HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Lot 4 Sunny Park North Ambridge 195 Park Cir.A11-90Sunny Park 1982 Residential
AB lication, Conceptual Subr
j - llj��-d - - I .
'a'A 1x1a 0--i I 1 z
i
1
1
1
F
I
ISB2
GMP
SUBMITTAL
ASPEN, COLORADO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPLICATION FOR GMP RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENT
December 31, 1981
Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-2020
Applicant: James J. Costley
165 Park Circle
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-4605
Attorneys: Gideon Kaufman
David G. Eisenstein
Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C.
611 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-8166
Architect:
James M. Cook and Associates
601 East Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BASIC INFORMATION
1.
Project Information
aa. Water System
bb. Sewage
cc. Drainage
'
dd. Fire Protection
ee. Total Development Area -Type of Units -
Proximity to Schools
ff. Traffic Increase
gg. Location
hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets
ii. Adjacent Uses
jj. Construction Schedule
2.
Site Utilization Maps
B. REVIEW CRITERIA
'
1.
Availability of Public Facilities and Services
aa. Water
'
bb. Sewer
CC. Storm Drainage
dd. Fire Protection
Parking
ee. Design
ff. Roads
'
2.
Design
Quality of
aa. Neighborhood Compatability
'
bb. Site Design
CC. Energy
dd. Trails
ee. Green Space
Page
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
r,
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
13
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page
3. Proximity to Support Services 14
aa. Public Transportation 14
bb. Community Commercial Facilities 14
4. Provisions for Employee Housing 14
5. Provision for Unique Financing 15
6. Bonus Points 15
Markalunas letter
Kuhn letter
Clapper letter
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
Traffic Map
Site Plan
1st Floor Plan
2nd Floor Plan
3rd Floor Plan
Exterior Elevation
Exterior Elevation
Exterior Elevation
Artist's Concept
ATTACHMENTS
MAPS AND DRAWINGS
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
1
I
1
L
I
1
1
1
A. BASIC INFORMATION
1. Proiect Information.
This application for GMP allotment under § 24-11.4 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "City Code") seeks an allotment
for three (3) free market residential units to be built in conjunction
with four (4) low income restricted employee units on Lot 4, SUNNYPARK
SUBDIVISION situate at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park
Avenue and Park Circle in Aspen, Colorado. This project is located
within the RMF zone on a 13,704 square foot lot. There presently exists
on the lot three (3) units which the applicant will be tearing down and
reconstructing pursuant to his plan for improving the property. As per
the provisions of the City Code, § 24-11.2(a), this tearing down and
reconstruction of the three (3) units is exempt from the GMP and has
been addressed by the Planning Office, and therefore is not a part of
this application. The proposed development under this application consists
of one (1) free market one -bedroom unit, two (2) free market studio
units and four (4) low income restricted studio units. Because the
four (4) low income units may be exempted from the GMP pursuant to
§ 24-11.2(h) of the City Code by Special Review, the applicant seeks
an allotment for three (3) units.
Pursuant to § 24-10.5(g)(1) of the City Code which adopted an
external floor area ratio of 1:1 in the RMF zone, the applicant, under
this GMP application, has the right to build an additional 9,300 square
feet on the property. However, this application calls for the construction
of only an additional 4,931 square feet which means the applicant is
reducing permitted density by nearly 50%. This project meets the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit requirements as well as the other area and
bulk requirements set forth in § 24-3.4 of the City Code.
The applicant, sensitive to impact on the neighborhood, is not
applying for bonus density, and is even building nearly 50% less than
what would be permitted by applicable zoning. This is a residential
project in a residential neighborhood which will have six (6) month
rental restrictions and fit in perfectly with the intent and nature of
the RMF zone and the surrounding neighborhood.
Once a GMP allotment is secured, applicant will concurrently apply
for (1) special review for exemption for the low income restricted units
from GMP, (2)
an exemption from subdivision for the construction of a
multifamily dwelling, and (3) a subdivision exception for condominium
approval, at which time applicant will deed restrict the low income
units to the City Housing Authority guidelines for low income housing
for sale and rental.
aa. Water System.
As is indicated in the attached letters from Jim Markalunas, the
proposed development be
can supplied by the existing facilities. In
conjunction with the development, applicant will extend the 6" water
line on King Street to interconnect the 6" water line on Neale Street.
This will improve adjoining neighborhood service, increase the reliability
to the project as well as increase flows during peak periods of consumption.
Water main size is 6" in Park Circle and 8" in Gibson Avenue and these
currently serve the existing units on the subject property. Water
pressure in these lines is approximately 75 psi. Anticipated water
demand is expected to fall well within the normal standards of approximately
75
gallons per person per day. There is sufficient excess capacity
available from the City water supply to supply the proposed development.
bb. Se -wage.
The project will be served by the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation
District which has sufficient excess capacity available to serve the
proposed development. An 8" trunk line exists in Park Circle directly
- 2 -
I
adjoining the property which is already connected to the property.
Estimated system usage will be approximately 60 gallons per day per
person. The existing treatment plant can accomodate the anticipated
flow according to the Aspen Sanitation District manager. Please see
attached letter from Heiko Kuhn.
cc. Drainage.
Historic site drainage
a nage from the site will be improved. Roof drainage
will feed directly to gravel sumps in the alluvial subsoil, thereby
feeding the aquifer and requiring no additional system construction.
This system will improve the drainage for the neighborhood.
dd. Fire Protection.
The proposed development will rely on the fire protection system of
the City of Aspen. The current location of the fire station is eight
(8) blocks away. The average response time is under four (4) minutes.
The enclosed letter from Fire Chief Willard Clapper identifies response
time and hydrant locations to be excellent for the site. There are
presently hydrants located within fifty feet of the property. Applicant
additionally is willing to provide a new hydrant on the site, which will
improve fire protection for the neighborhood.
ee. Total Development Area -Type of Units -Proximity to Schools.
Total development area equals 4,931 square feet.
Employee Housing
Type of Unit Size per Unit Sale Price Rental Price
IFour
(4) studio units 471 sq. ft. $ 54.00 per ft. $ .47 per ft.
Free Market Housing
Type of Unit Size per Unit Sale Price Rental Price
Two (2) studios 941 sq. ft. market market
One (1) one -bedroom 1,165 sq. ft.
market market
- 3 -
1
' Distance to upper and lower elementary schools equals thirteen (13)
blocks.
Distance to middle and high school equals 2.8 miles.
The nearest school bus pick-up point is located right on the corner of
P P P g
the property at Park and Park Circle.
ff. Traffic Increase.
Based on the City of Aspen's calculation values of vehicles per
' bedroom, the added number of vehicles anticipated from this project is
5.5. The property is serviced by both Park Avenue and Park Circle. In
this location, these street right-of-ways are approximately 60' in width
and the paved service varies from 45' to 48'. Park Avenue functions as
a major street for the east end of Aspen and is also the route for the
school district bus and the Silverking/Aspen free shuttle public transportation
system. It is expected that 5.5 motor vehicles will use or be stationed
in the proposed development. The hours of principal daily usage of
adjacent roads cannot really be accurately determined but it is expected
the project will be populated by the broad spectrum of Aspen life which
does not have any regular hours. There will be thirtee (13) o site
1
parking places supplied, twelve (1 o t ese being cove parki
Existing bicycle routes and paths are very c ose to the project and
applicant is planning a pedestrian/bicycle path which will connect this
property and the property to the north with existing pedestrian/bicycle
routes. Bicycle racks will be provided on the property. This proposed
1
development discourages automobiles in various ways. Six (6) out of the
1
seven (7) proposed units will be studio units, will have lower occupancies
in is
and all probability one (1) or less vehicle per unit. The site
within easy walking or bicycling distance of all essential neighborhood,
1
commercial and retail services and is equidistant from City Market and
Clark's Market. The bike racks on the property will further encourage and
make more convenient the use of bicycles. Finally, as was indicated
above, the property is located right at an existing bus stop. The bus
- 4 -
I
1
1
1
1
1
!i
1
1
1
shelter to be placed on the property for the convenience of neighborhood
residents will encourage use of the bus. Service for these routes operates
on a twenty (20) minute cycle and stops at the corner of Park Circle and
Park Avenue. See attached map of transit routes.
gg. Location.
The site is two (2) miles from the Aspen Valley Hospital and five
(5) miles from Sardy Field, the airport. Garrish Park, a City owned
park is located directly across the street from the property. Garrish
Park is an under-utilized park and this project will encourage the use
of this very proximate and under-utilized facility. Herron Park is
approximately two (2) blocks from the subject property.
The site is very close to the recreational trails extending from
Herron Park to the Rio Grande property to the west and the Route 82
trail to the east of the site which extends out beyond the North Star
Ranch. As has already been indicated above, the property is located at an
existing bus stop. The estimated increase on these facilities is minimal
and the capacity of these facilities is more than sufficient to absorb
this minimal increase.
hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets.
The proposed development is within easy walking distance to the
downtown core and the bulk of all retail outlets including City Market
and Clark's Market. Existing commercial facilities are less than four
(4) blocks away. Because public transportation is so accessible to this
project, it is highly probable that automobile use for retail trips will
be less frequent than it would be for other areas. The proposed development
will cause little impact and will not increase the demands on the existing
retail and service outlets.
- 5 -
1
' ii. Adjacent Uses.
' The proposed development is fully compatible with the surrounding
residential, predominantly multifamily uses in the neighborhood, and
will complement the local character of the neighborhood.
jj. Construction Schedule.
No phased construction is planned and actual construction is expected
' to be completed within eight (8) months of commencement. Construction is
anticipated to begin in the spring of 1982 with completion by the end of
1982.
2. Site Utilization Maps
The information contained in this section supplements the maps and
plans submitted with this application.
aa. The insulation characteristics of the project exceed the
requirements of Aspen's stringent energy conservation and thermal insulation
I
code. Strict attention has been paid to all facets of architectural
design and construction detail to create an energy efficient, aesthetically
pleasing project. Insulation R-values have been exceeded for wall,
floor and roof sections. Energy efficient heat generating fireplaces
have been incorporated into the construction.
Both active and passive solar gain aspects of the project have been
explored and accomodated into the design theme in an aesthetically
pleasing and energy producing manner. Significant attention has been
paid to window location and the glazing of these window openings.
Insulating curtains will be provided. The south facing windows and
1
clearstories will provide good passive solar gain with heat attenuating
hard flooring
surface materials. Active solar collectors have been
fitted to supplement the domestic hot water supply. Berming of the
- 6 -
1
lower building section will provide additional insulation; and, wind
breaks will be provided both by existing and proposed landscaping.
r
bb. The project has been designed to preserve and enhance the
natural terrain and open space. The site will be abundantly landscaped
to screen the property and beautify the large amount of open space
planned for the project. The project exceeds open space requirements
under the present code and exceeds the proposed amendments to the open
'
space requirements for the RMF zone, which requirements for open space
are much larger for
than any other zone district. All utilities will be
placed underground.
1
CC. Vehicular access to the site will be from Park Avenue by a
twelve (12) foot curb cut with all required parking on site. The parking
will be covered, hidden and private, being located under the units. A
1
bus shelter will be located on the southeast corner of the property.
dd. Streets, nearby paths and footpaths are indicated on maps.
ee. The zoning district is identified on the zoning map. Surrounding
uses are residential multifamily, duplex and other typical RMF uses.
rB. REVIEW CRITERIA
Availability of Public Facilities and Services.
aa. Water.
The existing water
system of
the City of Aspen has sufficient
capacity to provide for
the needs
of the proposed development and will
be able to supply water
to the development
without system extensions
'
beyond those normally installed
by
the developer, and without treatment
plant or other facility
upgrading.
In addition, applicant will be
upgrading the City water
system by
extending the 6" water line in King
-
7 -
1
Street to interconnect the 6" water line in Neale Street. Thus, the
project in and of itself will improve the quality and reliability of
'
water service in the neighborhood.
bb. Sewer.
1
The site is served by and already connected to the 8" trunk line
existing in Park Circle directly adjoining the property. The Metropolitan
Sanitation District sewer system has sufficient capacity to dispose of
'
the wastes of the proposed development and will be able to serve the
development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by
1
the developer. No treatment plant or other facility upgrading will be
by development.
made necessary this
tcc.
Storm Drainage.
1
Historic site drainage from the property will be improved. The
City currently has no storm drainage system in the area, subsequently no
'
existing way to handle historic runoff. The project proposes that all
roof and paved area runoff will feed directly to onsite sumps in the
alluvial subsoil thereby feeding the existing aquifer and requiring no
additional or future system construction. Additionally, storm drainage
from the property immediately to the north currently without storm
drainage facilities be
will accomodated within the proposed system;
thus, this project will improve the drainage system for the neighborhood.
dd. Fire Protection.
'
The units will be constructed with fire
u th re protection in excess of the
Building Code requirements. In conformance with the Code, smoke detectors
will be furnished throughout for added protection. In addition, all
'
kitchens will be supplied with fire extinguishers. There will be no
to install fire
need a new station or add equipment to the existing
station. The project is very close to the existing station and the
response time will be under four (4) minutes, an exceptional response
'
- 8 -
J
' time for a small mountain community. In addition, applicant will be
providing a hydrant directly on the property which will improve the
' quality of service in the neighborhood.
'
ee. Parking Design.
The applicant is providing thirteen (13) off-street onsite parking
spaces which
will meet the requirements of the proposed development.
These spaces have been designed to absolutely minimize visual impact and
'
use the least amount of paved surface possible. The parking spaces are
covered, being located underneath the units, and are hidden and screened
1
from public view. The covered parking increases the safety and convenience
of the project by protecting residents' vehicles and keeping them free
'
of snow and other elements. It should be noted here that even though
applicant is providing four (4) employee units in the project, he is not
requesting any reduction in the parking requirements for providing such
'
units. In this project there will be plenty of parking for all the
residents and the employees will not be discriminated against.
ff. Roads.
1
According to the Smuggler Area Master Plan, the major street linkages
in the area, Park Avenue and Park Circle, are especially well suited to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
'
altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street
system. Both Park Avenue and Park Circle are 60 foot right-of-ways in
this area and the paved surfaces varies from 45 feet to 48 feet in
width. The development
proposed will not necessitate any increased road
mileage or maintenance. Because the project is a low density project,
'
there will be little or no increase in traffic on adjacent streets.
Because the project is close to the City's commercial and retail facilities
'
and a bus line stops right at the project, automobile use from the
project will be minimal and bicycling, walking or the use of public
transportation will be maximized.
- 9 -
'
Applicant will put in curbs and gutters when the vicinity roads
are upgraded. The Smuggler Area Master Plan calls for upgrading
Park Circle; applicant's project enhances this plan by preventing any
future ingress and egress from the site to Park Circle, all ingress and
egress being limited to the curbcut on Park Avenue.
2. Quality of Design.
aa. Neighborhood Compatability.
The project has been carefully designed to fit in (in terms of
size, height and location) with the existing neighboring developments
and yet, at the same time, improve the overall quality of the neighborhood.
roject anticipates the lowered height limitations for the RMF zone
I
contained in the proposed amendments to the area and bulk requirements
and thus will meet these lower height limitations. In conjunction with
'
the project, the applicant will be tearing down the obsolete three (3)
units and will be replacing them with new improved, more compatible
1
units which will blend in perfectly with the seven (7) units applicant
is proposing to construct pursuant to the GMP application. The six (6)
'
month rental restrictions to be placed on the property will conform with
and further encourage the residential character and the zoning intent
for the neighborhood.
bb. Site Design.
The site has been designed to emphasize the quality and quantity of
' proposed landscaping and open space areas. The perimeter of the property
will be landscaped, planted with trees and bermed to screen and soften
the exterior outlines of the buildings. The interior of the property
will serve as open space garden areas, giving an interior courtyard
' effect, a desirable amenity, to the residents of the project. All
utilities will be undergrounded to enhance visual impact and all improvements
' arranged for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
The onsite parking will be hidden from the public view and walkways and
�
10
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
bikeways through the property are provided for the fence of the
neighborhood. There is an abundant amount of pen ce the site
design as the building footprint only takes up 3.5% f the lot area.
An additional amenity for the neighborhood will be the placement of a
shelter on the southeast corner of the property for persons waiting for
the bus.
CC. Energy.
(1) Exterior Wall Construction. An overall R-28 exterior -wall
insulation value will be achieved as follows:
R-Value
Air Film Coefficient (Exterior;
still air) 0.2
Wood (6" wood frame walls) 8.0
Batt Insulation 19.0
Sheet Rock and Interior Finishing 0.5
Air Film Coefficient (Inner
Surface; still air) 0.7
TOTAL EXTERIOR WALL SECTION
R-VALUE 28.4
The Code value of R-25 is therefore conservatively exceeded.
(2) Floor. The R-12.5 Code requirement will be surpassed with a
floor construction between the unheated parking facility and first floor
as detailed below:
R-VALUE
Air Film Coefficient (Parking
Facility; still air) 0.7
Concrete Slab (6") 0.6
Batt Insulation 19.0
Air Film Coefficient (Interior;
still air) 0.7
TOTAL FLOOR -SECTION R-VALUE 21.0
1
' (3) Roof Construction. All roof sections will include insulation
to raise the overall R-value to or above R-28, exceeding the Code value
of R-25. Wherever the standard roof section is penetrated to provide
glazing, insulated curtain assemblies are specified to protect against
nighttime heat losses.
1
(4) Glass. Energy conserving and solar gain principles have been
' applied to all glass areas. Windows on the north sides of the buildings
have been virtually eliminated. Glass on the south side of the building
will be single pane, low -iron units with solar transmission of approximately
ninety percent (90%); insulated curtains will be fitted to each opening
' to bring the overall nighttime R-value to eleven (11). East facing
glazing will be standard double panes fitted with nighttime insulation.
' West facing glass will be double pane, with sun control blinds providing
approximately an additional R-2 nighttime insulation value.
' (5) Other Solar and Energy Considerations. As an aid to summer
cooling and winter heating, windows will be provided with insulating
' curtains or blinds.
Energy planning for the building extends beyond consideration of
"shell" heat losses, which on the average account for less than ten
' percent (10%) of commercial energy consumption.
Solar access to the building is ideal, virtually unobstructed. There
are no structures to the immediate south of the building to cast shadows
of solar heating significance throughout the year. Therefore, active
' solar collectors have been incorporated into the project to accomodate
domestic hot water heating.
' Every attempt will be made in the design of mechanical systems to
g Y
' minimize the building's demands for auxiliary heat. Control systems
will balance zones within the building before calling on heating systems
' to condition a given space. Special ducting will accelerate the distribution
of solar heated air in southern spaces to colder northern spaces.
1
' To minimize interior temperature swings and store "excess" solar
energy, thermal mass will be provided as determined by computer simulation
' of each "direct gain" solar space. This thermal mass will most likely
be incorporated in wall and floor surfaces.
Berming of the lower building section will provide additional
insulation and wind breaks will be created by both the existing and
proposed landscaping.
dd. Trails.
Applicant will be providing pedestrian and bicycle ways linked with
the adjacent property to the north designed to link pedestrians and
' bicyclists to Garrish Park and Herron Park and the trail systems extending
from Herron Park to the Rio Grande property to the west and the Route 82
trail to the east of the site which extends out beyond the North Star
' Ranch.
ee. Green Space.
' The project has been designed to maximize open space which will be
abundantly vegetated by berming and plantings. The interior courtyard
' open space will have a garden area available for the residents and benches
provide a delightful amenity for the residents of the project. The
landscaping around the exterior of the building offers relief from the
' massing of the building and surrounding developments. The berming and
planting serve to soften the outlines of the building and the project in
general. All of the open space on the project will be vegetated and
will be usable by the residents of the project. The open space provided
by this project exceeds all existing open space requirements and will
exceed the proposed amendments to the open space requirements in the RMF
zone.
1
- 13 -
1
' 3. Proximity to Support Services.
aa. Public Transportation.
' The project is located less than sixty (60) feet from an existing
City bus route, well within the two (2) block requirement, entitling the
applicant to the maximum points under this section. Applicant will be
' providing a bus shelter on the southeast corner of the property to
shelter persons waiting at this bus stop.
bb. Community Commercial Facilities.
The project is located less than six (6) blocks walking distance
' from the commercial facilities in the City of Aspen which therefore
entitles applicant to two (2) points under this section.
1 4. Provisions for Employee Housing.
Four (4) studio units have been set aside for low income housing.
Four (4) studios at .75 bedrooms per studio equals a total of three (3)
bedrooms of employee housing restricted to low income price guidelines
and low income occupancy limitations. There are two (2) free market
studios and one (1) free market one -bedroom unit in the project giving a
'
total of 2.5 free market units. Thus, 55% of the project is restricted
to low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations,
entitling the 22 The
applicant to points. applicant agrees to deed
restrict the four (4) studio units for a period of fifty (50) years to
rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines established
by City Council and to occupancy limitations within housing income -
eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. The floor area
of the deed restricted space in the development is more than 50% of the
'
floor area of the non -deed restricted portion of the project. The
studio units comply with the size limitations as set forth in the Code.
'
The four (4) employee studio units are integrated within the same
'
- 14 -
' building housing the two (2) free market studio units and thus will be
constructed of the same exterior building materials with a compatible
' exterior architectural style. Applicant's proposed residential development
does not cause a displacement of any existing employee housing.
The employee units designed for this project are roomy studio units
that will be provided with onsite parking and covered storage areas in
the same building as the other free market units at no extra charge or
rental and thereby offering amenities and conveniences like those
' available to the free market units on the site.
'
5. Provision for Unique Financing.
'
When the employee units are sold, applicant agrees to sell under a
financing
unique program the four (4) low income restricted studio units
to qualified individuals as established by the City Council within
'
housing income -eligibility guidelines. Applicant will offer 100% applicant
financing for these units. The mortgage offered by the applicant will
'
have a term of thirty (30) years and an interest rate at the lesser of
12% or the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
as determined on the date of preliminary plat submission. There shall
be no closing points and no prepayment penalty. The mortgages shall
'
be freely assumable by qualified individuals as established by the City
Council within housing income -eligibility
guidelines.
'
6. Bonus Points.
' Applicant should be granted maximum bonus points for outstanding
overall design meriting recognition. The project has incorporated the
' criteria of § 24-11.4(b)(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5). The project is tastefully
designed to blend in with and enhance the character of the neighborhood and
' incorporates the best facets and technology of passive solar -energy
design. There will be no negative impacts on traffic, roads, public
safety, fire protection, police protection, drainage, water or sewer
service. Applicant will be making improvements which will enhance
'
- 15 -
the fire protection, drainage and water service in the neighborhood.
The public transportation service in the neighborhood will be enhanced
'
by the bus shelter to be placed on the property. Applicant has taken
into account the Smuggler Area Master Plan considerations for Park
'
Avenue and Park Circle by agreeing to provide curbs and sidewalks and
locating
a small twelve (12) foot curb cut only on Park Avenue and
preventing access from the project onto Park Circle. The existing
'
services and facilities are adequately situated and set up to serve
efficiently the project at no public fiscal increase. Great care has
tbeen
taken in the design of the project to conserve energy and utilize
solar energy as much as possible, and the project's energy efficiency
'
rating significantly exceeds all applicable City requirements. The
project is very tastefully designed from an architectural perspective
and offers an interior courtyard open space garden amenity for its
'
residents and landscaping and berming, greatly enhancing the visual
'
qualities of the project for the neighborhood. Open space requirements
for the have been
area significantly exceeded. Additional paved services
have been kept to a minimum. The project will be supplying thirteen
(13) off-street onsite parking spaces, twelve (12) of which will be
covered, hidden from view offering great safety and convenience to the
'
residents. In addition, all utilities have been undergrounded and
covered trash is conveniently located on the site for the advantage of
'
the residents. The site for this proposed development is particularly
suited to this kind of development and will blend in exceptionally well
with the neighborhood and improve the quality of development in the
Applicant
neighborhood. is dedicating 55% of the project to low income
housing which represents a substantial contribution by applicant to the
1
welfare of the community. These employee units are incorporated within
the free market aspects of the project and will offer the employees the
'
same amenities such as onsite covered parking and storage for which the
employees will not have to pay any additional rental. These employee
'
units are nice size studios designed as such by the applicant not to
maximize square footage in the project but because lie feels that the
roominess of these units make them a much more liveable and comfortable
- 16 -
space for the employee. Furthermore, to allow for qualified persons to
acquire these units, applicant is willing to provide 100% financing for
four (4) of the low income restricted units. This project meets the
intent of the residential GMP, the RMF zone and the character of the
'
surrounding neighborhood.
In sum, this project has been very carefully thought out to balance
the
needs of the developer to create a viable project with the policies
expressed by the City of Aspen and the community in general. We feel
this project achieves this balance and is the kind of project that
should be encouraged by the City.
1
i
1
1
1
1
„_
1
0
CITI
130 s
asper
'PEEN
t r e e t
81611
December 28, 1981
Mr. Jeff Costley
Archdeacon Ltd
Box 884
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park; Letter of 12-12-80
Dear Jeff:
As per our discussion today and contingent on the city's ability to obtain
funds from the sale of bonds authorized in May of 1980, the city could
participate or construct the aforementioned interconnect in 1982 or 1983.
However, unless this event occurs prior to your project construction, we
recommend that the developer provide for this interconnect, with some form
of reimbursement by the city, in the event that the city obtains funds to
have the said line interconnected.
Sincerely,
,ohm Markalunas
Director
Aspen Water Department
cc: Planning Office
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I , XIII (41 6*6' /1 .Jr34f'eY
565 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE N 925.2537
December 28, 1981
To Whom it may concern:
The Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District has examined the proposed location
of six (6) studio units, 1-1 bedroom and three 2 bedroom units by Jeff Costley
in the Sunny Park Area and hyraulically our trunk line in Park Circle can handle
the increased load of this proposed subdivision. Also, at this time we have
the plant capacity at the Aspen Metro Sanitation plant to handle this subdivision.
Sincerely
1, 1,...I-,_._
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
0
1
i �,
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
-17
1 � C.�/} � ll
C C-2
16,
l v
• r
PROJECT Aho��'�\•• ''�♦
LOCATION
EXISTING
UTILITIES
R -MF
1 R-MF
1 l Il v
\ R-MF
� c4(F
1 \ \
i
PROJECT
LOCATION
n_Inf",=MlT
(..VIV 19VV
iwi
I Y
PROJECT
LOCATION \
I
� I
1
o�
ROUTE
r l' UTILITY 'I
-EASEMENTI
d
__ — '(�)r
1B1-B11 1B1- B11
� 0
I
BORM. r
BORM.
�I_B. 1 _ C
BORM.
O
BORM.
BO
—PLANTER R TA NI
WALL
121.62
1B1_ BII _1 W 40
- Q -
1 PARKING r a}_
SPACE
N
Q
I m
I I 2
0 Y
� Q
a
0
I
4 PARKING
SPACES
Y •
n uu mulwn C
uuu lulu
�„
I'- I ..'
: 121 M2;
COVERED
TRASH
NO
0 5 15 30
first floor
J
fA Idwo
H
Q WVW
Ed Q 20F_
0
to QQa
04
aJQ
0
Q
a
C
0
J
0
U
2
2
W
n
1A
J
date
revisions
A21
PARK AVENUE
0
m
O
121 .62
113'- B'
r— - - - - - - - -
L AUNO. B• - i KITCHEN
=0.
w
J
0
rL
U
Y
0
Q
4
NO
21.62
0 5 15 30
second floor
PARK AVENUE
J
LuW
N 0CL �-
F.
to
W�W
Z
U
0
Z0�
z0I
0
0
Ul
azQ
QJQ
a
0
Q
0
0
J
0
U
>0
2
2
w
Q
W
4
F w
0
U Z
u
0 0
m U
m
Q
IL
kl-
date
revisions
•
J
121.62'
18'-H
O 5 15 30
third floor
PARK AVENUE
W
F-
F
Q4U
W
zmt
Z
0
U
0
U)
ZOI
<ZU
0
Q
CL
0
Q
Q
IL
C
0
J
0
U
>m
z
(n
Z
W
rA a
-j
date
revisions
O
tO 5 15 30
elevations
J
a
fA
OmQWfA I
W
F-
�
uWwoI
U
z
0
0
fA
Q
azU
QJQ
0
a
0
J
0
U
a
date
revisions
---------------
0 5 15 30
elevations
(VE
H
W
F-
�QU
W
z �H
0
U
to 42U
o
Q a�a
0
0
0
0
U J
a
m
uz
00 'u
m a
IL
date
revisions
!A 61
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1_
' ❑ 5 15 30
elevations
4
0
J
Q
M (dwo
H 0QU
w
F
Cc W
20I
0
U
U1
aQQ
0
Q
aJQ
date
revisions
FAbF,A
COO-1111111111111F 40 via
_'11mv �r,�11
V
A VAYAPP
att
LL -
Jill II
1,10 1
41 VIA
'0,
oo
10/
.0io IN
Jill
tie
to W
1A J A�Jjl 1! MOV-
1:01
P., '01 Tow,;
111111111101941
All
041
2!1 'mAr",
for
-.two W.
Jill;
)POT
owl',
(Ott, 11"M41MR-1 i
411411,14 In 11
1111��Iyl
ff I
0
77
1A_
Ov
1L
-MEOW
-"=memo
,lei.
41M1 m It
kI
'fed
04
Aga
i for W7. a T a
fil I
Raw 1v
Q
PIP
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE: 08� 31 \5561 STAFF:
2. APPLICANT:
3. REPRESENTATIVE:
A k t c C- `) R..\ t
4. PROJECT NAME:
5. LOCATION: ��'C �.,,�. (�a„� ��,�,,,� S,o� `7C.'i ��nv-4<,
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: (j
4 Step: ✓ GMP
PUD
Subdivision
2 Step: Subdivision Exception (
✓ GMP Exception (_ E9\,41
Rezoning
SPA
1 Step: Use Determination
Conditional Use
Special Review ( )
HPC
No. of Steps: Other:
7./CONCEPTUAL REFERRALS:
Attorney
Engineering Dept.
Housing
Water
City Electric
r
`✓ Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
✓ Parks
Holy Cross Electric
1/Building Dept.
8. DISPOSITION - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW:
P & Z_ Approved_ Denied Date
V
School District
Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
State Highway Dept.
✓„ Other w 11q .S� PC Oct It F
V L 1,0 \..o -.-A.,\ \11-
7
``l P m n(Ai IA6 —Y-( lIn 7/11, r`�5 � �A rtGi�n��r���� �� 3 aP
a
Auer Ao q3, A tic, &ew.V TVa / -6-mi P v--Z =
A
Council_ Approved �� Denied Date /ISZ
G? r
9. PRELIMINARY PLAT REFERRALS:
Attorney _ Sanitation District
Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell
Housing Parks
Water Holy Cross Electric
City Electric Fire Marshal/Bui-lding Dept.
10. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING
P & Z Approved Denied Date
School District
Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
State Highway Dept.
Other
11. FINAL PLAT
Council Approved Denied Date _
12. ROUTING:
Attorney Building _Engineering Other
0 0 0
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Alice Davis, Planning Office
min - q( ,,
Z qq.q
v if(A
Sunny Park - Conceptual GMP Review/Extension of GMP
Allocation
November 14, 1983
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue
Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision
ZONING: R-MF PUD
LOT SIZE: 13,704 sq. ft.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Jeff Costley, received a GMP allocation for his Sunny
Park project in the 1982 residential competition. Through the GMP
review, the applicant obtained conceptual approval from the P&Z on
February 2, 1983 and is now requesting conceptual approval from
Council. According to the applicant, the economic recession pre-
vented him from immediately moving forward with the remaining neces-
sary approvals which include full subdivision/PUD approval (minus
conceptual review before P&Z), condominiumization and GMP exemption
review for the employee units. Due to the lapse in time, the appli-
cant is now also requesting a one time six month extension of the
Sunny Park GMP allocation so that these necessary approvals can be
obtained prior to the expiration of the GMP allocation. The requested
extension will move the allocation expiration date from January 1,
1984 to July 1, 1984.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant obtained a 1982 GMP allocation for three free market
units -- a one bedroom and two studios. Approval was also given at L(ew\p1
that time for four employee studios and the reconstruction of three 3 reosf
existing free market units -- a studio, a one bedroom and a two
bedroom unit. Therefore, the total project includes six free market
units and four employee units. A previous GMP application in 1981
for seven free market units and seven employee units was denied.
The site design for Sunny Park was determined by P&Z and the Planning
Office to be excellent -- all utilities are located underground;
60% open space is provided with abundant landscaping and private
interior garden areas; walkways, bikeways and a sheltered bus stop
add to the efficiency of circulation within the project; and a 50%
reduction in the allowed density is incorporated in the proposal.
The demolition and reconstruction of the three existing units should
also improve conditions on the site. Thirteen covered, off-street,
on -site parking spaces will provide ample parking for all units. The
applicant has also agreed to provide 100% financing for the four
employee units.
Attached for your information and review is the project's site plan,
elevation drawings and the 1982 GMP scoring evaluation for Sunny
Park.
r
MEMO: Sunny Park
November 14, 1983
Page Two
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW
The Planning Office has reevaluated the conceptual review of the
Sunny Park project and continues to recommend conceptual approval of
the project as proposed.
In reviewing the extension of the GMP allocation expiration, Section
24-11.7 of the Code states that the failure of an applicant to obtain
a building permit for the employee unit portion of a mixed free
market/employee, residential GMP project within a two year time
period from when the GMP allocation was granted will cause the
residential GMP project allocation to automatically expire. The City
Council may, however, grant an extension to this expiration date on a
showing of good cause by the applicant.
The applicant is requesting that Council grant this extension due to
the difficulties the applicant has experienced as a result of the
economic conditions over the past two years. He is now willing to
proceed with the necessary approvals and obtain a building permit
within the requested six month extension period.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends that Council grant conceptual approval
to the Sunny Park GMP project as well as approving a one time six
month extension to the expiration of the Sunny Park 1982 residential
GMP allocation from January 1, 1984 to July 1, 1984. Such approvals
are subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant must obtain approvals to the remaining �ecessary
reviews (subdivision, PUD, condominiumization and GMP
exemption for employee units) as well as obtaining a build'
permit prior to July 1, 1984.
2. The applicant must meet all of the obligations committed to
in the Sunny Park application including, but not limited to
the following:
a. 13 covered, off-street parking spaces;
b. a new water line interconnect on King Street;
C. the provision of the proposed bus waiting area;
d. the landscaping as proposed on the Sunny Park site
plan; and
e. four employee studios deed restricted to the low
income housing price guidelines.
Applicant must arrange with Holy Cross for the installa-
tion of underground power lines to serve the project
and also arrange for the revamping of existing overhead
and underground service to the Marthinson-Nostdahl apart-
ment building.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: Sunny Park Date: 1/27/82
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 2
Comment: Water system in the area will be updated by the applicant
extending the 6" water line in Kinq Street to interconnect the 6" water
line in Neale Street.
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating 1
Comment: The existing trunk line in Park Circle can handle the
increased load of this project. The Aspen Metro Sanitation Plant
also has the capacity to handle the project.
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating I
Comment: On -site alluvial sumps will maintain historic site drainage
.from the property but will not improve the area's site drainage.
Page Two • •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating 1
Comment: Project does not necessitate or propose any new facilities
as a fire hydrant is 50 Yards from the property and response time from
the existing fire station is under 4 minutes.
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating 2
Comment: Excellent proposal for 13 covered, off-street, on -site
parking spaces. The parking has very low visual impact with a
minimal amount of paved surface. This proposal provides the 4 employee
studi s with parking s aces, therefore an exemption from the parking
f. Roads kmaximum 2 poi.ntsj. requirements for the employee units will not
be requested.
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment: Existing roads are in poor condition and nearby Gibson
Avenue is presently at capacity. The proiect by itself will not
substantially impact the existing facilities.
Subtotal 8
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
I -- Indicates a major design flaw.
v
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 poi.nts).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 3
Comment: The project fits in with the surrounding area and improves
the overall quality of the neighborhood. Three deteriorating units
are being removed and reconstructed as part of the project.
Page Three • •
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating 3
Comment: All utilities are located underground. The project has
approximately 60% open space with abundant landscaping and private
garden areas in the interior of the property. The walkways, bikeways
and sheltered bus stop add to the efficiency of circulation within the project.
c. - Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating 2
Comment: Pedestrian and bicycle pathways provide a link between the
adjacent property to the north and Garrish Park and Herron Park to the
south and west.
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating 3
Comment: Project includes such features as insulation exceeding standards,
energy conserving glass areas, insulated curtains or blinds, excellent
solar access, active solar collectors to accommodate domestic hot
water heating, special ducting for distribution of solar heated air and
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). thermal mass for storage of .excess solar energy.
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating 3
Comment: Approximately 60% open space will be provided and will be
vegetated by berming and plantings Interior garden areas provide a
courtyard style use of the interior space.
Subtotal 14
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and conmunity corraiercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).•
l -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating 3
•
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating 2
Subtotal 5
Rating 22
Comment: There are 4 employee studios at .75 units per studio equaling
3 units of employee housing. With 2 free market studios (1.5 units)
and 1 free market 1 bedroom unit, there are a total of 2.5 free market
units. Therefore, the employee units comprise-55% of the project which is
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). to be restricted to low income
housing, entitling the applicant
Rating --- to 22 points.
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Comment:
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating ---
Subtotal 22
Rating 4
Comment: The applicant is willing to provide 100% financing for the 4 employee
studios to persons qualified under the City's income eligibility guidelines.
The'mortgage offered will be for a 30 year term at an interest rate of 12% or
the current rate of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, whichever is
less on -the date of determination. The rate will be determined on the date
of preliminary plat submission. Ordinance 66, series of 1981., provides for
1 point for each studio with 100% applicant financing.
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 49
Points in Categories 5 and 6 4
TOTAL POINTS
Name: PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
53
Rating 0
E
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 Residential GMP - Sunny Park
DATE: Feburary 10, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Introduction
0
Attached for your review is the Planning and Zoning Commi�s�(on's recommended
points allocation for Sunny Park, the only 1982 residentia`� GMP submission.
As set forth in Section 24-11.4(f) of the Code, the Council should consider
any challenges to the Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring which are
made by the applicant and then determine whether the scoring should or should
not be revised. There have been no appeals submitted this year concerning the
residential GMP scoring by P & Z.
Applicant's Request
The applicant is requesting a development allocation for three free market
units -- a one bedroom unit and two studios. The applicant is also proposing
four employee studio units and the reconstruction of three existing units --
a studio, a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. A GMP application for
seven employee units and seven free market units on this site was denied last
year byP&Z.
Should this project receive a development allocation, additional review proce-
dures will still be required. Full subdivision procedures, mandatory PUD
review, subdivision exception for condomini.umization and special approval for
exempting the employee units and the reconstruction of the existing units from
the GMP quota will be the required approvals.
Quota Available
Section 24-11.1(a) of the Code provides that 39 residential units are available
for allocation each year in Aspen. However, the City Council resolution awarding
the 1981 residential GMP allocations included a bonus of six units which were to
be deducted from the 1982 quota. In addition, 17 free market units were con-
structed during 1981 pursuant to the GMP exemptions in Section 24-11.2(c) and
(d), which must also be deducted from the quota. Finally, Section 24-11.3(a)
provides a potential bonus of 8 units (20% of the 39 available) which are
available at the discretion of Council. In summary, the following is an evalua-
tion of the quota available for the 1982 residential competition:
Units provided for GMP in the Code: 39 Units
Deduction to offset 1981 bonus: -6 Units
Deduction for units built in 1981: -17 Units
Total Quota: 16 Units
Potential 1982 bonus: 8 Units
Maximum available units in 1982: 24 Units
P & Z Action
At a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982
a public hearing was held on this year's residential GMP application. At the
close of the hearing, the P & Z members scored the application on the basis of
established criteria, the results of which are shown below. The scores
recommended to P & Z by the Planning Office are also given for information
purposes.
Memo: 1982 Residential GMP - Sunny Park
Page Two
February 10, 1982
Planning & Zoning
Commission
Sunny Park Scores
1. Public Facilities and Services 8.3
2. Quality and Design 14.1
3. Proximity to Support Services 5.0
4. Employee Housing 22.0
5. Provisions for Unique Financing 4.0
6. Bonus Points 2.2
TOTAL POINTS 55.6
Planning Office
Scores
8.0
14.0
5.0
22.0
4.0
0.0
*Xt
According to the City Code, a project must receive a minimum of 43.8 points
in categories 1 through 4 or the project is ineligible for a development alloca-
tion and is considered denied. The Sunny Park project received 49.4 points in
categories 1 through 4 and therefore meets this threshold and is eligible for
an allocation.
Based on the above scoring, P & Z recommended that Council award a development
allocation for three free market units to the Sunny Park project.
Council Action
The Code requires that City Council consider any challenges by applicants to
the Commission's scoring, provided, however, that lno challenges shall be heard
by the Council on grounds other than matters which have not previously been
considered by the Commission". As a result of these challenges the Council
may change the number of points awarded to a protesting applicant. The appli-
cant for Sunny Park has informed the Planning Office that no challenge will
be made on P & Z's scoring.
Should Council agree with the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Commission
the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to direct the Planning Office to draw up a resolution awarding
a 1982 development allocation for 3 units to the Sunny Park project."
PROJECT ' Sunny Park
P & Z Voting Members
1. Public Facilities and Services
a. ;later Service
b. Sewer Service
c. Storm Drainage
d. Fire Protection
e. Parking Design
f . Roads
SUBTOTAL
2. Quality of Design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility
b. Site Design
c. Energy
d. Trails
e. Green Space
SUBTOTAL
1982 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
P & Z POINTS ALLOCATION
TALLY SHEET
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
Perry Lee
Olaf
Jasmine
Roger
Welton
Al Average
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
8
8
10
7
8
9 8.3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.5
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
14
14
15
13.5
14
14 14.1
October 24, 1983
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
Per our meeting on Wednesday October 19, 1983, I am requesting
that the Planning Office move forward with the SunnyPark GMP
conceptual approval process. Due to the short time frame remaining
for the GMP allotment expiration I am also asking the City
Council be presented with a request for an extension of the
SunnyPark GMP allotment per section 24.11.7 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen.
I have been involved with the City Planning Department on the
SunnyPark project for over three years. In 1980 the project
failed to receive a GMP allotment. A new application was
submitted in 1981 and SunnyPark was awarded an allocation.
Subsequently an international recession and outrageous interest
rates have prevented me from moving forward to completion
on the project. I an now prepared to go forward with the balance
of the approval process but the time remaining to complete this
process, within the allowable time frame, seems impossibly short.
Therefore I am requesting from
extension of the SunnyPark GMP
may be completed and valuable
inventory.
:sincerely,,-,¢
Tls'rJ. CostleA
the City Council a one time 6 month
allocation so that the approval process
employee housing added to the city's
AspeFr/Piikin Planning Office
130 south galetua street
aspen, cobra do 81611
May 16, 1983
Mr. Jeff Costley
Archdeacon Ltd.
Box 884
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Jeff,
This is to advise you that your 1982 Growth Management allocation for three free
market and four employee units for the Sunny Park Subdivision is due to expire
on January 1, 1984. As per Section 24-11.7 (a) of the Code, you have two years
from the date of submission of your application to file plans with the Building
Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit or your allocation
will expire. For you to be eligible to submit said plans, you must first com-
plete full PUD and subdivision review, exemption of the employee units from GHP
allocation procedures and condominiumization.
Since full subdivision and PUD review are both lengthy procedures, I would
strongly recommend that you meet with myself or Alice Davis as soon as possible
to identify your submission requirements and possible agenda dates. Please let
me know how I may be of assistance in helping you to complete these steps of the
process so that your allocation need not expire.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Assistant Director
cc: Gideon Kaufman
.. .. . . . . . _ . ... - —'-'.. _. .. - -__ .__ 0 __ _. ._. ___ . _. ,._.._.r. IT
•
•
aspen/Pi -khr "Planning Office
130 south (Yalena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
City Engineering Department
City Water Department
Aspen [;etro Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
Holy Cross Electric
Building Department
Aspen School District
City Parks Department
Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief
Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park
DATE: January 6, 1982 -
Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth -Management Competition
Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park.
The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with
respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and
would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your
particular area of expertise.
The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to
prepare our responses, may we please have your viritten comments no later than
Tuesday, January 19, 1932? We realize that this provides you a relatively
short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting
this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed
application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227.
Thank you for your assistance.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: City 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 2, 1982 at a meeting
to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, to consider applications for Growth Management Quota allotments for
1982. There is only one application in the competition.
Sunny Park; Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, submitted by Jeff Costley
Further information may be obtained.from the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 227.
s/ Olof Hedstrom
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on January 14, 1982
City of Aspen Account
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department A -
DATE: January 21, 1982
RE: 1980 Residential GMP, Lot 4, Sunny Park
Having reviewed the above application for 1982 residential GMP
allocation, and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department
has the following comments:
I have attached a copy of our GMP checklist and would offer the
following:
1. Water: There is some confusion between the application
and the letter from Jim Markalunas regarding the proposed water
line interconnect on King Street. The applicant states that
the project will provide the line, Jim states that the City will
build the line. The 3 point score assumes the applicant will
provide the line.
2. Parking: The parking design represents the most significant
improvement in the current application. The new design incorporates
low visual impact, excellent convenience, and provides space for
the employee units for which exemptions are frequently permitted.
3. Roads: Existing roads in the area remain in poor condition
and the additional impact of some 42 vehicle trips per day will
result in further deterioration until upgrading can occur.
4. Public Transporation: The design incorporates a bus
waiting area that will serve as a neighborhood amenity.
JH/co
Enclosure
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980 .
Project Name
Address Lr,-.
Owner
Attorney/Agent/Repres
Address (VI
Reviewed by
tative
Date I -LO -S7—
I. Residential Application (section 24-10.4)
A. Public Facilities & Services
O - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
_ * Water C 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at public expense.
C Av' `ram T �> I � C-0/pj
-r_�k 0,
Sewer C3 pts.)
Capacity wit out system upgrade.
Q
Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal of/surface runoff.
IYe Q. cJ ,Q�iU,r: a 1 s p( lub z 1 n vve- ctkoo, lack 1-
Parking-Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, visual; paving, safety,.and convenience.
VVI
Roads-(3 pts.)
Capacity of road .system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance. �t.JINK% l.01ac�p }rl �v�-t CP►1(�%Y%�/t . / J o� �
f o c �vta a ut �v,t t �o ! a rv►►n 1 o
Growth Management Review Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
O - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
i 4" Public Transportation (2 pts. ) �� ,r;S;� ,,� b-r 0a; " ala,
2 - On existing rout-
e.
Wit inF-520 feet of route.
0 - Not near service area.
Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts.)
I_ Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.)
II. Conunercial and Office Development Application (section 24-10.5)
A. Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient
1 - Major flaw
2 - Acceptable
3 - Excellent
Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character 'landscaping, extend of under-
-grounding of utilitie and efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulation.
Amenities (3 's. )
Usable open f)ace, pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Trash � d utility access areas (3 pts.)
III.Lodge evelopment Application (section 24-10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
Page 3
Growth Management Reo-w Checklist
B. Social Facilities dnd Services
0 - Requires new service at publ
1 - Existing service adequate. ,
2 - Project improves quality of/
Public Transportation (6 pt's.)
expense.
service.
6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
4 - Within 520 feet of "us route and lift.
2 - Within 520 feet of/bus route or lift.
C. Quality of Design
Site Design (3/1'Pts.)
Amenities (3 pts. )
i
Visual Impact (3 pts.)
Sale and location as it affects public vie%,,7s of scenic areas.
Conformance to Policy''Goals (3 pts. )
Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service
/�l pt.).
Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt.).
IV.. Zoning (All applications)
Zone
NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
. ,Required Actual
Y _ ._Lot Area
Lot Area/Unit
Lot- -Width '
Front Setback
Setbacks .
Rear Setback
Page 4
Growth Management R*ew Checklist •
Required Actual
Maximum IIeight
Building Dist.
Bldg. Sq. Footage
Open Space
External F.A.R.
Internal F.A.R.
V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications)
Subdivision
Exemption
Exception Cc- 40
Stream Margin
View Plane
* Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies
pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise C.,�-:dent
to be made in the Engineering Department memo.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
mr.W)PAUnliM
DATE: January 11, 1982
TO: Alice Davis
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application
- Sunny Park
Tne applicant appears to nave complied with the
procedural requireiuents of Section 24-11.4 with respect
to the applicant's proposal to tear down and construct
the three existing units. I note that Section 24-11.2
does not exempt reconstruction which would create
additional dwelling units. I assume that applicant's
proposal for reconstruction, which is outside of this
application, would not create additional dwelling
units.
PJT:mc
ASPEN PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Alice Davis, Planning Office V
JAN i
� r
�FN / PiiKIN CO.
�-t-ANNNING OfFFICE
Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Officer der✓
January 13, 1982
1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -
Sunny Park
This office has reviewed the 1982 Residential Growth Management
Competition Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled
Sunny Park.
We have the following comments:
Water and Sewer
This project will be served by
Aspen Metro Sanitation system,
to handle this project.
Air Pollution
the City water system and the
both of which have the capacity
Due to its small size and location on existing bus routes, air
pollution impacts of this project will be minimized. we would
urge that fireplaces or stoves be built in compliance with the
County Fireplace Ordinance including design standards.
If you would like additional information please feel free to
call this office.
LC/co
th Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-2020
•
MEMORANDUM
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
TO: ALICE DAVIS-PLANNING `1 l-
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: 1982 CITY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGMENT
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1982
} JN 19,a?
ASPEN / t''s i KIN CO.
VUNNING OFFICE
APPLICATION --SUNNY PARK
As stated in Paragraph 1-AA: Water, the applicant intends to update the water
system in this area by extending the 6" water line in King Street to interconnect
the 6" water line in Neale Street. Based upon the applicant's commitment
to extend this line, we recommend that the applicant be given credit and the
Water Department hereby commits to availability of service. Also see our attached
letters of December 12th and 28th, 1981.
enc. 2
C?TY
130 4
a s p e IM
Mr. Jeff Costley
Archdeacon Ltd
Sox 884
Aspen, CO 81612
{
i 1P J�11 r
t r e e t
91611
December 28, 1981
Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park; letter of 12-12-60
Dear Jeff:
As per our discussion today and .:outin rtL on tine city's aoility to obtain
funds from the sale of bonds authorize in May c.f 1980, the city could
participate or construct the aforementioned interconnect in 1982 or 1983.
However, unless this event occurs prior to your project construction, we
recommend that the developer provide for this interconnect, with some form
of reimbursement by the city, in the event that the rl.ty obtains funds to
have the said line interconnected.
Sincerely,
Jim Ma rka 1 unas
Director
Aspen Water Department
cc: Planning Office
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
y
December 12, 1980
Mr. Jeff Costley
Archdeacon Ltd
Box 884
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park
Dear Jeff:
As per our discussion on 12-12-80, it i- my understanding that you wish to
construct a 14-unit project consisting of 7 PMH and 7 free-market units and
that said project will be located adjacent to an 8" maim in Gibson Avenue or
a 6" main in Park Circle. Therefore, water would be available from either
of the aforementioned lines.
However, since this project is located very near a marginal service area, and
since the project will, no doubt, have an adverse effect on the existing
facilities, it is my recommendation that the Planning Office encourage you,
as a condition of approval, to connect the 6" line on King Street to the 6" line
on Neal Street. This is a rather short section of line and would increase the
reliability of service to the project,.as well as increase flows during peak
periods of consumption.
If the proposed interconnect is made, I see no problems for the Water Department
regarding this project and would certainly recommend its approval.
ncerely,
'-_Jim Markalunas
Director
Aspen Water Department
cc: Planning Office
HOLY CROSS OLECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
AREA CODE
1301 GRAND AVENUE 303
P.O. DRAWER 250
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
January 22, 1982
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
945 - 5491
945 - 6056
JAiV 2 i 19-2
ASPEN / t ITKI14 M
KAM04& OFF"
REF: 1982 City Residential Growth Management
Application - Sunny Park
Gentlemen:
In response to the application submitted to your Planning Com-
mission for the above mentioned project, Holy Cross Electric
has existing overhead and underground power lines not shown on
the plat. The approximate location of these lines is shown on
the attached map. At this time, Holy Cross Electric is not
sure if the underground power line we have shown on the enclosed
map is accurate.
The developer should contact Holy Cross Electric to arrange for
the installation of the underground power line to serve the
development and to arrange for revamping the existing overhead
and underground service to the Marthinsson-Nostdahl apartment
building.
Additional power line extensions, or relocation of existing
facilities, if required, are subject to the tariffs, rules and
regulations of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. and are
dependent upon the completion of contractual arrangements and
easements.
If you desire any further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
HOW
R SSOCIATION,INC.
oe,
Staking Engineer
JAF:lsz
Enclosure
cc:File:Sunny Park:90-59
R -MF
�c
City of Aspen Street Light Holy Cross Electr
\ \Existing Over-
head Servic
Existing Holj7_, Line
Cross Electric Pole _
and Anchor � � y i
R-MF PROJECT
LOCATION
R-MF
" isting Holy Cross
Electric Underground
Service Line
L \
R-M
II�
w
4
Y
Q
AJACENT
R ZONING
Aspen/Pitk i n Planning Office
130 south nalena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
City Engineering Department
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
Holy Cross Electric
Building Department
Aspen School District
City Parks Department
Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief
Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park
DATE: January 6, 1982
Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition
Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park.
The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with
respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and
would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your
particular area of expertise.
The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to
prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than
Tuesday, January 19, 1982? We realize that this provides you a relatively
short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting
this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed
application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227.
Thank you for your assistance.
TO:
Aspen/Pitkin "fanning Office
130 south galena
aspen, Colorado
MEMORANDUM
street
81611
�l
i
Paul Taddune, City Attorney �\
City Engineering Department
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
Holy Cross Electric
Building Department
Aspen School District
City Parks Department
Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief
Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park
DATE: January 6, 1982
Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition
Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park.
The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with
respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and
would appreciate your comments. Please limit your comments, however, to your
particular area of expertise.
The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to
prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than
Tuesday, January 19, 1982? We realize that this provides you a relatively
short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting
this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed
application, please contact we at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227.
Thank you for your assistance.
s
ASPEN*PITKIN REC310NAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MEMORAidDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
FROM: Herb Paddock, Chief Building Official
DATE: January 28, 1982
RE: Sunny Park 1982 GHP Application
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary review of the afore mentioned project shows
compliance with current City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
regulations.
Consultation with Mr. James Cook, the project architect,
reveals that building code compliance is of no problem in
any regard.
506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973
Aspen/Pitkin ik"I nning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
City Engineering Department
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
Holy Cross Electric
Building Department
Aspen School District
City Parks Department
Willard Clapper, City Fire Chief
Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 City Residential Growth Management Application -- Sunny Park
DATE: January 6, 1982
Attached for your review is a 1982 Residential Growth Management Competition
Application submitted by Jeff Costley entitled Sunny Park.
The Planning Office will be evaluating and rating the proposed projects with
respect to their impact upon available public facilities and services and
would appreciate your comments. Please limit your. comments, however, to your
particular area of expertise.
The 1982 City Residential GMP applications will come before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 2, 1982 as a public hearing. In order to
prepare our responses, may we please have your written comments no later than
Tuesday, January 19, 1932? We realize that this provides you a relatively
short review period; however, we would appreciate your assistance in meeting
this time schedule. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed
application, please contact me at the Planning Office at 925-2020, ext. 227.
Thank you for your assistance.
• si o ` At !S P SeA-C- 1> /3
Y 7N L %�J/F •—
HF%%iU/70LlTAy 5141�I�i�Ti, ij! &74-,rCI! /i/f .ZiE-.•-IL /� /aA.c(_
C. / R G !- C %I? A r7,
.''!-r'o ':'C e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 Residential GMP Applications
DATE: January 27, 1982
Introduction
Attached for your review is the project profile for Sunny Park, the only 1982
residential GMP submission, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation
for this submission and scoring sheets for your completion after the applicant's
presentation. A copy of the application has also been provi.ded for your review.
Applicant's Request
The applicant is requesting a residential development allocation for three free
market units -- a one bedroom unit and two studios. The applicant is also pro-
posing four employee units and the reconstruction of three existing units -- a
studio, one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. A GMP application for seven
employee units and seven free market units on this site was denied by P & Z last
year.
Should this project receive a development allocation, additional review procedures
will still be required. The four employee housing units constructed as part of
this application are subject to special approval of the City Council upon the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, full subdivision
procedures, mandatory PUD review and subdivision exception for condominiumization
are required. All of these reviews must be accomplished subsequent to a receipt
of a development allotment and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
uota Available
Section 24-11.1(a) of the Code provides that 39 residential units are available
for allocation each year in Aspen. However, the City Council resolution awarding
the 1981 residential GMP allocations included a bonus of six units which were to
be deducted from the 1982 quota. In addition, 17 free market units were con-
structed during 1981 pursuant to the GMP exemptions in Section 24-11.2(c) and
(d), which must also be deducted from the quota. Finally, Section 24-11.3(a)
provides a potential bonus of 8 units (20% of the 39 available) which are
available at the discretion of Council. In summary, the following is an evalua-
tion of the quota available for the 1982 residential competition:
Units provided for GMP in the Code -- 39 Units
Deduction to offset 1981 bonus -- -6 Units
Deduction for units built in 1981 -- -17 Units
Total Quota 16 Units
Potential 1982 bonus 8 Units
Maximum available units in 1982 24 Units
Process
The applicant will make a brief presentation (limited to 15 minutes) before the
Commission on Tuesday, Febuary 2. A public hearing will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. Each Commission member will then score the ap-
plication. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the
project. The project being scored must receive a minimum of 60 percent of the
total points in categories 1 through 4, amounting to 43.8 points, or it will
not be eligible for a development allotment and the application will be considered
denied.
i 0
Memo: 1982 Residential GMP Applications
Page Two
January 27, 1982
Planning Office Analysis
The Planning Office has assigned points to the Sunny Park application as a
recommendation for your review. The following table summarizes the results of
the Planning Office analysis shown in more detail in the attached score sheets.
Sunny Park Score
1. Public Facilities and Services
2. Quality and Design 14
3. Proximity to Support Services 5
4. Employee HvUsing 22
5. Provisions for Unique Financing 4
6. Bonus Points 0
Total Points 53
The points awarded under Section 4, Employee Housing and Section 5, Provisions
for Unique Financing, were computed utilizing a formula specified in the code
and are therefore not subject to change. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 are subject,
to a certain degree, to individual interpretations on the project's merit. The
Planning Office awarded this proposal 49 points in categories 1 through 4 and
should you concur with our scoring, the project would exceed the minimum
requirement for 43.8 points.
The proposed project calls for the removal and reconstruction of three existing
units. When condominiumization for these units occurs, the applicant will have
to comply with Section 20-22 of the code regarding rental history and tenant
displacement. The applicant has already stated that the rental rates for the
three units do not fall within the employee housing criteria of Section 20-22(c).
Planning Office Recommendation
The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission concur
with our recommended point allocations and recommend to City Council that a
development allotment for three units be awarded to the Sunny Park project.
• •
Memo: 1982 Residential GMP Applications
Page Two
January 27, 1982
Planninq Office Analysis
The Planning Office has assigned points to the Sunny Park application as a
recommendation for your review. The following table summarizes the results of
the Planning Office analysis shown in more detail in the attached score sheets.
Sunny Park
Score
1. Public Facilities and Services
2. Quality and Design 14
3. Proximity to Support Services 5
4. Employee Housing 22
5. Provisions for Unique Financing 4
6. Bonus Points 0
Total Points 53
The points awarded under Section 4, Employee Housing and Section 5, Provisions
for Unique Financing, were computed utilizing a formula specified in the code
and are therefore not subject to change. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 are subject,
to a certain degree, to individual interpretations on the project's merit. The
Planning Office awarded this proposal 49 points in categories 1 through 4 and
should you concur with our scoring, the project would exceed the minimum
requirement for 43.8 points.
The proposed project calls for the removal and reconstruction of three existing
units. When condominiumization for these units occurs, the applicant will have
to comply with Section 20-22 of the code regarding rental history and tenant
displacement. The applicant has already stated that the rental rates for the
three units do not fall within the employee housing criteria of Section 20-22(c).
Planninq Office Recommendation
The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission concur
with our recommended point allocations and recommend to City Council that a
development allotment for three units be awarded to the Sunny Park project.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 1982 Residential GMP Applications
DATE: January 27, 1982
Introduction
Attached for your review is the project profile for Sunny Park, the only 1982
residential GMP submission, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation
for this submission and scoring sheets for your completion after the applicant's
presentation. A copy of the application has also been provi.ded for your review.
Applicant's Request
The applicant is requesting a residential development allocation for three free
market units -- a one bedroom unit and two studios. The applicant is also pro-
posing four employee units and the reconstruction of three existing units -- a
studio, one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. A GMP application for seven
employee units and seven free market units on this site was denied by P & Z last
year.
Should this project receive a development allocation, additional review procedures
will still be required. The four employee housing units constructed as part of
this application are subject to special approval of the City Council upon the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, full subdivision
procedures, mandatory PUD review and subdivision exception for condominiumization
are required. All of these reviews must be accomplished subsequent to a receipt
of a development allotment and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Quota Available
Section 24-11.1(a) of the Code provides that 39 residential units are available
for allocation each year in Aspen. However, the City Council resolution awarding
the 1981 residential GMP allocations included a bonus of six units which were to
be deducted from the 1982 quota. In addition, 17 free market units were con-
structed during 1981 pursuant to the GMP exemptions in Section 24-11.2(c) and
(d), which must.also be deducted from the quota. Finally, Section 24-11.3(a)
provides a potential bonus of 8 units (20% of the 39 available) which are
available at the discretion of Council. In summary, the following is an evalua-
tion of the quota available for the 1982 residential competition:
Units provided for GMP in the Code -- 39 Units
Deduction to offset 1981 bonus -- -6 Units
Deduction for units built in 1981 -- -17 Units
Total Quota 16 Units
Potential 1982 bonus 8 Units
Maximum available units in 1982 24 Units
Process
The applicant will make a brief presentation (limited to 15 minutes) before the
Commission on Tuesday, Febuary 2. A public hearing will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. Each Commission member will then score the ap-
plication. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the
project. The project being scored must receive a minimum of 60 percent of the
total points in categories 1 through 4, amounting to 43.8 points, or it will
not be eligible for a development allotment and the application will be considered
denied.
i --
01
�Asp• • i•
Pen/ ,tkin• penning Officc
.t .
130 S(�Uth a e.na street
•t ►.wi 4�
aspen ':c'ol6fad`
0 1611
.
Q�c"L
March 23, 1981 (Z (Z
Zone/ �/MIS II�Up)
Ln44Sdn, N•k S)d' — wa„-ts +b 64 ?-�„+�o.„
P�C�c nog!
a�hrt GAPnp� fat AIIjJ,�
Martin H. Kahn
415 East Hyman, Room 301 D�3 AFFf vnil'sOtC.)
Aspen, Colorado 81611 = Gv����n.1•r un,u�l� 1.'5
Dear Mr, Kahn, WiaimUto,y PUO f1a4_j?,r3
The Planning Office and the City Attorney have researched the Aspen
City Code to determine an answer to your question regarding demolition and
reconstruction of units, The response we are providing you with should
be viewed as staff -level advisory comments which can only be confirmed on a
• more definitive basis by submitting your development proposal to P & Z and/or
City Council for approval,
Our conclusion is that based on Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code, your
three units (one t%•ro-bedroom, one one -bedroom and one studio) may only be
rebuilt as three new units, not as five studios, However, the only limita-
tions on the number of bedrooms each unit and the site as a whole may contain
are the underlying area and bulk requirements of the underlying R-MF/PUD
zone district, For example, these provisions indicate that 3,630 square
feet are needed for a three -bedroom unit and that the floor area ratio in the
zone is 1:1. Therefore, you could build three three -bedroom residences on
that 13,700 square foot site to replace the existing units, as long as these
are built in a multi -family and not a single family configuration, You would
also be required to submit plans appropriate fog- ? PULE application, unless
you are able to convince P & Z to exempt you from this procedure,
Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free
to contact me or Paul Taddune, If you should want to bring this concept
before P & Z prior to conpnitting yourself to detailed building plans, I'm
sure we can set up a time for you to meet with them.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Assistant Planner
AR/ans
cc: Sunny Yann
Paul Taddune
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Mew RESOLUTION NO. �_
(Series of1981)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.4(a) of the Code, January 1st
of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications
for residential development allotments.within the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one residential project was
submitted for evaluation involving a total of three free market units,
four employee -units and three units that are to be reconstructed, the
employee units and the units to be reconstructed being exempt from the
available quota; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on February 2,
1982, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Growth
Management application and evaluate and score this application in conformance
with criteria established in Section 24-11.4(b) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did evaluate and score the project
submitted, Sunny Park, with 55.6 points; and
WHEREAS, no appeals were made to the Aspen City Council at their
meeting on February 22, 1982, as is provided in Section 24-11.4(f) of
the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did review the points awarded to
the project by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO that a residential development allocation for three free
market units is hereby awarded to the Sunny Park project. This project
is authorized to proceed further with additional approvals required by
the City before a buildirg per-init. is secured.
Dated:
Herman Edel
M,,yor
a %
1982 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: James J. Costley
2: Project Name: Sunny Park
3. Location: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue and Park Circle - NW)
4. Parcel Size: 13,704 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: R-MF PUD
6. Existing Structures: One story building to be removed which contains
three units -- a studio, one bedroom and two bedroom uni
7. Development Program: Three free market units including a one bedroom
unit and two studios and four employee studios
8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for the exemption of the
employee units from GMP, full subdivision review for the construction of a
multi -family dwelling, subdivision exception for condominiumization,
mandatory PUD review.
9. Miscellaneous:
1 J
0
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: /OAJ 0 ",—( .
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
Date
Z�z
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
Comment:
Page Two • •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating `
Comment:
Subtotal
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compati bi I i ty (maximum 3 poi.nts).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
Page Three •
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment �O��,� �lo/�� %� ��ti�L� 1 GAT r ;
Ny/U,6. 6"7 w ?Y C--'
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal r �i
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and conununity commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 --Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating C- "
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating _
Comment:
•
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member: V JU I
•
PLANNING AND Z014ING COMMISSION EVALUATIO14
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: ''` :' Af14 J C-/ Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating 1f
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
Comment:
rage Two •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
-a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
Page Three
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rati ng_
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal /i
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community conunercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six.blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
i
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planninq Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating ..
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal - '=
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating '0
Comment:
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
e .f
Name of P & Z Member:
PLA14NING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
Date: `'""U Fz
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating __
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
Comment:
Page Two • •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal _
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Nei ghborhood Compati bi I i ty (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of VTe proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
Page Three •
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
. c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
•
E
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating i
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
•
•
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member: // �-j t17 '1
Rating
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
Project:
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
� Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
t c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
Comment:
Page Two • •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment: A-.PfL; (P t:'lt4-1 Lw-L
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
Page Three •
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 ---Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 ---Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route. -
Rating
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment: ew ��� O,AccC nCI-1
L� �)
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 ./
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
PLA14NING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 12
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating -
Comment:
t c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
Comment:
Page Two • •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating ti
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal <.J
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
l -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating }�
Comment:
Page Three •
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating_
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating T
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal /, 6
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
•
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rati ng - .
Comment:
•
•
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Comment:
Points
in Categories
1, 2,
3 and 4
Points
in Categories
5 and
6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
Rating
�m
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
Date:
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
.the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rating
Comment:
Page Two • •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street li.nkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
2. Quality and Design (.maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating
Comment:
-Page Three •
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating
Comment:
c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and.surrounding developments.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating
•
•
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section; one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating
Subtotal
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating
Comment:
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Rating
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
•
E
PLA14NING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: `Dui Q -( Pn�� Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact
upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according
to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any
service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability
to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
Rating 2
Comment:
b. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal
system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the
developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
Rating /
Comment:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately
dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer.
Rati ng
Comment:
Page Two 0 •
Residential GMP Scoring
d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate
fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
Rating
Comment:
e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-street
parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and
considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact,
amount of paved surface, convenience and safety.
Rating Z
Comment:
f. Roads (maximum 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal_
2. Quality and Design (maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site
design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent design
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating _&
Comment:
Page Three
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating V&
Comment:
c. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
Rating _ Z_
Comment:
d. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating ,3
Comment:
e. Green Space (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating 3
Comment:
Subtotal
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points)
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points).
l -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating ��
•
Page Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the
project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from
the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the coauner-
cial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer-
cial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two
hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
Rating Z'
Subtotal
J
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Rating 22,
Comment:
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal Z 2..
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
Rating L
Comment:
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Comment: A.
t,b z C?4) V-?-
Points
in Categories
1, 2,
3 and 4
Points
in Categories
5 and
6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member:
Rating 2
US
n
CUNEtSHIP REPORT
According to the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado,
the following described real property is vested in the name of:
JAMES J. COSTLEY
Real Property Description:
Lot 4, SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, EXCEPTING THEREFROM, that portion des-
cribed in Deed recorded in Book 246 at Page 879 of the records of Pitkin
County, Colorado.
No liability is assumed by the company for the information contained in this
report and it is not to be construed as a policy of title insurance.
Liens, encumbrances and other matters of record are not reflected by this report.
If a policy of title insurance is what voti desire, than please make application
for same with this company.
Dated: December 31, 1981
TRACY TITLE, LTD.
A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
lMY .A C. F. NOFCKFL B. B. A L. C0. _ _ __ -._ ----- ---------- - -'--
ORDINANCE NU.
(Serics of 1981 )
AN ORDI14ANCE AMENDING SECTIUNS 24-11.4 AND 24-1i.3(c) OF THE MUNI-
CIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY THE; REVISION OF THE SCORING
CATEGORIES AND POINTS FORMULAS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETI`1'ION
PROCESS AND BY THE CREA`1'ION OF AN ADDITIONAL BASIS FOR THE PLAN-
NING OFFICE REJECTION OF ANY APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT
WHEREAS,
by Resolution
No. 81-10,
the Planning
and
Zoning
Comiaission has
recommended
to the City
Council that
the
zoning
reyulati.ons be amended so as to modify the scoring system for the
residential GMP competition process to more accurately reflect
current policies of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 81-J_0, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has also recomniiended to the City Counc ii that the zon-
ing regulations be amended so as to correct certain administrative
problems which have developed since the implementation of the
Growth Management Quota System; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to accept the recom;nenda-
tions of the Planning and Zoning Commission as set forth in Reso-
lution No. 81-10, and amend Sections 24-11.4 and 24-11.3(c) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen by the revision of the scoring
categories and points formulas for the residential GMP competition
and by the creation of an additional basis for the Planning Office
rejection of any application for development allotment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Section 1
That Section 24-11.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen entitled "Residential Developliient Application Procedure", be
and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows:
No residential development shall"occur within the city,
:^ except residential development exempted pursuant to Section
24-11.2, until the proposed development shall have received a
development allotment pursuant to the.following procedures:
V
-T
i
• • •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
rmm % c. r. morwL 8. !. S L. cq.
(a) All applicants for residential development aliotinents
shall file with the city planning ofzice on or before
January lst of each year a completed application, which
shall be submitted with the following maps, documents
and information.
(1) A written description of the proposed development
including comments as to:
(aa) Type of water system to be used, including
information on main size and pressure and, if
public, the excess capacity available froiu
such public system; the location of the near-
est main; the estimated water demand of the
development or building.
(bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used
and, if public, the excess capacity available
from such public system; the nearest location
to the building site of a trunk or connecting
sewer line; the expected demand of the devel-
opment or building.
(cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle
surface, underground and runoff waters.
(dd) Type of fire protection systems to be used,
(such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.); dis-
tance to the nearest fire station and its
average response time.
(ee) Total development area; type of housing or
development proposed; number of units, includ-
ing employee housing; and their expected price
range of sale or rental; the distance from the
proposed development to the nearest elemen-
tary, middle and high school; the distance to
existing school bus routes.
(ff) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent
streets resulting from the proposed develop-
ment; description of type and condition of
roads to serve such development; total number
of motor vehicles expected to use or be sta-
tioned in such development; hours of principal
daily usage of adjacent roads; on and off -site
parking to be supplied; location of alternate
transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.);
any auto disincentive techniques incorporated
in such proposed development.
(yg).Location relative to proposed or existing
parks, playgrounds, hospitals, airports, mass
transit systems and estimated increased usage
of such facilities by reason of the proposed
development.
(hh) Location relative to proposed development of
retail and service outlets and estimated in-
crease demands on such outlets by reason of
the proposed development.
2
a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
r O.M !4 C. F. Mnrr.gri R. n. n ,. Gl.------- —.__. - _----- ...
( i i ) EL iec t-_s of t-_ue iroposed uevelopment on ad j a -
cunt uses and land uses in the vicinity of the
project-_.
(jj) The proposed const-_ructiun schedule including,
if applicable, a schedule for phasing con-
struction.
(2) A sire utilization map including:
(aa) Preliminary architectural drawings in suffi-
cient detail to show building size, height,
materials, insulation, fireplaces, solar
devices (demonstrating energy conservation or
solar energy utilization features), type of
units, and location of all buildings (existing
and proposed) on the development site.
(bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at
preserving natural terrain and open space, and
undergrounding of utilities.
(cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and
transit stops and improvements proposed to
insure privacy from such areas.
(dd). Any major street or road links and school
sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian
trails, greenbelts.
(ee) General description and location of surround-
ing existing land uses and identification of
zoning district boundary lines, if any.
(b) The planning office shall evaluate all development
allotments applications during the early weeks of Janu-
ary, reject those that are ineligible under Section 24-.
11. 3 (c) , and present its reconu,iendations to the planning
.and zoning commission no later than February lst of each
year or at; the commission's first regular meeting subse-
quent to that date. The planning and zoning commission
shall review all applications, taking into consideration
the following criteria and point schedule with respect
to eacn of the following areas of concern:
(1) Availability of public facilities and services
(maximum 12 points). The commission shall consider
each application with respect to its impact upon
public facilities and services and shall rare each
development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services
at increased public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of
service in the area, or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the duality
of service in a given area.
3
a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Fwm -E C. F. morf..KFL /. A. A L. GQ '- -- --- - -
The fol.Lowiii,j services shall' be ratod accordingly:
(aa) Water (►n ixiwu«< l points) considering the capa-
city of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, it
a public system, its ability to supply water
to the development without system extensions
beyond those normally installed by the devel-
oper, and without treatment plant or other
facility upgrading.
(bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the capa-
city of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the
wastes of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used,
the capacity of the system to serve the devel-
opment without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer, and with-
out treatment plant or other facility upgrad-
ing.
(cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering
the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose or the surface runoff of
the proposed development without system exten-
sions beyond those normally installed by the
developer.
(dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering
the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to pro-
vide fire protection according to the estab-
lished response standards of the appropriate
district without the necessity of establishing
a new station or fequiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
(ee) Parking design (maximum 2 points) considering
the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements
of the proposed development and considering
the design of said spaces with respect to
visual impact, amount of paved surface, con-
venience and safety.
(ff) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capa-
city of major street linkages to provide for
the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic pat-
terns or overloading the existing street sys-
tem or the necessity of providing increased
road mileage and/or maintenance.
(2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points). The commis-
sion shall consider each application with respect
to the site design and amenities of each project
and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a tonally deficient design
4
d
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FIRM a C. F. NMrNII R. N. 4 L. CO.
1 -- Indicates a niajor design flaw
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- Indicates an excellent, design
(aa) Neighborhood compatibility (maximum 3 points)
considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height and loca-
tion) with existing neighboring developments.
(bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the
quality and character of the proposed land-
scaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrange-
meht of improvements for efficiency of c irc u-
lation and increased safety and privacy.
(cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use
of insulation, passive solar orientation,
solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize con-
servation of energy and use of solar energy
sources.
(dd) Trails (maxiinuw 3 points) considering the pro-
vision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links to existing parks -and
trail systems, whenever feasible.
(ee) Green space (maximum 3 points) considering the
provision of vegetated, open space on the pro-
ject site itself which is usable by the resi-
dents of the . pro' ect and offers relief from
the density of the building and surrounding
developments.
(3) Proximity to support services (maximum 6 points).
The commission shall consider each application with
respect to its proximity to public transportation
and community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
(aa) Public transportation (maximum 3 points)
1 -- Project is located further than six
blocks walking distance from an existing
city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks
walking distance of an existing city or
county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks
walking distance of an existing city or
county bus route.
(bb) Community conunerc ial facilities ( maximum 3
points). The planning office shall make
available a map depicting the commercial
L3
5
c
0
RECORD OF €'ROCEEDiNGS 100 Ucavvs
l r,pM A C. i-. NIIIINII N. II. N 1. 1.,1.
facilities in town to jcr.m.Lt tho evaluation uL
the distance uL t tie project_ t ruit; t.neso areas.
1 -- Project is located Lur.ther than six
blocks walking distance t_ row ttie comtrrer.-
cial taciiit_ies in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks
walking distance of the cota,uercial facil-
ities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks
walking distance of the cormner.ciai facil-
ities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall
be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet
in linear. distance.
(4) Provision for low, moderate and middle income, hous-
ing (maximum 40 points).
(aa) The cotraaission shall assign points to each
applicant who agrees to deed restrict all or a
portion of his development for a period of
fifty (5U) years to rental and sale price
terms within housing price guidelines estab-
iished by the city council and to occupancy
lirt►itations witnin housing income -eligibility
guidelines established by the city council.
(bb) Points shall be assigned according to the fol-
lowing schedule.
Two (2) points for each five (5%) percent of
tyre total development that is restricted to
low income price yuidelines*and low income
occupancy limitations,
Two (2) points for eacrr ten (10%) percent of
the total development that is restricted to
moderate income price guidelines and moderate
income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each fifteen (15%) percent
of the total development that is restricted to
middle income price guidelines and middle
income occupancy limitations.
For purposes of this section, one (i%) percent of
the total development shall be based solely on the
ratio of deed rests. ict_ea bedrooms to non -deed
restricted bedrooms, proviaed, however., that the
floor area of the deed restricted space in the
development rust equal at least fifty (50t) percent
of the floor area of the r,on-deed restricted por-
tion of the project. For the purposes of this sec-
tion, a studio shall be considered a three-quarter
(3/4) bedroom.
(cc) To be eligible for points within the provi-
sions of this section, they low, wouerat_e and
6
• 0
of
RECORD Or PROCEEDINCIS 100 Lc tvcs
midUie irncoWe irousiny ulzits must comply with
tiru iollowi►rg size liwitations or bet
r.estr.ictud to runtai aria sail price tvr.ias tlo
greater than that allowable had the housing
units coiupi ied with tine ioi lowing size i imita-
tions:
Unit
Studio
One-bedrooin
Two -bedroom
Three -bedroom
M in ii,iuiti
Souare FootaUe
400
500
700
1,000
Maximum
Square rootage
6UU
800
1,100
1,300
(dd) Mien an applicant agrees to restrict only a
portion of his development_ to low, moderate
and middle incoi;ie housing and the portion
restricted is located adjacent to an unre-
stricted portion, to be eligible tor points
within the provisions of this section the
adjacent portions of the deveiopment shall be
constructed of the sane exterior building
materials with a compatiu-Le exterior ar.cni-
tectural style.
(ee) Tile deed restrictions created above may be
removed or amended by agreement between the
property owner(s) and the city council upon
the recommendation of the planning and zoning
comi-iliss ion.
(ff) Should a proposed residential development
cause the displacement of existing employee
housing, aefined as units which tor the pre-
vious eighteen (18) months have rented or have
been sold at rates which fall within the adop-
ted housing price guidelines of the City of
Aspen, then the points assigned in section
(bb) above shall be based on the net addition
of employee bedrooms to the housing pool and
riot simply on the gross number of units to be
constructed. A net addition of employee hous-
ing to the pool is defined as the conversion
of a free war.ket unit to deed restricted
status or the construction of a new deed
restricted unit.
(5) Provision for unique financing (maximum 1.0 points)
(aa) The commission shall assign points to each
applicant who agrees to sel4 under a unique
financing program all or a portion of his
development to qualified iridividuals as estab-
lished by the city council within housing
income -eligibility guidelines.
(bb) Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule..
V�
r
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
11NIM •n C. F. 14111 r KI I K. K. K I. C 1.
95 percent c, ppi ic:ant L inanc in,-i
Unit point(s)
Studio i/2
One -bedroom i
Two-bedrooia or. 1ar.yer. 1 1/2
lUU percent applicant financing
Unit Point(s)
Studio 1
One -bedroom 2
Two -bedroom or. larger 3
(cc) To be el iy ible for points within the provi-
sions of this section, the mortgage offered by
the applicant must be tr.eely assumable tor a
term of thirty (30) years or more, at an
interest rate of 12% or an interest rate equal
to the current rate of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, as deteruLined on the
date of preliminary plat submission. The
lesser of the above interest_ rates sha11 be
that offered by the applicant and there shall
be no closing points and no prepayment pen-
alty. The monthly amortization for the wort -
gage must fall wltnin the employee housing
price guideline which has been designated for
the unit.
(6) Bonus Points (maximum 7 points)
(aa) The commission members may, when any one
deterwines that a project has not only incor-
porated and iciet the substantive criteria of
sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2) and (3), but has
also exceeded' the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition, award additionai bonus
points not exceeding twenty percent (20%) of
the total points awarded under. sections 24-
11.4(b)(1), (2) and (3). Any commission mem-
ber awarding bonus points snail proviue a
written justification of that award for the
public hear.iny record.
(c) The couunission shall consider all eligible applications
at a public hearing at the close of which each mefaber of
the commission shall identify the number of points
assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in
sections 24-11.4(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), and
the total number of points awardea by all inembers ,
divided by the number of members voting, sha11 consti-
tute the total points awarded to the project_. For pro-
jects involving two or. more -sites, the points awarded to
each site shall be weighted as .to the number of units tc
be constructed on each site and a weighted value calcu-
lated for the points in each category. Any project not
receiving a minimum of sixty (b0)' percent of the total
Rl
a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 L(�avt%s
f•.>M •'. f.. F. 111N I I.. 11. n I. L I.
points available under. st-ction 24-li.4(b)(1), (2), (3)
and (4), or a winimum oL thirty (3utu) percent of the
points availauiC. uiL(] r I of Svc lions 24-.i1 . 4 (L)) ( 1) ,
(2), (3) anti (4), shall no lonyer be considered for a
uevelopuv:nt ailotment-_ and t-_hu applicatiun sha.Ll be con-
sidered denied.
( (A) Ail projects snall ue ranked according to the total
points received (hiyhest to lowest) and the ranking tnus
estau-Lisned by the cow4itiss ion shall be tor.warded to the
city council on or. before March lst-_ of each year..
(e) In the event that any applicant is awarded points for.
middle, moderate and low income housing, the conu�i isson
may impose, as a condition for receiving points under.
section 24-11.4(b)(4), limitations on rental or sale
or impose such other terms or conditions reasonably
related to achieving the purposes of section 24-i1.4
(b) (4) ; and *tiay, in es tabl isning such terms and condi-
tions , seek the advice of the local housing authority.
(f) Haviny received the coiranission's report, the city coun-
cil shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants;
provided, however., that the city council review shali be
limited to determining whether there was a denial of due
process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its
scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning
office within fourteen (i4) days of the date of tne puu-
1 is hear. my by the planning and zoning comniiss ion.
(9) Suosequent to the conclusion of all protesc hear.inys
provided for in this section, dur.iny which the city
council may cnange the number of points awarded to any
protesting applicant, the city council shall, by resolu-
tion and prior. to April 1st of each year., al -Locate
development allotments amonc; eligible applicants in the
order of priority estailisned by their rank. Those
applicants having received allotments ;nay proceed to
apply for any further development approvals required by
the zoning, building or other reguiations of the city.
Unallocated allotments may be carried over to the fol-
lowing year for possible distribution at that (or a
later.) time.
(h) No applicant shall, ar t-_er. subraiss ion of his application
pursuant to section 24-11.4(a), amend, modify or change
his application except in insubstantial part acid for
purposes of clarification or tectinical correction only.
The standards of section 24-11.7(b) shah determine
whether or not a cnanye is deemed insubstantial.
Section 2
That Section 24-i1.3(c) of the Municipal Coue of the City of
Aspen entitled "General Provisions" be and the same is hereby
repealed and reenacted as follows:
(c) The Planning Office shall rttject any application for
development allotment which fails. to.
(1) Satisfy luirli,ium Utility or tcct_'ss rep{uireiri'nts;
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
i rVV f. 1' YlrrYr MI I H. 11. A 1. L 1.
(l) Co►aply with any approvet-1 ,i►astut. elan tor the dev�l-
op►l►ent area;
(3) Coti►ply witti trte requ.Lr.eiaents oL Chapter. 24, :601Ii119,
of the Code, or any other applicable land use or
bui.Ldiny regulation of r_nu City of t�.spcn; or.
(4) Satisfy the requirement that an applicant who holds
a previous allotment within the same develop,;ient
area (i.e., residential, office/coulimerclai, or
lodge) trust submit buiidiny plans to the Building
Department sufficient for the issuance of a build-
ing permit within two years of the ueadline for the
submission of the original application to the Pian-
ning Otfice for that vMP ailotment. satisfaction
of this requirement shall be based upon the Plan-
ning Ut:fice receipt of a written notification from
the Building Department that the applicant has sub-
witted completed plans for the entire previous
allotment prior. to the date of submission of the
current application. Failure by an applicant to
submit such complete plans shall result in a one-
time only rejection of an application ana shall not
restrict the applicant from submittiny an applica-
tion during the subsequent year..
Qo +•;rn q
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or application of the ordinance
which can be given effect without the •invalid provision or appli-
cat ion , and to tii is encx the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
Section 4
That a public hearing be held on to is ordinance on the
clay of
, 1981, at 5:00 P.M. in
the City Councii Chambers, Aspen City Hali, Aspen, Colorado,
fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall
be published once within a newspaper of general circulation within
the City.
INTRODUCED, READ ANU ORDERED publ isned as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its r.eyular
tr meeting held at the City of Aspen on
19bi.
10
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
q_ , w., Kl l II. n. R 1. L.,.
I
I
Susan E. Michael i
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Kocii
City Cier.k
FI14ALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of
198.L. Susan E. Michael
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Ambridge PUD Insubstantial Amendment - Creating a Final
Development Plan
DATE: May 31, 1990
Summary: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Ambridge
expansion of a duplex and the establishment of a Final
Development Plan for 195 Park Circle.
Background: The Ambridge lot is zoned R-15, within a PUD
overlay. There is no Final Development Plan adopted for this
site. An original proposal submitted by Ms. Ambridge consisted
of the construction of a detached two-story office building on
the upper level of the site. On May 14 , 1990, the City Council
denied the proposal (Attachment "A" Council Memo. ) In response
to Council ' s concern that a detached accessory office was not
within the character of an existing residential neighborhood,
Ms. Ambridge submitted a revised proposal which includes a 600
s. f. office, bathroom, and bedroom addition to the upper level of
the existing duplex. The architectural style is consistent with
the existing building. See site sketch, floor plan and
elevations, Attachment "B" .
While reviewing the revised proposal and process, City Attorney
Jed Caswall had concern as to why an expansion of an existing
duplex must go through Final PUD approval (considering that there
is not an approved PUD Final Development Plan on file for this
site. ) Planning Director Amy Margerum and Staff discussed how
this proposal fell within the bounds of Section 7-908 C. of the
Land Use Regulations: Absence of approved Final Development Plan.
This section reads: "In the absence of an approved Final
Development Plan for a site designated Planned Unit Development
(PUD) , an accurate improvements survey of existing conditions may
be substituted to permit evaluation of whether the proposal is an
insubstantial or other amendment. "
Referrals:
See referral comments from Engineering and Environmental Health
as attachments to Council Memo Attachment "A" .
Major concerns involved construction methods on the slope and the
potential that mine tailings may be on the site.
Staff Comments:
The staff consensus was that the revised proposal is consistent
with the residential character of the site and the neighborhood
based on site inspection and the improvement survey. An
objective of the Planning Office is to insure the character of
the PUD area and provide consistency of process. A memo has been
submitted to the Director outlining the decision to treat this
and similar situations as a Director sign-off. This memo will be
added to the Planning Policy Notebook. A Director' s approval of
the current proposal and recordation of the plan and Notice of
PUD Designation with the County Clerk will establish a Final
Development Plan and will be the basis for evaluating future
proposals.
The existing structure is approximately 1,700 s. f. The 600 s. f.
addition will bring total floor area to roughly 2 , 300 s. f. The
lot area is 15, 187 s. f. with an allowable FAR of 4, 511 s. f. As
no bedrooms are being created, there will be no additional
parking required by the addition.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Planning Director approval of the 5/16/90
Ambridge Development Plan with the following conditions:
1. If mine tailings are found on the site, contact the
Environmental Health Department and EPA for information on
handling the waste.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:
2 . The applicant shall verify to the Engineering Department the .
buildable area. Surface easements shall be documented by
providing Schedule B from a current title, or a stamped, signed
statement from an architect or engineer.
3 . The applicant must submit to the Building Department a soils
report and engineering report for the conditions and design of
the slope (compaction, grade, lead and cadmium levels, etc. )
Environmental Health sign-off on any hazardous materials found on
site will be a provision of Building Permit approval.
4 . A Notice of PUD Designation, site plan and building
elevations shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder within 180 days of approval.
5. Any revisions to the recorded development plan shall be
processed through the Planning Office.
I hereby approve with conditions the PUD Final
Development Plan for the Ambridge Duplex Expansion.
7--
/(/ 6575'D
y i rg-ru Planning Director Da e
jtkvj/ambridge.dirmem
2
MEMORANDUM J )
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manage 0757
/
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director U
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: May 9, 1990
RE: Ambridge Final PUD for Construction of a Home
Occupations Accessory Office Structure, First Reading
of Ordinance 34
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
proposed Final Development Plan for an accessory office structure
at 195 Park Circle.
COUNCIL GOALS: The Planning Office seeks consistency in code
interpretation (goal #14 . ) Sensitivity to nature and each other
may be compromised with this proposal (goal #5. )
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Shirley Ambridge, wishes construct a
480 square foot office structure on her residential lot in order
to relocate her clothing related business from an in-town
commercial location. The proposed office is a two story building
on the street side of the lot, adjacent to .the parking area.
Please see Attachment "A", memo to P&Z with site and floorplan
sketches.
The lot is located in a PUD overlay, and is zoned R-15. There is
no Final Development Plan for this site. In the absence of a
Final Development Plan, the process for approval is two-step,
requiring a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission and approval by Council. If approved by Council, the
proposed plan will become the Final Development Plan and any
revisions to it will require amendment by P&Z and Council.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Planning Staff feels that this proposal
conflicts with the Home Occupations definition item "H" (see
Attachment C of P&Z Memo) in that it will be visible from other
residential structures. The applicant contends that it is no
more visible than other accessory structures such as garages or
sheds. While this statement is true on the surface, staff feels
that since the new structure is being built solely for a
commercial use, it goes beyond the intent of the Home Occupations
section. Staff understands the pressures of the local
office/commercial rent increases. However, there is a concern
that the integrity of residential neighborhoods may be
jeopardized if further commercial infill is allowed to this
extent.
The placement of the structure cantilevered over the slope
concerns Building, Engineering, and Planning. The PUD overlay
allows for flexibility and sensitivity to development on slopes.
Planning feels that the structure, if allowed to be a separate
building, should be located on the abundant flat area of the lot
below the slope.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On April 17, 1990, the P&Z voted 6-1 in
favor of this proposal with the following conditions:
1. Reduction of the size of the structure to comply with the 50%
limitation requirement. Work with Zoning Staff to finalize
calculation of floor areas.
2 . Adherence to item H of the Home Occupations regulating the
visibility of the business from any other residential structures,
that the home occupation must not take place outside of this new
structure.
3 . Only electricity will serve the proposed structure.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following must occur:
4. The applicant shall verify to the Engineering Department the
buildable area. Surface easements shall be documented by
providing Schedule B from a current title, or a stamped, signed
statement from an Architect or Engineer.
5. If mine tailings are found on the site, contact the
Environmental Health Department and EPA for information on
handling the waste.
6. The applicant shall submit for Planning's approval a
landscape plan which shows a vegetation buffer at least 4 ' wide
between the parking area and proposed structure.
7. The applicant must submit to the Building Department a soils
report and engineering report for the conditions and design of
the slope (composition, compaction, grade, etc. )
Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this plan the
following must occur:
8 . A Final PUD Plan and PUD agreement must be filed with the
County Clerk as required by Section 7-907 of the Land Use Code.
KEY ISSUES: Planning Staff recommended to P&Z denial of the
request because of visual impact, slope considerations, and
concern over the construction of new structures for commercial
2
uses in residential zones. Staff suggested to the Commission
that the building would have less visual and slope impact if it
were moved to the flat part of the lot below the slope.
The Home Occupations definition reads "business, occupation, or
trade conducted entirely within a residential building or
accessory structure. . . " However, Staff felt the intent of the
Home Occupations definition does not include projects of this
scope, that being construction of a building soley to house a
business entity. If the Council feels that the Home Occupations
definition should be clarified to restrict new accessory
structures for commercial use, it should direct Planning staff to
amend the code's language to that effect.
Three commissioners expressed concern over the direction the Home
Occupations situation seems to be heading, given the current
office/commercial rental crunch. One suggested that Conditional
Use approval be required for all Home Occupations.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Final Development Plan with conditions. Planning Staff
continues to recommend denial of the structure because of its
location over the slope and commercial intrusion in a residential
area. Staff seeks direction from Council whether or not to amend
the Home Occupation definition regarding new construction and/or
detached structures.
ALTERNATIVES: Locate the business activity within the
residential structure. If a detached building, locate it on the
flat area of the lot below the slope.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the proposed Ambridge Final
PUD Development Plan for an accessory office structure with
conditions. I move to have first reading of Ordinance 34 .
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments: "A"- Memo from Staff to Planning and Zoning
Commission
- Ordinance 8 for Consideration
jtkvj/ambridge.ccmem
3
Attachment A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Amendment to Final PUD - Ambridge Office/Studio
DATE: April 17, 1990
SUMMARY:- Planning staff recommends tabling this request to a-llow-the applicant to resubmit a proposal which more readily complies
with the terms of the Home Occupations definition and is more
compatible with PUD design standards. If the applicant does not
wish to table and redesign the project, Planning recommends
denial of this proposal.
APPLICANT: Shirley Ambridge, represented by Bill Campbell
LOCATION: 195 Park Circle, Lot 4 Sunny Park North Subdivision
ZONING: R-15 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amendment of Final PUD plan. The applicant
proposes to construct a 480 s. f. office/studio structure on the
shoulder of a ridge on the front part of the lot. The two story
structure will be used as an office for the applicant's clothing
business. Existing on the site is a duplex of approximately
1,700 s. f. containing two one-bedroom units, one being deed
restricted. (Attachment "A")
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: Chuck Roth submitted the following concerns: The
applicant must submit information which specifies what is
allowable buildable area based on lot size, surface easement
deductions, and slope reduction. Surface easements can be
certified by supplying Schedule B of a current title commitment.
A registered engineer or architect can submit signed and stamped
slope reductions and easement deduction information. (Attachment
"B")
Building Department: Stephen Kanipe verbally discussed the need
to see the design of any filled slope and retaining walls, if
used. A soils report and Engineering statement regarding fill
placement (type, compaction, etc. ) will be required by building
code before building permit approval. Mine tailings are unstable
and may preclude locating this structure on this slope.
1
Environmental Health: Tom Dunlop urges testing of soil which
would be disturbed by foundation construction to verify whether
or not mine tailings exist on site. Hazardous waste must be
handled in specific manners. Contact EPA for guidelines and
restrictions: Paula Schmittdiel (303) 293-1527 or Sonya Pennock
(303) 294-1115.
PROPOSAL: Ms. Ambridge proposes a detached office/studio for her
home occupation. The two level structure will be served by
electricity only. An existing walkway and stairs will link the
office and parking area on the upper level of the lot with the
residence below. Pier and beam construction is proposed on the
30% and greater slope. The finished floor will be 5 to 8 feet
above grade according to the sketches provided in the
application.
STAFF COMMENTS: Home occupations are allowed in the R-15 Zone
District, in compliance with the definition contained in Sec. 3-
101 of the Aspen Land Use Code (Attachment "C") . As proposed,
Planning Staff feels this project does not comply with E. and H.
of this definition. Item E. limits a home occupation use to no
more than 50% of the total floor area of the main level floor of
the dwelling. The upper story of the main structure is about 972
s. f. 50% of this is 485. 6 s. f. Staff calculates the new
structure to be approximately 600 s. f. including loft area and
covered deck above grade. This exceeds the 50% limit. Item H
states that a home occupation shall not be visible from any other
residential structure. A building of this size visually impacts
the surrounding residential properties. In addition, staff is of
the opinion that if a structure is constructed wholly to house a
business concern, it cannot be considered "accessory" to the use
of the residence. Also there is a question that a separate
building is "incidental and secondary" to the residential use as
per item A of the definition.
The Sunny Park North subdivision has a PUD overlay because of
steep slopes on the area. PUD allows flexibility and innovation
in the development of projects in order to protect to natural
features, promote more efficiency of land use, preserve open
space, and improve the design, character and quality of
development. (Section 7-901)
After a visit to the site, staff feels the graphic representation
of the slope in the sketches provided by the applicant is not
accurate. In real life, the slope seems much steeper than
depicted. See photos at the meeting. The proposed building
conforms to the 30 ' front setback requirement for accessory
buildings. As proposed, the 17 ' tall building will be perched
over the slope and will be especially tall as viewed from the
downslope side with an 8 ' tall open area underneath. This
overwhelming visibility is contrary to Home Occupations item H as
well as the intent of PUD design quality. Other structures on
2
the block (including the Ambridge residence) are down below the
slope or are sited farther back from the street and screened with
vegetation and berming. This proposal lacks any landscape
improvements as part of the development. Adding a landscape
buffer of trees and shrubs between the parking area and the
proposed building would soften the visual impact of this
structure.
As the site plan shows, there is a lot of level ground on the
lower area of the site which would be suitable for constructing
floor area for accessory use/home occupation as an attachment to
the main structure. Planning Staff feel that the PUD purpose
statement promotes clustering of uses and structures for
flexibility on difficult sites. Constructing an attached office
addition to the main residence would be in further agreement with
PUD concepts and would not appear to neighboring residences as a
separate business structure. This is Planning's suggested
recommendation for adding floor area for Ms. Ambridge's Home
Occupation office.
As a non-single family development in a PUD, this project must be
granted approval through the Final PUD Development Plan process.
This entails public hearing and approval by P&Z and approval by
Council. The General Requirements for PUD approval are:
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposal of a separate structure constructed for
commercial use opposes the Plan's designation of this area being
multi-family residential use.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Response: As proposed, this project does not fit the Home
Occupation definition regarding the size and use of the
structure. Staff feels the proposed location of the building
does not fit well with the character of the neighborhood.
c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Response: No adverse affect on future development is foreseen.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to development to the
extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Response: In concept and definition, Home Occupations are not
applicable to GQMS requirements and would not have to compete.
By proposing a separate commercial structure outside of a
residence, the project doesn't comply with Home Occupation. This
3
creates a dilemma - lshould competition be applicable in a
situation like this?
Development in a PUD requires density reduction for sites with
more than 20% slope. Reasons cited in Sec. 7-903 B. 2 .a. of the
Code for reducing density include:
" (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development
because of slope, ground instability, and possibility of mud
flow, rock falls and avalanche danger. "
" (6) The design and location of any proposed structure,
road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not
compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features. "
This proposal does not deal with a residential unit of density,
so the slope issue cannot be handled in a typical PUD manner.
Staff feels that locating the structure over the slope is not
compatible with the terrain and considers the rest of the lot
more suitable. Comments from Engineering, Building and
Environmental Health reinforce Planning's concern about the
location of this structure.
If approved, the plan will become the Final Development Plan for
this site, and shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder as per Section 7-907 of the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends tabling this proposal to allow the
applicant to explore the option of adding floor area to the main
residence for home occupation use. If the applicant does not
wish to table, Planning recommends denial based on non-compliance
with the terms of the Home Occupations definition and PUD site
location.
If the Commission wishes to approve this request, the following
conditions are suggested by Planning Staff:
1. Reduction of the size of the structure to comply with the 50%
limitation requirement. Work with Zoning Staff to finalize
calculation of floor areas.
2 . Relocation of the building to the lower level of the site, in
compliance with required setbacks.
3 . Adherence to item H of the Home Occupations regulating the
visibility of the business from any other residential structures.
4 . Before issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
verify to the Engineering Department the buildable area. Surface
easements shall be documented by providing Schedule B from a
current title, or a stamped, signed statement from an Architect
or Engineer.
4
5. Electrical service only.
6. If mine tailings are found on the site, contact the
Environmental Health Department and EPA for information on
handling the waste.
If the Commission wishes to approve the project as proposed, the
following additional conditions shall apply:
7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit for Planning's approval a landscape plan which shows a
vegetation buffer at least 4 ' wide between the parking area and
proposed structure.
8. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant must
submit to the Building Department a soils report and engineering
report for the conditions and design of the slope (composition,
compaction, grade, etc. )
Attachments - "A"- Site plan and elevation sketches
"B"- Engineering referral
"C"- Home Occupations definition, Section 3-101 of
Land Use Code
jtkvj/ambridge.memo
5
. • ,
. .
Attachment "A"
. i
-).:-
-1..
- / '--
l3; •
••• ;
•. •
-.> >
■••Co ei-
1... 7.,.A.
t • ..> _ "4 -
.--_, Li•Cls R.;"
A> s)4.. CI.. • .. 62
\\T..,I 1 1•Z /
.:.1 •. 0 C P° • ••,.
1) ,a-rat.4) 947 e• t 1 k\ \ •
■ .
. \-. . • I . --
-...., . . -
SN \
> "--,.. .., , .,..... ■
1 z • ..cl, \ il
0,, -- .....7 i 1, 1 •<, ... ..,,,, /
1D.V 1 -4,%0 r •
I -.41_
c• 1 .
•
- ,--N
,
•4,, /
_,--3 / 47i- i ) --7L * .• Li
'b.... / ..s. _, '.-.
/_ ..„.•.--- /--'-- Ct--- '..- .
C"/ ■ • . ''.› r .,-'' .... .
"..,.......___ ___/" ‘° ---• .' ' .r r /1('..--•:, ..
l ../
...________/../' '-•'''' ''' t --■. ..z.
, ..-
- ---slr---- 1--- f___„4-- ____---- „/ s'4". „---- ....,----_,--• --.-, ‘..---',------ _ --
• 1 . _ , , _ 47 _„_ - , ,, „, - _-
--- . z. -------- . ..• ,,--- --
=-1-----/ • .e.„----2----- , ,- , „„
---__....- / - /
_i_ • ,
, ‘ ,/ / , ,
x . , , . _____-- / 1
0 ---.., 4„:,:lt. , vs , ,
_.._ — s2... .... A.
-- 'tX.-",. ..,,,. N,- ----- ' // ........
..„., , ,
, olt ,..„./
/
--1-1,1 \
----- • .-- --
1 P n.)
'. . ,:, " • f'I. , \
...-- --- •-- ,-
— ' -,.....
----_ _ i _ __1■03 „,..., 9 -::.
0 1 rf L,.... . ...-.----"— / , . • 41--__ Ts: Is-
..-----",,•-•:---- ----"-
\e'CN
-,..„ ,__,_....--------- al ----cp---1 _____ > ••
—----i•• ..1._-- -I I il .t-/- --': • I''•
71' •
- tit 311011-Allik *A-4.■ •••-
, •103-‘4 cP.1 ..
-- -- - • s, ,...is% -...:i.-c.,•sO,
---- r ,_. ._---7-;-----------■________._ :4
•10., '---
via -- %,,,,,,_,A
-It\ ‘,...A
t.) -- \A T ..•
4. Z•• • --' , v.t. .
•I — ' i
\ \,...-• "45 4;›, „)....
in liN -1 r
0- \\ - __7 09?)_;-=c,
s\Ix 4a,\4 < \ I
l \ j'ts R
• ', ,., ,sp,1111WpiP" ,,,.,0 % %
% ‘ ....-"•..-... t.
, r,-6 .— 1 .
s, % " , ,-,..4---00 , ...t.,
a ..,,,4 ., .......- __, so
s, \ liw.- _„----,‘ ., -0-- .,„:1---.:„.. -
\ .94s
61•
1 .•'-‘)
t
I
4,< %
. 7> (C.12:3077.4) ,,1•021 2,,C0,C0.Q N •
.-'.; • -'‹
-, ,
Attachment "C"
HOME OCcuPATION moans a business, occupation or trade conducted
entirely within a residential building or accessory structure for
gain or support by a resident of the dwelling, and no ether,
which:
A. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential '
use of the building;
B. Does not change the essential residential character of
the use;
C. Employs no more than one (1) person who is a non-
resident of the building;
D. Operates pursuant to a valid occupational license for
the use held by the resident of the dwelling unit;
E. Is confined to no more than fifty (50%) percent of the
total floor area of the main level floor of the
dwelling;
F. Does not advertise, display, or otherwise indicate the
presence of the home occupation on the premises other
than as provided in Art. 5, Div. 4 ;
G. Does not sell any stock in trade, supplies or products
on the premises;
H. Is not visible from any other residential structure; C
I. Does not store outside of the dwelling any equipment or
materials used in the home occupation;
J. Does not utilize mechanical, electrical or other
equipment or items which produce noise, electrical cr
magnetic interference, vibration, heat, glare, smoke,
dust, odor or other nuisance outside the residential
building or accessory structure;
K. Provides off-street parking to accommodate the needs of
the home occupation; and
L. Does not include any of the following uses as a home
occupation: antique shop, barber shop, beauty parlor,
health or medical clinic, mortuary, nursing home,
restaurant, veterinarian' s clinic or dancing studio.
HOTEL means a building containing three (3) or more individual
rooms for the purpose of providing overnight lodging facilities
on a short-term basis to the general public, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for
reservation and cleaning services, combined utilities and on-site
3-12
Revisions incorporated
through August 14 , 1989
it 7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit for Planning's approval a landscape plan which shows a
vegetation buffer at least 4 ' wide between the parking area and
proposed structure.
8. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant must
submit to the Building Department a soils report and engineering
report for the conditions and design of the slope (composition,
compaction, grade, etc. )
Attachments - "A"- Site plan and elevation sketches
"B"- Engineering referral
"C"- Home Occupations definition, Section 3-101 of
Land Use Code
jtkvj/ambridge.memo
,e( 1
r-12j- (11' 1 LAI
Itaa (Let, -1-6.." tcaft,i
Np
r �N'
.)1 ,,G — A .c,4 5-C -t 60(u0
r
hJ dL-G� A, PlltiAtti1.4 p A rX{24n,./ NA'C� •• .,tiA;,..J "
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMBRIDGE PUD AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Shirley Ambridge requesting PUD approval
for an amendment to the Sunny Park North Subdivision PUD. The
applicant proposes to construct a detached office/studio at 195
Park Circle which is Lot 4 of Sunny Park North Subdivision.
There currently exists a duplex on the property which is zoned R-
15 PUD.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St. , Aspen, CO 920-5090.
sIC. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on March 29, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
i
�/2 -7 / I "
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
February 28, 1990
Bill Campbell
175 Big Hat Road
Basalt, Colorado 81621
RE: Ambridge PUD Amendment
Dear Bill,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is not complete.
In order to complete this application please submit the following
by March 7th:
1. Proposed elevation dimensions of the structure; and
2. Response to applicable review standards of PUD as listed in
Attachments 3b and 4 which are enclosed.
Although this application is incomplete we have scheduled it for
review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4: 30
pm. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform
you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is
available at the Planning Office.
Public notice as required by the Code is the responsibility of
the applicant. We will send you a Notice of Public Hearing which
you need to send to property owners within 300' of the subject
property.
If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
Enclosures - 2
WI I). CAM I' 0l+JL1.
ARCHITECT, P.C.
175 Big Hat Road
Basalt, Colorado 81621
(303) 927-4425
Aspen/Pttkin-Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, C(1 81611
March 5 , 1990
RE: Ambridge PIJD Amendment
Response to applicable review standards:
Attachment 3b:
(1) The proposed use is Residential/Home occupation. The existing structure is
a duplex with one bedroom in each dwelling unit.
(2) Two off street parking spaces are provided. The addition of the studio will
not generate a need for additional parking.
(3) N/A
(4) Construction will begin May 1, 1990 and be completed by August 1, 1990.
(5) N/A
Attachment 4
(1)a. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan because it is a permitted use.
b. The proposed development is of a residential character and therefore consistent
with the character of existing land uses in the surronding area.
c. The proposed development will not adversely affect the future development
of the surronding area.
d. N/A
(2) N/A
(3) N/A
(4)The dimensional requirements are those of the underlying zone district.
(4) Off street parking spaces are provided as required by the underlying zone
district.
(5) Open space is provided as required by the underlying zone district.
(6) thru (11) Attached as required.
Sincerely;
c__Sajtj,k)
Uv
William B. Campbell
President
'
.....•
• A . ----
0 --
A ;ri)
El •
•,‘-'
a 4\10.4 '''..9
•
,.. • ,...
..„,
......------) •
• As Ise 400 KO MI _ X;X'•
.1.., nee 1.1 1711E:
FISTIIENW I.- 111F-::illa. 11111L 1..
. ••• ••• .
MAP 01
-....., _ -
../" ,---- -.'7°.•
i;,..-- c • .
s..4.
•1 SCALE
-
.:-..._
:.t.
.„....
,...,
_
.... . ....... .,.
...,
.. .4.
• ,,,-
-7- 1:1-Zt°1/' FAgt(----4
...
,
1 L'
-cp,P,E• . 4(1 . - .
_
— • st, co u p,-,
.... ; ,
lifri.::-----N. .11' , • 41" '41- . ''-'
1 . % r--\\.,• . .., N-, _
l ■ ..',.!.t.-..=(-..il'-' ''. -.0, -- 'I 4'.7Y- .
41,11r..., 01 ■N ;\ ,r.,..
„.......-- ■--: ''.01P...•is ..."--.7 ,..--..„. .__.._ .4.:
-,---- t- ,•1 ..."',..........."*17;-.....i( -44- ___,' . . %`•
...7`..• .. .
,•'''''\
h:„..-\\c-\\....,.......:1\,.....
tl I\I • ■ . - -._..,,s
"VII --11;0.1.i...--.• I i 11 '11 4 j ' '' •
-......•••"" •-■ ..
* '. 1 1,5-
Z .... • --oil . • 1,/\I . „\.. •‘.1":\ , .."\, I
`,.----.---.-----••■ •/:;:‘4.1 ' 3 )1 • ' \ 4 '''
„ • „;), ..-
' 1•,\. - . -
',... - ' ...`"""°(__/ /....." 1 .."QY
ce , ?V 11:110 Ili .. •-.7-;i•
iris.. , A i ...
.....,...-:7-7: .. . 41010 il..*,..„,.., ...AOC:I': -..... pi I A ......"--
i IS 0114 r's\:"1 IIN, * $-' / II' c.Apk " ..:/..---.
L
,.-- viou I Ile PARK.. a ,,,,...----.....sill116111 ,..t . . II'''. • -
--1
,...liii0 WS .N.,11,=•,. .04011‘11\-\ vs....101. ' Ortilikris.‘ ' . I 0.c4 \'4'71 •
0 -a(\.0, \ , b. r. -.
s 4 •
p.,..,,, rf
'• ..) i
Or s J
t;C- fti•-r
'11' c\\ 0 it •
• 1\4 ' 5 It ,,,,o• 1 \ 1, ..,......S.,/.
' 0;.• be '•, 1.• , \ ....... \ •
'•.-' 0 °. •
a. \ii 11 77--".7")
••••1*, :E;;"
4.
gall t '4 %1 t OP\ \I'S Ig'.. s il '11 r ri .4\■ ''1' b ..• t.t•S .\ ,,,,,,,,t
• 'tiV"1
S. S tatiliU I .014%Us' ••■ OW \ Sr.1.7■1 J ,-.,.. .7 ,',/ ■-----\ 1 .
OA la t IISSI%, a ttLT2 WM , •
o■. .0 > '
..-. V. • ...Ain%0 I •
' 1 0 i 055ig 14.,,,OW .■ i I 00401 1 CeJ11:1:41.0%1 ' ' ' , ,, / •,,),,,-. c,,,,,,,\,..,,<A/'N .,....„4
‘, . I 101h OW 1 010Valli -1 57'
-44V. ■
S' 6VP` •..% 0_141,*,V.0 vivo.
at.. 1,. .•-0. 1 .,,. _ ,
, •.. -......, \ .4. x.,L, 1.,,, 44•„,4.4
poi-6P14)4' 4014•" 01`4%Sill t 101 Illtiligi \ -:\\ \ . ,
'..s /...... (-......,. .,' f ; •" 14 ...L.:
Ant .1Zatit 01110
610.0 440 • "I".1111111 s \,. „.
. s
• / . ..., AA •Or•L
\-'liti61 1!1611411::5 06 I t I V 1 '',....., \"..\\:--, ....:(t... 9/ .,v,e .,,l'at‘• 1'... . '‘.* \ ; 4. MIT.. :•c
.,1 --,,,y.9 6' 00101 AO 1 s t■, . IA 9
6 IP r--1 ,i6 11' PK vl. 4
............:,'1,4.1:1 I • 4:k o '-.•
otsPi`P`I 00. • Iiii' s _, ,. t 4, 0 \ . 4 , 4 i: V. Meat
V • P` * ''`''^-11--1 -
■..-9,...0_._, . ....""S ..-ri■;•"`"-,'"
SOU ..-0% % vosb i Au. dits< ,,
*i, - •• ‘‘ % :. • At yo%,. ,--\\ t wo ‘t .
t , litto .;:,„ ---,. IA . ,
fiti, . ....-.:_.::.:_ t.. . .... . -
‘....‘ ...,. /ft. :_..
0.1,v:a ,,,A •_-, • ,.,,
43,31fil ....
, .
olA
_,..it
----7... i 1 — • . 0 -1
, . . ., „,.• If
•,
di,gil 4:1*. I ■lit -
s
gr.■....., ..:los
\ ......
lkilillill:- oi . . ,•,..,.
-m,„,. .0116•
I., , ...0"" . --1.- . - •Pt
,-..i-,• ' , --..„..„......1 .: =
•1111_ 1....tii.,,_ ......._
`t . J...7,7.' , -‘,..i './.4 --......... ..
• 0/E \G li r,..t .
rip -..wafr.s5 •* -4.4 L:i ''''N ‘ t \C.1.014 4, c L'.-
-...,..........
'
tell 4. -.t...0042 ;---. . _ ', % /----) •••. '....., . \
--T-7"---- 3"-1-4is-74.U.,T....LE *Ku/NAs.t..0 TR A0.11.:::.:7:::7 •.-
Aiii..---,...., .1
' IgNallillrf"---- \ 1 _
RoA° AlVd2/4AKIIIPP ....... ,
.. .
:.-. .- -• % -
*• ----4"n,r,?:,•-.A.---, ;:i.. .7-7-L. ....- .0.-- , — mli ......:-.---:-' _ -„,.
veP
•‘. :t;;It%:.*Li4S:',17'.., .'"';--.—* ' Vs'ei.i. via— - __._ s.”-b.coo-Tr* • ..
- ...,
•••••::=4.:,:,---., 4--7,4"-::= :--7:7.---7-7: v- WI"— g
',....:;_•.; ,,,,,,p, t•I-z,.....1..:i].,.. j.,:. :.;..;:• _. \ 92‘._
-,
• ;
- -----1-7-1-i.
"-,..y..--,....-...,:.- .._. . • _ , •.-•.-;:_,.- :, • .....--r.._ -,-----:_---:-.....1-=-......, IMIIIIIIIII" - - -"- ' Y ';'*:::
Shirley Amt. .1dge
lb w t-14-rk it Nay to qco
'f l�.i S tn�l.L c.E►u i(--1 T t r
S P,y itEpittsttn r tint VS (% T 14. rE.
S WMA t.ti (4"No..; n q e ti tA. t pitAz It j
r-e?)Rkark`1 ►5 , I q a.0
\\.\ \ \\ \��\`\ xi 977.2 �._�� \ H
/2(/z"------:,-/
% x7966.5 \, N., �,
) y, ,,____,_, /' ,„,x \ ) \ \1 ��. . �\ \\ \7\1_, , 7996.7x
\
--'_ x796-7.8 t \ r..\ \\
x7954.6 x.7954.2 ( / ��� 1A � � �
Pi
SLOrE STUi9Y OF LOT 4, 7,
5uNNY PAKIc. 1 ;OF`TH Suw.)w.
('fJ T.ENT SLOPE Itv,a.cii OF LOT ,
- - I
x79' o,
i .zo '2.; - =>3 'X, I
7955.2x
. ___ ___--• C�V �� °,6 7 '� Ufa
i
(k,_ ;) / ) l(f -/- --v_----- - 1 / 1 t ---- .
•
980,, ( .
\ // I i.-,..,,,,,:;',V, , ) 1 1///
.4.7 \/ l ( 1 9j'.. Grp"Th `� i /• / / i
s.t,� . r' v l~ ,' 1 � v v
,
,;
:4 ;,'.1'- ( Cis
/ -}t ',?r o 00,,_, /__ , , \ \,\.\\„, \ \/ 11 z i% m , 0\
, Y
‘,-,.:,--- \ ,,...11. I'it:: /
1
l, jr, \ \\1
\ I . / \8002—.5
I -tr, . \9;0,\ \ V' vt, x /:i
7, . - I ,�
. / /- \A\ \\\, \ \�
4 .
8.5', � V y:VA:_ 1
r 77 /) I\\ \ , \ \\�
V\‘,' \:: \\
ijuyersI1t1e
Insurance @poratlon
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND,VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE A-LOAN POLICY
CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
PCT-2181 07/08/88 `a 1.51 P.M. $ 30,000.00 82-02-169348
1. NAME OF INSURED:
PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
2. TT,�
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST 171,1 HREEDt TO ?E.REIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED _.
SHIRLEY S. AM3RIDGE
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THIS SCHEDULE AND WHICH IS ENCUMBERED
BY THE INSURED MORTGAGE IS:
IN FEE SIMPLE
4. THE MORTGAGE, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS THE INSURED MORTGAGE, AND THE ASSIGNMENTS
THEREOF, IF ANY, ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Deed of Trust frown: SHIRLEY S. AMBRIDGE
to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County
for the use of : PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
to secure : $30,000.00
dated : JUNE 17, 1988
recorded : JULY 08, 1988 IN BOOK 568 AT PAGE 377.
reception no. : 301892
5. TIE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 4, SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
ii, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
.� ��
601 E. i?OPKT--ID'S AVE
CO V-77: car
i I 1 1, i. . i 1, . I ik 111, III' 111,
Form 100 Litho in U.S.A.
035-0-100-0041/2
Iil
I
E
4
1
I i
..■ it -r..---••■•••■••- r. _ i.
I
1 filtrilfri; 1
•
I ■ , *111111111111*141:114171!1! ....
c , WW1*? 1( (‘)
[ 1 ,,i , 1 . , .
r p , , ! , (,N__ p 1 1, 1 , , 1 4___ ________ __i_..
� I
i
[ i, i , , „ . _ i_ .,,., _ . , _ x
1 1 Da K___ 1( . 1
1 1
1 . ._____„.
: 1
1 ( 1
__,
poi- _ I 1
1 .
i t ) Cr I� o
1 usi i V C t,_,
1 �_
J
(4 1 ci 1 _ i
1 )011._
1 OAP I
,,
LL4411t+ I t
El ,
1 !
4..._ c..it
...1.....
i 1
i i
_< )1
11c:i _ i
1
I
1
I
✓"---v
3 I-
-_ ,-- a -
I II ' -
. _. 41
' wW41 1 ' * s
l
.1
l
sa ..____ji. - . ., .
, . _ -
E
I _ I
f
. . ____4_,
,D, -
1
.
Ii I
. it-67, t
v
u
411111.1i Elhe 1
. , ligmlium....-----........„,,,„,,,, OF
// v'
/17
ii 1 I
\ .
I
i I' /
4
_.
,_
' � /
Irgra7Zi /
-1 4111
) � ` o
0 t I
V/
.(
'A" we"'
- rivrit-'---- 17 -
11Jft
a
litt
r �
m
toni
;„,„- ----- ---,10:-.-yiorlfl
,,,,Ijk,s7,01.0:
. 1111
kr eol .
r 4-■Ii,"
_ ..,74.4,4
-r!��`.�`a;�!'
_ i 51
(ii�Il.
Iliii
; ,
riot `
rata, i
, ._._
. i 4
• , ______. ,
orn--•• '
minn
NEM■
mum, ; i •
it
i Is'1 ■I
{I
i 1 - �i I l
ii
I ..nall4b'
I I I
I , ! I i inn I
tilii i IIIII i I I I I �J
,,P41
•4 4 ( LI /1-
,I
14, :4
, I I
(to,
.,, :aa-m-.--- ...-- t -
•
1•
dill11.1■........., -',. :4 71:-.."I 41 I I I I I I I I.I r■---"''a q I. I I. fAmmissoffl ,
I I /' /
imi, ,.. „,„,,. ,
. i, .. /
t __id., . .........., , .
. , iii 1
1
, , 1 , ' \I ; , . . . i
\ 1 i ! ' 0-.7 ,..,2„,.. /(--)41//1---
, t t. 411 ..... •
� � e41'M
I
1
all" ,
•
9
....
I
•
. 41
I-Now,
Ai. T... C• 11± , i ►sA1 I.
•___-- , ,
. _ (
i i
e i 1 ii rim). i
: . -, f— NM a
I i
____�
i
Versa i
I'i% i, !a T ii
IIII . IN _ II ,
! MIK ; . 1 H 111 : ;
i i_ID
q §,/ ,
su.I i , i , ii ���_ __,
Ell 7 4P-Tit tj
t r
_.. ;At \9 i i
I `
..) .. a , /
feze
Int?
4th 1 iz,
0. a �
L.1--
1i
L _,,
iii
....'
•
1
, ' •
i ' i '. • *
! ' : i •
. ,
i \ Of-
: , \!
. . . . I
(1,
. .
I . ...-
,
. „
,....i • \ -7, /
0 4#41
k • ! ommmiow■ri oral iffr '''' i*WV
/
:Ai. , 111111111 ■4.4
.
at _ [ .0,•• •4,11!
! .
_______ , .,. 1 mom . 0•%41
• •.1 \
• ,r___1 I._...: i, • ,
man
\ i . -
III . 1 MIMI
•
-,,, 4,=4 t IIIMI.1111 i■ ' 1
• t il■..4,.....i
• . • • •iftliniiii s
11
. / 1
I 118
11W
Attachment "B"
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C 2 6
Date : March 22, 1990
Re : Ambridge PUD Amendment
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the engineering
department has the following comments :
1 . This parcel may have received development allotments through
the 1985 Residential GMP process . The planning office or zoning
enforcement should determine if the conditions of approval for
that application were met before any further approvals are
granted .
2 . Please refer to the definition of "lot area" on page 3-13 of
the land use code . The applicant needs to submit information
which specifies what is the allowable buildable area based on lot
size, surface easement deductions, and slope reduction . In order
to certify surface easement deductions, a Schedule B of a current
title commitment is necessary. The Schedule B will list ease-
ments and other to demonstrate what the surface easements of
record are, if any. Generally, a licensed surveyor perform land
area measurements . If a registered engineer or architect inter-
prets that he or she can submit slope reductions and easement
area deductions which are signed and stamped, then that would be
acceptable . Except for a current Schedule B, the allowable
building area may be contained somewhere in previous applica-
tions . This does not appear to be in engineering department
files .
3 . Is this project condominiumized? Do we have a plat? If
there is a plat, the application should include the amended plat .
Platting for PUD reviews which do not involve condominiumization
is a new requirement and may not be applicable to an amendment .
4 . Storm water runoff facilities must be designed in accordance
with 24 . 7-1004 .c . 4 ( f ) .
cc : Bob Gish, Public Works Director
memo_90 . 54
ATI AQ MENr 1 \ /
'AND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) Project Name A11--1a? nC- t k1 v i
2) Project Location lC15 FWIRAL �, VZ. l Cc d lCo l 1
..� a , ,
(indicate i cate street .•• =- , lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning ' � V v eD 4) Lot Size J 5 L% S Yt Er t,
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # S L ;-J * 471
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone #
ti C5% " (((0
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) :
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA • Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual' PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin X Final PUD/;4M erg• Historic Demolition
McuntainViewElane Subdivision Historic Designation
( can i umi nation Text/Map Am n n as Al._lotn nt
Lot Split/Loot Line GMQS Exemption • • .
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing ncg Uses (number and type of existing ng structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the.
ply) - (2.1 00 SQCz—
9) D `scription of Development Application
Cdr t=t A- (1 7117
10) Have you attached the following?
'V C ) Response to Attachment 2, Mi n i mtmi Submission Contents
/t.'(2,. Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission ssion Contents
y 5 Response to Attad ment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
WI l B. CAMPBELL
ARCHITECT, P.C.
175 Big Hat Road
Basalt, Colorado 81621
(303) 927-4425
April 16, 1990
AFFIDAVIT
I do hereby affirm that on March 30, 1990 I mailed copies of
the attached PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Ambridge PUD Ammendment to the persons named
on the attached list .
UG_A L
William B. Campbell
1 X,„/( rr. ' /Z�
2) c,� /
Z, 7 0/ /
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMBRIDGE PUD AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Shirley Ambridge requesting PUD approval
for an amendment to the Sunny Park North Subdivision PUD. The
applicant proposes to construct a detached office/studio at 501
Park Circle which is Lot 4 of Sunny Park North Subdivision. *'
There currently exists a duplex on the property which is zoned R-
15 PUD.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St. , Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson. Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on March 29, 1990 .
City of Aspen Account.
* 501 Park Circle flea 195 Park Circle
Sanctity of Contract
STEWART TITLE
OF ASPEN, INC.
602 E. HUMAN • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • (303)925-3577
March 28 , 1990
WILLIAM 8 . CAMP8ELL
0175 3 ( C, HAT RD ,
BASALT , CO 81621
RE : SHIRLEY AMSRIDGF ; OUR ORDER NO . 17380
Dear Mr : Campbell ,
The attached eleven pages contain the names and addresses
of owners of all property within 300 feet
North Subdivision . of Lot 4 , Sunny Park
Although we believe the facts stated are true , this letter
is not to be construed as an abstract of title , nor an opinion
of title , nor a guaranty of title , and it is understood and
agreed that Stewart
Title of Aspen , Inc . , neither assumes , nor
will be charged with any financial obligations or liability
whatever on any statement contained herein .
if I can be of further assistance , e
lase give�- ve me a call .
Sincere■ y ,
Peter P . Oelany
A'i .> scant_ Vice Presi ent
Enclosure
0
cJ U Yl Y) cl Y C5 l� J U b ,
Lc-,1- 11 Th1-e 1G i l l s C.olid os
Aqv‘ci ge-rnq trc-,1
Z 9 Fe-icier GI S .
&__,1 chc_c, +cvl 44 . O\ Dc(7
Ural- A z 13civ u o ci tv Ct y
l
s cv) Co S )(012
c„5,-) co/ Ce--)rY)m cLq -k-rn
M U U Cc..)/1-01 V l C C,'Tl L y1 S —d-11
3roC Mc 51-
71- p c,1
1-1 Rober-F-
F Bc5-A 31\Y
-As- ti-, , Cd 2 l?
h 1-41
�� 65
Uh 11-1 2 -4 V1.e ckci r \'1-e - cc►1 L
'Sox, 3-7)
A
71_34) � �-o ) (sc' 2
.4v01- 1- 4 ,3 'M_A r C R O S e_ _.P e Yl tiA e ' +ah
11 ° P r k C;1 lr I e , _� 3
A.sTcn , Cc 4 ►L011
5-is - 3y5 TN L\ \fin Luu qua
p s50
VivA.
Ae ) Co 81(0)2
5r)°1 1- Ahn \N ( )/
,n z-) 0J0
acv- 37 j » 1+ ✓Do j5- ]-0 h Lot-�oU S e )
7,5S 11IA►-be.:r llhe, r � l��
C
Cur‹, le Cc ci Gs
k ' - 1 , q L 1,-179yse1
EL5 I \Sec
pi,„: 1- A2 fC,vs - 11 Rse-1-ieV
) 5.--C fciv, A-n
pQn co 1 (vI 1.
S
'a-fir ✓�_� ' A S ��e-� � �► M c“h c Cr + S o.v_q r1
8 `Pcv Cycle -4 �.,3
45FcA
j1A L1 4 B I ! o u„.1,T V1
X10 . J`';q `, n S;
Co 316 ) I .
. U v f- L2 e.c i G Id - e ben L-Sw, --In cA
1 3 S clAC -c)01,.elA5P1 ;-4-h
A, 5 , may , Cc) -21 (01
-05 - 6a U k � + B� vN) coylzs . V\1Ghe ,fit chJ f\tG\ e 1`1 le Ace
1 -PG r C� rG1„
.gs_p €1n , Cc X1(0
Po 3c), 2 )(-7
Bo () 1 der , -
1-lE0b
FO Bon 1138.5
.Aspen) Co .21CD 1
2 --LS cc.1 1 ci e_
. i ,
�► 1-1-- C 14
/ + e
vti J"l, Hu911)-e--s
O E.c, 3G
A-_splar) , Cd Z I fo 12-,
U rl^ leC�t
G 7 � � SSG r��� L J �
5uhh,/ 1'GrL -2G1Y1 Cl Yole,
• c en
.C 1_c+ � S��� ;G�� 5c.b. I o Bx 3n2_
45-=F -)c , Cc 1
• • !. oy E cfine- 1s lS eX
y 5
-(,o 5 Lc.)`" 1 A(/'\ ay- qt‘nGl IS ci v- b c,.v Go\ccr)-son
A-5-9 \(0 1
ii L , 1 11 � I l
SkJhrn� ��� 1- vcr1"1)\ 6 G ) h Y. tl YLi 1 1 (-4 r cif t� I l�1 I ,2r
C-U")() Nor-Pn n i i /D 1\j1 OUvrirG 11 Chc1N --
33 3 - .J�v fray)-1- : V .
A e v) , cc,
jai �n`f 5 . .[-CJ _G 5lih nY PG'1■ Cpl )1 . )1 cI P . _ct Lh.s4civic,_. S I et,''1 Q✓)
Q)0 U O ) 36u I, U 20 5 i � K CIrck
-A-5_pen ) co s1611
a
U)/ h I ci SU
co - LG-1 q �ey 4
I \ \ Cc7 \ O h n ol oie } a> >--e rDoC
ef �ain) h4a)- 10 ) CANADA *2E
H ( — D) R- 4ctyv, -0J3 JA r
' 6 ,-Bcx3 4 CAcir ,c)0
-A yl , Co, 2 ) (of 2_
W--(9 'ff I " \65 Cu,dc_ C&,,c,Los "
uv6-1. 13ccf r ; -z G- J r ncfnc-1PZ
ccl R M
P (0'1 ■ 9 '7
LEA (&r1
-to)ci U ' 4 2 j/Dabyx---, k P\ u
3 cv-) , Cc ►� � ,
U h ,4- 3 \l }Cjcr icj clnG. 1).C(V l I . Je- 1 o^ 1
a -) a V -
As-p (0_ C
I, 14 4_Dc7, 1,21 E. Solc)
11 (x, 0 KGt) z CohCou\rS 2� �c l
. .
e ,
MlougiA "4 pciir t tU . A eovnd0vhiit 1
Ut41-1--s - 9 .( ps(4 'in C(..x)v)--1-/ HcAlS )v) ''r11 t
. 1 5 -/O addy-e s_s fcc-+ ih e,1,31 (c i'e ccas ,
/
�,3a -1� , m 0 (4-A10 , ,, b , (-Gy+O�
10 ) �Mid ( ghd - Pq : P ) qC, -1VAI0
1 1641 C v') , (_- a \ ) J
5-51 -3-,,-7 U ti ,+ 11 y
C�y,� G �, . Lc Inv) 11.) 0 1 rr'1
1 M idiq C\ PG}4 Pcrc-. 4/g, )
1
:aspen) , Co g1 ;, 11
, /
1 - s9\ L11- '+ k i; .P'AD 1rr-c C-7 , berj
J01 N 1oi 'of PY'1 P rc, 4-A 1c,
1 ?`��p ,r) , C0 ) i (oIl
i
u ` A- 3 / D, ,c_,, N 1 PC(JR- e-n
) C I \ d Q-d p9\*- P\ 11,3
11, -E - l i , „:\ - , al,c,t 1Gr7 C . hqn \rek q n
'1 I c) H id \6v,c, -9,,,, ,, P\qCe A Q'l
A_sc) --v) ) Cv } (,0 ) 1
3-t°1 -31 .. A 22 ue l-1 ekes \Qr
P o &x S1 I
-
U � 1+s -9 > JPi+k Coin i-lou Ac)-1-1 ,r11-1
B cacicIrcis nod- ?optic, re Cc. 5
BD-5
J th 1 1. 13 - Icy /C -Hlev Anne 1 \4G
11 I M ca ( pGr C. P k ce B3
enI CQ UP1I
Lt ,+ •- 11 .,!��ev E R1ce,
/ 1 1 \ \C C��,f lvc�,� IBC - ) t
AA , V (611
U ti, 1+ )-4 , \
PC E Ox 11.3 ) H
c , Co
E � �tick4 Sch cir)
Ill 0\qvIcy' Aqc_e_
Asp _v) ,
L . Cirg \fb-€ gi
9 29
X11?
(,.)
V G Y r& -on ov\ct DeS r-e e
I r tirlo 1 qsnof eqe, 22-
A-S p en , 2 S 1 (A
LLres S, b (1
1---6-1- 1 = 11 p ) A c c-es Ci,otc I
5i(2) i - U t1 ; -1-- / 3fh g. cis 01 �Ct y I 0q r 01 P. � r b e. 4-
Sao e--- .{,bar) AY .
JASpy-)> Cc) SV4
P C ,y ,� X525
spcn , Co - 1 I2
2 -3 = cicclue- c1 4� ��cA os
'
I 4 1-
V l�
G �.� v b Cci d o tAi ►0 i ()AI
u,
i C� Vim ) i c h C,ccrl=e,s
r7aC bngn �v
CcD
M
L_c,-). Ll -- buon -L1S\n oR Jl;bU !v \S )on
LU+" L �r` .S 0 , S 51'104)
1 _ t o ,, T A v 30Ac. rii;
t �131 �, r4 �
-e , C gIL011
4- 1-1 6 14,3
)SeD U n n Gin� 1--U C. l iq
�
CI LI W tM a+cti less Dr
.A5 r.) , C-CD 80a
L�-�'S �� A- 1f)7, Q Ac��es "Vows4'1GUs-Q, No 5
559- Lis 1 Ui:»41 -1'1 C‘hr IS-jr \h P. cis
-9 O gam S'-7
e n , Co ? 1 (D 12--
15 a 4,A.. bi I 2 i ��J i \l1 own L • SI, k., 1 -,1 #� . 'PQ_-1--.rs o h
��
1 a o 9 L_Ci31 l\Je`r ?Gr ti\J c\y
WIY\ ne_Gpo1 �S , M N . 65 y \ '-
i
0
co_olq S u \ RQcu c \ vb
15s4Lic j o f) „
A59 l (p IZ
Si I vet/
lv�b 11< < G-► bso� P a 1 ),( 3��3
Loge Pine ec44- 3 GAG � j '�S - S 5 I
IN ( C/k 14'\-\s
M )y) ,y) C\� , . .� ►�- I ��� T�i �� �� ��,z
C-� C( cj GA re s ao) c- rL c-C;i'd 3
r
- 0 "�lleKS p q �s )0V ovtc/e b'1 �v�)--..) A SCPsS )Y T. i(