Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Victoria square Agate Court conceptual 15A 86v1 t� 1 �.� ��l�Q'�IV` 2 G35 E CONCEPTUAL PIBMT124-30-00 -VISIOi 15A"9�- 1 15A-86 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 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 - 52100 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 ENGINEERING 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 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47360 - 52200 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 - 52200 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 09000 - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 09000 - 52200 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200 COUNTY CODE - 63063 - 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC - 63062 - 09000 - 00000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 - 00000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 - OTHER Name: _ Address Check # Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: ��vv Project: �J C Date: — # of Hours: ;• 7 #ty of Aspen E f DATE RECEIVED dv(c�qi v► l 61 n^ DATE RECEIVED COM p�I, ETE, PROJECT NAME:i.zE1,6(-tJ I •APPL ICANT Applicant Addres r1i h RE PR ES EN TAT IV E : Representative Addre Type of Application: `- I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 10'l j-/ -3G-00I CAS E,0. —l� --k� STAFF • > _ ,, 1,O 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00 2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission / 14 $1,900.00 2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1, 490 .00 IV. All "One Step" Appl ications 5 $ 680 .00 V. Referral Fees- Environmental Health, Housing Office • 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 52.00 2. Major Applications / 5 $ 125.00 Referral Fees- / Engineering V/ Minor Applications 80.00 Major Applications 200.00 � s -- < P&Z CC MEETING DATE: a PUBLIC' HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: -7 6 INITIALS: REFERRALS: —\/�- ity Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District V City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Eiwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: 1na4-ng/Inspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center ----------------------------------------------------------------_----- • FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: / City Atty I/ City Engineer Building Dept. Other: _ Other : FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: __ I Reviewed by: Rspen (City Councih �'�;�� (onGePrtvC,I JSA,I,v,5,0, 0 n �y, `� Cv` , i J i C, N Z /1R-t GYhm.� kp -kk ii 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 and so as to better screen the view of the units from the highway.. The Applicant shall entirely move the duplexes off Lots A and K, and may request setback variances to accomplish the intent of no development on the highway side, but a total of ten (10) units being approved on the site.. 2.. 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 show building footprints for all ten (10) units at the Preliminary Plat stage.. 3.. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project and alley access for trash removal, and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Bleeker Streets.. Haw -ever,_ f.Lexibility shall be given in the review of driveways and footprint locations at the Prelimi- nary Plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said flexi- bility is the only way to retain the most important trees on the site.. 4.. The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keeping the alley open onto 7th Street.. If the department indicates in writing that the alley must be kept open, then the Applicant shall agree to place a no left turn sign at the exit to 7th Street.. In the absence of such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this location.. 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.. 4J1Y fi,rr.� 6':. The Applicant shall provide details on the internal makeup of the two duplexes 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 RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street.. 10. The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water service outlined by Jim Markalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen dated December 17, 1984. 11. 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.. 12.. The Applicant shall agree to join any Special Improvement District formed in the future that effects this property," SB..15 8., The Applicant shall demonstrate oompl fiance with Section 20- 22 for any units which are to be condominiumized, or shall simply not condominiumize any unit for a period of 18 months after its occupancy.. 9._ The Applicant shall meet the setback and height limitations 1 of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review 4 -"TT - C- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager �{ J FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Agate Court Project: Conceptual Subdivision/PUD Parcel ID#2735-124-30-001 Case #15A-86 DATE: August 20, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Agate Conceptual PUD subject to eleven conditions previously approved for conceptual submittal and adding one other condition. LOCATION: All of Block 17, Townsite and City of Aspen (Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S) . ZONING: 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 (6) single-family lots and two (2) duplex lots. The Applicant's request has not changed from the application approved in 1985 except in request- ing that Condition No. 1 to changed to allow for building on Lots A and K in the event the "direct connection" highway alignment is approved by the vote of the City electorate on August 12, 1986. BACKGROUND: The Agate Conceptual Subdivision/PUD was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission through Resolution No. 85-10 adopted on June 4, 1986 and approved by City Council on August 12, 1985. The Preliminary Plat, due for submittal within six (6) months of conceptual approval, was not submitted within the Code established timeframe. Therefore, conceptual approval expired and the application before you is necessary to revive the subdivision/PUD. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Engineering Department: In a memorandum from Elyse Elliott dated June 27, 1986, the recommendation was made that the Applicant be required to join any applicable future improvement districts. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS: The Planning Office believes that the 1 conditions attached to conceptual approval of the Agate by the Planning Commission and Council are still valid. We do not support the Applicant's request for the option of building on Lots A and K in the event that the "direct connection" highway alignment is approved. The vote on the August 12th referendum questions did not resolve what alignment, if any, will ultimately contain four lanes of traffic into Aspen. Therefore, it appears particularly inappropriate to change the restriction on develop- ing Lots A and K at this time. In the Direction Connection scenario, Seventh Street would become a "major connector," downgraded from an arterial as it presently functions. The volume of traffic from Cemetery Lane, portions of the West End and potentially the Meadows development would require that Seventh Street continue to function as one of Aspen's major streets. The concept of open space along Seventh Street is more than visual and noise screening as suggested in this application. More green space to give visual relief from the bulk of the buildings should be incorporated in the project design. Further- more, this matter was extensively discussed during the prior review and the decision was made on the compromise measure of restricting development from lots A and K. It should be noted that the Applicant's request to remove six (6) trees should be dealt with at the preliminary subdivision stage. Condition No.. 2 requires the Applicant to show building foot- prints for all ten (10) units at the preliminary plat stage, with the burden of designing the structures to avoid removal of all significant trees as best as can be done or relocating those trees on -site. The City Engineering Department has requested the standard agreement to join improvement districts which should be a condition of approval. The former Condition No. 9 should be dropped as the City undergrounding project is proceeding on the alley of Block 17. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On July 22, 1986, the Planning Commis- sion voted to recommend approval of the Agate Subdivision subject to the twelve (12) conditions listed below. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to approve the Agate Conceptual Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 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 and so as to better screen the view of the units from the highway. The Applicant shall entirely move the 2 0 • duplexes off Lots A and K, and may request setback variances to accomplish the intent of no development on the highway side, but a total of ten (10) units being approved on the site. 2. 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 show building footprints for all ten (10) units at the Preliminary Plat stage. 3. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project and alley access for trash removal, and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Bleeker Streets. However, flexibility shall be given in the review of driveways and footprint locations at the Prelimi- nary Plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said flexi- bility is the only way to retain the most important trees on the site. 4. The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keeping the alley open onto 7th Street. If the department indicates in writing that the alley must be kept open, then the Applicant shall agree to place a no left turn sign at the exit to 7th Street. In the absence of such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this location. 5. The Applicant shall revise the design of the "auto courts" such that the driveways are narrowed to approximately 261, 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 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 RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street. 8. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 20- 22 for any units which are to be condominiumized, or shall simply not condominiumize any unit for a period of 18 months after its occupancy. 9. The Applicant shall meet the setback and height limitations of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review 3 0 • of this project. 10. The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water service outlined by Jim Markalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen dated December 17, 1984. 11. 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. 12. The Applicant shall agree to join any Special Improvement District formed in the future that effects this property." SB.15 4 a • 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 a • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Background 3 2.0 Project Description 5 3.0 Project Site 6 4.0 Application Requirements 7 5.0 Conceptual Subdivision 7 5.1 Vicinity Map 7 5.2 Sketch Plan 7 5.3 Tabulation of Data g 5.4 Disclosure of Ownership g 6.0 Other Considerations g 7.0 Summary 9 Appendices A. Verification of Units B. Sketch Plan B-1. Vicinity Map C. Ownership Certificate D. Utility Letters -2- M % 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND. This application is for the identical Subdivision which was considered and recommended for approval, subject to conditions, by P & Z in 1985 and given final approval by Aspen City Council on August 12, 1985 for two duplex lots and six single-family lots subject to the following conditions: 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 and so as to better screen the view of the units from the highway. The Applicant shall entirely move the duplexes off Lots A and K. and may request setback variances to accomplish the intent of no development on the highway side, but a total of ten units being approved on the site. 2. 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 show building footprints for all ten units at the preliminary plat stage. 3. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project and alley access for trash removal, and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Bleeker Streets. However, flexibility shall be given in the review of driveways and footprint locations at the preliminary plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said flexibility is the only way to retain the most important trees on the site. 4. The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keeping the alley open onto 7th Street. If the department indicates in writing that the alley must be kept open, then the Applicant shall agree to place a no left turn sign at the exit to 7th Street. In the absence of such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this location. 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 -3- a L:i 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 is provided for each bedroom within the project. 7. The Applicant shall provide a bus stop at the corner of Seventh and Bleeker meeting the specifications of RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street. 8. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 20-22 for any units which are to be condominiumized, or shall simply not condominiumize any unit for a period of 18 months after its occupancy. 9. The Applicant shall underground all utilities within the project. However, the Applicant shall receive credit for said undergrounding project if it proceeds ahead of the Citywide undergrounding project or shall be relieved of this requirement if the City project proceeds ahead of this development. 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. 13. The Applicant shall show building envelopes for the six single-family lots at preliminary plat stage. The effect of City Council approval was to sterilize Lots A and K, the two most westerly lots in the Subdivision based upon speculation that the "entrance to Aspen" might follow an alignment along Seventh Street and thus increase noise levels to the west of the Subdivision. The Applicant allowed the conceptual approval to lapse due to the lack of financial feasibility of the Subdivision as finally approved, with the thought that a planning decision would be made to place the entrance to Aspen in a more feasible and logical location, known as the "preferred alternative" recommended by the Aspen Traffic Committee, the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, the City Engineering Department and the Planning Office, all as summarized in -4- the memo of March 14, 1985 from the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. The recommendation which was made after years of study and a vote of the electorate in November of 1984 for a direct connection to Main Street from Highway 82 following the existing alignment to a point east of Maroon Creek Road and then curving to the south and slightly back to the north before connection directly with Main Street. This alleviates the necessity for sterilizing Lots A and K in the Applicant's Subdivision. Given this background, and the timing of another election by the voters as to the preference of the entrance to Aspen alignment, the Applicant feels that it is appropriate to resubmit the application in exactly the format as presented before but with the stipulation by the Applicant that approval be conditioned upon twelve of the thirteen previously imposed conditions with Condition 1 changed to read as follows: "1. The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sections 24-8.9 and 20-12 of the Code. The Applicant shall entirely move the duplexes off Lots A and K, in the event a vote of the City electorate scheduled for August, 1986 is for the entrance to Aspen to be along the existing alignment, but otherwise shall not be required to move the duplexes off Lots A and K. The Applicant may request setback variances to accomplish the landscape buffer along 7th Street so as to provide relief from the noise of traffic for the residents and so as to better screen the view of the units from the road. A total of ten units are approved for the site." 2.0 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. It is truly -5- a • the entrance to town as all traffic is forced to slow signifi- cantly when approaching the site. This will no longer be of such great concern with the favored realignment of the Entrance to Aspen. (b) The creation of a landscaped irregular and naturally appearing 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. 3.0 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- 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 West End neighborhood in keeping with the desired character of the area to the east as well as significant upgrading of the site. IM 4.0 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. 5.0 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). 5.1 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. 5.2 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 seven curb cuts which exist presently on the site 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 -7- a ft would be removed under any other reasonable development pursuant to an alternative P.U.D. proposal. 5.3 TABULATION OF DATA. Subdivision name: Land area Building sites: Alley Easement: Total Land area: Number of lots: Number of structures: Number of dwelling units: Total floor area allowed: Total projected population: Open space: 5.4 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP. Agate Subdivision 54,000 square feet 5,589 square feet 59,589 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 Appendix C. No adjacent lands are owned or under option by Applicant. 6.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 6.1 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, which 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. 6.2 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, leaving more than two-thirds of the entire site in open space. 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. 6.3 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 requirements of the City Code. 6.4 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. 6.5 Applicant proposes to require through the covenants that access to the trash disposal be from the alley. 6.6 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 Gas 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. 7.0 SUMMARY. The Applicant perceives the major planning concern which remains unresolved at the present time relates to the entrance to Aspen. We feel this question is addressed by the modification of Condition #1. All other legitimate planning concerns have been fully addressed as has this one with the alternative we are presently proposing. -9- In previous memos the Planning Office has stated the following regarding this project: "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...... 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." "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 acceptable density; provide the opportunity for a variety of designs, in keeping with the west end development pattern; and require the use of 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." We agree with the favorable aspects as seen by the Planning Office and feel that now we have addressed all negative aspects as perceived by the Planning Office or required by Code and that the project is eligible for, and should be approved as presently requested by the Applicant. 07/MISC2/5.6.86 -10- A- ArSPcN*PITKIPMEGIONAL BUILD03 DEPARTMENT 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: NOV 4 1983 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, W OL 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 B 16'1'1 -5- f 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. -6- 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- �AppeNda x C ME NDLIM OF OWNERSH2P ACCOMMODATION - NO L T AB X L = F o r t h e s o l e u s a P 1 g a s e d i r e c t c o r r e s p o n d an c a o f DOUG ALLEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW t o : PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 530 EAST MAIN STREET 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DE:SCR2PTION: \ LOTS A, B. C. D. E. F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0. P. Q, R, S, BLOCK 17, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Grantee in t-lie last izist-jr ument apparently t r a n s f e r r i n g own e r s h i p C.M. CLARK T r u s t deed s a n d mortgage s a p p a r e n t l y urn-jr eleased : DEED OF TRUST ..........................BOOK 427 AT PAGE 992. ASSIGNIIENT.............................BOOK 442 AT PAGE 36. MODIFICATION AGREEMENT.................BOOK 447 AT PAGE 190A. FINANCING STATEMENT ....................BOOK 427 AT PAGE 997. L i e n s a n d j u d g m e n t s ( a g a i n s t l a s t g r a n t e e a p p a r en t 1 y uri r e l e a s e d: NONE This informationi is for your sole use and benefit and is furnished as an accommodation_ Th e i n f o r ma t ion h a s b e e n t a k e n f r o m o u r t r a c t indices, without reference to, or examination of, intruments which purport to affect the r e a l p r o p e r t y_ Th e i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e i t h e r g u a r a n tee d n o r c e r t i f i e d, a n d i s n o t a n A b s t r a c t o f T i t l e, O p i n i o n o f T i t l e, n o r a C; -Li a r e ri t y o f T i t l e, a n d o u r 1 i a b i 1 i t y i s limited to the zL xn <D -Li ra t: of the fees . Data : MAY 02, , 1986, at 8 : 00 A.M. PITKIN . COUNTy BY r--7 L-_. CI December 17, 1984 A pq-O„e{:X D Douglas P. Allen, Attorney at Law Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 East Main Street, 1st Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Doug, so PEN eet 611 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. ncerely, im Markalunas, Director Aspen Water Department JM:ab 0 C. Douglas P. Allen Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 E. Main St. Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Sir, December 12, 1984 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 81611 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, Wi ar��Cla �r 11 pp District Manager Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co., Inc. canyon cable tv 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, . KEAly Bloomer JKB/mjs cc: George Ryerson, Chief Engineer Division Of United Artists Cablesystems Corp. 50 Ventnor Avenue n Aspen Colorado 81611 n 303,926.4098 a L�] CITY 130 asp December 21, 1984 Douglas P. Allen Courthouse Plaza Bldg 530 E Main St, First Floor Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Mr. Allen, SPEN reet 1611 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, i r. Jim Capperalla Acting Head City Electric Dept. • 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 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Background 3 2.0 Project Description 5 3.0 Project Site 6 4.0 Application Requirements 7 5.0 Conceptual Subdivision 7 5.1 Vicinity Map 7 5.2 Sketch Plan 7 5.3 Tabulation of Data g 5.4 Disclosure of Ownership g 6.0 Other Considerations g 7.0 Summary 9 Appendices A. Verification of Units B. Sketch Plan B-1. Vicinity Map C. Ownership Certificate D. Utility Letters -2- 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND. This application is for the identical Subdivision which was considered and recommended for approval, subject to conditions, by P & Z in 1985 and given final approval by Aspen City Council on August 12, 1985 for two duplex lots and six single-family lots subject to the following conditions: 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 and so as to better screen the view of the units from the highway. The Applicant shall entirely move the duplexes off Lots A and K. and may request setback variances to accomplish the intent of no development on the highway side, but a total of ten units being approved on the site. 2. 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 show building footprints for all ten units at the preliminary plat stage. 3. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project and alley access for trash removal, and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Bleeker Streets. However, flexibility shall be given in the review of driveways and footprint locations at the preliminary plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said flexibility is the only way to retain the most important trees on the site. 4. The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keeping the alley open onto 7th Street. If the department indicates in writing that the alley must be kept open, then the Applicant shall agree to place a no left turn sign at the exit to 7th Street. In the absence of such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this location. 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 -3- 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 is provided for each bedroom within the project. 7. The Applicant shall provide a bus stop at the corner of Seventh and Bleeker meeting the specifications of RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street. 8. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 20-22 for any units which are to be condominiumized, or shall simply not condominiumize any unit for a period of 18 months after its occupancy. 9. The Applicant shall underground all utilities within the project. However, the Applicant shall receive credit for said undergrounding project if it proceeds ahead of the Citywide undergrounding project or shall be relieved of this requirement if the City project proceeds ahead of this development. 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. 13. The Applicant shall show building envelopes for the six single-family lots at preliminary plat stage. The effect of City Council approval was to sterilize Lots A and K, the two most westerly lots in the Subdivision based upon speculation that the "entrance to Aspen" might follow an alignment along Seventh Street and thus increase noise levels to the west of the Subdivision. The Applicant allowed the conceptual approval to lapse due to the lack of financial feasibility of the Subdivision as finally approved, with the thought that a planning decision would be made to place the entrance to Aspen in a more feasible and logical location, known as the "preferred alternative" recommended by the Aspen Traffic Committee, the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, the City Engineering Department and the Planning Office, all as summarized in IL41 the memo of March 14, 1985 from the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. The recommendation which was made after years of study and a vote of the electorate in November of 1984 for a direct connection to Main Street from Highway 82 following the existing alignment to a point east of Maroon Creek Road and then curving to the south and slightly back to the north before connection directly with Main Street. This alleviates the necessity for sterilizing Lots A and K in the Applicant's Subdivision. Given this background, and the timing of another election by the voters as to the preference of the entrance to Aspen alignment, the Applicant feels that it is appropriate to resubmit the application in exactly the format as presented before but with the stipulation by the Applicant that approval be conditioned upon twelve of the thirteen previously imposed conditions with Condition 1 changed to read as follows: "1. The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan meeting the requirements of Sections 24-8.9 and 20-12 of the Code. The Applicant shall entirely move the duplexes off Lots A and K, in the event a vote of the City electorate scheduled for August, 1986 is for the entrance to Aspen to be along the existing alignment, but otherwise shall not be required to move the duplexes off Lots A and K. The Applicant may request setback variances to accomplish the landscape buffer along 7th Street so as to provide relief from the noise of traffic for the residents and so as to better screen the view of the units from the road. A total of ten units are approved for the site." 2.0 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. It is truly -5- • the entrance to town as all traffic is forced to slow signifi- cantly when approaching the site. This will no longer be of such great concern with the favored realignment of the Entrance to Aspen. (b) The creation of a landscaped irregular and naturally appearing 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) kRemoval 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. 3.0 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 0 ' for no special consideration or flexibility allowed by the PUD desig- 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. - If , k;� pot 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 West End neighborhood in keeping with the desired character of the area to the east as well as significant upgrading of the site. im 4.0 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. 5.0 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). 5.1 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. 5.2 SKETCH PLAN. A sketch plan of the proposed Subdivision is included as Appendix R- 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 seven curb cuts which exist presently on the site 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. 4 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 ,t be removed if feasible. The number of trees which will have to be 4o,Qr� removed under this development proposal does not exceed those which l � -7- would be removed under any other reasonable development pursuant to an alternative P.U.D. proposal. 5.3 TABULATION OF DATA. Subdivision name: Land area Building sites: Alley Easement: Total Land area: Number of lots: Number of structures: Number of dwelling units: Total floor area allowed: Total projected population: Open space: 5.4 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP. Agate Subdivision 54,000 square feet 5,589 square feet 59,589 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 Appendix C. No adjacent lands are owned or under option by Applicant. 6.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 6.1 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, which 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. 6.2 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, leaving more than two-thirds of the entire site in open space. 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. 6.3 The Applicant will make special reference in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Covenants that will alert prospective s 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 S '^Q { building envelopes will be those of the R-6 zone in accordance with ,VO- '`:� the requirements of the City Code. �r 6.4 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. �,9�-� 71�1 6.5 Applicant proposes to require through the covenants that t ov Sil"5,access to the trash disposal be from the alley. 6.6 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 Gas 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. 7.0 SUMMARY. The Applicant perceives the major planning concern which remains unresolved at the present time relates to the entrance to Aspen. We feel this question is addressed by the modification of Condition #1. All other legitimate planning concerns have been fully addressed as has this one with the alternative we are presently proposing. -9- • • In previous memos the Planning Office has stated the following regarding this project: "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...... 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." "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 acceptable density; provide the opportunity for a variety of designs, in keeping with the west end development pattern; and require the use of 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." We agree with the favorable aspects as seen by the Planning Office and feel that now we have addressed all negative aspects as perceived by the Planning Office or required by Code and that the project is eligible for, and should be approved as presently requested by the Applicant. 07/MISC2/5.6.86 -10- IP, PPera '* x A' ASP=—N*PITKIN�EGIONAL BUILDIOG DEPARTMENT Nov 4 1983 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/S25-5S73 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, 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. -6- 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- u n S(P -� \� • �.\ s yEv¢NrN`st � .fit � ` � t—� C4 _' � � f`•i F �� - 4 � ' Is,"co Flo PTH 09, 1 � � ' b { 1 , _ :� 1t , tPElT � � •• �~ /,4s sS � � -J Oki -4 FOV y too 't Saao Sir9 1 - �•' f SEcto , iM4 yTa!!T fIPLt14 (l OciA ILL L � � � �tNIEY" 'i/�• � �i -ppe-wJi X C M EM NDUM O F OWNER S H= P A C C OMMODAT = O N- NO L= AB = L= F o r t h e s o l e u s e P l e a s e d i r e c t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f : DOUG ALLEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW t o : PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 530 EAST MAIN STREET 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DE:SCR=PTION: \ LOTS A. B, C. D, E. F. G, H. I. K. L, M. N, 0. P. Q, R, S. BLOCK 17, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. G r a n t e e i n t h e l a s t i n s t rumen t a p p a r e n t l y t r a n s f e r r i n g ownership : C.M. CLARK T r u s t d e e d s a n d mortgage s a p p a r e n t l y urnreleased DEED OF TRUST ..........................BOOK 427 AT PAGE 992. ASSIGNMENT.............................BOOK 442 AT PAGE 36. MODIFICATION AGREEMENT.................BOOK 447 AT PAGE 190A. FINANCING STATEMENT ....................BOOK 427 AT PAGE 997. L i e n s an d j u d g m en t s a g a i n s t l a s t g r a n t e e s a p p a r e n t l y un r e l e a s e d: NONE Th i s i n f o rm a n o n i s f o r your s o l e u s e a n d b e n e f i t and i s f u r n i s h e d a s an a c c ommo d a t i o n_ The i n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e e rn t a k e n f r o m o u r t r a c t i n d i c e s, w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o, o r e x am i n a t i o n of, iritruments which purport to affect the r e a l p r o p e r t y_ Th e i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e i t h e r a n d i s n o t Carl Abstract of Title, Opinion of Title, nor a G u a r a n t y o f T i t l e, a n d o u r 1 i a b i 1 i t y i s 1lmited to the amount of the fees Date : MAY 02, 198 6. at 8 : 00 A.M. P = Ems, CIT 13 as December 17, 1984 Douglas P. Allen, Attorney at Law Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 East Main Street, 1st Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Doug, E PEN eet 611 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. 4imn cerely, Markalunas, Director Aspen Water Department JM:ab i • Douglas P. Allen Courthouse Plaza Bldg. 530 E. Main St. Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Sir, December 12, 1984 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 81611 PHONE (303) 825-2323 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, Wi ark"d / la �r 11 C. C pp District Manager Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co., Inc. canyon cable tv 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, J. KEhly Bloomer JKB/mjs cc: George Ryerson, Chief Engineer Division Of United Artists Cablesystems Corp. 50 Ventnor Avenue 6 Aspen Colorado 81611 n 303,926.4098 • SPEN e e t 611 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, Jim Capperalla Acting Head City Electric Dept. • �71 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: AGATE CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION Parcel ID#2735-124-30-001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, August 25, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, in City Council Chambers, lst Flood, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by C.M. Clark 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 (6) single-family lots and two (2) duplex lots. The Applicant's request has not changed from the application approved in 1985 except in requesting that Condition No. 1 be changed to allow for building on Lots A and K in the event the "direct connection" highway alignment is approved by the vote of the City electorate on August 12, 1986. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Account. Published in the Aspen Times on August 7, 1986. N.7 CERTIETCATF OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this J/A-! day of / 198(g a true and correct copy of the attached Notice o Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class lo-st-ace nrPnai d. to the adjacent property owners as indicated on tile attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. i Nancy Crelli Qz" I to "-L IC IU T Po x '107, /-p -I I ., Lft b L,,� ) A 5pa--o II I , - - - - ----------------- Ce _ (c, L) N q,q --?Qa I t' �Jprk_ r -7 ✓.Y�ia�m2. %�7Le-a-rl.o- P-CIV- ti g s 4, Lh-A" �. r c� n41n ttf cv. . �a�e 63Dv q, -)0� IN • r c7� C� . I �gy7f2L✓j C�-mil" l Zr 13 Po Lv v._44 _I��L.t�t IIo� 3 1 Ut 5 U 1 Go�e # I lc L T-Lkh "I"if, 0- yti1ay 3q W. ism A gIG i ldu, Cryl L . ►:1 P4 TN 37gIq -------------- IVII S. LAJ PL ro S4 QJ rn tjY [J'Al 3 &Otr 91A� o.),o (gox 3-7 L,m�.,P� �A Qom, 'OoQ r Otvso q 3 0-2 w L-C-, mow+ _10 V L C_2.) �C- 1r0 A At1 Po Pia, gl� - r i 7 LA 9 .. �.Gtat,Ct.n.Q Sc.Ot.u�i't2 1� 4 A Ltd. � $ �� WAD 0 S 4 o8 Lf I�Q�,�,e��;�.<<Q 60V Lf.4 7 (D S to 7. LU A i 1 3t( Leatgr,,� Q� . o a 22- pp co 3) r 7 04 N 3u - s 6 .:Z° Lk) 14 r ,u o, �)) L) �-/ k L U t -uLzUt S . �� rfu, I Sri L�,r T y�,� a' 1 � � 10 Sow � ,, 51 . a "Y � M • r - A 010 �o rrra Pro �FA �► L�9u,71$ c�A Plo. 4 Tl"A, Lai LO . Ynt�.�-f, i� rY -N Anne F_�r�s� a0.00 W icic. f 1-7od -7 P L� 1,(t �,►r v . (,(.fit 1 �-aw► 7W 39,i17 t� r� 0 04 Vie, tv ( m 42- (-, S s fn Cox bi 4,ua -rLIl-"",- 6P x �'l 73 ) /4 -, e-d I-leY o'a a-L�jlAi-e D. f 0, M. , `� OOo�M LA . 370-7 n'laePo wow _ -7 i 7 ix 3167 rra,�- 31('ao 1� n 1X -J 7001 S� 0o, .l r F. Qi0IV. s � w T L 336 s1 o�C (A..P- - /t.� Imo,-' `•,-�,'�,�, f Pfl l.5 O�8 a �Sfa-yl _ 1 7' bov- , O . - O oy Le_ TX �fo 0r hao ;5 BdX 31671 I90q) a3/Ibcv A. i O1 �l $� Yl ���e-✓, �I e. Mon 5 Co 8oao, 1�,l5',a�ktb 4A. & oq0 ! _ 3707 '6 l.c -r 7 s ao ix A to 4'))AX C iJ �, i �Q,�r �e l�� (l� •�( rru,� ti -7boo 1 �4, L L.-frtLOL Lbc� LAAti�- Q' . r M N 5! 3 g i 110, 3� a�P Q o lc Lau>v� i Po Boy a-7 Ph i LAIfn 1� v � 93y0/ VIV i mew �o r�rr, �J ep xcl 7 3 e C", F l - e e,t ASrnPitkin/Planr nt JMCO 13S. Galena Aspen, CO $1511 0 Anne Barrie ral Deliver, 4n, co 816,.E ;rc O Ir Ar em/Piddo Planning Office 13 S. aligns Aspen, CO &1611 WILLIAM BRATTAIN GENERAL DELIVERY ASPEN, CO 81612 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED , • en/Pitkin PlanningOfficeCi �o 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 O James Pettus II General Delivery Los Angeles, CA • C7 V D E Off - 6ft 90052 Ld. pen/Phkin Planning tf _ice 130 S. Galena Aspens CO 61611 NOT DELIVE AS -�_ UNABLE oESS�" - Kenneth & Donna ralkowski 0187 Heather Lane Aspen, CO 81611 0 �j05 qApen/haln Planning uitice • ,t;aliens Go 81611 • • USA 22 ET,, rp Sf k4T A.4 A r7 No MA.11 REC EPTACLEF WILLIAM BRATTAIN U 2 6 121 N 8 ASPEN, CO 81611 pn office tGalena wi 0 0 IC 16 NDa it ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN WILLIAM BRATTAIN P. 0. BOX 1381 ASPEN, CO 81612 Aspen/ itkin canning Office 130 S. Aspen, CO 81611 0 Kenneth & Donna Kalkowski General Delivery Aspen, CO 81612 �vAM/P!tkIn Planning Office A, S. Gal3na "SPM GO 81611 James Milam Pettus II 1236 North Crescent Heights Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90052 DING mici V*01:13.401R UNPIEDLA. �i��E� �zn-� TO F. �-UISSAA� 22 eitkin MOW% MO long co m 1; 7e, p% F-;a -& 0 5 lc�lmI U M'V'r TO sloolot MAIL RECEPTACLE KENNETH N. & DONNA L. KALKOWSKI UNIT 32., 1-02 NORTH 8Th STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 USA 22- 'tkifi Planning uttice CO 81611 2J 1-3i'JI 7:1. IRN T() ANNE E. BARRTE P. 0. PDX 10451 ASPEN, CO 81612 USA 22.,- R., 40 Z5; 4 L_ F. MEAD METCALF * BOX 32 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 * PHONE 303 OZ5-1455 April 20, 1986 The Honorable Bill Stirling, Mayor Members of the Council Chic Collins, Tom Isaacs Pat Fallin Charlotte Walls City of Aspen Gentlemen & Ladies, I wonder how many of you have looked for some twenty years at the four GREY trailors/truck bodies, parked at the entrance to Aspen, along side the AGATE LODGE? This eye -sore belonged to our esteemed Butch Clark, dba ESCO DEVELOP UNT, back in the dark ages, and have resided there since the early sixties. Why? Does the council have some inside "old-timer's" reason for honoring Butch Clark? Or has no one agitated enough to stir up public concern against this nuisance? I've known of lesser nuisances to be brought before council! Perhaps it's time for Jon Busch to take up another crusade. Meanwhile, Mead Metcalf will start one! Sincerely, /1 (c -�-.�- `,Iead TMetcalf UW� 40 TO: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FROM: APPLICANT FOR AGATE COURT PROJECT SUBJ: AGATE COURT PROJECT - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION DATE: JULY 22, 1986 This Memorandum is written in response to the Planning Office Memorandum of July 15, 1986. 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. The recommendation of the Planning Office is for approval subject to 12 conditions. The Applicant has no objection to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. We still would like to modify Condition 1 to conform to the language of our request on Page 5 of the application. Regarding Conditions 2 and 3, 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. 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 from the date of final plat approval. N M MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Agate Court Project: Conceptual Subdivision/PUD Parcel ID#2735-124-30-001 Case #15A-86 DATE: July 15, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Agate Conceptual PUD subject to eleven conditions previously approved for conceptual submittal and adding one other condition. LOCATION: All of Block 17, Townsite and City of Aspen (Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S) . ZONING: 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 (6) single-family lots and two (2) duplex lots. The Applicant's request has not changed from the application approved in 1985 except in request- ing that Condition No. 1 to changed to allow for building on Lots A and K in the event the "direct connection" highway alignment is approved by the vote of the City electorate on August 12, 1986.. BACKGROUND: The Agate Conceptual Subdivision/PUD was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission through Resolution No. 85-10 adopted on June 4, 1986 and approved by City Council on August 12, 1985. The Preliminary Plat, due for submittal within six (6) months of conceptual approval, was not submitted within the Code established timeframe. Therefore, conceptual approved expired and the application before you is necessary to revive the subdivision/PUD. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Engineering Department: In a memorandum from Elyse Elliott dated June 27, 1986, the recommendation was made that the Applicant be required to join any applicable future improvement districts. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office believes that the conditions attached to conceptual approval. of the Agate by the Planning Commission and Council are still valid. We do not support the Applicant's request for the option of building on Lots A and K in the event that the "direct connection" highway alignment is M M approved. In this scenario, Seventh Street would become a "major connector, " downgraded from an arterial as it presently f unc- tions. The volume of traffic from Cemetery Lane, portions of the West End and potentially the Meadows development would require that Seventh Street continue to function as one of Aspen's major streets. The concept of open space along Seventh Street is more than visual and noise screening as suggested in this application. More green space to give visual relief from the bulk of the buildings should be incorporated in the project design. Further- more, this matter was extensively discussed during the prior review and the decision was made on the compromise measure of restricting development from lots A and K. It should be noted that the Applicant's request to remove six (6) trees should be dealt with at the preliminary subdivision stage. Condition No. 2 requires the Applicant to show building foot- prints for all ten (10) units at the preliminary plat stage, with the burden of designing the structures to avoid removal of all significant trees as best as can be done or relocating those trees on -site. The City Engineering Department has requested the standard agreement to join improvement districts which should be a condition of approval. The former Condition No. 9 should be dropped as the City undergrounding project is proceeding on the alley of Block 17. REOOMMENDATION: The Planning office recommends approval of the Agate Conceptual Subdivision subject to the following eleven (11) conditions as approved by Council on June 4, 1986 and one (1) additional condition: 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 and so as to better screen the view of the units from the highway. The Applicant shall entirely move the duplexes off Lots A and K, and may request setback variances to accomplish the intent of no development on the highway side, but a total of ten (10) units being approved on the site. 2. 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 show building footprints for all ten (10) units at the Preliminary Plat stage. 3. The Applicant shall provide for alley access for all ten units within the project and alley access for trash removal., and the project shall have no curb cuts on either Hallam or Bleeker Streets. However, flexibility shall be given in the review of driveways and footprint locations at the Prelimi- nary Plat stage if it can be demonstrated that said flexi- bility is the only way to retain the most important trees on the site. 4. The Applicant shall contact the Fire Department to determine the necessity of keeping the alley open onto 7th Street. If the department indicates in writing that the alley must be kept open, then the Applicant shall agree to place a no left turn sign at the exit to 7th Street. In the absence of such a written statement, the Applicant shall alter the design to show no exit or entrance for cars along 7th Street, a properly designed turn around at the end of the cul-d-sac, and a continuous landscaped berm in this location. 5. The Applicant shall revise the design of the "auto courts" such that the driveways are narrowed to approximately 261, 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 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 RFTA, and shall provide a sidewalk for the length of Seventh Street. 8. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 20- 22 for any units which are to be condominiumized, or shall simply not condominiumize any unit for a period of 18 months after its occupancy. 9. The Applicant shall meet the setback and height limitations of the City Code as indicated by Bill Drueding in his review of this project. 10. The Applicant shall meet the conditions for water service outlined by Jim Markalunas in his letter to Douglas Allen dated December 17, 1984. 11. 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. 12.. The Applicant shall agree to join any Special Improvement District formed in the future that effects this property. SB .15 ., w �GU[2 r:JW2 7 l996 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office ;i FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department DATE: June 27, 1986 RE: Agate Conceptual Subdivision When this project was reviewed by the Engineering Department in February of 1985, our concerns were: 1. The utilities be undergrounded. 2. The curb cut be lessened from 66' to 261. The new submittal has complied with these requests. We would also require the applicant to join any future improvement districts. EE/co/AgateConcepSubd 00 TO: City Attorney City Engineer Aspen Water Department f2 OWES ES Environmental Health l5 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Di 'ct Parks Department JUN 17 I986 Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Transit Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Steve Burstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office RE: Agate Conceptual Subdivision Parcel ID# 2735-124-30-001 Case No. 1.5A-86 DATE: May 27, 1986 Attached for your review is an application, submitted by Douglas P. Allen on behalf of his client C.M. Clark, requesting Concep- tual Subdivision approval for the redevelopment of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen (site bounded by Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Bleeker and Hall am) . The project is to consist 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. The applicant indicates that this application is identical to the submission which was granted approval by City Council on August 12, 1985, but which approval has expired. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than June 30, 1986. Thank you. *Check Enclosed Is 0 Iy1Bi4 • ' TO: Bill Drueding FROM: Alan Richman RE: Amendment to Pitkin Reserve FAR DATE: July 9, 1987 Attached are some documents which I have signed with respect to the Pitkin Reserve PUD, shifting 196 s.f. of floor area between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the PUD. The purpose of this shift is to permit the construction of a mud room on Lot 2. In signing this amendment, I have been unable to determine from my files that 40,344 is the actual floor area allowed for this property. Therefore, please do not construe my signature as verifying this number, but merely as authorizing the 196 s.f. exchange of floor area between the two lots. If, however, you are able to verify that 40,344 s.f. is the accurate floor area for this property, then please consider that to be the case. I would appreciate it if you would file this memo in your zoning files on this project and refer to it henceforth. I will also provide a copy of the signed amendment to Michael Lipkin, for his recordation by the County Clerk. Thanks for your help. THE 'PITKIN RESERVE AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE FAR AT THE PITKIN RESERVE JUNE 30, 1987 LOT NUMBER APPROVED FAR AMENDED FAR 1 6724 6528 2 6724 6920 3 6724 6724 4 6724 6724 5 6724 6724 6 6724 6724 TOTAL FAR 40,344 40,344 APPROVED: 1 A� Alan Richmeft4 Date Planning Director POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 10 12 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 THE PIT IN ROE SERVE June 30, 1987 Mr. Alan Richmond Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspan,CO 81612 Dear Alan, n� o U Jlf 3 U 1,0,37 I expect the enclosed chart adequately explains the reallocation of FAR at the Pitkin Reserve. If there is any additional information or background you need just let me know. Otherwise, when you've had a chance to sign off on this give me a call and, in the intrest of time, I'll stop by and pick it up and zip it over to the building department where they're currently reviewing the 196s.f. mud room addition. I appreciate the prompt attention you've given this, thank you. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin MBL/jeh Enic. POST OFFI C E BOX 3 0 0 4 - ASPEN , C O L O R A D O 8 16 1 2 - 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 184 • • Aspen/Pitk _nTlan.ning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 June 10, 1987 Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P. O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, I have reviewed your letter dated June 4, 1987, with respect to shifting up to 300 square feet of allowable floor area from lot #1 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD to lot #2 of the PUD. Under the provisions of Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code, as Planning Director I am permitted to authorize amendments to approved PUD's, provided certain limitations are met. Since you indicate that the overall FAR for the PUD will not increase, but will instead be shifted, and since the development will still occur within the approved building footprints and not therefore cause additional building coverage, I believe this proposal meets the standards for my approval. I hereby authorize you to proceed with this amendment to the PUD. In order to accomplish this amendment, you will need to prepare an exhibit to this letter which shows in one column the approved FAR for each of the six lots of the PUD. In the second column, you should show the amended FAR for each of the six lots. Obviously, the total FAR for all six lots would remain the same. Once you have prepared this exhibit and I have reviewed and initialed same, I,,, -will authorize you to proceed to building permit review for' addition to lot #2, subject to recordation of the letter and exhibit. I hope that this letter meets your needs. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance. Sincerely, ) L 1>T` Alan Richman Planning Director ACHE PIT IN RE SERVE Out (CIE �JUN g r Ii: L..' COD l i rear A _l1. tis rwe 1 Would like to make. an ad ,,LsTmant i0 'zhe FAR aLLlcicatior-i a-, l.ile F Okln ii e.:- r . n;•e e^ Y+e.j o e! .lei. lr i:.t_e� . end_.�.e tablis. n 'e-: ee :1 w`r '!C'Cazer equally among the 12 lots de pite The fact that trle.' Tt�2•irQ .-ram„n.r l- cT "'.�_ :...: r=i?ley r r�.i;.lGtlnr.� t'f' -,+ir .. _ _ '.)_:�'�'1:e' T-evelof Mora to - f:'c,- :. tie .:11 E qlrti 31$tr IriUi CAr� 4J e %1Qi:i.� Ilv t'; like To still i ::0G-)G6 s.f, of FAR from our smallest, and most :,onstrained, lot fsel t , r'.e .•jjacent I 2„ vhere ve are ilist completirb construction. The purpose of this additional FAR H� Auld be to add on a mud room and storage shed. This $could, of course, fs11 cry*hin the established buildincy envelop. e for Lot 2, q.,l not be increasin_ the overall vulltiirl`': <-'avera;;::e of ti:e Fltkin Reser-v'e pUu. In ;rour c&pwity as Fianning Director yo1.i :�1'e aixhnvi�e'i t'? Me4:e minor mo&ficat;OnS to a PUP w outhnel in Section 2°-8.3h in the Building C o-Je of the. City of Aspen. 1 �711, as you suggested - when you have signed off on this, and I have ari exact Fk; regw-rement established - produce a document that shows the redistribution. of developable area and the appropriate FAR allocations for each lot and have this document re..orded vilh The - ity c e?rY. T attention. Yours I�Iiciiael Lipkin MB fieh POST --OFFICE BOX 3004 - ASPEN,COLORADO 3161 2 • 303 -920- 1 184 PEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFIA 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Dear This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of your ���r "`�'�s'��_ application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application is co m pl et e . is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) . Additional copies of entire application. Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. A. Since your applicatio is complete, we have scheduled it for review by the ' k � 4 Z on 'I Z z We will be calling you if we need any additional information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. Please f eel f ree to call ' ti �f who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director AR: jlr 1 `I CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 DATE SUBMITTED 5/12/86 FEES NAME C. M. CLARK ADDRESS C/O DOUGLAS P. ALLEN, 530 EAST MAIN STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE C/O DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 925-8800 NAME OF PROJECT PRESENT ZONING LOT SIZE LOCATION AGATE SUBDIVISION R-6 PUD 18 30'X100' TOWNSITE LOTS ENTIRE BLOCK BOUNDED BY SIXTH AND SEVENTH STREETS AND BLEEKER AND HALLAM STREETS (indicate street address, lot and block number. May require legal description. A vicinity map is very useful.) CURRENT BUILD -OUT UNKNOWN sq. ft. 24 units TO COMPLY WITH CITY PROPOSED BUILD -OUT CODE FAR sq. ft. 10 units DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING USES RESIDENTIAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL AS SHOWN IN ATTACHED APPLICATION TYPE OF APPLICATION APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S) _ 20 110 PLAT AMENDMENT REQUIRED _ X _ _ YES NO DATE PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE COMPLETED ATTACHMENTS: 1. All applicants must supply Proof of Ownership in the form of a title insurance commitment or statement from an attorney indicating that he/she has researched the title and verifies that the applicant is the owner of the property (free of liens and eucumbrances.) 2. If the process requires a public hearing, a Property Owner's List must be supplied which gives all owners within 300 feet in all directions in some cases and adjacent owners in some cases. 3. Number of copies required (by code and/or in pre -application conference.) 4. Plat by Registered Surveyor X Yes No It Day AlkA 7/(i/,f+ qo/a SCALE /"= 2o, 0 20 40 ,o W W k I I � xAXANCIS �W ,o /4 zz C JZ�5PA2 20C W. ' VALLAM _r_ , R -M F FIC75& r--_---��• W. SLEEKER �2'�' 1 MA IN 57R E ET /3 7? 25 1 V/C/N/Ty MAP TRACED FROM OL,O ANNEXAT/ON MAP SCALE /"=400' THE 5L/B✓EC7 PROPERTY, ,BLOCK /7, /5 THE ONLY PROPERTY ON T1415 MAP /N W IGH THE APPLICANT HAS AN /N77ERE57.. f Deo P. A u.e/ ATTORNEY A7' LAW T-- ALP/NE 1104 C ERT/F/CAT/ON I, GERARD H. PESMAN, CERTIFY THAT 7'I-1/5 PLAT /5 101-OTTEL7 FROM F/EL O nI07E5 OF A SURVEY MADE /✓/vDER MY 5upERVISIO/V //V 0C7'o.9ER, /983. 2)��4 lLi . �_ /a 2a 4q3 GERAR,D H. PESMAN OATE COLO. REG. P. E. 4 L.S. 2374. AO L O C K /G G/TY MON. \n HORIZONTAL. CONTROL FOR G5TA,dL /SH/IYG EAST LINE BLOCK /7 H A L L A M A r n� f. + (77a6,) 77. 6 S' P/ cz k W W vJ I M k GOR. /5 0133" rK O.! CAP 99.6!3') 77 6 /' F/EL,O -C. CORNER 6 L O c K 22 LEGEND A"b /VOTE 5 • -OUNO NO. 6 R60AR W/CAF A5 NOTE.O + FOUNA OR 5BT SP, PK, OR RH NAIL O SET NO. 5 RE,5A/4 WICAP "/-E5MAIV 2370" f� POWER POLE ® SEWER MANHOLE CAL.L5 /N ( ) ARE RECOA0 FROM THE OFFIC/AL PLAT OF THE C/TY OF AS/oEN . 0 F/R TREE OR TREE AS /VOTE, 4V1/JIAMETER AS NOTE/J TREE DiAMETCR5 S/TUgTCD co" LOT 4 CHf?Ai6ED 7UM5 G, /985, 114EPSUREMC.17-5 )DE7'ER1V11.UCD W17IhI P FOREST SEAL//CC T?EE D/1410E76-R 7APE mT A Y/C161-/7' 0), 4. S' 14 3OVt GRADE, ,BA6/5 OF 0EAR/1VG5 Cola. 64, P/EL O ( 6. 73- 09' //" E. G93. a9'i — -- - — — (5. 75' 09' //" E C/TY \ BLANK ALL/M. B L O C IK /8 MON. LAP ,8 L. O CK 24 ,IT, '123. ed?9 423. 74' F/EL,O - - C/TY AION. Q J W 0 0 N G 0 v Z WOR/ZONTA L. CONTROL FOR E3TABL/5H/NG 90vTN L/NE OF $LOCK /7 CITY M ON. PROPERTY S UR vef y FOR cLA �2�c OP LOTS L THR/J q- 4/V O LOTS THRI/ S BLOCK /7, CITY A/v�0 TOWNS17*6 OF A5,OeN, P/T/C/N C04/1V7'Y, C04.0/4AD0 ,el/ GERAITO ". 0=651WAIV A550CIA7-6,0 WITH 5[JRVEY ENGINEERS, INC. P O. ,Box 960a ASPEN, COLORADO 616/2 REV / S E ,O N0V--Al64R .3, /983 REV /5E p JULY 5, l984- : Fop- Gonle-l->'7'&AL- AppgovAl-) IVo'r FiEcn 51'RVEY2!!o Al- -rA4s Fj5vl310,J DAM. t d ,:o' _.='/'iY= ✓OA3 NO. 1327G It l. Ds.4 Alke 7/(,/s* 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Project Description 2.0 Project Site 3.0 Application Requirements 4.0 Conceptual Subdivision 4.1 Vicinity Map 4.2 Sketch Plan 4.3 Tabulation of Data 4.4 Disclosure of Ownership 5.0 Other Considerations Appendices A. Verification of Units B. Sketch Plan B-1. Vicinity Map C. Ownership Certificate D. Utility Letters Page 3 3-4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6-7 -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. It 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- 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 West 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- 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 fhe 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. -6- 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 Gas 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-