Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.iz.Ute Avenue Condominiums.1973-74 l 2-4'--73 �� _ 3 . '73 6121-1e4 fa- , , daL,L -4e, )3{,;,,,GLL-A-4-7L.A__) , ,hzi, a-b.' ii-ii-Lat-r: — i ; " , ' .--le4-, y _J—,6_,, , . - (9 L-Lizi ___etz,-?",z_c_d__-- 44 .,*=S1 5-6 -7,14-41:1-1J j11 ") -)41144,' -jildie-i/e kei-c.e,-y() , ,Az- 7, , _., 1 of 7.i Q44.14.) JO( hLict, 6,,_ \-/e,-,,,, 2.,,,, (Le„b telit ri-&-{/7 Li diz-but `biz' --6 PA2A-M41-1-40 -'0PI) is - I I i �� ,�� .73 I �'�`"'� /id- 44v-z-- 4 AkrtA/Yu) lt/i It.,? 6/ ii,ti,t) . t.:6(P( '"?"-- fr/ , ;IL AtLit4,‘ /I treat .J14- iu 6964,t-id ("94- 46dij- ddul... , ' IAA- /i--10 , , - 0A.' J,i,„,, L,./},-- 46j/iti, , :i/6c k )11{2(,,. _ 16.-,, 0 . i 1 ' v „Let ,11.4t Mzc.�a-aa�.� r� ,.-ta.--- 1, ,)(122--(t --k fl,t-ealz.) lli, ',by , i . . r_ ' ( 4 W)olivie ,. , . c,er-x_..elazt.c. . lea-0 " : /d4,24■01-0e. ,e,z,z. .) 2 1& . ' 4� _.. _%/L,„6 _ 2__ -,f,,(} ,),,,,,_ ,, ,, ,,, _.sit_ lk-J /e ' . aZ'dy'e/- .. . ES ait--el-')A1R-J ,jk-Le---- ---e--), _ \i/ , ■ .A/b4 ' (,r)t)ae■'61 a- :<-1)*(- } II II 1 1) . :-)4-.) ; if L / 1) . C1-4j -g4 (1-e. 44°e-4-4- 1-c---' _.-e.,4--4_,.1 ./e0-7t-IX -}l-Z6) a--1 ----- A r fr / . ■ ' - / > ee---41.e... !, i ' , ' A 2 (>J__) /42,4 cji _/6-) 04(-4-e zave) cee,,,,d" ArLo--gh_d Zd 1 1 -- - 1 \l ', %,, �. . az40t; • ‘11100 gte. "f)' / �X /9 w. • (4 ) -- 1 1 • li-k,a . fre.,_tv,.,,; 1 , (i._,,ela __,,,,._,,( A.e.i...E..) :-)1E-L--c--e-i-) %• &to, /7 1 il re-lt,d-e-ye...);4&,44t.e-% � _ ,2L V 4 • 4._— .// c 6,d'Y� 1 C' L-17. (11L--..,,, PL-Ici'L:4-f.i.i.,ji.,,,i' )d-4-d,c21')/t) I Vii' &rte.- ..atii-/ , , ' Znti a" 0 ‘ (/e t/41,e/ .) A'14 2() Oeldi • ?' /14A G I7 f 1 C'4<.A -7.t) i � (,(.. t"'-0 ,1 . a°cien? -• /1 _,/,,,,.& , _ , ,L.,/ ' - . ,,A,,,,,i , , ea 24 Atd-z-ezr--4074,,e,t-t-eA-ed I 1 4_ 1 . z,,,e, „6,A,k- „ie? 2) , „/„."4„,,,i) f,7 a,a iwtisseiot) ji — i_, „7„,,,,t- ii,‘,..z.„.r,L) 1 li,„ 1".„. _e__ 4a4,4644. ,4,,,,pi Ab!:,6 , I ,/ • • • RECORD OF F IYO Le is L=G J _ ... _..r_.-- `--_ _ -- —'- --. - -- -.._._ ... --_ -'-. -.. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning `�_ .7..,_-__ Specific areas which are also in the map. Del Duce explained that any new development t_ wc .,il.d not be required to supplement what Aspen now lacks . Schiffer questioned if the were recommending amending the subdivision regulations so as to require a dedi- cation based on density as opposed to land. Del Duca explained that that was correct. Vidal questioned if it would be appropriate to include in something like this report, a situation where a neighborhood would try to buy a piece of land and give it to the City, and if there was some dialogue in the report whereby the City would say , If a group of people did that, that the City would them be able to put some funds in to improve the facility or put some facilities on it. " Armstrong stated that he felt there was a possibility of that, but explained that in the area which Vidal was referring to, in the plan it is taken care of . Vidal stated that he felt that may encourage some other areas to do the same if the City had a policy where.,- if a neighborhood would participate and help purchase land, it would be a commitment by the City to facili- tate it. Chairman Gillis stated that he found the report con-- fusing, although he agreed with the conclusions , but how they arrived at the conclusions could not. under- stand. Bartel stated that he felt that Armstrong had probably used a low figure as relates to population projection. • Felt that in the summer, you have to go for peaks . Bartel further explained that procedurally, the Corn- mission could pass this back to Armstrong with their recommendation that he use it as a guide. Could not adopt this as a plan because of the required publi-- _ cation and public hearing. Concensus of the Commission was to send it on for ap-- proval, but pointed out that there are some areas that could be cleaned up in the way of logistics . Schiffer made a motion to approve the plan, •=econded by Johnson. All in favor , motion carried. Armstrong stated that periodically he would be appear- ing before the Commission with specific plans for all the areas based on these standards . UTE VI:LL.T.c L____CONDOIV;INIUMS - Attorney Jim Moran, Ed Baker, and Ms . Pat Maedalone Preliminary Plat were present to represent the project. & Ordinance il9 Conceptu=al. Review Moran discussed developments which had talon place since the list: time ' hact the applicant came before the Commission . ;Lets d That the density problem which the Commission had aclr_1ie sed therusei.ves to from time to —5— RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C K. ,CKFL 9 e.a L.CC. Cont.i_nued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February , 1974 time, feel this project, feel the developer has also addressed himself to it. Moran pointed out that the proposed density in this project is 10 . 6 units per acre. Looking to either side of it, the Gant is 25 per acre , the Clarendon is 15 per acre. Stated that yesterday at County P & Z conceptual approval was given to the Stillwater pro- ject at 2 . 6 units per acre, and further on out, to the Northstar project, as week or two previously that was given conceptual approval at the County level at 1. 2 per acre. Stated that the transition flow is there . Whether the curve is at the right level is something the Commission might discuss . Moran stated that the other problem which has been bothering both bodies is the low cost housing problem, and this project has in its plan an 18 unit apartment building that would be covenanted for permanent resi- dents and would be this project' s answer to that com- munity need. Ms . Maddalone pointed out that they are very aware of planning standards in the Benedict Office. Feel it was quite natural that these standards were taken into consideration even in the beginning planning stages . Stated that many of the things the P & Z is discussing now were considered initially and stated that this was there best presentation . Baker stated that rather than coming in with some high- er number in hopes of_ negotiating it down to a lower level the applicant had come in with a realistic plan. Vidal stated that he did not feel he could make a purely objective decision on this , consequently was removing himself from the Commission for this presen- tation. Ms. Baer reminded the Commission that when subdivision was tabled there were two major considerations : (1) the water pressure in that area. That has not changed; and (2) the drainage channel that is shown on the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has been in contact with Wright-McLaughlin, who is designing that channel , and Ken Ash, their representative, informed her that it could be accommodated on that site with some plat changes . Ms. Baer stated that the applicant is not presenting a new plat, so therefore, feel that as re- fers to subdivision, the Commission cannot approve plat they have not seen , therefore, should deny or ask the applicant to withdraw without a time limit on that. Ms. Maddalone stated that Mr. Taggert in Wright-Mc-- Laugh].in ' s Denver office, was actually the one who de- signed the Urban Runoff Plan . Stated he felt that ap- propriate action should be taken by the City Council to use funds which have already been budgeted for and that Wright-McLaughlin should be directed to solve LhiJ problem with the landowner since it was a commuit_i t.y problem and not, a problem that was caused by t_hi :, j, ,?--- ticular parcel of land. -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves . ..y C.F.H„'CKE1 B.0.8 L.CO. _ -__._ .. ___._ _____ ... -.. _:._. - Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7 , 1974 Ms . Maddalone stated that there are several alternate plans which could be used to accommodate the communi v in that way. Stated that some of the plans do not re- quire revision of the site plan . Ms . Baer stated that she would agree with the first part of the statement, but stated that her information from Taggert and Ken Ash was that there would have to be a modification of the site plan. Baker stated that he did understand that this could be accomplished underground. Stated that it is not a natural drainage channel, but rather, a revised drain- age channel and feels this amounts to a taking of land. Felt that if someone is planning to take the land there is some procedure which should be followed. Ms. Baer stated that whatever the case, it needs to be dealt with before subdivision approval . Stated that it was her understanding from Ms . Maddalone that the landowner was willing to accommodate this channel. Stated that the design of the channel would have to be changed somewhat in order to put it on this site, and Taggert and Ash informed Ms. Baer that the site plan would have to be modified. Stated that if there is a question of willingness to do that, then that has to be settled. Baker stated that he did not feel that was really a question. Stated that as long as both parties agree that the modifications can be made, questioned if there was some way the applicant could get an approval sub- ject to that modification being made . • Ms. Baer stated that she did not feel the Commission could approve a preliminary plat they have not seen. Baker pointed out that they had been asked to table once before voluntarily . Stated that they were not told at the time that there was going to be a proposal to downzone the property . Stated that the applicant wondered if perhaps they were being asked to withdraw so that something could be accomplished that would pre- clude all of this . • Ms . Maddalone stated that their position would be that they have seen the subdivision plat which they are asking to be approved and that just as this subdivision plat does not show detailed engineering drawings for the waterlines that it also shows Wr.i_ght-Mctaughlin ' s Urban Runoff plan,. conceptual design for this same run- off plan. Stated that she was certain the Commission was aware that there is a great difference between ac- tual engineering drawings and conceptual design. Moran questioned Ms. Baer on the state of the discus- sions with the Water Engineer as far as accomplishing the necessary drainage . Ms. Maddalone stated that they had three proposals or four proposals . Stated that one of the proposals went through the site and stated that it could be handled through the site in several different manners : could be an open drainage ditch. Have discussed the pos-- -7- RECORD OF PROCEED iN Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Fshru ;.l'�r 1974 sibility of going underground, and slated 1_'1 ;:. thi: was the type of thine; Mr. Taggert and Mir. t':Th Celt should come to the City Council and they should be directed to take care of this particular part ,f the Urban Runoff Plan first because they considered it to be the highest priority. Felt the responsibility was with the Council to appropriate the money to let Wright-McLaughlin do the engineering in connection with their office. Gillis questioned Ms . Maddalone if the City was not willing to appropriate the money now, does that mean that the developing is going on faster than they can keep up with. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt the City was miss- ing an opportunity if they don' t, because she under- stood that this money has been budgeted and it is a matter of whether they spend it on the Urban Runoff Drainage Plan or whether they might use it for some kind of sedimentation ponds that might be landscaped . Felt that from a hazard point of view, according to Mr. Taggert, this has top priority in their office. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt this was an oppor- tunity for the City to be :able to have an easement in an area where they might not . Stated that if they would not be able to develope there , there is not much reason for them to volunteer an easement and then work around it. Stated that they should work concurrently. Chairman Gillis questioned if the developer would be willing to hold the development until the City is ready to put the plan into effect. Ms. Maddalone stated that she did not wish to question the credibility on holding things up. Baker stated that it would depend a great deal on the timing. Assistant Engineer Ed Del Duca stated that the Engin- eering Department had not seen any revised plat that showed any allowance for a drainage channel. Stated that the Department also did not accept designs di- rected for Wright-McLaughlin without reviewing those also. Stated that the cost consideration in under- grounding can be three times that cost to the City . Stated that they would like to see what' s going to happen before approval of the project. Ms. Maddalone stated that the applicant would like to know what the City is going to do before they get an easement. Del. Duca stated that it was very clear on the Drainage Plan. Stated that the intent was for an open channel . Further stated that the plan was heard publicly and adopted by the City Council. Moran stated that he felt the problem is that if the • City feels that it needs an open drainage cl anne 5 ross that property or some rights across the proper1-'; and they sire concerned about acquiring them now, t_1 e': ought to di.rec1. the City Attorney to file a petition -t1- [1tECOi ) or PROCEEDINGS 100 Leave; Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7 , 197 ' i_n condemnation. Stated that the other aspect. is "no" unless the City is prepared to get in and deal and bargain on this thing to look for a common solu- tion to what seems to be competing desires here. Stated that as far as this subdivision is concerned it requires for its drainage no drainage channel other than is as shown on the plats. Stated that if the City wants some drainage provision to take care of runoff from Aspen Mountain, feel that that does not affect this subdivision application at the present stage. Ms . Baer stated that she would agree that it does not directly involve the application. Stated that it does involve the plat. Stated that if the Commission could not see it on a plat to evaluate it on that basis , could not recommend adoption of a specific plat to the Commission . Further felt that something could be worked out. Stated that first it was necessary to approach the City Council since there would be public expenditure there . _Moran stated that the applicant' s subdivision plat, the way it is applying to subdivide the land, does not have anything to do with the City ' s desire to run a drainage: channel through that land . Are saying that when the City comes up with its plan and they can lay it over the plat and make a dedication or an arrangement, then that would be fine. Ms. Maddalone stated that there would certainly be mod- ifications to the plat.. Reminded the Commission that this was only the preliminary stage. Johnson stated he would like to hear Ed address the problem of water pressure. Del Duca stated that they are finalizing the study on •the entire City. Stated that they have not got a final . answer. Stated that they are presently looking at alternatives . Do not think there is adequate pressure in present system. Schiffer questioned if the preliminary plat were ap- proved at this stage, not knowing about this drain- age channel, that it could jeopardize the City ' s drain- age plan. Ms . Baer stated that her point was that the Commission could not approve a plat until they have seen it. Stated that the drainage plan must be worked out. Vidal stated that he had withdrawn from the Ordinance #19 aspect of the presentation, but felt he could com- ment on the subdivision review. Vidal questioned Ms. Baer, if approval were appropri_at; or approval with conditions, to make it conditional upon the appl i cant granting the necessary right-of- way to accommodate the drainage plan and work concur- rently to dcveiopc engineering solutions to that . Ms . Baer stated, that she did not feel the app] icon'. -9- RECORD i ' ry: L i • • RECOND OOF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Z oning February 7 , 1974 _ __ —_ . --- the next stage is for Benedict to do more details on their plan and more details from Wright-McLaughlin . Schiffer stated that one of his concerns is with the possible traffic congestion in that area and the pro- blem with access . Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has agreed to dedi- cate ten feet. Chairman Gillis questioned Del Duca if the Engineering Department had an opinion on the traffic problem in that area. Del Duca stated that as Bartel had previously presented the traffic on Ute Avenue is already serious . Stated the City has no current plans to improve that condi- tion. Baker stated that he understood that all of the devel- opers in that area have dedicated additional right- of-way for street widening . Stated that the street could be improved to handle the traffic . Ms. Baer pointed out that Ute Avenue is not a through street. Further, are no cross streets after a certain point. Vidal also withdrew from the discussion on subdivision. Del Duca pointed out that the drainage channel proposed by Wright-McLaughlin would go through several buildings on the preliminary plat. Felt the plat could not be approved due to the scope of the drainage plan. Pointed out that the channel is 100 ' at some points . Ms. Baer stated that, given the location of the pro- ject, the position of the Planning Office has always been that tourist use is the incorrect use in mixed- . residential , particularly at the far easter.n, end of Ute Avenue. Stated that they were recommending denial on the tourist use. Ms. Baer stated that they are further recommending that the Commission adopt the zoning plan that was pre sented, and thus set that density on that piece of pro- perty. Moran stated that he disagreed. Vagneur stated that she found a great deal of difficul- ty in equating square footage of land uses for the pro- jects on Ute Avenue with the proposed zoning . Stated that the Gant uses about 1500 square feet of land per unit. The Clarendon is about 3 , 000 square feet. The Ute project would be one unit for 4 , 327 square feet of land, and the proposed downzoning would be five times as great. Felt that it was not fair to expect a de- veloper to cut back that much. Jenkins stated that in connection with the Gant and the Concept 600 building , the principal , us i_ncJ them a' a standard , is not balanced because that is pert of what caused Ordinance 4-19 to be placed in effect in -11- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves .-:. C.F.F:CCK19 9.9.A L.CS. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning _ February 7 , 1974 the first place. Vagneur :a ated that she could not see within a few hun- dred yards requiring someone to have five times as much property . • Chairman Gillis pointed out that the affect of traffic at the Cant is not as great as what there would be on Ute Avenue. Vagneur stated that since the present zoning would al- low the applicant to build over 200 units , and the fact that they were only proposing 77 units , shows that the applicant is bending an awfully long way. Baker stated that the applicant felt a particular har- assment from the Planning Office, in that they feel they were put upon and asked to withdraw. Were not told of the downzoning proposal in advance. Stated that they were told at the last meeting in• January that they would be given some recommendations from the Planning Office in writing. Have asked for those recommendations several times and have not received them. Have not always been informed of what is hap- pening with the meetings . Stated that this has been going on since early last fall or late last summer. Moran stated that the talk always gets back down to density. Stated that in rezoning downward, given an area which has been allowed to develope in a certain fashion at a certain density , you cannot come down all the way to zero . Felt that in this situation, the ap- plicant is about at the point where you begin to break over into an area where the adjustment is too gross to be sustained. Stated that in this situation , the Commission has an applicant who is coming in with what is basically a third of existing zoning, and feel that the applicant here has proposed a solution that is about as far as you could come by the most strenuous exercise of the police power. Feel that deserves • some consideration. Further stated that R-6 zoning would come close to allowing the numbers which the applicant is currently proposing. • Schiffer questioned how many units the applicant could build under the proposed zoning. Moran stated that it would be about 23 units . Jenkins stated since that can include duplexes , it would be closer to 4.5 units. Michael Kinsley, representing the Environmental Task Force, stated that the talk is getting down to the profitability of the land. Felt that if that is the policy of the Commission, then maybe it would be ap- propriate to have some figures on this project as to what is the minimum feasible development. Schiffer stated that he did not feel the Commission , in the case of the Clarendon , made a. decision based on whether or not the applicant could male a profit. Baker stated that the applicant interpreted Ordinance -12- RECORD OF PROCEEDft! < 100 Leave. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7 , 1974 ##19 as an att_enrot to reduce density. Stated that, that is what there proposal has done. Stated that during the earlier discussions , the only problem that really came up was the tourist versus the permanent use . Stated that there is no desire on the part of the ap- plicant to try and block any plan to create a better drainage plan for the City , but insofar as Ordinance #19 is concerned, the applicant felt that they are fulfilling that intent:. Schiffer stated that he appreciated the applicant ' s at-- tempt to comply with Ordinance #19 in terms of getting a mix. Did not feel that it was enough of a mix to say that it is predominantly a residential type of' development. Feel that it is too much density for that particular area. Ms. Maddalone pointed out that one of the things that is in the project is the 18-unit apartments which were subsidized by the other units . Stated that the Com- mission could remove the 18 units . Stated that they were told by the Planning Office in April that the recommendation for that area was 8-10 units per acre with a PUD mandatory . Ms . Baer stated that the Planning Office felt that there is a basis for their recommendations on rezoning . Baker questioned what the definition of a duplex is by the Planning Office. Johnson stated that he felt the applicants have defi- nitely addressed the question in good faith. Also feel that the density and use are too much. Johnson made a motion to deny the project under Or- dinance #19 , seconded by Schiffer . Ms. Maddalone pointed out that the developer has not precluded this being permanent residential. Are just asking for a definition of what is permanent resi- dential and the enforcement of this . Jenkins stated that the use problem did not bother him. Stated that the density was his concern, and felt that possibly, that area should be developed like Red Moun- tain. MAIN MOTION Roll call vote - Gillis , aye; Vidal, abstain; Johnson, aye; Jenkins , aye; Schiffer, aye; Vagneur, no . Motion carried. Ms . Maddalone requested written reasons for the denial_ . Johnson made a motion to deny the preliminary subdivi- sion plat, seconded by Schiffer. All in favor , with the exception of Vagneur who was opposed. Motion car- ried. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt there were some tourists v c l_ contradictor} considerations . Felt the wou l d '. put far less impact on the public facilities . Feel. that the applicant has been seriously misled . -13- 1 . - /41-1 Al' . . ., , . 77L-e/ja'.7 ) 171.144L6 1 /2tee H / . , - . /1 /1 , I 1 'A,i- - -eft--(-44-- 6,--y,) /411'1(1 %a ) A--a.) 4 • L-1-11‘--1---e-41 ‘ 1 / , ii / • ,A-664t-/j i Ali1C114/7"44/41- / I / l . .... ,/ .. drilrillI . .1 /Ir.,- - - - - ' , k/174.-el I 1 , 1 • 1 1 1 I . lir / ____ </e/K- 6L- Adec- f , .,i .. , - 1, I 1,1,vait‘) , ...- 614 4 (9 I --------' 1 , I all• --=,:r•••■■-,.„1: if j 'L-.1-eL■XL'gr"rLi I IT ■: il II • , ,1 •1 / i7 a2 ) d -4- ( - 1 / 4//1/1411 ; . az, 17,tiLy) &a° . i , c>0. ..61.t:j 491,(4,4* daCje- e'e i A a-1-4-7---),-- r / ' , tr- F 4 exte,.. 1,,,,_.174„.., I 4.4.A. _.,(2.-;kd ilet,;42) 0141;tH jlt ---veilt,4,9%4.4041 irt-t..%/' r., .., 4i--7L--- #•.---- ri, er)-(100 l' ci__ c.._. ..94.1 jp,s1))/ / A."-, . ,,,,, , ../ __. ,- , ....AeS, o--(------ , r„e ., - 1 -- e- -1A -V--) pc,4 foto / , / / pede.,,,,. V, i, 4.,duk..i U j . , tii.,( - / , -i aotile-lui1/4-, i , . • 1110s , , 4 4,,, k A Air .„40, . mi, WM, i / Alif , /4.4.„,,t.,, ,,,..,.,_2___ __,‘„ ,*-- '' lows ■ �. .. ,, ,, "j_,___,....„4, ,, . _rice) , -4/ ./(441"--AA- l l9 � ' j,/,e ),,_,t,. . . , N. (/ 1 C ° - 4 ff H . 1' 1 4 i OF i i .4 .. '1 1 / 8• .4147 ,.- • • . . . 1 .• / / / _,?..„,....-‘ 7px..........4,7 ., /ailt--erx- )->te4rize,&,0 A.2' 4 page 2 Ute Village Condos. 5. The project does not conform with the City' s policy to expand public facilities according to a pay as the community grows program, particularly as relates to the City' s water facilities program. Chairman Aspen Planning & Boning Commission TO: Mr. Edwin Baker FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Ute Village Condominium Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Planned Unit Development Plan DATE: February 19, 1974 Jh 2/7/74 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission denied a preliminary subdivision plat application for a 77 unit condominium project located on Ute Ave. in the City of Aspen. The denial was based on the following reasons: 1. A site plan is an integral part of the subdivision preliminary plat and must accurately show easements, circulation, utilities, open space, proposed dwelling structures, parking areas and principal landscaping features, Sec. 20-5 of the subdivision regulation. Because elements of the adopted Urban Runoff Management Plan are located on the develop- ment site, the submitted site plan is subject to change and does not permit an adequate evaluation of the requirements of Sec. 20-5 of the subdivision regulation. 2. Adequate water supply has not been demonstrated. Sec. 20-7 3. 3. The project is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulation to promote an adequate and efficient street and road yystem; to prevent congestion in streets and promote traffic safety . . . to insure the page 2 Ute Village Condominiums proper distribution of population; to provide for adequate utilities and public improvements; and to improve the health and safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Aspen. Sec. 20-1. Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission e ..^ C j P F N a.Spe ,e : box v TO: City of Aspen, Building Inspector FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Ute Village Condominiums - Ord. 19 Building Permit Review DATE: February 19, 1974 On 2/7/74 the Planning Commission denied approval of a conceptual presentation for the above captioned 77 unit condominium project on Ute Avenue for the following reasons : 1. Growth resulting from the proposed project is not in keeping with the policies of Ord. 19 and the Aspen Land Use Plan, nor with the City Council Resolution of 1/28/74 addressed to problems of excessive growth. 2. New tourist uses are not recommended in Mixed Residential District at the pro- posed location. 3. Project cannot be served by an existing transportation system, does not deemphasize the automobile, and would additionally congest an already congested street system. 4. The project is not in conformity with the City' s policy to prevent damage to air quality. page 2 Ute Village Condos . 5. The project does not conform with the City' s policy to expand public facilities according to a pay as the community grows program, particularly as relates to the City' s water facilities program. Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 4 • , 3 ZW,E2 V-ez-zief,€) II /1%e--6 --c--0.L, , l„ ,.6,0 ,- I / ' .i i L � / %/Y� L �� g,e I I refl/i. / , e,.a_.. 1 e.,zerzz.,e_„e6_17 I I /7)2'' /e9'21.) te-1X II I ov9As i .yrkl;\ - Yerk . I i' ./alird•C4) /e/e,t -24,1-2/ f/;Le) . l , 1 L3 4 1 I /471/4 ' TiliP) I, # Chu - L '-ems C.c o -/- , . . 74- ,.fir �,�= / , / j 7264) a, . / , t,e,7-7 t_i,,,,)A4 X_ ',d .,/,,e0,/, Al 1 I Weil 16-let /et) ..,‘"firz,4--a_e) / ` '7Z4 - 2 I Ij / ' Ii rj , I - --g"--c--ej 1 / A' , e I 'rwI' fez,t tett.244% • ,pie Afiki 44. 1,b2C1114t, lidt44,441)‘ -,4) Ate_, • ARCI ITECTS BENEf'CT ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED PLANNERS - ENGINEERS BOX 40 January 28, 1974 ASPEN 81611 COLORADO City of Aspen (303) 925-3481 Planning Office P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Ute Village, #73-12 • Dear Ms. Baer: I have just read the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of 12-18-73. Page seven of these minutes states: Chairman Adams . . . "stated that the applicant had withdrawn their sub-division request." "Ms. Baer stated that she had received a letter requesting that they withdraw until January 15th." We would like to have the minutes corrected to read: "we are agreeable to extending the time required for action by the Planning and Zoning Commission to January 15, 1974 on Ordinance #19 conceptual phase, sub-division preliminary phase and planned unit development outline phase" to show our actual request. Enclosed are copies of our letter dated 12-14-73 and Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated 12-18-73. Sincerely, BENEDICT ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED «t -fir % s Pat Maddalone Encl. • cc: Bruce Gillis, Chairman City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Ed Baker Fred Larkin .• • . . .- . • ' .. , . • RFCG D OF 1";" 0C V:.(:.D:iS , ... . .._ gular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning . ft. now in a vacant lot directly to the wee _ c)--_ t.:.-Ic . ing building which the applicant is willing to Sevste ee parking spaces for the shops and related. uses . 12hrLs -;:eee ing would be leveled and graveled and paved, lithe mission did not feel that the additional paving m-ecjht es. • tribute to their already existing runoff proble . Hauter submitted conceptual drawings of the ae)p:_ieent ' s • proposal. • Chairman Adams questioned what kind of facilities the'z would have for freight delivery. Hauter explained that the alley could be used s: a :T.::J;1:- • vice road. Further pointed out the location of access to the parking area. Hauter explained that they were proposing to landseeeee e= land that would be used in conjunction with the 1yeildin,:; Ms . Brinkman stated that her agreement with .Mrs . White . included cleaning up the lot and do something to i=c7 : the esthetics of the area. Jenkins stated that he objected to the parking and that he he felt that it encouraged more vehicular traffic t_ the core area. . Ms . Baer stated that the Planning Office was recc=ndin: approval of this project with the following conditiens (1) would prefer not to have the parking used ice- t_ • • same reasons as for the Stevens-Clan 3uelding _ (2) Further recommend that any restaurant he finned with the gas-fired after burners recoiemended in the air pollution study. Vidal stated that as far as the parking was concerned, t= alternatives in this case are significantly different an far as trade-offs are concerned: Ms. Baer stated that they would not require r.s. : :in:cann • to purchase parking when she is able to provide it on th property. Gillis made a motion to accept this project in she cone: tual stage, with the exception that no parking be proven and the conditions of the Planning Office be ace. :.Ieeeie Ute VLliage / seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion cal:-.z . Chairman Adams pointed out that the Commission anon ' / a decision on this project tonight. Stated nest ,--' if- ,/,/ plicant had .\.:LjLL:L12.e.a.N..L.I. their subdivision requeet. Ms . Baer stated that she had received a letter that they withdraw until January 15th. , — . . ' " ./.' •P' Vidal stated that he felt the applicant had leieen:,erseee what they were withdrawing from. • . Since there was no one present representing th:, =,jc-c- /) ...-- it was the concensus of the Commission that the / • • • I, ! I , ' , - was temporarily withdrawing their request fcr ,:-;Dice approval. ARCHITECTS BENEP'CT ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED PLANNERS ENGINEERS BOX 40 December 14, 1973 ASPEN 81611 COLORADO City of Aspen (303) 925-3481 Planning Office P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Donna Baer Re: Ute Village Project • #73-12 Dear Ms. Baer: Because of the Planning Office concern regarding the location of a drainage canal proposed in the Urban Runoff Management Plan prepared by Wright-McLaughlin, August 1973; we are agreeable to extending the time required for action by the Planning and Zoning Commission to January 15, 1974 for the Ordinance #19 conceptual phase sub-division -- preliminary phase and planned unit develop- ment outline phase. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission is to direct its recommendations to the density and use of the project under Ordinance #19. The location of the drainage canal and the ability of the city water department to provide adequate water pressure seem to be the only conditions which still require a solution under the sub- division, P.U.D. regulations. We believe the items in question can be satisfactorily resolved in a very short time. Sincerely, BENEDICT ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Pat Maddalone for Fritz A. Benedict • cc: Jim Adams, Chairman City of Aspen Planning Commission PM:bkm l:FZUu J C.i! 1 IFR.t� _......_, S.S 103 • Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 11 , 1S73 Jenkins stated that he didn ' t feel Aspen was obligated to provide housing for everyone who wants to live here. Vidal stated that if the Commission wants to limit growth, should limit the expansion of ski areas. Windes explained that they felt a need exists for a first class hotel in Asp: n. Windes submitted a model of the pro- ject in order to provide an idea of the size and density. Weedum pointed out to the Commission that one floor of one of the buildings is to be employee housing. Vidal pointed out that the Commission had previously indi- cated that there could be a trade-off between commercial space and hotel space. Further stated that he was in favor of a pitched roof over a square roof . Ute Village V/ Ed Baker, of the Alpine Land Company of Denver was present Condominiums to make the presentation. Baker stated that this was a request for 77 units , with a mixture of condominiums, apartments , and two single-family dwellings. Further stated that of these 77 units, there would he 43 townhouses, with a mixture of 2 , 3 and 4 bedrooms . Also 14 patio houses and 2 single family dwellings and 18 apartments. Baker stated that most recent zoning allows 29 units per acre, but they are proposeing just slightly over 10 units per acre. Baker further stated that 22.E of the project is devoted to lower cost housing. Further pointed out that there is an 8" sanitary sewer 150 ' from the western corner of the site and that located. within Ute Avenue is a new 12" water main and 4" gas main. Stated that they were not sure if there would be gas available to serve the project., but that Holy Cross had informed them that there would be adequate elec- tricity to service the• project entirely electrically. Baker stated that the anticipated development schedule would be to begin construction within 1 year and complete construc- tion within 3 years. Baker stated that he felt this project was consistent with the intent of Ordinance 0.9 Pat Maddalone was present and questioned the Commission on what considerations there were in addition to the economic • consideration. Bartel stated that the Commission must consider the environ- mental factors, citizen attitude and the availability of public facilities to serve this project. Bartel further stated that the Planning Office would like the economic considerations at the earliest possible stage . Gillis questioned the number of people that this project would accommodate . Baker stated that they could not say at this point. --3•-- - . A RECORD Oi4. s`"' ilf',:`s t.g_ i z,i 100 L eav : Special__Meetina Aspen Planning & Zoning December 11 , 1973 Gillis left the meeting. V/ Baker -at this point went through the estimated projected - - cost of the units . Stated that all units were available for purchase by permanent residents of Aspen. • Clarendon Jim Moran was present, attorney representing the developer. Condominiums Moran stated that this application has not been submitted or withdrawn. Stated that the written presentation has been in • the hands of the Commission for 57 days . Vidal left the table due to conflict of interest. Moran stated that they are not able at this time to deter- mine whether or not they should withdraw. Moran reviewed Ordinance #19 with the Commission, reminding the Commission of the purposes of Ordinance #19 and the dut- ies of the Commission. Moran stated that in their presentation they would discuss whether or not the proposed use falls within the use guide- lines of the land use map. Feels that even if the CoIIlmission classifies this as a tourist--accommodation, could justify why this would be beneficial to Aspen. At this point, the developer submitted the following maps and plans to the Commission: site location map, site area map, existing land use map, existing zoning,Aspen interim land use map for that area, owner ' s commitment map, design constraints map, schematic site plan and site sections. These maps are available for . review in the Planning Office, along with the report - CLARENDON - West End Street and Ute . Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Dr. Robert Crouch was present, Professor of Economics at the University of California, and gave a summary of the economic effects that this project would have on the community if it were used for tourist accommodations v. permanent resident housing. Crouch submitted a summary table of the economic impact on the City of Aspen of Clarendon at 100 percent occupancy by permanent residents and at 38 . 8 percent average monthly oc- cupancy by tourists and visitors . Sampling consisted of 600 condominiums in the area. Crouch summarized the impact in the following fashion : Demographic Impact (Giving the increment in the City ' s popu- lation for an average month and for a peak month) ; Fiscal impact ( General fund, Earmarked Funds , Special Districts , and total fiscal impact) ; Traffic Impact (total additional daily vehicle trips in a peak month, additional daily ve- hicle trips in a peak month using HWY 82 , maximum additional daily demand for parking spaces in the Central Area in a peak month', and maximum additional daily vehicle trips to central area in a peak month) ; Pollution Impact (automobile emmissions , fireplace emmissions) ; Hospital impact (addition- al admissions , additional emergency room visits) ; Skline Impact (Maximum additional. skier visits -- average day and peak day for Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk, Snowmass, and Aspen Highlands) ; Dog Impact (Maximum additional dogs) . —4— ARCHITECTS BENEDICT ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED PLANNERS ENGINEERS BOX 40 December 11, 1973 ASPEN 81611 COLORADO (303) 925-3481 City of Aspen • Planning Office Post Office Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTENTION: Ms. Baer Re: Ute Village, Project #73-12 Dear Ms. Baer: In answer to your letter of December 6, 1973, addressed to Mr. Baker, we will have a representative at the December 11, 1973 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. We will be prepared to make our presentation again, as requested. Sincerely, BENEDICT ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Pat Maddalone PM:gw cc: Mr. Edwin Baker • LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on December 4, 1973 at 5 :00 p.m. , City Council Chambers to consider the preliminary plat for Ute Village Condominiums located as follows : Parcels in Lots 6 & 7, Section 18 , T 10S . , R 84 W. located on Ute Avenue , City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Proposal is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and maybe examined by any interested person or persons during office hours . /s / Lorraine Graves City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times November 29 , 1973 II December 6, 1973 Mr. Edwin Baker Alpine Land Company, Inc. 555 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Mr. Baker: Pursuant to the request of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Aspen City Council at its November 26th meeting authorized the immediate employment of an urban economist to analyze the economic impact of yours and similar projects and to test the validity of and impact of the mater plan (updated) land use recommendations . These developments result in prodedural dilemmas under the provisions of Ordinance 19, most particularly section I. D. which requires action within 30 days of an applicant's presentation. We are planning to request all tabled appli- cants to make their presentations at the 12..11..73 meeting for the benefit of the anticipated economic study. However, it is apparent that any well reasoned and complete analysis cannot be returned within the 30 day period. Consequently, we are requesting voluntary withdrawal without prejudice or tabling of your project pending the outcome of the city sponsered economic impact report. Please advise us if you will be prepared to make your prep sentation en December 11th and how you would like to pro- ceed at that time. Yours truly, Donna Baer Planning Office cc. Pat Maddalone Beeedict Associates 1, tl t ri' L i n'.3 n: lax n '1 ?1? l � r';f F: ',�1.i ' :i;(1 C ._ ." I C .% War. Ce1 explai.ned that these are funds for construction, and. not land acquisition. f'und's are for the footbridco at the end of East nepkins, and trail construction through the golf course.. Stated that that trail could be extended ci titer along the highway to the airport, or across the golf course i property down to the bridge that. Henry Stein has placed over V the Roaring Fork and then over to the Rio Grande right-of- way. Need not be a dead-end trail system. Bartel pointed out that the County was working on the ease- ment acquisitions within the County. Gillis made a motion to authorize Chairman Adams to sign the letter submitted by Bartel , seconded by Vidal. All in favor, motion carried, Joan Lane questioned if the trail would connect through the town. Bartel. stated that it would not in this application. VIEW PRESENTATION Bartel submitted z?1ap of the proposed view preservations that the Planning Office had gone over with the Commission in a study session. Public hearing date was set by the Commission for January 15 , 1974 . Bartel stated that he would give a copy of the map to Sandra. Stuller for the Bar Association , and a copy to Ted Mularz for the Architects Collaborative. UTE VILLAGE 'V Ms . Baer pointed out that this project had come before the CONDOMINIUMS - Commission for conceptual approval under Ordinance ;;-19 pro- Preliminary Plat viously. Ms . Baer stated that the project was on Ute Avenue adjoining Ute Cernetary. Stated that this was a request for 77 units , with a mixture of condominium apartments and two single-family dwellings . Ed Baker, representing Alpine Land Company, developers of this project, was present. Stated this would be a low--density de- velopment on a 7. 65 acre site on Ute Avenue , with a high-- density development to the west already in existence . Baker stated this would be a mixture of condomi_ni.um apart.- moms for permanent resi-de-nts , on cahi.ch they would covenant. Vno short term rentals . The 1$ units with parking across the street. Stated that there were plans for two tennis cou_r_ts> . Baker further stated that there would be 43 townhouses, with a mixture of 2 , 3 , and 4 bedrooms . Also 14 patio houses a'.d. 2 single-family dwellings. Baker stated that the most recent zoning allows 29 units per ac :re, but they are proposing just slightly over 10 unit. s per acre. Baker- stated that no one ' s view of Independence Pass would )i: blocked or any ocher scenic view. Open space on the plat would be preserved by covtar unit . Stated that 221 of the Pc-- vel.opmc`nt i :'s (.1c'vot:cA to 1o;,7el co ;t )1011 .i1ag. -2- • , 10 „ • z • • - - . _ - - - -- - = - - - P:1 :H11 ; ` ,: j r0 9 - _ _ • _ _ V Baker sta ed th:a. Greenway is provided between the develop- ment of the ri , proposed in the Roaring to rk Green- way Plan. Purther shated that the dedicated publi c walk- ways is included in ' the Creem,Tay along the river . Baker pointed out that there is an 8" sanitary sewer 150 ' from the western corner of the site, and located within Ute Avenue is a new 12" water main, and 4" gas main. Antic ted cloy e:1 opment scnedii.Le would be to begin within 1 year and complete construction within 3 years . At this point, Baker submitted floor plans for the Commission review. Gillis questioned Laker as to whether or not they were plan- ning on using the path o space for drainage . Dick Fallon stated that they would be using interior roof drainage . Chairman Adams stated that the main access would be off of Ute Avenue. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was recommending tabling of this project. for the following reasons : (1) this site is in a ma jar channel under the new urban run-of f de- ve3opment plan, and the Engineering Department would like time to anall ze and work with the applicant to determine the size and the location of that drainage channel through the site, which may result in some significant site plan altera- tions; (2) City cannot supply this site with water due to lack of water pressure.. Feels thi s needs to be. investigated further: with the City ' s water consultants; (3) depending upon a deci sion under Ordinance t19 review. Ms. Baer stated there were some other subdivision considera- tions : (1) need some elevations to determine the view plane; (2) utility easements have to be shown and described . Schiffer questioned Ms . Baer as to when these plans were sub- mitted to the Planning Office. Ms . Baer stated that they were submitted October 31st.. Pat Ma.ddalone was present and questioned the problem of water pressure , and why they weren t informed of this pro- blem before. Ms. Baer stated that she did inform someone connected with the project a L the meeting of their Ordinance V-19 presen- tation . Ma dd e e n(::(11 when they will be able to g wa t to this site . Ed )0(7a Assi Lan 1.7 ty Engineer stated tabt the conaul - tan ts are %..10171';ing on this no Stated that the aLa were W ht h SChi f fer of a ■: 1•!(-1 }1 .1(-3 a concern with the t.i.mi an p- -,- cess ()nod be (..()imill nsi on Lab:led thi don ' 1.. they have a 1. of 0 days . -3- A • • , ffh , Baer stated that she did not believe the Co.aCtti_ssio 2 have to act t \7 i h i 30 days . Stated it would be tabled. pen- ding further t i!er i _::o m t i on . Vidal stated that he could. like to abstain due to conflict , cr , but s>t_ated that the Commission should try to get a formalized procedures as far as the status and timing of different pro- jects is concerned. Should develope a method to avoid mis- understanding. Bartel- stated that the 30-day limit is in the Ordinance i19 review specifically, and would check on the preliminary plat. Dol_huca stated that it would be to the benefit of the cicvel. open if they waited, since the run- off plan could change their site plan considerably. Ms. Maddalone questioned. Bartel_ on if they were obliged to provide the drainage ditch, what compensation would the do-- velopo.r get? Bartel stated that compensation was a legal consideration. Schiffer , after checking the Code , stated that failure of the Commission to act within 30 days constitutes approval . Bill Dunaway questioned the Commission as to whether or not there was any time limit on re-application. Chairman Adams stated that the Commission could table the project now, and make a decision within thirty days . Bartel stated that even though it is not specifically spelled out in the Code, the Commission could table the project and act on it within e0 days. Johnson made a motion to table the consideration of the pro ject with the condition that the Commission act on it with- in 30 days , seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. RIVERVIEW CON Ms. Baer stated that this project was requesting subdivision DOMINIUM - exemption. Ms . Baer submitted the following recommendations Exemption on the project: (1) E. Hopkins , additional ROW for cul-de-sac per Engineering Department specifications . (2) Agreement to join in future street improvement district. (3) Revised description to meet "as built" trail , including an extension back to Hopkins along west property line. (4) Agreement to join in future sidewalk improve- ment district.. (5) Condominium map should acknowledge that water supply has not been verified by the City . (6) Include in homeowners ' association agreement a responsibility of the association ation t.o meal to:J: and maintain dry wells according to an established. schedule. (7) Agreement to join in future drainage improvement di t.r cL. Ron Austin, Attorney representing the developer, stated. tb tt -4- MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk FROM: Planning Office DATE: November 28, 1973 SUBJECT: Ute Village Condominiums Please schedule and advertise the above subdivision preliminary plat public hearing on December 4, 1973. The property is described as follows : Parcels in Lots 6 & 7, Section 18, T 10S. , R 84 W. located on Ute Ave, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Adjoining property owners list is attached. 3 )674121/704/7" • 1001 Lode c/o Eva Baxter Secretary Suite 1101 4 West 58th Street New York, N.Y. 10001 Holt, Robert H. Box 1434 Aspen, Colorado Hearst, James S. & Meryl c/o Hans Gramiger Box 67 Aspen, Colorado Ledingham, Gordon R. 3795 30th Street San Diego, Calif. 92101 Ledingham, Norma L. 3795 30th Street San Diego, Calif. 92101 Manchester, Douglas,& Elizabeth 2399 Fifth Ave. San Diego, Calif. 92101 Resnick, Myron A. & Suzann L. Unit 16 Alaeloa Lamaina Maul, Hawaii Hoyt, Henry S. & Judith U. 144 Logan Road New Canaan, Conn. Preston, Linda S. Box 146 Aspen, Colorado Ott, Elizabeth Marie Box P Aspen, Colorado Blue Sky Corp. Box 469 Aspen, Colorado MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk FROM: Planning Office DATE: November 28, 1973 SUBJECT: Ute Village Condominiums Please schedule and advertise the above subdivision preliminary plat public hearing on December 4, 1973. The property is described as follows: Parcels in Lots 6 & 7, Section 18, T 10S. , R 84 W. located on Ute Ave, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Adjoining property owners list is attached. 2- 2 9 • &„.7- ‘,7 7ais /264- //-026_, - 73 • SUBDIV=C11 PLAT C1-17.CK Foali Date73• According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. • • This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utjlity company =y inspect the plat and the site, making co=mts , concerning the placement of ease- ments, etc . , and where necessary sketching reco7manded • alterations on a copy of the plat . This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date . Remarks: 1 clee 63. E.ss 4ir Em 1S 4. _-cietL A1 P AE4 Ail less 1144‘-' /044-09-e_ SU DI V_7S O�., PLAT C.l_ :si( O '.111 • • Date /;/ l - -7 7 Gentlemen: • • According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision keguletti.on for the City of Aspen. • This form, with a ttache_d copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and tha site, Irtaking com nts , concerning the placement of ease- m nts, etc . , and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat . This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no later than seven (7) clays from the above date . November 14, 1973 Renarizs : To provide underground electric service to Ute Village. Holy Cross Electric would extend its lines from the existing facilities in the DRC property for an estimated non-recoverable cost of approximately $20,900.67. • HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,9C. • 7/(7 Clemons M. Kopf, System En 'nee CMK:JRS/ep • • z7zZe Ct."---X- c ,„ /9 73 SUBDIVISICP PLAT C117,CI: Datem ..-Ld 7 3 Centlem,m: According to the proced-ure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. • • This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company m:',y inspect the plat and the site, making CO7—:nts, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, etc. , and where necessary sketching recommended • alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date . Remarks : / 7' . 9/ = • 4...; ( ••7 ••• • „ • - 1/ , r-L ) 2I2 1Lrn7 SUBDIVISION PLAT C17,CK roali Date ///-C— 7,3 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company r:ny inspect the plat and the site making co-ments, concerning the placement of ease_ ments, etc . , and where necessary sketching recormeended alterations on a copy of the plat . This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning COL:!.® mission no la!ter than seven (7) days from the above date . Remarks: The Ute Avenue Line was sized sufficient to Filiow.. ..ture &LeXel&IMeut in that area. • nt S. ips.n Executive Secretary • Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation Dist . • SUBDTVIS7017 PLAT C=K roali Date //—6 — 7 3 Gentlemen: According to the proccdrure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must ha divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect, the plat and the • site, making co., ..,l2nts , concerning the placement of ease- ments, etc . , and where necessary sketching recoeuended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Con mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date . Remarks : 44 &Le 0.1_6 ,....-zt....4„2„,,2k.„4_ , 0._/‘t-er,Lc-46 • t.I.-)-4) • / 7- -211 34 • r ' Mountain Bell Grand Junction, Colorado November 27, 1973 Pitkin County Planning Commission P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Ute Village Dear Sir; Pursuant to the above subject, we have no objections to the way this preliminary plat is layed out as far as for our purposes . We appreciate you sending us this information concerning the Ute Village subdivision. Thank you for your cooperation on this plat. Very truly yours , aa A J.C. Kilmer SR/WA Right of Way Agent P.O. Box 2688, 619 Main Grand Junction, CO 81501 JCK:vc &v1'��JU cc: Benedict Associates Inc. G. S Krill Alpine Land Co. of Denver ,.., _ _57.. ALL4tee A..t, CL 61.66- -,1 y 11 ii /19 , ,. ', ,./ &J ! 1 r. 1 ; 7- 1 1 1 1 , „ , V-Ze--,,,- , ±se•Ceetitt7c; f5L.4.- ze--,, ,,--z-c- e-(__ - . ) ,49 _ ■ 1 1 (1.■/' 'e. 6t-e--t---t----f---z----) , ---Z-Z---&-' lZ-L e_e.‹,-, A -e-e- ' /973 . ,t-t- r---ep.AZ , c? ,, ‘i- ,,,1_/_,-- ,,,--e e4,2 I / '''- Pa/AE.4_2.24.1 AAA..i. are../ttil ct 7 1 , 7- /O5 k Ec1,11/1/ ! I 1 ! ,..,42 .•z- J--0-=---0--Z-c-e-e ryv A.-& f , CA4LL I 64111,PlaILI C.Ltt 4° ! ateAAJ Y..XLI. CC e-42CriCr...". T ' . I 1 ' i (aPtel,W*L7 a■e.A,L,(2"'L4Z1 .e.X.- i 1 ■ i1 7 4 / ettAL1 pa:14 tfAi4 co-a.4 trux-Lb-LL- G.i ado.aii.4.,<La Ck0 1 il \ A,-' -t.. \NkOtz-s i\tt k\va..1-- ..LA vo-ts.4 t--GJOLa . ! , 1 ' 1 1 1 , ! I ' r i 1 1 I i 1 ! , •!--. .'H'. : ,:' , .,'.•• • • ,-,. 1 J., ..•'.„ :,.., ..., :' ' ,:.. ...:.: ', :•-.:: 1 ljj • - •-.. . .. :_'_.•r7..1:=•. -- --. _ . .... '-:.: __'.-7 - •_•L. '..• • 1:.clar l' eeting 2.5.;1...e.n Planninn r': Zoning NOVE. 7;riT. 20 , n ::: . ... _ .........._________ _ Bill CailIer City ri-1-0 1Ja3s11L11 , stated. that they would \./ 111:e to he i'Colc to ( Et behind the buildings duc. to the steep _grade .,- Further, would like to see sprinkling wall struetu :cs . • Ed DelDuca, Assistant City Engineer , stated that they would lje an ag-eemnt on an ilL:-provement. district for that public road . Ms . Baer stated that the Plain-Ji Office felt the circu- lation problem is solved, Developer is providing 2 parking spaces . Chairman Adams stated he would like to table the considc,-,-- ation of this p _ ojeet until some of the problems . had been Cleared up. Jim laser, from Tri-Co flanagcment Company , stated that Willard Clapper had given approval to the proposed aeces . Coneensus of the Commission was to table consideration of the project. Expressed concern on the access Sr om a public road , width of turnaround , and access out of the area OIRDIL:AN('E 1j9 \l Chairman Adams stated that the Comission had discussed. REVIEWS the problems facing them with Ordinance l'-:19 review . Stated that the Cone;a; of the Corwpission was to table all the projects under the conceptual presentation of Ordinance E19 , beach on the following reasons : (1) would. like cos t-benefit considerations on a project-to-project basis ; want to h,egin the economic :impact evaluation of land-use concepts represented by the map and the mixed residential category. in particular; . . Attorney Jim Moran was present and questioned the Com- mission to explain exactly what additional information - they are requiring - need to know exactly what the re- • quirements on "economic impact' i.ncludes . Bartel stated that in the near future , the Commission would be able to give the specific requirements as to what type of information they will require . Stated that the second phase of the requirement is a cost-bcnofit . . . comparison for the Coil))))).salon to review for the loh9 run economic impact evaluation . Chairman Adams stated the Commission would try to make a determination within thirty days, but didn ' t want, to be pushed into any fast decisions . Further stated that the con census of the Commission was that tourist-acco - modations should not 1)5) in mixed-residential . Moran. quetioned the Col.wilissiono just exactly consti- tut (-4 a tourist aoeorn.criodation or resident accommodation , Bartel a tuted that the Planning Oftice and the Commision want to he specific in writing on wi-) t. use ni on will be. ) .:(Altirc.,.d , Uoulii hoc: to : o z').1):1 to Ov(..! H.,::::: ; ,.. .L.. in .11. pc.._..n ;'. :-; to vat i.e . LL:. .:nt-. by the hit an (:',ii 1:( r.-. H Moron questioned the Commission on when the public could expect these answers , and flartel replied that thjs would •. - • ;1.`. : 1.; 1 (' 1)1113'P-ill° `c: :401:11 "C"' 1,',ovoiry-..!1: 20 , 1.) (-1 1 o f:or the Co'rtm isai on When qeentri oned as to whether or not the CoDniasion was se):in cj Lb e s 11 lormat2, on on a:in)(jie..,family due] r (?ha"1.11:Pi :3") Yelmin a La Led that the impact a connected with siny,le-tarn ily ncja war: not as (Tx eat, SC) prOblably \-7011 d )1o1- cieed by the Coi.:1-t-ri on. Vidal a taLed tier t the evol ut ion c).1: tile Ord n an can 9 mop was a coi,:tii-o and that the attitude has been that it \,71E-: opc,n-type thing and reproscrnteci a cori;lpro- ru:i no Chai -rman arirr,, stated -thaj- -the additiona 1 mnforcina ti on was needed in order: to del illoact on public foe iii t ion, the env.i 9, and no :ura1 resources Bartel at tinit clurri ng the bud(jet cons] deratd on s PlLaniiinq Office Pride I. feel it needed earmarked funds for atudien . Conconsu a of Cr--o-n:.ssi (in was to tab] e all Ordi nance Conceptual presen tat ens at this time . Gillis made a 3-no'L :*1 on to adjourn the meeting secondcd. by Johnson, Al 1 in favor, motion carKied . Noe ting ad j ourund at 6 : 30 p • ----- - -— / )(. SeerLtr1y • • //- /5- 73 , POth, * ///,- ; , f- , ,/,-.. ja& az. - ?Acta /:"I' a-/ r i 4 HMu44,6: / g1 '2 7 \ Z AIA-241-1‘41/111, - 5-7 "-Y4$1: ‘, i1 4 -- f7-6-11A7 frzi i /i ae,i.> 4 Sr-4 ) ---- ,cAc/ ; ILL. ittILL ,' - / `t-,���..e-) G . - . , ' ' % ,. _ 4u :%�.� �►- !� rte �� � � o A_- .J , _ __..,a___ , w-4.4,--&-) 11 1 >le—ea_c_c_,4___ __ . , . ,y).,e,,, , . 1 - X ..�- e ,, '2AtIll'arl gin, ��/ -.�2 I . • z /At-ck ' / - . L A621 . x,1_,J _ fef2_-,___, e ' (__(.,-ii_e_,e.a) . 1 . / 6___ O,LvLJ o & ,Q. 79 se-yi ,i-LifAa-z-6-7,5- ‘4,-,.,,k . 2.,_,i vi,_„, . /66,,c,),,, i -- 4 1 ---6-e-e_el-c,t,d_c_, J--/-/-) .. a-ei_ z__ zeiz. -7f.",-4-fr. 1 _ ,A: /' 1 4L_d -L._ j_,ej ,j'a- . -,(...e(---C. .#/ '1 real). :1 , , CITY OF ASPEN THE FOLLOWING IS A CHECK LIST PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW Name of Proposed Subdivision C. Name of Applicant le ti•istKet em Name of Owner L ,-k a v_ 4 gek,eelt T Date / 71417 3 Date of Classification Preliminary Plat Applicant' s Engineer ( Location map ( v ) Subdivision title ( ) Date ( ) Scale ( ) Reference meridian ( ) North arrow ( ) Acreage of tract to nearest tenth of an acre • ( ) Topography contour intervals • ( ) Names of owner and subdivider ( ) Name of licensed land surveyor ( ) Name of licensed engineer ( ) Names of adjoining property owners ( ) Dimensions and bearings or angles of all property boundary line: ( ) Name, location and width of adjacent streets ( ) Location and sizes of existing utilities and width of easements ( ) Tentative agreement of the Utility Authorities ✓( ) Location and size of rock outcrops, streams, swamps , other pertinent features, buildings , trees, etc . ( ) Existing deed restrictions and protective covenants ( ) Zoning district ( ) Proposed street layout (conformity with block plan) ✓( ) Right-of-way width ,r( ) Pavement width �( ) Street elevations ✓( ) Street grades ( ) Sidewalks ( ) Drainage run-off calculations ,i( ) Storm sewers, catch basins and culverts, detention basins and ponds ( ) Stream improvement ( ) Street trees ( ) Street lighting standards ( ) Street signs ( ) Street names • ✓( ) Water supply �( ) Fire hydrants ( ) Gas facilities ( ) Underground electric facilities ( ) Underground telephone facilities ( ) Underground television facilities ✓( ) Sanitary sewage system ( ) Street access to adjoining properties ( ) Block length and width page 1 of 2 • Page 2 Preliminary Plat Applicant' s Engineer ( ) Reverse frontage ( ) Transition strip ( ) Intersections ( ) Walkway easements ( ) Building setback lines ( ) Dimensions and area of lots ( ) Grading of lots and blocks /( ) Location and sizes of proposed utilities and easements ( ) Proposed restrictive covenants ✓( ) Proposed parks `'( ) Proposed open space ( ) Proposed recreation /( ) Monuments Prepared by Approved by ( Applicant' s Engineer) (City Engineering Department) Benedict Associates it...orporated [LMi J'EM ( F --miKissrouraL P. O. Box 40 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DATE JOB NO. 11/6/73 73-12 Phone (303) 925-3481 ATTENTION Willard Clapper RE: TO Aspen Fire District #1 Ute Village Box 455 Aspen, Colorado 81611 GENTLEMEN: — WE ARE SENDING YOU KI Attached ❑ Under separate cover via post the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans Cl Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 9 Outline Development Plan - P.U.D. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Please review the enclosed documents and send your comments to the Planning FT Zoning Board with a copy to this office. COPY TO SIGNED: Wit>riam C Bates Wm 240-T_.e.England&eisp M.ia Inc,T .M,,, If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. m t10/4/73 fijiv Ute. Village I � A mixed residential development consisting of townhouses , patio houses, apartments and on site recreational facilities . I. DEVELOPER: Alpine Land Company of Denver. Edwin W. Baker, Jr. , President. William D. Snare and Warren Sheridan, Vice Presidents. Past developments in Pitkin County were The Cotton- woods at 1st and Hyman, consisting of eighteen apartments , and The Interlude at Snowmass , consist- ing of twenty-seven apartments . II. THE PLAN A. Low density development of a 7. 65-acre site bounded by a high density development on the north, the Roaring Fork River on the east, the Ute Cemetery on the south and Ute Avenue on the west. B. Total units = 77 or 10. 065 dwelling units per acre. C. Unit mix: S 1) 43 Townhouses - 26 - 2 BR 4 L 2- 13 - 3 BR " 4 - 4 BR' , ,�;--� Lam' 1 ®1 2) 14 Patio houses - 9 - 2 BR 69, 4,-.0-0 5 - 3 BR of ' -O 3) 18 Apartments - 12 - 2 BR i'�� S� 6 - 3 BR ,cv-v 4) 2 Single family dwellings D. Land allocations 1) Single family residential 14,250 sq. ft.= . 33 Ac. = 4 . 4% 2) Multi-family residential 110, 284 sq. ft*= 2 . 53 Ac. = 3) Roads and parking 45 ,675 sq. ft.= 1.04 Ac. = 13. 6% 4) Open space** 162 ,755 sq. ft.= 3 . 75 Ac. = 48. 9% 7. 65 Ac. =100 . % *Private patios included in building coverage . **Includes pool deck, two tennis courts , sidewalks , public dedications and commons . III. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. While most recent zoning would have allowed twenty-nine units per acre, such as the project to the west, we are proposing 10. 065 units per acre in a mix of attached single family dwellings and apartments for long term occu- pants designed to be consistent with the intent of Aspen Ordinance No. 19. B. All units are available for purchase by residents of Aspen, with a covenant attached to the eighteen apartments that they may not be offered for rent for a period of less than one year. Sales contracts will include a paragraph that the seller will have no program established or planned to offer rental service or a rental pool of any kind to pur- chasers or owners of any unit. Further, the owners asso- ciation will be prohibited from engaging in rental or leasing activities by the provisions of the by-laws . The purchasers will acknowledge that neither the seller nor its agents have represented or offered the units as an investment, opportunity for appreciation of value or as a means of receiving income from rentals . C. Consistent with Ordinance No. 19 and other Aspen City ordinances : 1) No one' s view of Independence Pass nor any other scenic area will be blocked. 2) Open space as shown on the plan will be preserved by the use of covenants . 3) Twenty-two per cent of the development is devoted to lower cost permanent housing. 4) A greenway of more than 200 feet is provided between the development and the river as proposed in the Roar- ing Fork Greenway Plan. 5) The development is consistent with other residential uses. - 2 - • 4. ' 6) A dedicated public walkway is included in the greenway along the river. 7) The need for single family housing is fulfilled by developing patio and townhouses in a residential sub- division under a Planned Unit Development. Presently single family sites in Aspen are not available at less than $35 ,000 per site, putting them far out of reach of most residents . Two apartment units will be owned in common and maintained for use by resident employees of the project while sixteen others are available for purchase by other permanent residents. 8) The development is within easy walking distance of town and its facilities, obviating the need for auto- mobile use. 9) Ute Avenue affords adequate ingress and egress . 10) The site is served with all utilities with adequate capacities to meet its needs . 11) The development is designed to satisfy the review re- quirements of Ordinance No. 19 by subdivision and PUD submittals . • - 3 -