
Unit #10
Unit #11
Unit #17
I considered a studio containing: kitchen, bath,
illegal loft, illegal sleeping room.
Studio containing kitchen and bath.
Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Contained bath and kitchen. Two rooms appeared to be
combined into one unit.
Studio containing range, refrigerator, butt -
no kitchen sink or plumbing.
Main Lodge - Second Floor
Unit #12 One bedroom containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Unit #13 One bedroom containing bath and kitchen facilities.
Cabin #14 Various chopped -up rooms containing kitchen and bath
facilities.
Cabin #15 Two small bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Cabin #16 Two bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Page 2
Unit #18 House containing three bedrooms, bath and kitchen.
Unit #19 Converted chicken coop - studio with kitchen and bath.
This unit also contains a loft and fireplace that should
be considered highly dangerous. I cannot see that this
unit was ever a legal dwelling unit.
Unit #A20 A three bedroom house containing one kitchen and two
baths.
Fourplex: House
Unit #A21 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A22 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A23 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A24 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
I feel it should be noted that the lower units A22 and A24 do not
contain proper egress from the bedrooms and should be considered
dangerous as sleeping rooms. I would have to question whether
these units were constructed legally.
Garage - contains a woodworking shop and availability for undetermined
parking.
-7-
1 1
• File No. A84-227
Clark
Aspen, Block 17, Lts. A-S
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
530 East Main Street
Courthouse Plaza Building
Aspen, Colorado 81611
File No. A84-227
014NERSHIP CERTIFICATE.
Aspen Title Company, Ltd. hereby certifies that title to:
is vested in:
Lots A through S, both inclusive
Block 17
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
C.M. CLARK
and that the above described property is subject to the following:
1. Deed of Trust trom C.M. Clark to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado,
for the use of The Empire Savings, Building, and Loan Association, to secure
$1,170,000.00, dated June 16, 1982, recorded June 16, 1982, in Book 427 at
Page 992.
Said Deed of Trust assigned to the Public Employees Retirement Association of
Colorado, PERA, as Nominee, by instrument recorded March 16, 1983, in Book 442
at Page 36.
Said Deed of Trust modified by Note and Deed of Trust Modification Agreement
dated June 1, 1983, recorded June 16, 1983, in Book 447 at Page 190 A.
2. Financing Statement from C.M. Clark, Debtor, to The Empire Savings, Building,
and Loan Association, Secured Party, recorded .Tune 16, 1983, in Book 427 at
Page 997, File No. 06931.
3. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales which have
not been properly redeemed or cancelled.
NOTE: Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not
to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion or title, nor a guarantee
of title, and it is understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title Company,
Ltd, is limited to the amount of the fee charged hereunder.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. >
BY: V" �:�. ��'�� Fee: $100.00
NT CRENSHAW
Manager
Dated: June 29, 1984 at 8:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION OF TIM ASPrN PLAT1MMr-7 AND ZONT14G COrINTSSION
RECOFIPIL•:NDIM', CONCEPTUAL. SUi+DIVISiO;7/I'!]D APPROVAL
FOR THE AGATE COURT PROJLC'i PS Aw►e �`\
Resolution No. 85-10
IHE'RGAS, C. M. (Butch) Clark (hereinafter "Applicant") is the
owner of record of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly
known as "The Agate"; and
WtIF:f;t;AS, the Applicant has requested conceptual subdivision/PUD
approval to reconstruct the existing dwelling units on the site as six
single-family residences and two duplexes; acid
WHEREAS, the Applicant ha requested a traditional form of
!.;ubdivision along original townsite lots, rather than using a clus-
Ler.ed design typically associated with a PUD, and also is not request-
-!.ng variations from the zoning requirements of the R-6 zone district;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supports the efforts of the
'applicant to upgrade this site, i7hich is at the entrance to Aspen; and
1•711CREAS, the Planning Commirssi.on is concerned that the Applicant
has not used the flexibility offered by the PUD overlay and that
therefore the
Applicant has been
unwilling
to
provide
an
adequate
buffer between
the new units and the
highway,
and
also has
not
avoided
all of the large trees on the site with the proposed house locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City- of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby rocom-
mend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual subdivision/P!ID
approval to the Agate Court proj t, subject to the following cen--
ditions:
1. The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan meeting the
requirements of Sections 24-8.9 and 20-12 of the Code.
Included within said plan shall be a design which shall.
significantly increase the landscape buffer along 7th Street:
so as to provide relief from the noise of traffic for the
` residents anc so s to better screen the view of trtc units
from th hi-ghwa�y Nvr- � s\..\l a- \- -ly —O.L. C\-*- �. Vp A-e s oFF
�t4 A V.� w�11�`^`'�A wti� T.t� iLaL1L V&A,6 0- -�lo Ac�o�.e\�%\ ...1►a.dAt �o
��lo ...e o ,. �.Q l^^ �\ �.�M i �C A k.1. �\ •G ism• v'Acs A .� �� Pv � 0 4. t .
2. The l�pplicant shall re ocate any structure which You have
required the removal of, a tree which cannot be replanted and
demonstrate that all trees considered significant Icy the
Parks Director are retained in place or shall be relocated
on the site.
3. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten
units within the project, and alley access for trash removal,
and the project :ltall have no curb cuts on cith r 11allam or
Bpleeker Str ets.
p.�..J ��0�4ti�..T \Oc:��'.Ow1 �.� � C �'`. .....Mr �\�` ��h� ♦� .� C.� w hl-
.i..�...o�t�- S �-�, o..ly wer-�o`W..���..'I���st �—po�t�.� �t�C.t • s.�e .
4. The Applicant shall contact'1tie fire Department to determine
the nece^site of keening the alley open onto 7Lh St.rccL.
If the departrent. indicaL•c:s in writing that t:lle
be kept oj-+en, then the Apr)l.i carat. shrc.l.l agree to place a nolef: L turn sitill at: th(r exit: to 7t:h ) n
r
Of 0
Resolution No. 85-10
Page 2
such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the
design to show no exit or entrance for car; along 7th
Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the
cul-d-sac, and a contint us landscaped berm in this loca-
tion.
5. The Applicant shall revise the design of the "auto courts
such that the driveways are narrowed to approximately
26', in accord with the recommendations of the Engineering
Department, but shall also insure that the alley continues
to provide adequate area for service vehicle access.
6. The Applicant shall provide details on the internal makeup
of the two dualexes so as to insure that one parking space
is provided for each bedroom within the project.
7. The Applicants shall provide a bus stop at the corner of
Seventh and Bleeker meeting the specifications of RF'TA, and
shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street.
8. The Applica shall provide adequa guarantees to the
satisfacti of the City ttorncy th the t�;� duplex units
will not e condominiLi zed for a eriod o five (5) ears
from th date of th r occunan The easons f this
/ingny
ment are th the Plann'. g Commi ion is no requi.r-
mitigatio of /thels of e lovee hog J.
as a
of this projecthat etention the unitsingle nershipilit to highway planning by
g th number o,,n- s to be co tacted in the
event addit'ona] right-s required.
-6 '�\^� A-(1Q�.�� S\.w�� e�e—o.s�^+��ke- lo..v\.�•►�t w•�. Sc��t�o., ie.�Z Co. �.� d.,.\1 ,,`•..1.
9. The Applicant shall underground all utilities within the
p r o e c t ,\a1.h �ae� • , c�.g ,� .. s1.►. Sl ,,.�Sl. `�
G (1� V �..N� ♦ wl....A�:�. • rr i4. L, -,/�a -�.L j�A k O 1 `.► ~iS E (1�.Q4 ...�+av
4�.LJN1. •Cr 41w�1 v..�t�L-* ♦G A.l. �.��'� �+ �t S �l�1�,.�1��""t,�l
10. The Applicant all meet the se.t ack and heig�t limitations c., k
of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review `---�
of this project. A,.,,���tK
F• R. 4
11. The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water. service RBI
outlined by Jim Markalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen 'Ore \,-K
dated December 17, 1984. Aa4-,,��s
12. The Applicant shall submit a preliminary plan within six
months of the date of conceptual approval by Council, as
required by Section 24-8.9 of the Code or this conceptual
approval shall expire.
APPROVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their
regular meeting on June 4, 1985.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Perry a ry ey, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kim wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
AR.2
2
MEMORANDUM
To: Colette Penne
From: Elyse Elliott
Date: February 12, 1985
Re: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision
In reviewing the above application and making a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. R-6 zoning requires the setbacks in the front and rear yards
to be 10 feet and 15 feet respectively. The site plan indicates
a f ront yard setback of 15 feet and a rear yard setback of 10
feet. This is the opposite of the requirements.
2. Since the driveway is located in the alley, section 19-10 on
curb cuts does not apply. However, this department feels that
the cut for the driveway is excessive. The plans propose a curb
cut of 66 feet on a 90 feet wide lot. We recommend that the curb
cut be narrowed as shown to provide for more open space and
accessibility to the trash dumpster.
r
\ AinTO 1p(Z r
` / AoD%-r%oNAL OPC'nJ
A LLE\j
Vri=^w _ .. _. _...._�•.�yR,�,-s.:.,_�r._.....,,•rR-•-;tsay,-"..,...-�.r�+�eT�`i�'^--Y-.sr�.�...,.-..:..e�,.,._. ... ... -- - .---•._..._..-.._.�..s.-'�.�..---•o.�v�..-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Agate Court Project - Conceptual Subdivision/PUD
DATE: August 12, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Agate
Court Conceptual PUD subject to twelve conditions. The Planning
Office recommends additional conditions if this conceptual PUD is to
be approved.
LOCATION: All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots A, B, C,
D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S) .
ZONING: This 54,000 square foot parcel is zoned R-6 PUD.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of concep-
tual subdivision and PUD for the redevelopment of Block 17. This
proposal is for the demolition of all existing structures and the
resubdivision of the property into six single-family lots and two
duplex lots.
Conceptual PUD requires that the applicant demonstrate the conformance
of the proposal with the purposes of the PUD article.
Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the
Planned Unit Development article "is to encourage flexibility,
innovation and variety in the development of and to provide perfor-
mance criteria for PUD's which will:
"(a) Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout of
buildings;
(b) Improve the design, character and quality of new develop-
ment;
(c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services;
(d) Preserve open space as development occurs;
(e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and
layout of residential development to a particular site and
thus encourage the preservation of the site's unique,
6 9
1f
•
natural and scenic features; and
(f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
area."
The conceptual presentation requirements include a statement by the
applicant as to the planning objectives to be achieved by the planned
unit development through the particular approach chosen, including any
specific advantages that a PUD offers as opposed to a conventional
subdivision. In addition, future ownership of all portions of the
property is to be projected. Other conceptual requirements include a
description of approximate location of structures, density, use and
types of buildings, and location of common open space, park and
recreation areas. Finally, you are to be provided with general
landscaping renderings of the proposed improvements which, although
preliminary, are of sufficient detail to apprise the Council of the
exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship
to terrain features of the site.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council held a work session to review this
application on July 15, 1985. No action was taken at that time, but
the applicant did present you the attached memo outlining various
concerns about the P&Z conditions.
BACK ROUND: The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion have been reviewing proposals to redevelop the Agate property
since early in 1984. The original proposal to construct six single-
family and two duplex structures was submitted by another applicant.
After several meetings with P&Z, during which the applicant's request
for variances in FAR and height were not well received, the applica-
tion was withdrawn and the property reverted to its owner, C.M.
(Butch) Clark.
The present proposal was brought forward last fall when the applicant
indicated his intent to develop the property simply as a land sub-
division along townsite lot lines, rather than to cluster the units as
a PUD, and without designing the units prior to lot sales. In fact,
P&Z was asked to either remove the PUD designation from the parcel or
to allow its subdivision without architectural review, as required by
PUD.
The Planning Commission gave great attention to the fact that the site
is zoned Mandatory PUD and we advised the Commission as to why the
site might have originally been given this designation. We know that
in the last major rezoning of Aspen in the 1970s, the PUD designation
was applied to hillsides, streambanks and similarly sensitive environ-
mental features. In this case, the site is flat and the only key
features on the site are its large trees. We have, therefore,
inferred that the probable reason for the site's PUD designation is
its prominence at the entrance to town and the desire of the community
to achieve a beneficial relationship between plans for State Highway
82 and this site's redevelopment. PUD flexibility could also be
E
useful in avoiding the removal of trees from the site.
Based on these considerations, P&Z required the applicant to submit
designs for the two duplexes along the Highway frontage and to portray
the landscaping which would soften the views along the Highway and
shield residents from traffic and noise. The applicant has responded
to these requirements, but as demonstrated in the attached P&Z
Resolution 85-10, recommending conceptual approval, P&Z is as yet not
totally satisfied with these designs.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Based on the reviews performed by the Planning
Office and the Planning Commission, there appear to be three key
issues with respect to this development, which can be characterized
as follows:
1. Lot line subdivision versus clustered PUD;
2. Circulation issues/highway interface; and
3. Employee housing mitigation.
Each of these problems is discussed further below.
1. Lot Line Subdivision Versus Cluster PUD.
As noted above, the applicant's concept for this block is to
subdivide the lots along original townsite lines, to design only
the duplex structures and to leave construction up to each of the
lot purchasers. The Planning Office feels that this concept has
merit and that this design approach satisfies the criteria of
achieving a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
areas and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type
and design of buildings. The West End neighborhoods to the east,
north and south of this parcel are all subdivided along original
townsite lot lines and a variety of architectural styles exist
on each block. Allowing the Agate block to be developed without
a totally planned concept is an interesting approach that we
support, particularly since no variations from R-6 Area and Bulk
Requirements are being requested.
In our opinion, the lack of a unified architectural theme is not
the real problem with respect to this concept. Instead, as will
be argued below, the applicant's unwillingness to use PUD design
flexibility in the development of the block has led to a variety
of other technical site problems. For example, there are several
large trees on the site which fall within the lots which have not
clearly been demonstrated to be avoided by house locations.
These four trees range from 12" to 20" in diameter and are
approximately 30' to 60' in height. The Planning Commission has
recommended that the structures avoid the location of any tree
which cannot be relocated. The applicant has indicated a
willingness to replant those trees which can be moved and to
3
0 •
avoid those trees which can't be moved, but has not submitted a
landscaping plan demonstrating any such commitments. This plan
should be required at the Preliminary PUD stage. We support the
applicant's request for flexibility in driveway design and
footprint location to attempt to avoid the largest trees which we
would prefer not be moved.
2. Circulation Issues/Highway Interface.
The more important design problems with respect to this proposal
fall into the circulation category. First, the applicant has
followed our advice and shown vehicle access for the duplex
structures through the alley into "auto courts" with parking
spaces off these entrances. The alley access is preferable, in
our opinion, to curb cuts. The Engineering Department feels that
the cut for the driveway into the auto court is excessive, and
they propose in a drawing we have attached that it be narrowed to
26 feet (from 66 feet) so that additional open space is provided
and access to the dumpster is still maintained.
Access to the single-family residences is as yet undefined. The
applicant intends to "encourage the purchasers of the lots to
utilize the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus
further minimizing additional curb cuts." The Planning Office
feels that since the alley is being proposed as the access to the
duplexes, the six single-family lots should be limited to alley
access and trash access for these homes should also be in the
alley. Six curb cuts are unnecessary, and do not represent
"efficient use of land and public streets" as noted in the
criteria above. Use of the alley will permit additional land
within the block to be kept in open space and should be an
improvement on both Hallam and Bleeker Streets.
The site plan appears to propose that the alley be accessible
from both Sixth and Seventh Streets. We feel that the alley
should be closed at Seventh Street. The landscaped strip along
Seventh Street should continue unbroken and the alleyway should
terminate at the duplex driveways. Interaction of vehicles
turning into the development or entering onto the highway from
the alley could be a hazardous situation and should be avoided.
The P&Z concurred with this conclusion, but also recognized that
the Fire Department might want the alley left open for access
purposes. Therefore, the applicant has been required to contact
the Fire Department and, if the alley is to be left open, to
place signs at the Seventh Street exit prohibiting left turns.
The most extensively debated issue by the P&Z was the project's
interface with State Highway 82. As you know, one alternative
still under consideration for the entrance to Aspen is to four -
lane the highway in place. According to the best information
available to the Planning Office, four-laning of the existing
alignment will result in a decibel level produced by traffic that
makes homes on Lots A, B, K and L "uninhabitable" by federal
standards. Therefore, if the duplexes are built and the Highway
is expanded in place, the project may have to compensate the
owners of these units.
The Planning Office feels that the placement of two duplexes
within a proposed Highway alignment is contrary to good community
planning and could reduce our options to meet our public safety
and general welfare needs. Through the use of PUD techniques,
the applicant could easily achieve the ten unit density requested
and yet avoid this sensitive location. The lack of such a plan
is, in our opinion, the most significant failing of this con-
ceptual submission. The Planning Commission agreed with this
conclusion in part, by requiring "a significant increase in the
landscape buffer along Seventh Street", but fell short of
requiring the structures to be moved off of the four most
sensitive lots. Please note that it is our understanding of this
condition that P&Z was looking for an increase in the width and
density of the buffer, not just an increase in the density of the
plantings as the applicant has suggested.
3. Employee Housing Mitigation.
This reconstruction proposal is exempt from the growth management
system since it represents a net decrease in unit density and not
an increase. The Building Department has verified that 24 units
currently exist at the Agate, and the applicant only intends to
rebuild ten units.
All 24 units at the Agate have been used for long-term rentals
for some time, and five (5) of the units, containing eleven
bedrooms, fall within our employee housing guidelines. However,
the Housing Authority has confirmed that since no condominiumiza-
tion is being proposed, our regulations provide no basis to
require replacement of any employee housing units. Replacement
is only required if condominiumization takes place within 18
months of the date a unit is rented within the guidelines.
However, P&Z has recommended a condition that none of the duplex
units be condominiumized for five years from the date of their
occupancy since no employee housing mitigation is being requir-
ed. The applicant has objected to this condition in the attached
memo to Council, and, based on our conversations with the
City Attorney, we concur that condition 8 should not be a
requirements of this project.
ALTERNATIVES: To understand the alternatives available, it is first
necessary to summarize the principal pros and cons of this proposal.
Favorable aspects of this proposal include the fact that it will
upgrade what is one of the most run down, highly visible blocks in the
City; reduce the number of units on the block to a much more accept-
able density; provide the opportunity for a variety of designs, in
keeping with the West End development pattern; and require the use of
5
•
•
no variances. Negative aspects of the proposal are its conflict with
planning for State Highway 82; lack of detail with respect to tree
removal, housing siting and landscaping; and displacement of long term
rental housing without mitigation.
Based on these considerations, Council has at least four possible
alternatives available at this time:
1. Require the applicant to fully comply with the PUD provisions.
The applicant would have to come in with a clustered PUD plan,
avoiding the Seventh Street conflict, and showing building
footprints, elevations and landscaping. The PUD would also
probably require the applicant to condominiumize the units so
that employee housing mitigation would take place.
2. Require the applicant to further elaborate on the design before
you take any action or as a condition of conceptual approval. At
a minimum, an increased buffer on Seventh Street and footprints
for the single-family houses should be shown. Alternatives would
include moving the houses off Lots A and K (two front lots) , Lots
A, B, K and L (four front lots) or simply expanding the buffer
but allowing housing on all of the lots in the block.
3. Approve the conceptual plan with P&Z's conditions, which defer
the detailed design issues to preliminary PUD review.
4. Deny the proposal as inconsistent with the intent of placing a
PUD on the property.
The Planning Office's recommendation to P&Z was to deny the conceptual
plan and to direct the applicant to resubmit a PUD on the lines
suggested by alternative #1 or #2 above. Though we see a great deal
of merit to upgrading this block, we feel that this proposal does not
meet the intents and purposes of PUD. The landscaping and architec-
tural plans are sketchy and incomplete (cover only part of the site)
and the applicant has entirely ignored the statement in Section 24-8.2
that
"A PUD is a subdivision wherein there is a departure from the
usual design of regularly platted lots and blocks devoted to a
single classification of land use. A PUD may be characterized by
. a combination of the following design approaches: . . .
(a) Averaged lot area . . .
(b) Clustering of development . . .
(c) Architectural cluster."
By proposing a design which uses none of the above methods, we believe
that the project does not serve the City's long term planning in-
terests particularly due to the placement of two new duplexes which
G
0
conflict with highway planning.
Should the Council agree with the Planning Commission rather than the
Planning Office, we recommend that you add to their conditions a
requirement that footprints or building envelopes be shown for the six
single-family lots. The addition of this information at the prelimi-
nary stage will insure that future purchasers avoid the large trees
with their houses and provide a framework for a more integrated PUD
plan. The applicant has no objection of this condition.
Furthermore, we recommend that prior to conceptual approval, you
require that the applicant move the duplexes off Lots A and K, at a
minimum and preferably off of Lots A, B, K and L, and use a modified
clustering technique (i. e. , reduce the setbacks between houses but
retain the traditional lot line approach proposed by the applicant) to
avoid the impacts of the Highway on these residences.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution
85-10 on June 4 by a vote of 5-2.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Presuming that the Council is generally in
agreement with the Planning Commission's approach to this project,
following is the appropriate motion:
AR.13
"Move to approve the Agate Court Conceptual PUD, subject to the
conditions of P&Z Resolution 85-10, with the following changes:
1. Add the requirement that building envelopes be shown for the
six single-family lots.
2. Add the requirements that the duplexes be moved entirely off
of Lots A and K and that setbacks between buildings can be
varied to achieve this desired result. (Note: The Planning
Office continues to prefer no development on Lots A, B, K
and L and even greater reductions in setbacks than would
otherwise be needed, but offers this proposal as a compro-
mise solution to the issue)
3. Add language to the effect that flexibility will be given in
the review of driveways and footprint locations at the
preliminary plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said
flexibility will permit the retention of the most signifi-
cant trees on the site.
4. Eliminate Condition # 8.
5. Clarify Condition #9 to insure that the applicant is not
"double -taxed" for the cost of undergrounding utilities on
the site."
7
R UTION OF THE ASPEN PLAIiP1r11IG P" ZONING COtIMTSSION
WE:COMMENDIM, CONCEPTUAL SU,tDIVi,N/PUD APPROVAL
FOR THE AGATE COURT PI:OJEC'i
Resolution No. 85-10
WHEREAS, C. M. (Butch) Clark (hereinafter "Applicant") is the
owner of record of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly
known as "The Agate"; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested conceptual subdivision/'PUD
approval to reconstruct the existing dwelling units on the site as six
single-family residences and two duplexes; and
14BEREAS, the Applicant has requested a traditional form of
subdivision along original townsite lots, rather than using a clus-
tered design typically associated with a PUD, and also is not request-
ing variations from the zoning requirements of the R-6 zone district;
and
111TEREAS, the Planning Commission supports the efforts of the
Applicant to upgrade this site, which is at the entrance to r.spen; and
1•IHEREAS, the Planning Commission is concerned that the Applicant
},as not used the flexibility offered by the PUD overlay and that
therefore the Applicant has been unwilling to provide an adequate
buffer between the new units and the highway, and also has not avoided
all of the large trees on the site with the proposed house locations.
NO11, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recom-
mend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual subdivision/PUD
approval to the Agate Court project, subject to the following con-
ditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan meeting the
requirements of Sections 24-8.9 and 20-12 of the Code.
Included within said plan shall be a design which shall
significantly increase the landscape buffer along 7th Street
so as to provide relief from the noise of traffic for the
residents an6 so as to better screen the view of the units
from the highway.
The Applicant shall relocate any structure which would have
required the removal of a tree which cannot be replanted and
demonstrate that all trees considered significant by the
Parks Director are retained in place or shall be relocated
on the site.
The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all. ten
units within the project and alley access for trash removal,
and the project Fliall have no curb cuts on either 11allam or
Blecker Streets.
The Applicant shall cont:act the fire Department to determine
7Lh Street.
the necessity of. keening the alley open onto
If: the dcpart,�ent. in:licaL-es in writing that the 1n�t�n
be kept open, then the Applicant shn.l.l agree t.o pl1aceo n noo
,.L.,,-,t,.rncc of
Rersolutie No. 85-10
Page 2 •
such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the
design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7t.h
Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the
cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this loca-
tion.
5. The Applicant shall revise the design of the "auto courts
such that the driveways are narrowed to approximately
26', in accord with the recommendations of the Engineering
Department, but shall also insure that the alley continues
to provide adequate area for service vehicle access.
6. The Applicant shall provide details on the internal makeup
of the two duplexes so as to insure that one parking space
j is provided for each bedroom within the project.
1j 7. The Applicants shall provide a bus stop at the corner of
I Seventh and Bleeker meeting the specifications of RFTA, and
shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street.
8. The Applicant shall provide adequate guarantees to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney that the tvo duplex units
will not be condominiumized for a period of five (5) years
from the date of their occupancy. The reasons for this
requirement are that the Planning Commission is not requir-
ing any mitigation of the loss of employee housing as a
result of this project, and that retention or the units
under single ownership may facilitate highway planning by
reducing the number of landowners to be contacted in the
event additional right-of-way is required.
9. The Applicant shall underground all utilities within the
project.
06
10. The Applicant shall meet 'the setback and height limitations
of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review
of this project.
11. The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water service
outlined by Jim Markalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen
dated December 17, 1984.
12. The Applicant shall submit a preliminary plan within six
months of: the date of conceptual approval by Council, as
required by Section 24-8.9 of the Code or this conceptual
approval shall. expire.
APPROVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their
regular meeting on June 4, 1985.
ATTEST:
Kim Wil.hoit, Deputy City Clerk
AR.2
ASPEN PLANNING AND 7,ONING
CObi/EIIIISSION
.Perry arvey, Chairman
MEMORANDLTM
TO: ASPEN MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: APPLICANT FOR AGATE COURT PROJECT
SUBJ. AGATE COURT PROJECT - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
DATE: JULY 15, 1985
This Memorandum is written in response to the Planning Office
Memorandum of June 24, 1985 and P & Z Resolution 85 - 10.
The purpose of this Memorandum is to hopefully simplify the
consideration of conceptual approval of this project by stipulating
and agreeing to most of the conditions for approval of both the
Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
recommendation of the Planning Office is for one of two alternates and
the one that the Applicant is pursuing is to deal with P & Z
Resolution 85 - 10. The Applicant is willing to comply with the
additional requirement of the Planning Office that building envelopes
be shown for the six single-family lots and would accept approval
subject to that requirement.
' Regarding Resolution 85 - 10 which contains 12 conditions, the
Applicant has no objection to conditions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12.
Regarding condition 2, this needs to be considered in connection with
condition 3. In order to maintain the appearance of a traditional
West End block which concept the Planning Office states:
I
,has merit and that this design approach satisfies
the criteria of achieving a beneficial land use
with surrounding areas and the criteria of
promoting greater variety in the type and design
of buildings."
The Applicant does desire to retain the flexibility especially on the
northeast and southeast lots to be able to locate both the dwellings
and the driveways so as to be most compatible with the existing trees.
Relative to condition 9, the Applicant would point out that the
proposed bonding program to underground utilities in the west end of
town will be paid for by increased ad valorem taxes and to require the
Applicant to pay for undergrounding utilities within the project would
cause the owners of this block to pay twice for such services.If this
is done the cost would be paid in cash up front by the Developer and
then again paid by virtue of taxes required to retire the bonds.
The requirement of condition 8 is a requirement that the Applicant
seeks to have modified. The Applicant is willing to covenant in
accordance with Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code that the
duplex units will not be condominiumized for a period of 18 months.
The existing rents are more than those maximum rents allowed by the
Employee Guidelines. Relative to the facilitation of the highway
planning, the Applicant agrees to work with the applicable authorities
to facilitate the planning so as not create an additional burden as
the result of the number of landowners to be contacted in the event
additional right-of-way is required.
C
THOIMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
314 SOUTH t�LL, ',i:1EET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-761 J
November 19, 1984
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Members:
Enclosed herewith are ten copies of the
development plans for PUD application for the
Agate Court project, block 17, Aspen, owned by
Mr. C. M. Clark.
The plans are based on the agreement reached in
our preliminary meeting in October. As
requested, we are submitting detailed proposals
for the two duplex lots adjoining Seventh
Street. The six remaining parcels will be
unrestricted R-6 single family parcels.
Please note that there are no curb cuts on any
of the duplex lot frontages. Although we are
not restricting the single family lots in any
way, we intend to encourage the purchasers of
the lots to utilize the Agate Court roadway for
automobile access, thus further minimizing
additional curb cuts.
Since there are no changes requested to the
underlying R-6 zoning by way of density, FAR,
height limits, etc., all of the impacts defined
in the PUD ordinance will be in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhood. In particular, water,
sewer, gas, electric, and telephone utilities
for each proposed lot are existing with
sufficient capacity, and will require no
relocations or Extensions of any kind.
An additional detail to notice is that the
additional setback and angled building lines
along Seventh Street will be bermed and heavily
land8caped by the developer of the duplex
projects. The low profile of the buildings, the
angled facades, together with the berms and
landscaping will soften the impact of developing
this sensitive entry corner to town.
V�ry truly yours,
Thomas O. Wells
Architect
Lc.- 4r.,� <i� �"z�:a,r
k5 G_ we
Cpf.`.lSr ,-L, �- 4
Nb -t'
Flo 000 t _F
CIO A W. A, S 4 �i,-7,
ul o u►�c Z
o f o /..a"• S P'-CQ L e N L „A .
�,p �Q�C o�
�ti.���- /�^�.� �1 (1 nl ✓ .O ' 1
W A'C- A (-S 1 4� `
WWI
;? , v 1, Gl,, l (,�- ,�,1 �,�,l.x ems'. o F .,� �o 1,, 1, a_,,,. A-•e
ILJJ a/r! V �W 1� ^•Q �L... \ Ai l D J �n
.+ 0
0
Regular -Meet- ng _-Ashen City Council"�"mot a 2 • 1985
CbNCEPTUAT., Pt1D - Agate Court
Alan Richman, planning director, reminded Council at a previous
work session they reviewed the issues of this project. Richman
said a PUD is to achieve certain purposes; promoting more
efficient use of land and public streets, preserving open
space, preserving the site's unique features, and a beneficial
land use relationship with surrounding properties. Richman said
this plan could promote more efficient use of land and streets
access is limited to the alley and the alley is closed at
if
if street. There would be more eff icient use of land and
streets if there was not the inter -relation with the highway, o
which is a problem here.
Richman said he does not feel this PUD preserves open space.
This project is preserving the site's unique features in attempt-
ing to preserve trees. Regarding the beneficial land use
relationship with surrounding properties, Richman said there is
concern about the location of the duplexes. Richman presented a
map with the proposed state highway alignment and the lot lines.
P & Z discussed increasing the buffer along 7th street. The
buffer is presently 8 feet wide. Richman suggested the duplexes
come off a lots A and K as a compromise. This would preserve
open space, move the duplexes away from the highway and create a
beneficial land use relationship. Richman told Council his
preferred approach is to not build on 1_ots A and B and K and L.
Richman said if the applicant moves the duplexes off lots A and
K, it: should not affect the density of the project, which is
proposed 10 units. Richman said he does have a problem with the
proximity, but he feels it would be acceptable to vary setbacks
between buildings, which is appropriate in a PUD. P & Z has
recommended approval with 12 conditions. Richman has identified
5 areas where the conditions can be amended or improved. One is
the suggestion for building envelopes on the other six lots,
which the applicant does not have a problem with.
The applicant has requested fle}ability in driveway and footprint
locations at the preliminary plat stage toward the benefit of
saving the trees. Richman said giving the flexibility resulting
in preservation of the trees is a worthwhile trade off. Richman
told Council P & Z condition #8 was that the duplexes not be
condominiumized for 5 years. Richman told Council staff cannot
support that condition, and recommend it be eliminated. The
applicant has requested condition #9 be clarified so that
the applicant is not double taxed for the cost of undergrounding
utilities.
19
s 0.
Regular -Meeting — - --Aspen City Council August 12, 19-85
Doug Allen, representing the applicant, told Council they are
in agreement with conditions 3, 4, 5 in the planning office
memorandum. Allen said they do not agree to sterilize 2 or 4
lots in the project. Allen submitted the study of Mach 1985
regarding the highway with the costs of the alternatives. The
cost of aligning the highway by the Agate is $5,000,000 versus
$1,600,000 for the "straight shot". Allen said everyone agrees
the "straight shot" is the preferred alternative; it costs less
and makes more engineering sense. Allen said it is not realistic
to believe the highway would come by the Agate.
Allen said it is not fair to deal with this property and steril-
ize 2 or 4 dots when there is a development the planning office
concedes has merits and retains the character of the west end.
Allen said if the developer has to pull back, they lose two
units. This property is allowed 12 units; the developer is only
asking for 10 units, and presently there are 24 units on the
property. This -would be reducing the density and there will be
about 40,000 square feet of open space. Allen told Council
there are 31 trees on the lot; they can preserve 27 trees and
are asking permission to move 2 trees and transplant 2 trees.
Allen told Council the applicant would prefer alternati��e #3 in
the planning office"memo, which is approve the conceptual plan
with P & Zs conditions, which defer the detailed design issues
to preliminary PUD review. Allen said the condition regarding
the building envelopes is appropriate at preliminary plat rather
than conceptual. Richman agreed to that. Allen said the
applicant is opposed to sterilizing the lots, which destroys the
proj ect.
Councilman Collins said he thought the applicant had an alterna-
tive plan. Richman said the applicant originally was going to
market the lots with no design of the two duplexes, to create
complete individuality of the 10 units. The P & Z insisted on
seeing the design of the front two duplexes because of the
visual questions and the extent of the setbacks. Councilman
Collins said even if the highway comes straight in, there will
be a lot of traffic here from Cemetery Lane and the Institute.
Councilman Collins said he would prefer to see the duplexes
moved back and give some concessions with the footprints.
Butch Clark said this street would cease to be the entrance to
Aspen. The state is not going to spend $5,000,000 to build a
highway. Clark agreed 7th street will be a key street but will
not be any different than any other arteries. Councilman
Collins said he would like to keep the options open. Richman
said the point of PUD is to preserve open space for the benefit
of the public, not just for private open space. Richman said
PUD is a subdivision wherein there is a departure from the usual
PTO]
i
Regular Meetirra--- Ct
�cnc' August 1?., ).985
design of regularly platted lots. Richman said he feels the
city has the right to ask for these lots for the benefit of the
public and the surrounding neighborhood, not just for the
benefit of the purchasers of the lots. Councilwoman Walls said
the purpose for the PUD on this property was to have control
over some proposed large project. The applicant just wants to
revert to single lots like the rest of the west end. Council-
woman Walls said she feels this is an excellent project for this
parcel. Councilwoman Walls said the city is not requiring other
property owners in the west end to provide a lot of open space
for the public.
Mayor Stirling said he feels the PUD is appropriate for this
block. In a PUD there needs to be a sense of a benefit to the
general public. This is a unique block. Clark said this block
would be the only block that had to move back. Councilman
Collins pointed out the city made the Villas move back. Mayor
Stirling agreed with pushing back the lots on 7th street. Mayor
Stirling said there is still the potential to do duplexes on 7th
street. Allen said when you take 30 feet out of a lot, you have
substandard lots and the character of the west end is not
maintained. Mayor Stirling urged the Council to require all 5
conditions, which would give the best combination of a PUD with
single fe.mily and duplex units and would provide benefits for the
community. Mayor Stirling said he feels 10 units works and will
continue to work with the buffer along Main street.
Allen said this buffer will not be used as a park even if it is
30 feet. Allen said when you make the lots smaller, it will
impinge on every property on the block. Allen said they are not
asking for any variance in FAF. Allen said to sterilize two lots
will crowd the houses together. Councilman Collins said he
would like the city to have the opportunity for the 30 foot
setback. Richman told Council it is clear if the units abut the
blue line, and the highway is constructed on this alignment, the
units will have to be taken. Clark said no one believes
the highway will be on this alignment; it is not reasonable.
Councilman Isaac moved to approve the conceptual PUD for the
Agate Court subject to conditions 1, 3, 4, 5 in the planning
office memorandum of August 12, 1985; seconded by Councilwoman
Walls.
Mayor Stirling said it is a bad precedent not to have a buffer
along 7th street for all the reasons that have been discussed.
Clark said a precedent is being set by picking out one property
and treating it entirely differently. Mayor Stirling said this
block is unique in its character and different from other blocks
in the west end.
21
Reaul ar Meeti ncr - -• - ---- --Aspen Cites, Co�.�:cS 1. August 12, 1985
Councilmembers Isaac and Walls in favor; Councilmembers Fallin,
Collins and Mayor Stirling opposed. trotion HOT carried.
Mayor Stirling moved to approve the Agate Court conceptual PUD
subject to conditions in the P & Z resolution 85-10 and condit-
ions 1 through 5 in the planning office memorandum; seconded by
Councilwoman Fallin.
Allen said Council is using the PUD in an extractive manner.
The applicant is not trying to build something offensive on the
land, but to offer for sale traditional west end lots. If the
city wants the twc end lot:, they should buy the lots and not
take them with no compensation. Barry Edwards, attorneys
office, disagreed and said the city is not taking anything.
Mayor Stirling reiterated a PUD is a :subdivision where there is
a departure from the us>>al design characterized by a combination
of the following design approaches, averaged lot area, clustering
of development, _ architectural clustering as well as open space
and benefits to the general public. Mayor Stirling said this
recommendation comes the closest to combining good potential for
the developer and a general benefit to the community. Richman
said the Council is approving the density, not taking away, but
suggesting locations of the buildings'. Councilwoman Walls asked
if it would be possible to put a duplex on the other two lots.
Richman said with an innovative design, it would be possible.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Isaac and
Walls. Motion carried.
C. NSEA]T- AGENDA
Councilwoman Walls moved to approve the consent agenda; seconded
by Councilman Collins. The consent agenda is Liquor License
renewals; Roaring Fork & Spoon, Aspen Art Museum; MEAN Resolu-
tion. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Fallin moved to continue the meeting to 3:45 p.m.
Monday, August 19, 1985; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in
favor, motion carried. Council left Chambers at 10:30 p.m.
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
22
•
•
June 10, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Agate Court Conceptual Subdivision
Dear Alan:
(90�Ji 91S ddOD
�6(Soe19
As a result of the comment by one of the Planning and Zoning
Commission members at the meeting approving the conceptual
subdivision, I had a portion of the tree survey re -done. I enclose a
copy of that revision as well as a Surveyor's Certificate dated June
6, 1985 reflecting that the trees in question on Lot 4 are not over
40 feet high and that the diameters are slightly less than previously
shown.
ly yours,
P / Allen
DPA/plda�
Enclosures
cc: C. M. Clark
Ah
REGISTERED IN COLO., NEW MEXICO AND UTAH
*ERARD H. PESMAN, P.E., L.S.
ASSOCIATED WITH
ELKS BLDG - 210 S. GALENA
SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX2506
ASPEN, COLO. 81611
JOHN TILLEY, ASSOC. PHONE 303-925-3816
June 6, 1985
Job # 13276
Doug Allen
530 E. Main
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Doug,
On Tuesday, June 4, 1985, a field survey was conducted to
determine the location and height of certain fir trees loca-
ted on Lots 3 & 4, also known as Lots F,G,H,& I, Block 17,
Aspen original townsite, as per the accompanying plat of a
previous survey conducted by Survey Engineers, Inc.
The locations are as shown on the attached plat with the
trunk diameters measured at a height of 4.5ft. off the ground,
and measured with a tree diameter tape borrowed from the
Forest Service.
The heights are as follows:
Lot 4 14"dia. spruce... 40.01
Lot 4 12"dia. spruce... 31.OT
Lot 3 20"dia. spruce... 58.71
Lot 3 14"dia. ponderosa... 32.91
If we may be of any additional service feel free to con-
tact us. Thank you.
SLii�cer el�
Richard Dickman R.L.S.
617-E
qo/B
9
SCALE I"= 20,
O 20 40
io
T
Z 1�
t3 ��G 1 W. K FRANC/5
J W ,o % fro 22 C
]Z15PA2 C
_r _
i
--i------+ W. 9GEEKBR
12
J, 1 C
MA /N 57-R E ET
1
V/C/N/TY MAC''
TRACE.O FROM OL,O ANNEXATION MAP
5CALE I"=400'
THE 5C/6✓EC7- PROPERTY, ,BLOCK /7, /5
THE ONLY PROPERTY ON TH15 MAP //V
W IGH THE /Aj�P�-41CAN7- NT ,A6 AN //VERET. 5
Zoi,4As P. 4 LL-ew
ATTORNEY AT LAW
-- ALP/NE 9/Bi
CERT/F/CAT/ON
I, GERAR.O H. PESMAN, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT 16
,LOTTED FROM F/ELO NOTES OP A 5UR✓EY 144.0E
41NOER MY`r 5UPERV1510/V /IV OC7,0,9ER, 1983.
Xa,
GERARD H. PE5MAN DATE
COLO. REG. P.E. � L.5. 237G �
0
CITY
MON.
140R/ZONT,4 L CONT,4OL
FOR e5r,01.6
1- /SHIIVG
EAST L/NE BLOCK /7
;N
10 Q
H A L L A A4
+ +
L
B L O C 1<
h;;
n .. .�•is�-K�ua Ra°�.' .
cp�Q
W
nZ
B L O C K 22
LEGENO ANO /VOTE 5
9OIg • F0UN.O NO. 5 RE4AR WICA,- AS NOTE,O
+ .c�OLIND OR 5E7- 6,0, PH, OR ArH NA/L
O SET NO. 5 RE,9AA WIC AR 6A4AA/ 2.57G "
POWER POLE
® 5EWER MANHOLE
CALL5 /nl ( ) ARE RECOR.O FROM THE OFFICIAL
PLAT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN .
A P/R TREE OR TREE 45 /VOTE,O kV1,O1AME7-ER AS NOTE/J
,BA515 OF 04AR/NG5 G93. G4' 1:'IELO
— 5• 75° 09' /1" E. G93. a9'� — --
+ (77.65') —
7ZG5'P/ELD
C7
I
Ll
COR. /5
¢'3B" IM
CAP
(77. GS')
77 G 1' P/EG D
(-C. COR/VE14
- - - (5. 75° 09, 11" E
BLANK ALUM.
CAP
.B L O CK 24
Z
IL
C1TY
MO N.
0
IL
0
0
N
G
0
v
A
a
ti
0
h
0
14
NOR/ZONTAL. CONTROL
A011 E3TA.04./8H/NG 504/TN
L/NE OP ,eLOGK /7
CITY
MON.
PROPERTY SURvey
FOR
OF
LOTS 1. THRU 4- AND LOTS S THRU S
DLOCK /7, C/TY AN,O TOWNS/TE OF A5PE/V,
R17'K/N COUNTY, CO[.ORA,DO
.E3 Y
GERAIY,O 14. ,OE5MA/V
A550CIATE0 N/ITH
SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC.
P. O. .Box 25oG
ASPEN , COL. ORADO 8/G I Z
REV / 5 E .O /VOV--Al eE,4
R E Y / s E n J ULY1 5, 19 84- : �o,e Gonl c-,5'PTUAL- A ppKov.&- � Alo-r
SlikVCY Ai Tth:s Rcv13,O„/ D/1rE.
i a ]ov si-- ✓0.0 NO. /327G
If Nei Allae 7/4//+
SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
REVISIONS:
TITLE OF SHEET:
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
DIETERICH-POST CLEARPRINT 1020
PROJECT NO. DRAWING NUMBER
a4aq 3
Nav Is iq
DATE SHEET OF SHEETS
0 0 15s!5ft-s4 (f$�)
THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
314 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817
November 19, 1984
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Members:
Enclosed herewith are ten copies of the
development plans for PUD application for the
Agate Court project, block 17, Aspen, owned by
Mr. C. M. Clark.
The plans are based on the agreement reached in
our preliminary meeting in October. As
requested, we are submitting detailed proposals
for the two duplex lots adjoining Seventh
Street. The six remaining parcels will be
unrestricted R-6 single family parcels.
Please note that there are no curb cuts on any
of the duplex lot frontages. Although we are
not restricting the single family lots in any
way, we intend to encourage the purchasers of
the lots to utilize the Agate Court roadway for
automobile access, thus further minimizing
additional curb cuts.
Since there are no changes requested to the
underlying R-6 zoning by way of density, FAR,
height limits, etc., all of the impacts defined
in the PUD ordinance will be in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhood. In particular, water,
sewer, gas, electric, and telephone utilities
for each proposed lot are existing with
sufficient capacity, and will require no
relocations or extensions of any kind.
An additional detail to notice is that the
additional setback and angled building lines
along Seventh Street will be bermed and heavily
landscaped by the developer of the duplex
projects. The low profile of the buildings, the
angled facades, together with the berms and
landscaping will soften the impact of developing
this sensitive entry corner to town.
V�ry truly yours,
Thomas 0. Wells
Architect
0 •
MEMORANDUM
To: Colette Penne
From: Elyse Elliott
Date: February 12, 1985
Re: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision
In reviewing the above application and making a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. R-6 zoning requires the setbacks in the front and rear yards
to be 10 feet and 15 feet respectively. The site plan indicates
a front yard setback of 15 feet and a rear yard setback of 10
feet. This is the opposite of the requirements.
2. Since the driveway is located in the alley, section 19-10 on
curb cuts does not apply. However, this department feels that
the cut for the driveway is excessive. The plans propose a curb
cut of 66 feet on a 90 feet wide lot. We recommend that the curb
cut be narrowed as shown to provide for more open space and
accessibility to the trash dumpster.
gkTaPaRT
IoNAL OPE-"
A LLF)
•
1,1"00,
i
ow
i
June 4, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
City of Aspen Planning Office
City Hall
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision
Dear Alan:
p�63odIB
11I
I will not be in attendance at the Planning and Zoning meeting this
evening. I would appreciate it if you would change paragraph 8. of
the proposed Resolution to reflect that the two duplex units will not
be condominiumized within 18 months, thus complying with Code
requirements exempting the Subdivision from employee housing
requirements as stated in your May 7, 1985 memo.
ery true yours,
ouglas P. llen
DPA/pkm
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Agate Court Project - Conceptual Subdivision/PUD
DATE: May 7, 1985
LOCATION: All of Block 17, City and Towns i to of Aspen ( Lots A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S) .
ZONING: This 54.000 square foot parcel is zoned R-6 PUD.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of conceptual
subdivision and PUD for the redevelopment of Block 17. This proposal
is for the demolition of all existing structures and the resu division
of the property into six single-family lots and two duplex lots.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
Background
In April of 1984, you reviewed a proposal by the Stevenson Building
Co. to redevelop the Agate property. That proposal was also for sip:
single-family homes and two duplexes. The applicant also intended to
request variances in height and floor area ratios. After a few
meetings with you, they decided not to exercise their option and the
property remained in the ownership of C. M. (Butch) Clark.
In October of 1984, you reviewed a request pre-sented by Tom Wells to
either remove the PUD designation from the parcel or to allow its
subdivision (and review as a PUD) without architectural review as
required by Article VIII, Planned Unit Development. Your response to
that request was that the most visually sensitive area is along
Seventh St. (Hwy. 82) and that you wanted to review the design of the
first two units to be placed in proximity to the highway and the
landscaping which would be placed between these houses and the highway.
You also denied the applicant's request to remove the PUD designation
from the property.
At your meeting of March 19, 1985, concern was expressed about the
placement of structures along Seventh Street. The ongoing planning
work for a new Highway 82 alignment proposes the four-laning of the
segment of the Highway along the west border of this block as a
secondary alternative. It was suggested that the Planning Office meet
with the applicant and his legal counsel to explore alternative
development patterns for the Agate block. Colette Penne and Tom Baker
held this meeting with the applicant and found that no alternative was
acceptable to both the Planning Office and the applicant. The purpo e
of this memo is, therefore, to provide you with an updated review of
the project from which you should take a recommending action to Council
on this conceptual proposal.
Purposes of PUD
Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the
Planned Unit Development article "is to encourage flexibility, innovation
and variety in the development of land to provide performance criteria
for PUD's which will:
(a) "Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout of
buildings;
(b) Improve the design, character and quality or new development;
(c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services;
(d) Preserve open space as development occurs;
(e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and
layout of residential development to a particular site and
thus encourage the preservation of the site's unique,
natural and scenic features; and
(f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
area".
Conceptual Presentation
The conceptual presentation requirements include a statement by the
applicant as to the planning objectives to to be achieved by the
planned unit development through the particular approach chosen,
including any specific advantages that a PUD offers as opposed to a
conventional subdivision. In addition, future ownership of all
portions of the property is to be projected. Other conceptual require-
ments include a description of approximate location of structures,
density, use and types of buildings, and location of common open space,
park and recreation areas. Finally, you are to be provided with
general landscaping renderings of the proposed improvements which,
although preliminary, are of sufficient detail to apprise the commission
of the exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its
relationship to terrain features of the site.
This proposal is for six single residences and two duplex structures.
The duplexes will be placed on 9,000 sq.ft. lots which border Seventh
Street. These lots will be made up of original townsite lots A, B, C,
and K,L,M. The six single family lots are proposed to be 6,000
sq.ft, lots formed along original townsite lot lines. The applicant
wants to subdivide these lots, but does not want to design or build the
structures. IIe intends to market the lots so that each purchaser can
design his or her own structure. The Planning Office feels that this
concept has merit and that such an approach satisfies the criteria of
achieving a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas
and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type and design
of buildings. The West End neighborhoods to the east, north and south
of this parcel are all subdivided along original townsite lot lines
and a variety of architectural styles exists on each block. Allowing
the Agate block to be developed without a totally planned concept is
an interesting approach that we support.
The design of the two duplexes will be as shown on the submission.
The architectural concept for these structures appears to be suitable
for this site. No variances are being requested for these structures
and the single-family houses to be designed are intended to conform to
R-6 area and bulk requirements. Vehicle access will be from the alley
into "auto courts" with parking spaces off these entrances. The alley
access is preferable, in our opinion, to curb cuts. The Engineering
Department feels that the cut for the driveway into the auto court is
excessive, and they propose that it be narrowed to 26' (from 66') so
that additional open space is provided and access to the dumpster is
still maintained. In addition, Engineering recommends that under -
grounding of utilities be a condition of approval.
Access to the single-family residence is as yet undefined. The
applicant intends to "encourage the purchasers of the lots to utilize
the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus further minimizing
additional curb cuts". The Planning Office feels that since the alley
is being proposed as the access to the duplexes, the six single-family
lots should be limited to alley access and trash access for these
homes should also be in the alley. Six curb cuts are unnecessary, and
do not represent "efficient use of land and public streets" as noted
in the criteria above.
The site plan appears to propose that the alley be accessible from
both Sixth and Seventh Street. We definitely feel that the alley
- 2 -
should be closed at Seventh Street. The landscaped strip along
Seventh Street should continue unbroken and the alleyway should
terminate at the duplex driveways. Interaction of vehicles turning
into the development or entering onto the highway from the alley would
be a hazardous situation and should be avoided. The current situation
with the alley behind the Hickory House should not be repeated one
block away. This portion of Seventh Street is also a bus route and a
bus stop should be provided at the corner of Seventh and Bleeker.
The current proposal is for 10 units and a unit verification completed
by the Building Department and Planning Office indicated that 24 units
currently exist in the Agate. All the units have been used for long-
term rental. Five units (with a total of 11 bedrooms) fall within
employee housing price guidelines. Since no condominiumization is
being proposed, the Housing Authority has no jurisdiction to require
replacement of any employee housing units. There are several trade-
offs in this situation. One of the most unsightly and visually
important blocks in town is proposed to be upgraded in return, for the
loss of some employee housing without replacement. Additionally, the
project represents a net decrease in units on the block to a density
more in keeping with the West End, which is also a desirable result.
The landscaping proposal is very sketchy at this point. It is our
opinion that you can require more information at this conceptual stage
or defer your review of the proposed landscaping to the Preliminary
stage. The applicant mentions in the text that six trees are slated
for removal. The comments of the Parks Department have been re-
submitted and Jim Holland pointed out in a recent discussion that
large trees like several of the ones growing on this property are the
reason that the ordinance to protect them was adopted. He recommends
that the applicant try to design around them. Many of the trees are
too large to be successfully transplanted. Attention to these questions
of tree removal and replacement of landscaping elements must be
addressed in greater detail by the applicant. We do not feel that
this site planning element should be left unaddressed simply because a
standard lot -line subdivision is being proposed.
In addition, the parking shown for the duplex units is two spaces per
unit. Since the r :;uirement in the R-6 zone is for one space per
bedroom, we assume that each unit in the duplex structure will have
only two bedrooms. An indication of a parking configuration or
limitation on bedrooms in the single-family residences is important to
assure that a high-level of on -street parking is not being encouraged
by an approval of this concept.
The critical planning issue affecting this site is the analysis of
planning alternatives for the entrance to Aspen. As you are aware, the
message that the City Council sen to the Highway Department is that
both the "direct approach" and existing alignments should be reviewed
in the update of the SH 82 EIS. Given this action, the Planning
Office feels that our planning and land use review activities must
respect both potential alignments.
Four laning of the existing alignment will result in a decibel level
produced by traffic that makes homes on Lots A, B, K and L "uninhabitable"
by federal standards. As is explained more fully below, since this
site is designated as a PUD and not simply subject to subdivision
review, this impact must be considered in relation to the intent and
purposes of PUD.
CONCLUSION: In our opinion, the key to reviewing the conceptual PUD
for the Agate Court is to measure how well it achieves the intents and
purposes of PUD. This site was zoned PUD some time ago, and differs
from many other PUD sites in that it is slat and does not contain
natural hazards such as floodplains or steep slopes. We have, therefore,
had to infer the reason the site may have been designated for planned
unit review from its location and current use pattern.
When we initiated the review of this project, we felt that the rationale
for the PUD designation was likely its visibility from SH 82 and the
- 3 -
0 •
desire of the community to see an integrated plan for this prominent
block at the entrance to town. We felt that proper landscaping along
Seventh Street and a theme for the block, including setbacks, would
probably meet the Community's needs for the site and upgrade what is
clearly an unsightly property.
During the review process we have become convinced that a single
design theme for all the units in the project is probably not necessary
and that the applicant's proposal to leave their design to the eventual
owners is acceptable. However, during the review process we have also
learned that the PUD could have been placed on the property in recog-
nition of the potential for highway expansion onto this site. The
time of the last Citywide rezoning (mid 19701s) followed a period of
intense transportation planning, not unlike that which we are presently
undertaking. It is not hard to imagine that the planners at that time
were aware of the potential development conflicts on this site and
applied the PUD designation to permit flexibility in design to achieve
community goals, yet allow the property to be developed.
The applicant's proposal does not take advantage of the flexibility
offered by the PUD regulations. By ignoring the PUD flexibility, the
applicant is unable to meet the following PUD intents and purposes:
1. The project does not efficiently use land and public streets,
nor does it "achieve a beneficial land use relationship with
the surrounding area". The placement of two duplexes within
a proposed highway alignment is contrary to good community
planning by reducing our options to meet the public safety
and general welfare needs of residents and visitors.
Through use of PUD techniques, the applicant could easily
achieve the density requested and yet achieve beneficial
public purposes. Improvement-- could also be made to the
access plan to eliminate the curb cuts to the six single
family units and to reduce the width of the alley so as to
better utilize the land within the site.
2. The project does not demonstrate "preservation of the site's
unique natural and scenic features". House placement
results in the removal of six trees on the site. Jim
Holland feels that the design should avoid this significant
impact. Once again, use of PUD flexibility could greatly
enhance the development, without loss of requested density.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above conclusions, the Planning Office
recommends that you recommend that City Council deny the applicants
proposal and encourage the submission of a new conceptual application
which conforms to PUD procedures and purposes.
- 4 -
D
MEMORANDUM IN2
iLA
TO: Colette Penne, Planning
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: March 21, 1985
RE: Agate Construction Project
(a) Setbacks in R-6 Zone (Area & Bulk)
Frontyard 10'
Sideyard 6.66' (Section 24-3.7(f)3)
Rearyard 15'
Site plan indicates a wrong rear setback, front setback and side
if applicant wants to build to allowable setbacks.
(b) Applicant should remember that height is measured from existing
grade (Section 24-3.7(g))
(c) (Section 7-141(g)(1)) Applicant should be aware that on corner
lots, berms, fences, shrubs, etc., can only be 42" high for a
distance of 30' from the corner of the property.
(d) A landscape plan should be provided for any tree removal per Section
13-76
WD/ar
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Colette Penne
From: Elyse Elliott
Date: February 21, 1985
Re: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision
Jinx Caparrella of the Electric Department recently sent us
a memo describing the steps necessary for undergrounding the
utilities in Block 17.
We recommend that this be one of the conditions for approval
for this project.
D �
M E M O R A N D U M 15 I
TO: Colette Penne, Planner
FROM: J. Lucas Adamski, Housing Director
El,
DATE: February 13, 1985
SUBJECT: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision/PUD
OVERVIEW:
The applicant is requesting Conceptual Subdivision approval
pursuant to Section 20-10 and Conceputal PUD pursuant to Section
24-8.7 and 24-8.13. for the redevelopment of the Agate property,
which is located at Block 17, City and Township of Aspen. The
Block currently consists of eighteen 30' x 100' lots. The resub-
division proposed would consist of two 90' x 1001, each developed
with a duplex residence and six 60' x 100' residential lots, each
developed with a single family residence.
All of the units are exempt from the provisions of Section 24-11,
.2. (a) of the growth management quota system by virtue of 24
units having been verified by letter dated November 3, 1982, from
the Zoning Enforcement Office (Appendix A) and thus may be recon-
structed without GMP review.
HOUSING AUTHORITY REVIEW:
The Housing Authority is in favor of the redevelopment of the
existing area which is a main entrance into town although the
potential benefits are not under the Housing Authority's purview.
The applicant has represented that he will creat a landscaped
irregular and naturally appearing berm and buffer area along the
entire most westerly lot lines of the subdivision to enhance the
visual impression of the redevelopment.
The Housing Authority agrees with the applicant's representation
that no employee housing is required by the City Code as the
duplex lots are not going to be condominiumized. Therefore, the
Housing Authority does not request conditions for the approval
of this application. However, the Housing Authority is concerned
the possible displacement of employees who may be housed at the
Agate Lodge. The attached rental rates for persons currently
living at the Agate. fall within the employee rental guidelines
and may indicate some employees are living at the Agate Lodge.
The Housing Authority would strongly recommend working with the
Planning Office to consider a Code Amendment to address the issue
of employees that are being displaced when redevelopment of this
nature occur.
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984
Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with
commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee
Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Harvey commented on the letter sent to the commissioners whose
terms have expired. Harvey encouraged Hunt, Tygre, and Pardee to
definitely reapply. The city is now following proper procedures;
when a term expires the opened position is publicly noticed and new
applications are encouraged. Hunt requested a reaffirmation of
his position now. Is he allowed to sit as a commissioner until
he is reappointed or relieved? Harvey replied that Hunt can sit
on the Commission until relieveu.
(Jasmine Tygre arrives in the chambers.)
Harvey reminded the commissioners there is a joint meeting with
City Council on October 15th at 5:00 p.m. in the council cham-
bers. This will be a work session on SPA. Alan Richman, planning
office, remarked that Council has many questions about the
resolution. He preferred the commissioners as opposed to the staff
answer the councilmembers' questions about the resolution. He
wanted the councilmembers to see that the commissioners support
the resolution.
Harvey asked Tygre if she has reapplied. Tygre replied yes.
White reminded the commissioners that tomorrow at 4: 20 p.m. in
the council chambers Council will resume its discussion over
splitting the planning department.
MINUTES
September 18, 1984: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of
September 18, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion
carried.
PRE -APPLICATION MEETING
AGATE LODGE
Harvey said this is a pre -application meeting on the Agate Lodge.
The problem is that the PUD requires architectural review. The
applicant requests an approach to mandatory PUD that does not
require the review of the architectural design.
Colette Penne, planning office, reminded the Commission it
reviewed the application on the Agate which was submitted by
1
Stevenson and his group a few months ago. They had the property
under option from Butch Clark. Stevenson's group presented a
plan which had some problems. The Commission defined those
problems and suggested revisions in certain areas of the plan.
Stevenson's group did that, but the Commission still had problems
with certain fundamental areas in the site planning. The Commission
again directed the group to address the issues. The Stevenson's
group decided it did not want to work with the city; the group
decided not to purchase the property.
The property is still owned by Butch Clark. Clark wants the
Commission to discuss why the mandatory PUD was imposed on the
property. Is there an approach which would not require the
design of the houses and would not require the review of the
architectural design. Could the Commission just review a site
plan? Would the Commission support the removal of the PUD so
that the parcel is zoned R-6? The R-6 zone would be in conjunction
with the west end neighborhood. Clark does not want to design
and build the entire project. Clark wants to go through full
subdivision, divide the parcel into into single family and duplex
lots, and sell those subdivided lots to individuals who would
design their own houses.
Penne reviewed the requirements of the PUD and the feelings of
the planning office. Remember this is only a pre -application
conference and discussion. One question the Commission needs to
answer is whether or not to amend the code in the PUD section.
Would the Commission support removing a PUD through a rezoning?
Architectural design and landscaping plans are required under the
preliminary PUD plan. The code reads that the plans should be in
sufficient detail to enable the planning commission to re-evaluate
the architectural and landscaping design features of the develop-
ment. The plans should show the location of floor area of both
existing and proposed buildings, the maximum heights, the types of
dwelling units, etc. The Commission is provided a commencement
and completion construction table. The Commission is provided
preliminary elevation and perspective drawings of all structures
and improvements.
The proposal by Tom wells, representative for Mr. Clark, is for
full subdivision of the property. Those lots would be sold as
raw land for the development of single family units or duplex
units without architectural design. There possibly would be a
site plan. This proposal is difficult. The division is along
original townsite lots. wells has indicated his client would be
flexible about lot arrangements offered under a PUD. But the
applicant does not want to design houses. The PUD can be utilized
2
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984
in terms of the land planning. But, the applicant does not want
to go through all the requirements of PUD.
Planning office believed that the PUD overlay was placed on that
particular property because of its visual sensitivity. The
property has a real impact on the entrance to Aspen. Therefore,
it is important to review more than a site plan for the
property. There are no slope or viewplane problems. Wells did
mention in his letter of application, which is included in the
commissioners' packet, that originally the property was used for
a lodge. But, during the L-3 rezoning process the property was used
for long term residential accommodations. The argument by I -Tells
is that things have changed and therefore the PUD is not appropriate
anymore. Planning office disagrees. Nothing has changed. The
use on the property is not as important as its exterior, visual
impact.
Penne recommended a solution to accomplish what the applicant
wants. Perhaps the parcel should be zoned R-6 without a PUD
overlay. The disadvantage with that solution is it does not
provide the flexibility to be innovative with the property. R-6
has a certain amount of compatibility with the neighborhood.
Many R-6 neighborhoods exist along the original townsite lots.
The houses in those neighborhoods are heterogeneous; there are
Victorians next to contemporary structures.
Harvey understood the Commission's concerns during the original
application process was the visibility of the property (it is the
first piece of property that one sees as one comes into town);
the trees; and the elimination of the alleys. If a PUD land plan
were done then the city might end up with a proper design. Deal
with regular townsite lots then.
Hunt remarked given the greater amount of setback on Seventh
Street there would be more natural landscaping needed to buffer
the noise from the dwelling units. That corner is noisy. An
audio type barrier is needed. The PUD discussion anticipated
the development of the property into a semi -commercial use. He
did not have a problem with a straight subdivision. But there
will be problems subdividing along the straight existing lot
lines, especially for the lots along Seventh Street.
Tom Wells, representative for the applicant, investigated what
was meant by "more creativity allowed within a PUD." He misunder-
stood the PUD process in Aspen. He assumed that PUD could be
used either for full blown developments or only for land subdivi-
sions. Most communities provide the options. Usually one could
take advantage of the mixing and matching of density and/or land
3
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984
uses allowed in the process. In Aspen one has to go through
steps A to Z, there are no interim steps. The system is built
into the PUD ordinance. An applicant has no choice to not fully
develop a project. The PUD ordinance will not accept Clark's
intentions of designing a buffer and using some lot lines. The
PUD requires review of a development through the entire process.
Wells did not suggest eliminating the PUD. The PUD is the one
chance for the city to look at a very sensitive lot. He agreed
with certain points in the planning office memo dated October 2,
1984. The block is one of the most visually sensitive in Aspen
and should be developed in a manner which enhances the image of
the community. The PUD overlay will allow for innovation in the
site plan, retention of some major trees, a provision for a
buffer along Seventh Street, and clustering of lots or structures.
T:_ -,greed with that statement 100%. The lot is very s.",.ial.
The Agate Lodge is certainly substandard and has been that way
for a long time. A PUD was imposed on the assumption that the
property would be developed as a lodge. The city wanted to make
sure a good project was developed there. Meanwhile, the owner
voluntarily engaged in long term rentals. The property was
under long term rental when the L-3 zone which preserved lodge
zoning was established. The property did not qualify for the L-3
status.
The PUD still exists. Clark can develop the property himself. He
can hire an architect to design a total development plan. He can
find another developer who would accept that design. Or he can
sell the property to another developer who would provide an
alternative design. The extreme solution is to break the property
along the lot lines into normal patterns of the R-6 zone and not
respect the fact that the lot is special. House sites could be
established and sold as residential lots, either as single family
units or duplex units, with no change in density, no change in
unit count. But the code does not address this. These individual
lots could be designated with a PUD overlay, similar to Castle
Creek Drive. He encouraged the varied natural textures of the
west end community over a homogeneous development like the
Villas. The west end is picturesque: new and remodeled Victorians
side by side with contemporary architecture. He preferred to go
through the PUD process as a land plan process. The R-6 underlying
zoning establishes the density, therefore, there is no change in
the density.
Creativity can be established under a PUD. Perhaps berms and
walls and landscaping can be established on Seventh Street to
protect the visually sensitive area before the development is
4
built. He cannot detail the exact conditions. But, it is not
realistic to establish building envelopes or driveways or to
determine which trees to save under the individually owned
concept. He cannot dictate to everyone how to design their
houses. He envisioned many small duplexes, similar to the
project for Doremus on Smuggler between Seventh and Eighth. He
preferred a design of quiet small buildings. An entire block of
similarly designed structures would not be interesting. He
favored the varied textures of the west end along that visually
vulnerable block.
Harvey quoted from the planning office memo dated October 2, 1984,
page one, paragraph one:
"sufficient detail to enable the planning Commission to
evaluate the architectural, landscaping, and design features
of the planned unit development... the plan should show the
location and floor area of all existing and proposed buildings,
structures... including maximum heights, types of dwelling
units..."
Harvey asked why certain requirements cannot be waived within the
PUD process. Richman replied the code does not allow the Commission
to waive those requirements. Harvey argued the code allows for
variances within a PUD. Perhaps an architectural control committee
can be established for the project. Pardee reasoned there is a
PUD overlay because the site is visually critical. Many times
mandatory PUD is placed on a property for slope reduction without
requiring architectural plans. The critical reason mandatory PUD
is imposed on some properties is because of the slope. The area
reduced by the slope affects the density. The critical reason the
PUD is imposed on this lot is because of its visual vulnera-
bility. Therefore, he does see a problem with a site or land
PUD.
Penne explained there is a problem. The only thing that is exempt
under a mandatory PUD is a single family house. Even the owners
of duplexes, like Roush, had to come in with a request for
exemption from mandatory PUD. Pardee suggested an exemption from
PUD if the applicant were to agree to restrictions defined on the
property by the Commission. Penne argued a PUD may be desirable
for the buffer zone. Harvey interpreted Pardee's recommendation:
blackmail an applicant from an exemption from PUD with an approved
land plan. Pardee said the Commission is not so concerned with
the area to the east. He would insist there be a buffer on
Seventh Street. He would insist the design plans for the first
two homes on Seventh Street be reviewed. Exempt the other lots
from PUD. Under PUD he would be willing to grant the allowed
5
9
•14 • ; •
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984
maximum FAR for a 6,000 square foot lot even though each lot may
be less than 6,000 square feet. The lots may lose land, approxi-
mately 500 square feet, to the buffer zone.
Wells commented that Clark's original preliminary layout included
two duplex lots on Seventh Street, which provided 90 feet to play
with. That layout provided flexibility to create a meandering
buffer. Pardee requested the trees be saved and the alley be
maintained. Harvey interjected the issue is not what the Commission
wants to see in the PUD, but the issue is how can Clark's request
be done legally within a PUD. If there is not a legal solution,
then should the PUD be removed.
Richman explained this request can be accomplished through an
exemption from mandatory PUD. If the Commission were to find the
development meets the intents and purposes of PUD then the
applicant would not have to go through all the rigorous requirements
of PUD. However, the applicant would still have to go through full
subdivision. This project would have to go before the Commission
and Council twice. He did not know if Council would agree to
this concept. The Commission is entrusted with exemptions from
mandatory PUD. If the project were consistent with PUD intent
then the project might not have to meet the PUD requirements.
From the perspective of design and results Wells said he did not
have a problem with Pardee's recommendation. However, that solution
still forces Clark into either designing or developing the two
duplexes on Seventh Street. Perhaps there could be an agreement
that the city maintains total control. With the understanding
that their is PUD, that their is a buffer, the Commission can review
those two duplexes as they come along as a neighborhood PUD
overlay.
Wells specified that Clark's original plan included two duplex
lots 90 feet from Seventh Street, and three single family units
on each side of Sixth or a total of six single family units.
White remembered the Commission's concern during the review of
the original application was the buffer, the trees, and the
alley. There was a concern about the homogeneity of the houses.
He favored the varied textures. If there were someway the city
could have its concerns on Seventh Street mitigated and the
applicant could accomplish his goals then he would be willing to
work out a system whereby free enterprise was not limited in the
less critical portion of the entire site. Perhaps an easement is
the answer.
Wells assured the Commission that the R-6 zone spells out height,
6
setbacks, floor area, parking, everything. It is only the
aesthetics of the design concept that the Commission is required
to review. White encouraged the solution be as simple as possible.
He would be willing to remove the restrictions of a PUD on much
of the site if the city were to receive what it wants on Seventh
Street. Wells remarked the city does not have an architectural
review committee.
Hunt recommended that the Commission establish the preconditions
which the Commission has stated before. If lot M were to stay
within those prior stated conditions for the entire PUD then the
Commission would define the lot for FAR purposes as 6,000 square
feet even though the lot was only 5,500 square feet. If all the
prior conditions were met by the individual lots then what
would be the problem. If the lots were to maintain the precondi-
tions then the lots would be exempt from the PUD. Require that
the two lots on Seventh Street have a full PUD.
Richman
suggested the
Commission come to a
consensus as to
whether
the applicant's
approach is acceptable. Do not design
the legal
solution, let the planning office
discuss a legal
solution
to the problem
with the city attorney.
If the Commission
were not
worried about
consistent architecture
across the entire
PUD then
that would be
all the planning office
needs to know to
work with the applicant.
Tygre noted the PUD overlay will have to remain. If the buffer
zone were created the PUD would have to remain to address the
changes in the sizes and arrangements of the houses.
Harvey said the site plan indicates conforming lots; the con-
figuration is six thousand square feet, six thousand square feet,
six thousand square feet, and nine thousand square feet. The
buffer area would be some kind of easement. The difficulty is
creating the mechanism which would provide for permanent maintenance
of the buffer zone, whether it be a stonewall with ivy or whatever.
If the owner of this particular lot were to grant an easement to
the city, then how would the buffer zone be maintained by future
property owners. There is no incentive to maintain the buffer.
The buffer zone generates nonconforming lots on Seventh Street.
The critical question is should the city require a PUD on those
two duplex lots fronting Seventh. Should the city require the
owner or developer to create the buffer the way the city wants?
If so, should the buffer become a common element in an homeowners
organization even though those two duplex lot owners would
maintain the buffer? On the other hand, if an easement were
given to the city, then the city could create and maintain the
buffer area as it wants.
7
Pardee asked if a duplex or a single family structure is going on
the duplex lot. If a duplex were built there, then it would
occupy a greater portion of the extra lot. The city would not gain
that much. The concern is the size, description, and looks of the
two duplexes or single family homes. The other concern is the
appearance of the buffer. He would not release anything until
the city has reviewed those two lots.
Wells repeated he still does not want to design the buildings. The
city is forcing Clark to develop something he does not want to
develop. Design flexibility is important. Flexibility is much
greater with a duplex on 90 feet rather than with a single family
house on 60 feet.
Pardee opposed the development of the six family units without
addressing the two most critical lots. He did not want to see
the most critical lots developed or reviewed last. Pardee would
not release any PUD until the Commission has reviewed those two
parcels and reviewed the mitigations.
Wells commented that the original layout by Clark included a
buffer. But the original plan did not consider who would maintain
the buffer. It would be advantageous if the city maintained the
buffer. The city could coordinate the buffer with the island.
The city could define and maintain the kinds of trees and shrubs
in area. Then Commission can review the design when the duplexes
come up for development.
Pardee asked if the same setbacks would be maintained for a
duplex. How much would be given to the city? Harvey answered
that would be determined through the process of negotiation.
Harvey asked if the Commission favored an approach to enable the
Commission to do a PUD land plan for the critical Seventh Street
frontage and if the Commission favored retaining the PUD overlay
on those two lots. Richman interjected that PUD involves a
minimum of 27,000 square feet. This solution is not workable.
Harvey asked the Commission's position about exploring a thirty
foot easement. Harvey concluded the solution will probably be some
agreed upon land plan and easement granted to the city. The city
would then maintain that sensitive part of the property.
Penne remarked the Commission may not want to extract the maximum
density for the property. Even if the Commission were to want a
buffer without a PUD there might not be room for maximum allowed
density. The suggestion to allow the maximum FAR that the block
will absorb is not necessarily a good solution. If houses with
19
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984
maximum FAR were allowed and if the houses were grouped more
closely together, then there might result a tighter grouping of
larger houses. The visual impact would be massive. Wells maintained
that the lot sizes did not have to be limited. Keep the full PUD
process for the two sensitive lots on Seventh. Richman reiterated
that cannot be done, PUD requires 27,000 square feet. Hunt said
keep the PUD on the entire block but exempt the lots which comply
with the preconditions from the PUD requirements.
Richman supported the exemption approach. Keep the PUD on the
entire property. Go through PUD review procedures. The Commission
could determine that full architecture was not appropriate and
could exempt the individual owners from the full architectural
procedures if the applicant were to demonstrate the alleviation
of the Commission's concerns with sufficient detailed information.
If the Commission were to agree with this concept then planning
office with the city attorney could try to design a program to
make that happen.
Pardee asked the Commission if it wants to review the architectural
design of the two houses on Seventh Street. Seven commissioners
favored this; one opposed. Pardee commented that it was a
mistake to impose the PUD on the entire block. But he would not
support removing the PUD until the two most critical parcels are
reviewed. Fallin did not support carte blanche exemption nor did
she support the request by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE
CONCEPTUAL GMP SUBMISSION AND SCORING SESSION
Harvey opened the public hearing.
Penne provided the commissioners a project profile and the score
sheets. There is only one application. It is for 4,500 square
feet of commercial space. The space is part of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge project. The applicant came through the original lodge
competition with a proposal for 8,500 square feet of commercial
space. The commercial space has been reduced to 4,500. The
commercial space is on the ground floor of the hotel. The space
is for retail space for permitted uses in the cl zone; the same
uses permitted in cc with the provision that the space is at
street level with lodging above. The quota available in the cl
and other zones is 3,000 square feet. The request is for a year
and one-half quota.
Harvey acknowledged that 3,000 square feet is available in the 1984
quota. But, how many square feet did Council eliminate in 1983?
9
r
r / i
1
F'
d
y, [ Ill
' All'
r rr
jay � f9..IrH,e �.>i` ..
IA p;0if�1
�Ir I
t
—I Y
I I
�tl �.�,� � •� ,tea. °i+� _ ` °� +;"a 1 I � f — -i r- <��
R
i as L,
• ,
BLEEKM STREET
NORTH BUILDING
AGATE COURT
y-�
lw-
v
R 1
I,
f .�Y
�I
/ I .
t
,
f�
f
.r�
/ i /4r
IY�I
f
I I
I o I
f 1
- >'1��'M H .w+.111.`— ��kVW�i��,.� �'1` 1, '.,,vn•� 'd'r.�i..s./ _
SOUTH BUILDING
PROJECT:
A PUD
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
for CM CLARK
BLOCK 17
ASPEN COLORADO
THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS
ASPEN LOS ANGELES
HALLAM STREET
REVISIONS:
TITLE OF SHEET:
ELEVATION VIEW
at SEVENTH ST
I 1
DIETERICH-POST CLEARPRINT
PROJECT NO. DRAWING NUMBER
DATE SHEET OF SHEETS
Vam j AIF/A 7/G/C4-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Agate Court Project - Conceptual Subdivision/PUD
DATE: March 19, 1985
LOCATION: All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S)
ZONING: This 54,000 square foot parcel is zoned R-6 PUD.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of conceptual
subdivision and PUD for the redevelopment of Block 17. This proposal
is for the demolition of all existing structures and the resubdivision
of the property into six single-family lots and two duplex lots.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
Background
In April of 1984, you reviewed a proposal by the Stevenson Building
Co. to redevelop the Agate property. That proposal was also for six
single-family homes and two duplexes. The applicant also intended to
request variances in height and floor area ratios. After a few
meetings with you, they decided not to exercise their option and the
property remained in the ownership of C.M. (Butch) Clark.
In October of 1984, you reviewed a request presented by Tom Wells to
either remove the PUD designation from the parcel or to allow its
subdivision (and review as a PUD) without architectural review as
required by Article VIII, Planned Unit Development. Your response to
that request was that the most visually sensitive area is along
Seventh St. (Hwy. 82) and that you wanted to review the design of the
first two units to be placed in proximity to the highway and the
landscaping which would be placed between these houses and the highway.
Purposes of POD
Section 24-8.1 of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the
Planned Unit Development article "is to encourage flexibility, innovation
and variety in the development of land to provide performance criteria
for PUD's which will:
(a) "Promote greater variety in the type, design and layout of
buildings;
(b) Improve the design, character and quality of new development;
(c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services;
(d) Preserve open space as development occurs;
(e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and
layout of residential development to a particular site and
thus encourage the preservation of the site's unique,
natural and scenic features; and
(f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
area".
Conceptual Presentation
The conceptual presentation requirements include a statement by the
•
applicant as to the planning objectives to be achieved by the planned
unit development through the particular approach chosen, including any
specific advantages that a PUD offers as opposed to a conventional
subdivision. In addition, future ownership of all portions of the
property is to be projected. Other conceptual requirements include a
description of approximate location of structures, density, use and
types of buildings and location of common open space, park and recreation
areas. Finally, you are to be provided with general landscaping
renderings of the proposed improvements which, although preliminary,
are of sufficient detail to apprise the commission of the exterior
design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship to
terrain features of the site.
This proposal is for six single residences and two duplex structures.
The duplexes will be placed on 9,000 sq.ft. lots which border Seventh
Street. These lots will be made up of original townsite lots A, B, C,
and K,L,M. The six single family lots are proposed to be 6,000 sq.ft.
lots formed along original townsite lot lines. The applicant wants to
subdivide these lots, but does not want to design or build the struc-
tures. He intends to market the lots so that each purchaser can
design his or her own structure. The Planning Office feels that this
concept has merit and that such an approach satisfies the criteria of
achieving a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas
and the criteria of promoting greater variety in the type and design
of buildings. The West End neighborhoods to the east, north and south
of this parcel are all subdivided along original townsite lot lines
and a variety of architectural styles exists on each block. Allowing
the Agate block to be developed without a totally planned concept is
an interesting approach that we support.
The design of the two duplexes will be as shown on the submission.
The structures appear to be suitable for this site. No variances are
being requested for these structures and the single-family houses to
be designed are intended to conform to R-6 area and bulk requirements.
Vehicle access will be from the alley into "auto courts" with parking
spaces off these entrances. The alley access is preferable, in our
opinion, to curb cuts. The Engineering Department feels that the cut
for the driveway into the auto court is excessive, and they propose
that it be narrowed to 26' ( from 661) so that additional open space is
provided and access to the dumpster is still maintained. In addition,
Engineering recommends that undergrounding of utilities be a condition
of approval.
Access to the singly -family residences is as yet undefined. The
applicant intends to "encourage the purchasers of the lots to utilize
the Agate Court roadway for automobile access, thus further minimizing
additional curb cuts". The Planning Office feels that since the alley
is being proposed as the access to the duplexes, the six single-
family lots should be limited to alley access and trash access for
these homes should also be in the alley. Six curb cuts are unnecessary,
and do not represent "efficient use of land and public streets" as
noted in the criteria above.
The site plan appears to propose that the alley be accessible from
both Sixth and Seventh Streets. We definitely f eel that the alley
should be closed at Seventh Street. The landscaped strip along
Seventh Street should continue unbroken and the alleyway should
terminate at the duplex driveways. Interaction of vehicles turning
into the development or entering onto the highway from the alley would
be a hazardous situation and should be avoided. The current situation
with the alley behind the Hickory House should not be repeated one
block away. This portion of Seventh Street is also a bus route and a
bus stop should be provided at the corner of Seventh and Bleeker.
The work presently underway on a new highway alignment for the entrance
to Aspen could greatly affect this property. Depending on the alter-
native finally chosen, it is possible that development on Lots A, B, K,
& L, might be a problem. If the existing alignment is four-laned, the
decibel level produced by traffic would make these lots "uninhabitable"
by federal standards. Since the highway alternative work will not be
- 2 -
completed during the course of the review of this project, we can only
advise that our preferred solution is that options be kept open. To
move this development back from those lots would allow for a much
wider buffer between the traffic and the houses, which in any scenario,
would be a positive result.
Since the PUD designation exists on the property and is not being
taken advantage of in the current proposal, it could be implemented to
redesign the site plan if the same number of units is important. It
is also possible that the floor area ratio attributable to the affected
lots could be transferred to the remaining build -out and fewer units
would be built. If these four lots were left open in the plan, each
side of the block would still contain 21,000 sq.ft. Lots could be
varied in size under the PUD so that the 10 units desired could still
be accommodated on the block. Another alternative if standard lots
are to be formed, is to reduce the development to 8 units.
The current proposal is for 10 units and a unit verification completed
by the Building Department and Planning Office indicated that 24 units
currently exist in the Agate. All the units have been used for long-
term rental. Five units (with a total of 11 bedrooms) fall within
employee housing price guidelines. Since no condominiumization is
being proposed, the Housing Authority has no jurisdiction to require
replacement of any employee housing units. There are several trade-
offs in this situation. One of the most unsightly and visually
important blocks in town is proposed to be upgraded in return for the
loss of some employee housing without replacement. Since an abundance
of units exist, their replacement with 10 units is exempt from Resi-
dential Growth Management Competition. The Building Department has
not commented on this proposal. In an earlier review, they cited
Section 24-3.7 (f) (3) and Section 24-3 .7 (f) (6) which deal with
corner lots and yards adjacent to arterial roadways and made a deter-
mination that 6th and 7th Streets require 10 foot setbacks while
Hallam, Bleeker require a 6 2/3 foot setback. Also, if the alley is
not vacated, the rear yard must be 15 feet.
The landscaping proposal is very sketchy at this point. It is our
opinion that you can require more information at this conceptual stage
or defer your review of the proposed landscaping to the Preliminary
review. The applicant mentions in the text that six trees must be
removed, however it is unclear exactly which trees are slated for
removal. The comments of the Parks Department have been re -submitted
and Jim Holland pointed out in a recent discussion that large trees
like several of the ones growing on this property are the reason that
the ordinance to protect them was adopted. He recommends that the
applicant try to design around them. Many of the trees are too large
to be successfully transplanted. Attention to these questions of tree
removal and replacement of landscaping elements must be addressed in
greater detail by the applicant. We do not feel that this site
planning element should be left unaddressed simply because a standard
lot -line subdivision is being proposed.
In addition, the parking shown on the duplex units is two spaces per
unit. Since the requirement in the R-6 zone is for one space per
bedroom, we assume that each unit in the duplex structure will have
only two bedrooms. An indication of a parking configuration or
limitation on bedrooms in the single-family residences is important to
assure that a high-level of on -street parking is not being encouraged
by an approval of this concept.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: In light of the highway planning work
currently underway and the lack of detail on landscaping and our
inability to discuss new options before the meeting with the owner or
architect because they are both out of town, we recommend that the
Planning and Zoning Commission discuss the concepts of the proposal
and give the applicant some direction on those points we raised that
you request for further revision of the site plan to more fully
address access, landscaping, parking and accommodation of a more
extensive buffer to Highway 82.
- 3 -
Specifically, the changes we recommend be made are as follows:
1. Accommodate the proposed highway alignment within the design
for the site.
2. Revise the landscaping plan to provide the needed detail
regarding tree removal and replacement.
3. Revise alley access as regards size (66' to 261) and con-
figuration (close Seventh Street Entrance, provide access to
single-family units) .
- 4 -
ti
CITY OF ASPE
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 7, 1985
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney' zl�, U
RE: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision/PUD
The City Attorney's office is of the opinion that the conceptual
submission for the Agate Subdivision meets the requirements of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
MU/mc
7C
ASPENQPITKIN eR1=LjILJkVHL oa-+ 'PIR `-a 0--ra-8 •'- NOV4
y ! 198
Nobember 3, 1983
Jon Seigle
Sachs, Klein & Seigle
Attorneys at Law
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Unit Verification
Agate Lodge
Dear Jon:
This letter contains an inventory of what I observed during
our site inspection on September 30, 1983, at the Agate Lodge
property. This will appear similar to the format of your
letter of October 4, 1983, with additional comments on my part.
I will not comment as to whether these units are "lodge units" or
"multi -family units", but I feel my comments will allow the planning
department to make that determination. I also cannot comment as to
whether all the units were constructed legally. I feel the time
of construction of some of the units may proceed our records.
Basically, the following pages contain observations that I
made regarding present conditions. I hope this is the verification
you need.
cc: Planning
Paul Taddune,
Wayne Chapman,
Patsy Newbury,
WLD/ar
Sincerely,
c ,
William L. Drueding
Zoning Enforcement Officer
City Attorney
City Manager
Zoning Official
offices:
-110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado B 16'1'1
303/925-5S73
-5-
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Unit #1 Cabin Unit, containing kitchen facilities. (Sink,
range, refrigerator)
Unit #2 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #3 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #4 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #5 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
Unit #6 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range).
r
Main Lodge - First Floor
Unit #7 I considered a studio containing: kitchen, bath,
illegal loft, illegal sleeping room.
Unit
#8
Studio containing kitchen and bath.
Unit
#9
Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Unit
#10
Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Unit
#11
Contained bath and kitchen. Two rooms appeared to be
combined into one unit.
Unit
#17
Studio containing range, refrigerator, but
no kitchen sink or plumbing.
Main Lodge - Second Floor
Unit #12 -One bedroom containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Unit #13 One bedroom containing -bath and kitchen facilities.
Cabin #14 Various chopped -up rooms containing kitchen and bath
facilities.
Cabin #15 Two small bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Cabin #16 Two bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Page 2 •
Unit #18 House containing three bedrooms, bath and kitchen.
Unit #19 Converted chicken coop - studio with kitchen and bath.
This unit also contains a loft and fireplace that should
be considered highly dangerous. I cannot see that this
unit was ever a legal dwelling unit.
Unit #A20 A three bedroom house containing one kitchen and two
baths.
Fourplex: House
Unit #A21 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A22 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A23 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A24 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
I feel it should be noted that the lower units A22 and A24 do not
contain proper egress from the bedrooms and should be considered
dangerous as sleeping rooms. I would have to question whether
these units were constructed legally.
Garage - contains a woodworking shop and availability for undetermined
parking.
-7-
SCHEDULE OF RENTS
1 Effective February 12, 1985
AGATE LODGE
MONTHLY RENT
A-1
$340.00
A-2
$300.00
A-3
$300.00
A-4
$300.00
A-5
$300.00
A-6
$300.00
A-7
$565.00
A-8
$375.00
A-9
$355.00
A-10
$335.00
A-11
$400.00
A-12
$420.00
A-13
$400.00
A-14
$375.00 (Keaveny)
A-15
$390.00
A-16
$750.00
A-17
$315.00
A-18
$950.00
A-19
$420.00
A-20
$1120.00
A-21
$700.00
A-22
$640.00
A-23
$700.00
A-24
$640.00
13/MISC2/2.12.84
10
APPROXIMATE
SQUARE FEET
320
216
216
216
216
216
672
380 -
300
280
364
494
312
416
320
740
304
980
400
2,217
870
870
1,040
962
•
i
•
SCHEDULE OF RENTS
'
Effective February 12, 1985
APPROXIMATE
AGATE LODGE
MONTHLY RENT
SQUARE FEET
A-1
$340.00
320
A-2
$300.00
216
A-3
$300.00
216
A-4
$300.00
216
A-5
$300.00
216
A-6
$300.00
216
A-7
$565.00
672
A-8
$375.00
380
A-9
$355.00
300
A-10
$335.00
280
A-11
$400.00
364
A-12
$420.00
494
A-13
$400.00
312
A-14
$375.00 (Keaveny)
416
A-15
$390.00
320
A-16
$750.00
740
A-17
$315.00
304
A-18
$950.00
980
A-19
$420.00
400
A-20
$1120.00
2,217
A-21
$700.00
870
A-22
$640.00
870
A-23
$700.00
1,040
A-24
$640.00
962
13/MISC2/2.12.84
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: COLETTE PENNE, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: AGATE COURT PROJECT CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/PUD
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1985
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have no additional comments
at this time, other than those outlined in our correspondence to Doug Allen on
December 17 (see attached).
JM:ab
.1 0
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: --Ci-ty Attorney
v, Engineer
,lTousing Director
open Water Dept.
open Consolidated San. District
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross Electric
Fire Chief
Building Dept.
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Agate Court Project Conceptual Subdivision/PUD
DATE: February 5, 1985
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Tom Wells,
Architect, and Doug Allen, Attorney, for their client C. M. Clark, for
the redevelopment of the Agate property which is located at Block 17,
City and Township of Aspen. The Block currently consists of eighteen
30' x 100' lots. The resubdivision proposed would consist of two 90'
x 100' duplex lots, each developed with a duplex residence and six 60'
x 100' residential lots, each developed with a single family residence.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than March 1, 1985, in order for this office
to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before the P&Z
on March 19 th .
Thank you.
•
•
AGATE SUBDIVISION
CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
Applicant: C. M. Clark
Post Office Box 566
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-6969
Attorney for Applicant: Douglas P. Allen
530 East Main Street, First Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8800
Land Planner: Thomas 0. Wells
Thomas Wells & Associates Architects
314 South Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-7817
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Project Description 3
2.0 Project Site 3-4
3.0 Application Requirements 4
4.0 Conceptual Subdivision 4
4.1 Vicinity Map 4
4.2 Sketch Plan 5
4.3 Tabulation of Data 5
4.4 Disclosure of Ownership 5
5.0 Other Considerations 6-7
Appendices
A. Verification of Units
B. Sketch Plan
B-1. Vicinity Map
C. Ownership Certificate
D. Utility Letters
-2-
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
The Agate Subdivision is a residential redevelopment of
Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen, a site bounded by Sixth Street,
Seventh Street, Bleeker and Hallam. Block 17 is typical of the City
and Townsite of Aspen Subdivision and consists of eighteen 30' X 100'
lots. The resubdivision will consist of two 90' X 100' duplex lots
developed each with a duplex residence and six 60' X 100' residential
lots developed each with a single family residence.
Not only will the proposed Subdivision yield several sub-
stantial public benefits, but it is a significant improvement over the
existing 24 unit Agate Lodge.
The Applicant feels that some of the public benefits are:
(a) The redevelopment and cleaning up of one of the most
significant blocks of land in the West End of Aspen. Tt is truly
the entrance to town as all traffic is forced to slow signifi-
cantly when approaching the site.
(b) The creation of a landscaped irregular and naturally
appearing berm and buffer area along the entire most westerly lot
lines of the subdivision to enhance the visual impression of the
redevelopment of what is now a prominent eyesore at the entrance
of our town.
(c) Removal of existing visual vehicular and building
pollution, (The Agate).
(d) The creation of a subdivision of homes entirely compat-
ible with the residential character of the West End rather than
continuing the encroachment by apartments and condominiums into
the traditionally detached single family and duplex dwelling
character of the surrounding neighborhood as originally platted.
The angle design of the duplexes as shown on Appendix A softens
the building facades resulting in improved visual impression at
this entrance.
(e) Creation of an orderly and adequate parking plan
replacing the existing vehicular mess.
2.0 PROJECT SITE.
The site is totally urban in character consisting of 18
townsite lots containing 54,000 square feet.
Because of the sensitive nature of the site and its unique-
ness, although the site is R-6 mandatory PUD, the Applicant is asking
for no special consideration or flexibility allowed by the PUD desig-
-3-
9 •
nation. The Applicant feels that the highest and best use, both from
a compatibility and esthetic point of view because of the sensitive
nature of the lots, is to maintain the residential character which
predominates east of Seventh Street.
However, the Applicant will intensively landscape the West
End of the site as shown on the enclosed site plan to enhance the
visual appeal of the Subdivision, both for the benefit of the
Applicant, proposed lot purchasers and the community in general. This
has been determined to produce a much better result than a wider, less
intensively landscaped buffer as well as complying with the PUD
concept. This will result in a visual impression to persons entering
this gateway to Aspen of a conventional Hest End neighborhood in
keeping with the desired character of the area to the east as well as
significant upgrading of the site.
3.0 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
The Applicant seeks approval of Conceptual Subdivision
pursuant to Section 20-10 and Conceptual PUD pursuant to Section
24-8.7 and 24-8.13.
All of the units are exempt from the provisions of Sec-
tion 24-11, the growth management quota system, by virtue of 24 units
having been verified by letter dated November 3, 1983, from the Zoning
Enforcement Officer (Appendix A) and thus may be reconstructed without
GMP review.
4.0 CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION.
In order to facilitate Planning Commission and Council
review, this portion of the submission is organized to coincide with
Code Section 20-10(b)(1) - (4).
4.1 VICINITY MAP.
A 1" = 400' scale vicinity map is included as Appendix B-1.
The map shows the project location, all adjacent lands owned by or
under option to the applicant, commonly known landmarks, and zoning on
and adjacent to the project. The project's close -in neighborhood
location will encourage more pedestrian and bicycle use and fewer auto
trips. Also a transit stop is located on the southwest corner of the
site providing the most convenient access possible to public
transportation. All public safety support systems have ready access
to the site by both arterial streets, collector streets and alley
abutting the property.
-4-
• 0
4.2 SKETCH PLAN.
A sketch plan of the proposed Subdivision is included as
Appendix B. This details the conceptual design of the two duplexes in
conformity with the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission at
the Planning and Zoning meeting in October of 1984. Illustrated on
the sketch plan are the proposed Subdivision lots. The proposed
development is of six single family residences on the lots 3 through 8
and duplexes on lots 1 and 2 on Appendix B.
There will be no curb cuts on either of the duplex lot
frontages, the curb cuts which exist presently being eliminated in
this plan. Although the single family lots are not restricted as to
access, the subdivision plan encourages the purchasers of the single
family lots to utilize Agate Court for automobile access, thus further
minimizing additional curb cuts.
Applicant will request removal of six trees necessary for
development of the Subdivision, but will covenant to save the remain-
ing trees in the Subdivision and to transplant as many of the trees to
be removed if feasible. The number of trees which will have to be
removed under this development proposal does not exceed those which
would be removed under any other reasonable development pursuant to an
alternative P.U.D. proposal.
4.3 TABULATION OF DATA.
Subdivision name:
Land area:
Number of lots:
Number of structures:
Number of dwelling units:
Total floor area allowed:
Total projected population:
Open space:
4.4 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP.
Agate Subdivision
54,000 square feet
eight
eight
ten (six single family and two
duplexes)
28,440
25
39,780
The owner of the site is C. M. Clark. An ownership certifi-
cate is included as Attachment C. No adjacent lands are owned or
under option by Applicant.
-5-
5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
5.1 The applicant's plan not only eliminates the existing
eyesore on Block 17, but creates an orderly development in keeping
with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal allows each
individual purchaser to design their individual single family
residences, (with the exception of the two duplexes) in keeping with
the character of the West End neighborhood. The two duplexes are as
shown on the attached plans (Appendix B), thus creating a known plan
upon which you may base your approval. The applicant believes this is
the highest and best use of the site so that a row house or appearance
similar to the Villas of Aspen is not created on this property, but
rather a variety of architectural design.
5.2 Although the site is mandatory PUD, the Applicant feels that
the purposes set forth in 24-8.1 are better achieved for the site by
not taking advantage of all of the flexibility allowed by PUD. The
Applicant feels that the purposes of Section 24-8.1(a)-(f) are
entirely met by this proposal and that a highly beneficial land use
relationship is achieved with the surrounding area. This design plan
certainly promotes a greater variety in the type, design and layout of
the buildings when compared to that of the existing buildings and does
improve the design, character and quality of Block 17. This proposal
allows considerable open space as shown on Appendix B, which will be
preserved in a park -like manner. The parking will be controlled,
rather than parking allowed in the haphazard manner that presently
exists. All of the measures taken by the applicant in connection with
this development will relate the type, design and layout of the
residential development to the existing neighborhood And thus preserve
the site's unique character and achieve a beneficial land use
relationship with the surrounding West End areas.
5.3 The Applicant will make special reference in both the
Subdivision Agreement and the Covenants that will alert prospective
purchasers to the floor area ratio and height limitations of the zone
so as to meet the area and bulk requirements of the zone. The
building envelopes will be those of the R-6 zone in accordance with
the desires of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
5.4 The Applicant commits to an intensive landscaping plan,
especially on the west end of the subdivision, as generally shown on
Appendix B, subject to further specific approval upon preliminary and
final plat approval, for the west boundary of the site to address the
concerns of the Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commission, City
Council and the Historic Preservation Committee.
5.5 Applicant proposes to require through the covenants that
access to the trash disposal be from the alley.
5.6 Documentation of adequacy of utility service to the site is
enclosed as Appendix D consisting of letters from:
1. Jim Markalunas, City of Aspen Water Department, dated
December 17, 1984.
2. Raymond L. Carpenter, Mountain Bell, dated December 12, 1984.
3. Willard C. Clapper, Rocky Mountain Natural Cas Company, Inc.,
dated December 18, 1984.
4. J. Kelly Bloomer, Canyon Cable TV, dated December 19, 1984.
5. Jim Capperalla, City of Aspen Electric Department, dated
December 21, 1984.
07/MISC2/1.30.85
-7-