HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Aspen Club lot Split.8-84The Aspen Club Lot Split/
Rezoning
Z
REEMEEMEM
I AON-v- -7 LO j
LOT
LOT 1�5 4-
L-o T 4-
Ai
19,
-10 Ter,>
Ig. . . . . . . . . . .
I
O 50 00 150
F. A.R. (IF REZONED TO R-IS) 5792 SG.FT.
BEFORE G WPE REDUCTION PER BUILDING
DEPARTMENT FORMULA.
TOTAL LOT AREA 33,4Qj SQ. FT. (LOT li} W )
CONTOUR INTERVAL- 2 FEE7.
IA@Me C��ruwuw
Pvvv%p •%'y*j rxevlsions I me PROPOSED REZONING AND LOT SPLIT Job No. 82-158
Post Office Box 1730 Drafted JANUARY 18TH., I384- LOT 14. CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION Client BUTERA
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303 925 2688
s—
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
#1S13Z01cl
ILO;® CRYsTi41-1,4K-
No.
Staff:
PROJECT NAME: fr.�.%uL, _ ,/�t� ;r�u,-� �c���p� XJ d.:� C" v"
_ APPLICANT: ' -8re,;/-uI'j.4. (� �. ,/ /4' �.rn -f Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Phone: P3C�
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Fee)
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($1,840)
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,120)
3. Final Plat ($ 560)
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($1,290)
2. Preliminary Plat ($ 830)
3. Final Plat ($ 560)
III.EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ($1,010)
y IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) --+moo �'��z ($ 465)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination;1
3. Conditional Use
REFERRALS:
Zttorney
ngineering Dept.
Housing
Water
City Electric
FINAL ROUTING:
Date Referred:
Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
Parks
Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshall/Building Dept.
___ Attorney A Engineering
Building Other
Date Routed:
School District
Rocky Mtn. Nat.Ga!
_State Hgwy. Dept.
Fire Chief
Other
-1 $ ulaabt
'
~^-~
DISPOSITION:
CITY PQZ REVIEW: �
'
;-7M4 L� /Al (� j X—
Ail
0,011A 0 C-4, Hod
LL 14-
4-1
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. `ZL
Ordinance No.
PLANNING AND ZOiJ I iJG CoMm I SS I ON EVALUAT I D,d
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS
Project: Lot 2 - Gordon Subdivision — _-� Date:
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points).
January 17, 1984
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 'formul.:!:
0 -- Project requires ti:(, 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. (dater Service (maxinnnn 2 points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for
the needs of the proposed development and, if a public systeiir, 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: Applicant will loop the water system.improvinq water service
in the area.
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:_ Project can be handled by the existing level of service and
improvements will benefit the applicant only.
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 2
Comment: Project will retain run-off in excess of pre -development rates.
Ae No
Residential GNP 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 2—
Comment: A new fire hydrant will be added benefiting the area. However,
the proposed.road widths are not adequate for fire access according to
the Fire Chief.
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: Parking requirement (one per bedroom) is exceeded by three
spaces.
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 —2
Comment: The.project will have negligible impact on the public road
system.
Subtotal to
2. Quality of 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. PJeighborhoodCompatibility (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of
size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 2 O
Comment: The proposed density is consistent with the density range of
surrounding developments. The scale of the development is also com-
atible with the neighborhood. �x -
`r w', I. r -fiLAJ:�
ts'Z44�
� �� i ,�
Page Three
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Site Design (maxim-,im 3 points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping
and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the
arrangerr:ent of improvements for efficiency of circulation and Increased
safety and privacy. �.,�— •V)A
I i c�rba� Iw�l�- bra 1s --Ed rA. c-2, -e ( ,.1 /S
4r•c Orr � r N cv 2.Qi- 7- L2�° f-1 Je cc. R a t }• n g 3 V
c� h el�, i s ra ; (UP 1 e. � S 1, �a`� - i� e ��►'
Comment: The site work proposed which includes extensive landscaping, a
pond, and public trail with bridge is a reasonable use of the site and
will improve the quality of the neighborhood.
c. Energy (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar
er.e'rgy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to
maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources.
Rating 3
r
Comment::Solar orientation, solar water -heating and passive features plus
commitments to extra_i.isulation result in conseryation of energy.
u. Trails (maximum 3 points).
Consideration of the ;provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the
provisions of links i.o existing parks and trail systems, whenever
feasible.
t
Rating 3
Comment: An additional desirable trail dedicdtion and fishing easement
plus the construction by the applicant of a bridge connecting to Ute Childrens'
Park will result in a substantial amenity for the community.
e. Green Space (maximum ' points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project
site itself which is ;rsible by the residents of the project and offers
relief from the dens.t.y of the building and surrounding developments.
Rating 3
I
Comment: Meadows aloig the river will become dedicated open space which
are highly desirable as permanent green space.
Subtotal lq ) Q
3. Proximity to Support Se, ..,.,_s (maximum 6 points).
The Commission shall cor•,i,ir,r each application with respect to its proximity
to public transportatio,; „id community commercial locations and shall rate
each development by assi inc] points according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportatio!: 'I'maximum 3 points).
1 -- Project is loca!�!r! further than sic blocks walking distance from
an existing cit_ or county bus route.
2 -- Project is localf'-d within six blocks walking distance of an existing
city or county !it,; route.
3 - Project is locat.c,c! within two blocks walking distance of an
existing city or county bus route.
Rating 2
P,rge Four
Residential GMP Scoring
b. Conlfflunity Comimercial Facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial
facilities in town to permit the evaluation of t;re 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 -,iithin 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 1
Subtotal 3
4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 points).
For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development
shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms
in the project to the total number of -bedrooms in the project, provided,
however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development
must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re-
stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio
shall be considered a I.hree-quarter (3/4) bedroom.
a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent).
Ra ti.ng 20
Comment: 9 low income eud and A free m-,rkpt- hearnams = ;n% intd
income houss-inq. "C" The floor area of the six emoloyee units totals
4,500 sq. ft. or 50% of the 9,000 sq. ft. of the three free market units.
b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent).
Rating
Comment:
c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent).
Rating
Comment:
Subtotal 20
5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points).
, Rating 0
Comment:
Page Five
Residential GMP Scoring
6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points).
Comment:
Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
(Threshold: 43.8 puints)
Points in Categories 5 and 6
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P & Z Member: planning.Office
47
47
Rating 0
0
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN
November 30, 1984
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: R.S.G. Development, Inc./Sheldon Gordon
Application
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
This letter is intended to amend that portion of the
application submitted on September 20, 1984, by R.S.G.
Development, Inc. and Sheldon Gordon concerning a lot split of
Lot 14 of the Callahan Subdivision ("Subdivision"). Since that
application was submitted, the applicant has verified that there
are now in existence two dwelling units on Lot 14 of the
Subdivision. There will not be created any additional dwelling
units. The applicant is proposing to demolish one of the
dwelling units and to reconstruct that dwelling unit at another
location on Lot 14 of the Subdivision.' Such development activity
is exempt from complying with the allotment procedures of the
Growth Management Quota System pursuant to Section 24-11.2(a) of
the Aspen Municipal Code ("Code"), and therefore, the applicant
requests a declaration of exemption for the reconstruction of an
existing dwelling unit. The applicant also requests approval for
an exemption from the resubdivision requirements of the Code
pursuant to Section 20-4(d) of the Code. Section 20-19(b)
provides for the exemption for a division of land not within the
intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations. The division
of land in the instant case is solely for the purpose of
reconstructing the same number of dwelling units on the same lot
on which they already exist in a better configuration and to
permit the transfer of each existing dwelling unit to separate
ownership.
AVH/mp
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew V. Hecht
Attorney for
R.S.G. Development, Inc.
EXHIBIT "E"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Stirling and Aspen City Council
ZERD: Hal Schilling, City Manager.
FROF : Col ette Penne, Pl anni ng Of f i ce.
SUBJECT: PUP Amendment for Resut.division of Lot 14, Callahar, Subdivision
an("- Rezoning of Lot 14 from RR to R-15 (Ordinance 44, Series
of 1.984)
DATE: January 14, 1984
SUMMARY
'11' E Llanr,irg and Zoning Commission and Planning Office recommend
subdivision of Lot 14 through amendment of the PUD plat and adoption
of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1984, on second reacting, to rezone
Lot 1.4 from RR to R-15.
We are including full information on this application for the record
and as a reminder to you of the complete action.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council appiovec- the PUL' amendment and first reading of the ordinance
at your regular meeting of December 17, 1984.
BACKGROUND:
In February of 1984, on the date the Municipal Code permits submission
of rezoning requests by private applicants, the Aspen Club submitted a
request for rezoning of Lot 14 from RR to R-15, resubdivision of the
lot into two single-family lots and a PUD amendment was originally
submitted. On April 3, 1984, and May 8, 1984, P&Z tabled review
pending receipt of additional information requested by the Planning
Office. On June 19, 1984, the public hearing was closed because the
applicant's legal counsel indicated that the application as submitted
was not being pursued.
Although in the interim the applicant has been looking at merging some
development within the Aspen Club with an approved development on the
adjacent Gordon property, the portion of the original application
which you are reviewing tonight deals only with Lot 14 of the Callahan
Subdivision. Lot 14 consists of 1.8C6 acres and presently is occupied
by the "Benedict House" and eleven parkino spaces. The structure has
(been verified as a duplex (see attached documents A through E), and
the applicants propose to remove the kitchen in one of these units and
to replace the unit on a newly formes (through PUD amendment) lot, to
IWO
be referred to as Lot 14W.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
The first aspect of the applicant's request was to subdivide Lot 14
into two lots, each to contain a single-family residence. The applicant
has obtained the right to reconstruct the two houses, one on each lot,
by verifying the existence of two units, as per Section 24-11.2(a) of
the Code see attached Exhibits for proof of verification) .
Since you granted the applicant's request, Lot 14E, the fathering lot
was left with 1.038 acres and a single-family house. The new lot, Lot
14W, will be 0.768 acres and would also be allowed to contain a
single-family house. Alpine Surveys calculated that on this new lot
of approximately 33,460 sq. ft. a house with a floor area ratio of
5,792 sq. ft. could be built. This figure was calculated without the
application of slope reduction.
The use which presently occupies the area of Lot 14W is a parking
lot. The lot accommodates eleven (11) cars. Peak demand times at the
Club require the use of these spaces. The applicant proposes replacing
the parking as shown on the site plan. The parking area will be
accessed by the existing road and is directly across from the main
parking lot. The space can accommodate twelve (12) cars. Addition of
the area to the plat and review by the Engineering Department for
adequacy of size and access will be required prior to final action by
Council.
Section 24-8.26 (b) allows for "changes in use or rearrangement of lots,
blocks and buildino tracts" if they "are shown to be required by
changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was
approved or by changes in comanunity policy." When the original PUD
was approved, the intended use for the Benedict House was to be a
restaurant/clubhouse. The zoning placed on it was RR - Rural Residen-
tial. The intention of this zone is "to allow utilization of land for
low density residential purposes with customary recreational, institu-
tional, public and other compatible uses customarily found in proximity
to those uses permitted included as conditional uses." One -family
dwellings are permitted uses and a recreation club is a conditional use.
In two separate actions, the commercial square footage of this proposed
"restaurant/clubhouse" was transferred to the club for expansion
purposes. The house has been used as a residence by the present
owners of the Aspen Club as well as by the prior owner. All of the
commercial component of the club is on the east side of the river and
all development on the west side of the river is residential in
character. Therefore, the rezoning to R-15 and PUD amendment will be
a zoning to use and the formation of a conforming and compatible lot.
The elimination of the possibility of using the structure commercially
is positive, in the opinion of the Planning Office. The club has a
restaurant facility and the residential use is far less impactive in
2
0
•
terms of traffic generation and parking. The PUD amendment can be
justified by the change in condition being the elimination of plans to
use the house commercially.
If two units did not exist on the parcel, the question of upzoning
would require closer scrutiny. The RR zone requires a minimum lot
size of two (2) acres where R-15 requires only 15,000 sq. ft. However,
since two units exist, this action will be a rearrangement of the
units on the parcel and the R-15 zoning will make a non -conforming
situation more conforming.
The evaluation criteria for rezoning contained in Section 24-12.5 (d)
which are most germaine to this request are addressed as follows:
1. The rezoning will be compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. The
lots on the west side of the river, the Aspen Club Condo-
miniums, and the Riverside Addition are all R-15. There may
be some slope and stream margin considerations which will
impact this lot, but the initial survey work completed by
Alpine Surveys would indicate that there is an adequate
building site for a single-family home.
2. Traffic generation will be less, and hence road safety will
be improved with a residential use in place rather than a
commercial use. As discussed earlier in this memo, assurances
must be provided that the off-street parking to be eliminated
will be replaced.
There should be no adverse impacts on air or water quality, provided
that careful construction practices are used during building so that
the river is not disturbed. Utility service to the residence should
not be a problem and since the applicant assures us that two units
exist, there will be no impact on community balance. The zoning is
also compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
ALV IS ORY COMMITTEE VOTE:
The Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimously in favor of forwarding
a recommendation for approval of the rezoning from RR to R-15 and
subdivision_ of Lot 14 through amendment of the PUD plat with the
conditions listed below.
91
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission ar,d the Planning Office recommend
approval of the rezoning from RR to R-15 and subdivision of Lot 14
through anendment of the PUD plat. The appropriate motion for Council
is as follows:
"I move to adopt Ordinace 44 (Series of 1984) on Second Reading to
rezone the parcel from RR to R-15".
H
i !
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Stirling and Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
SUBJECT: PUD Amendment for Resubdivision of Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision
and Rezoning of Lot 14 from RR to R-15 (Ordinance 44, Series
of 1984)
DATE: December 17, 1984
SUMMARY
The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office recommend
subdivision of Lot 14 through amendment of the PUD plat and approval
of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1984, on first reading, to rezone
Lot .14 from RR to R-15. --:0 , -\
PREVIOUS COIINCIL ACTION:
-�-4-Y7_%/c tiuvt�Jrtic��c�ct.�t�--i�r�-,
Council has not previously reviewed or taken any action on this request.
BACKGROUND: — Q 1 :
In February of 1984, on the date the Municipal Code permits submission
of rezoning requests by private applicants, the Aspen Club submitted a
request for rezoning of Lot 14 from RR to R-15, resubdivision of the
lot into two single-family lots and a PUD amendment was originally
submitted. On April 3, 1984, and May 8, 1984, P&Z tabled review
pending receipt of additional information requested by the Planning
Office. On June 19, 1984, the public hearing was closed because the
applicant's legal counsel indicated that the application as submitted
was not being pursued.
Although in the interim the applicant has been looking at merging some
development within the Aspen Club with an approved development on the
adjacent Gordon property, the portion of the original application
which you are reviewing tonight deals only with Lot 14 of the Callahan
Subdivision.. Lot 14 consists of 1.806 acres and presently is occupied
by the "Benedict House" and eleven parking spaces. The structure has
been verified as a duplex (see attached documents A through E) , and
the applicants propose to remove the kitchen in one of these units and
to replace the unit on a newly formed (through PUD amendment) lot, to
be ref erred to as Lot 14W.
0 •
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
The first aspect of the applicant's request is to subdivide Lot 14
into two lots, each to contain a single-family residence. The applicant
has obtained the right to reconstruct the two houses, one on each lot,
by verifying the existence of two units, as per Section 24-11. 2 (a) of
the Code see attached Exhibits for proof of verification) .
If you grant —the applicant's request, Lot 14E, the fathering lot
-w-GiA-d- be left with 1.038 acres and a single-family house. The new
lot, Lot 14W,-woul-d be 0.768 acres and would also be allowed to
contain a single-family house. Alpine Surveys calculated that on this
new lot of approximately 33,460 sq. ft. a house with a floor area
ratio of 5,792 sq. ft. could be built. This figure was calculated
without the application of slope reduction.
The use which presently occupies the area of Lot 14W is a parking
lot. The lot accommodates eleven (11) cars. Peak demand times at the
Club require the use of these spaces. The applicant proposes replacing
the parking as shown on the site plan. The parking area will be
accessed by the existing road and is directly across from the main
parking lot. The space can accommodate twelve (12) cars. Addition of
the area to the plat and review by the Engineering Department for
adequacy of size and access will be required prior to final action by
Council.
Section 24-8.26 (b) allows for "changes in use or rearrangement of lots,
blocks and building tracts" if they "are shown to be required by
changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was
approved or by changes in community policy." When the original PUD
was approved, the intended use for the Benedict House was to be a
restaurant/clubhouse. The zoning placed on it was RR - Rural Residen-
tial. The intention of this zone is "to allow utilization of land for
low density residential purposes with customary recreational, institu-
tional, public and other compatible uses customarily found in proximity
to those uses permitted included as conditional uses." One-f amily
dwellings are permitted uses and a recreation club is a conditional use.
In two separate actions, the commercial square footage of this proposed
"restaurant/clubhouse" was transferred to the club for expansion
purposes. The house has been used as a residence by the present
owners of the Aspen Club as well as by the prior owner. All of the
commercial component of the club is on the east side of the river and
all development on the west side of the river is residential in
character. Therefore, the rezoning to R-15 and PUD amendment will be
a zoning to use and the formation of a conforming and compatible lot.
The elimination of the possibility of using the structure commercially
is positive, in the opinion of the Planning Office. The club has a
restaurant facility and the residential use is far less impactive in
terms of traffic generation and parking. The PUD amendment. can be
justified by the change in condition being the elimination of plans to
2
use the house commercially.
If two units
did not exist on the
parcel,
the question of upzoning
would require
closer scrutiny. The
RR zone
requires a minimum lot
size of two (2)
acres where R-15 requires only
15,000 sq. ft. However,
since two units
exist, this action
will be
a rearrangement of the
units on the
parcel and the R-15
zoning will
make a non -conforming
situation more
conforming.
The evaluation criteria for rezoning contained in Section 24-12.5 (d)
which are most germaine to this request are addressed as follows:
1. The rezoning will be compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. The
lots on the west side of the river, the Aspen Club Condo-
miniums, and the Riverside Addition are all R-15. There may
be some slope and stream margin considerations which will
impact this lot, but the initial survey work completed by
Alpine Surveys would indicate that there is an adequate
building site for a single-family home.
2. Traffic generation will be less, and hence road safety will
be improved with a residential use in place rather than a
commercial use. As discussed earlier in this memo, assurances
must be provided that the off-street parking to be eliminated
will be replaced.
There should be no adverse impacts on air or water quality, provided
that caref ul construction practices are used during building so that
the river is not disturbed. Utility service to the residence should
not be a problem and since the applicant assures us that two units
exist, there will be no impact on community balance. The zoning is
also compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan.
AL TERNAT IV ES :
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
ADV IS ORY COMMITTEE VOTE:
The Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimously in favor of forwarding
a recommendation for approval of the rezoning from RR to R-15 and
subdivision of Lot 14 through amendment of the PUD plat with the
conditions listed below.
3
•
0
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend
approval of the rezoning from RR to R-15 and subdivision of Lot 14
through amendment of the PUD plat. The appropriate motion for Council
is as follows:
"I move for approval of amendment of the PUD plat for the subdivision
of Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision into Lots 14E and 14W with the following
conditions:
1. Recordation of a plat approved by the Engineering Department
which includes the sedimentation ponds and an accurate
depiction of the current parking configuration.
2. That one of the two units is eliminated prior to any issuance
of excavation or building permits.
3. That the replacement parking solution on Lot 14W must
provide at least twelve (12) parking spaces and must be
shown on the recorded plat.
4. The PUD amendment and resubdivision of Lot 14 shall not be
final until final approval of Ordinance 44 (Series of 1984) .
I further move to approve on First Reading, Ordinance 44 (Series of
1984) to rezone the parcel from RR to R-15."
4
•
i
AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ BENEDICT
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Fritz Benedict, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say
as follows:
1. At all times prior to May, 1976, I was an owner of
property described as Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, as more
particularly described in the official approved plat thereof
recorded on May 19, 1976.
2. I am generally familiar with all conditions
required for the construction of single family dwelling units in
Pitkin County and Aspen, Colorado.
3. I have been involved in development activity in
Pitkin County and Aspen, Colorado for many years.
4. As one of the owners of what is now Lot 14,
Callahan Subdivision (which at the time of construction of the
two single family residences thereon, was situated in Pitkin
County, Colorado), I was responsible for developing two single
family dwelling units on that property.
5. The larger residence was constructed in 1958 and
the smaller residence was constructed in 1962.
6. On the basis on my experience and to the best of
my knowledge, all governmental requirements were satisfied in
constructing the two single family dwelling units situated on Lot
14 of the Callahan Subdivision.
Fritz Be edict
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of
December, 1984, by Fritz Benedict.
,v�W4pess my hand and official seal.
\jolt..�j�y
Notary Public
F,rjrl��mmission expires: '/g
EXHIBIT -"A"
ASPEN*PITKINOREGIONAL BUIL0II3 DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: December 6, 1984
RE: Benedict-Butera Residence
The County Assessors office records indicate this structure was originally built
in 1958. At the time, it was located in the County; annexation followed.
Assessor's records also indicate that in 1963 there were two dwellings in the
structure.
Although the -Building Department has been issuing permits and keeping records
since 1955, the only record in.this office for this structure goes back
to a remodel in 1972. Our lack of records.to verify when or how these two
units evolved can be a result of the lack of permit requirements at the time.
of building, or since the Building Department has been moved somewhere near
fifteen times in the last twenty years the records may just be gone.
My physical inspection indicated to me that the construction of the two
units appeared to have been done at the same time. The exterior materials
were the same and appeared to be weathered equally. Interiorly there is
indication from Water Department records that at 1305 Crystal Lake Rd., now
in the Goldsampt name, had a house and guest house; two kitchen sinks indicate
two kitchens. The Water Department records do not indicate dates for this
information.
To sum up, I cannot prove that this structure with two dwellings was done
illegally. My inclination is that the dwellings preexisted our code
requirements. If Mr. Benedict says he had built the structure with two
kitchens legally, or before certain"regulations,`I could not refute that
and -would willingly accept his statement..
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Colette Penne, Planning
BD/ar
offices:
110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/'925-5973
EXHIBIT "B"
mail address
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ASPEN*PITKIN I@EGIONAL BUILDIIsa DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
DATE: November 30, 1984
RE: Butera Dwelling; Verification
Today I made a physical inspection of the Benedict-Butera residence. In the
easterly portion of the residence was a three bedroom, three bath, kitchen dwelling.
On the westerly portion was a two bedroom, one bath, kitchen dwelling. The
two units were connected by a large breezeway. Under current codes this would
not meet the 20% common wall criteria for a duplex. What we have at this time
are two single family dwellings.
cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Hal Schilling, City Manager
BD/ar
offices:
110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
EXHIBIT "C"
303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
�lx
���F== SCITY.PEN
130 uth"g"'a len'a=street
-K . a
aspT
=,colorado81611
303-925 -2020
December 4, 1984
To whom it way concern:
Re: 1305 Crystal Lake Rd
1450 Crystal Lake Rd
As requested, I have searched the Water Department records on properties previous-
ly owned by Fritz/Benedict and/or Goldsant on Crystal Lake Rd. I have found
two properties that were in those names. One at 1450 Crystal Lake Rd is listed
as a single family residence, and the tap permit (#0694) was paid 11/19/84.
The other property is located at 1305 Crystal Lake (Goldsant). Our records
indicate that as of 1982 this property is a single family residence with a
guest house. I could find no record of a paid water permit, as our records
only go back to 1966.
Si cerely,
n Ballard
Administrative Assistant
Aspen Water Department
EXHIBIT "D"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1984)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS
LOT 14, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION TO R-15
WHEREAS, Dick Butera and Julie Anthony (hereinafter "Applicants),
owners of real property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein, did file a private application for rezoning on
February 15, 1984, pursuant to Section 24-12.5(b) of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the subject property described in Exhibit "A" is currently
located in the RR zone district and the Applicants did request a
rezoning of the subject property to R-15; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on December 4, 1984, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission did review the requested rezoning and
then did recommend to the Aspen City Council the rezoning of the
subject property described in Exhibit "A" to R-15.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled 'Zoning
District Map" is hereby amended by rezoning Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision,
more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein, as R-15 subject to those zoning regulations
applicable to the R-15 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended).
Section 2
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend the
Zoning District Map consistent with the requirement of the Aspen
Municipal Code and as described in Section 1 above.
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent. jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
f
9 .
not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the _ day
of , 198_, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
DATED: , 1984
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that Ordinance adopted by the City Council of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the _ day of ,
1985.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
•ti.
:.. ia; �i"., �' .:fix: ;"•?' ..
• MEMORANDUM •
To: Collette Penne
From: Elyse Elliott
Date: December 17, 1984
Re: Parking Proposal at the Aspen Club
In reviewing the proposed site for the twelve new parking
spaces, I noticed that this site is already being used as
parking space for four or five vehicles parked parallel.
The removal of the eleven parking spaces in Lot 14 and
"relocating" them would therefore result in a net loss of
three or four parking spaces.
Presently, during peak hours, vehicles are parked along
the roadway outside of the designated parking area. This
creates a hazardous situation as it restricts accessibility
of emergency vehicles.
We recommend that this ,situation not be exacerbated by
this proposal.
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Wilson, Building Inspector
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning office
RE: verification of Units - Benedict/Butera
DATE: December 11. 1984
The applicant, Dick Butera, is seeking verification of two residential
units on Lot 14 of the Callahan Subdivision. Our policy has been to
accept for the purpose of verification building permits. certificates
of occupancy. utility information, validation from the Growth Pianagement
Inventory, and affidavits.
As evidenced by the attached information, neither the applicant nor
the Building Department is able to produce building permits or certifi-
cates of occupancy for the units. However, the Building Department
has done an insn_ection and verifies that there are two units which are
not a duple;. but rather are single-family houses. The December 6.
1984, memo from the Building Department indicates their willingness to
accept that the dwellings pre-existed our Code requirements and,
therefore. were legally built.
The t'later Department records go back only as far as 1966. They do
indicate the existence of two units in 1982.
Generally, affidavits are our least preferred evidence for verification.
In this case, however, the information from Fritz Benedict has been
substantiated through other sources. The history of the use of the
"guest house" is recalled by long-time residents we have spoken with.
We, therefore, are prepared to verify the existence of the two units
for the purposes of their reconstruction, following Council's pending
action on the split of Lot 14.
I ask that you demonstrate your concurrence with my findings by
signi_1g in the space provided below and by sending me the original
back for our files.
Alan RichmanJi 1 on -
Acting Planning Director ief uilding Official
0 0
AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ BENEDICT
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Fritz Benedict, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say
as follows:
1. At all times prior to May, 1976, I was an owner of
property described as Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, as more
particularly described in the official approved plat thereof
recorded on May 19, 1976.
2. I am generally familiar with all conditions
required for the construction of single family dwelling units in
Pitkin County and Aspen, Colorado.
3. I have been involved in development activity in
Pitkin County and Aspen, Colorado for many years.
4. As one of the owners of what is now Lot 14,
Callahan Subdivision (which at the time of construction of the
two single family residences thereon, was situated in Pitkin
County, Colorado), I was responsible for developing two single
family dwelling units on that property.
5. The larger residence was constructed in 1958 and
the smaller residence was constructed in 1962.
6. On the basis on my experience and to the best of
my knowledge, all governmental requirements were satisfied in
constructing the two single family dwelling units situated on Lot
14 of the Callahan Subdivision.
Fritz Be ledict
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of
December, 1984, by Fritz Benedict.
aAWBtp6ss my hand and official seal.
..........
.r
NOTARY
Ptja L1 c:
ssion expires:
Notary Public
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
December 4, 1984
To whom it may concern:
Re: 1305 Crystal Lake Rd
1450 Crystal Lake Rd
As requested, I have searched the Water Department records on properties previous-
ly owned by Fritz/Benedict and/or Goldsant on Crystal Lake Rd. I have found
two properties that were in those names. One at 1450 Crystal Lake Rd is listed
as a single family residence, and the tap permit (#0694) was paid 11/19/84.
The other property is located at 1305 Crystal Lake (Goldsant). Our records
indicate that as of 1982 this property is a single family residence with a
guest house. I could find no record of a paid water permit, as our records
only go back to 1966.
Si cerely,
nn Ballard
Administrative Assistant
Aspen Water Department
G[1 RFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE
RONALD GARFIELD
(303) 925-1936
ANDREW V. HECHT
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
TELECOPIER
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
(303) 925-3008
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN
November 30, 1984
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: R.S.G. Development, Inc./Sheldon Gordon
Application
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
This letter is intended to amend that portion of the
application submitted on September 20, 1984, by R.S.G.
Development, Inc, and Sheldon Gordon concerning a lot split of
Lot 14 of the Callahan Subdivision ("Subdivision"). Since that
application was submitted, the applicant has verified that there
are now in existence two dwelling units on Lot 14 of the
Subdivision. There will not be created any additional dwelling
units. The applicant is proposing to demolish one of the
dwelling units and to reconstruct that dwelling unit at another
location on Lot 14 of the Subdivision. Such development activity
is exempt from complying with the allotment procedures of the
Growth Management Quota System pursuant to Section 24-11,2(a) of
the Aspen Municipal Code ("Code"), and therefore, the applicant
requests a declaration of exemption for the reconstruction of an
existing dwelling unit. The applicant also requests approval for
an exemption from the resubdivision requirements of the Code
pursuant to Section 20-4(d) of the Code. Section 20-19(b)
provides for the exemption for a division of land not within the
intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations. The division
of land in the instant case is solely for the purpose of
reconstructing the same number of dwelling units on the same lot
on which they already exist in a better configuration and to
permit the transfer of each existing dwelling unit to separate
ownership.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew V. Hecht
Attorney for
R.S.G. Development, Inc.
AVH/mp
• NOV 1 91984
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.D
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
TELECOPIER
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS
JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN "GARHEC"
VIA HAND DELIVERY November 16, 1984
Richard Grice
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: RSG Development, Inc./Sheldon Gordon Application
Dear Richard:
In further support of the above referenced application,
you have requested some evidence of a change in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved to support the
subdivision of Lot 14. I should first clarify that this is not a
lot split; since it is our position that two units already exist
on Lot 14. No additional density will be created.
The changes in conditions that have occurred are that
the commercial restaurant and club house which were originally
approved for the Benedict residence in the final plan have since
been changed through City approval to single family use.
Therefore, we now have an opportunity to better plan the use of
Lot 14 as a residential component of the PUD.
Respectfully submitted,
C �r
Andrew V. Hecht
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Attorney for RSG Development, Inc.
AVH/mp
ASPEN 4PITKlN%EGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer"""
DATE: December 6, 1984
RE: Benedict-Butera Residence
The County Assessors office records indicate this structure was originally built
in 1958. At the time, it was located in the County; annexation followed.
Assessor's records also indicate that in 1963 there were two dwellings in the
structure.
Although the Building Department has been issuing permits and keeping records
since 1955, the only record in this office for this structure goes back
to a remodel in 1972. Our lack of records to verify when or how these two
units evolved can be a result of the lack of permit requirements at the time
of building, or since the Building Department has been moved somewhere near
fifteen times in the last twenty years the records may just be gone.
My physical inspection indicated to me that the construction of the two
units appeared to have been done at the same time. The exterior materials
were the same and appeared to be weathered equally. Interiorly there is
indication from Water Department records that at 1305 Crystal Lake Rd., now
in the Goldsampt name, had a house and guest house; two kitchen sinks indicate
two kitchens. The Water Department records do not indicate dates for this
information.
To sum up, I cannot prove that this structure with two dwellings was done
illegally. My inclination is that the dwellings preexisted our code
requirements. If Mr. Benedict says he had built the structure with two
kitchens legally, or before certain regulations, I could not refute that
and would willingly accept his statement.
cc: Patsy Newbury,
Paul Taddune,
Colette Penne,
BD/ar
Zoning Official
City Attorney
Planning
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-SS73 Aspen, Colorado 81611
ASPEN*PITKIN SEGIONAL BUILDIA DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: November 30, 1984
RE: Butera Dwelling Verification
Today I made a physical inspection of the Benedict-Butera residence. In the
easterly portion of the residence was a three bedroom, three bath, kitchen dwelling.
On the westerly portion was a two bedroom, one bath, kitchen dwelling. The
two units were connected by a large breezeway. Under current codes this would
not meet the 20% common wall criteria for a duplex. What we have at this time
are two single family dwellings.
cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Hal Schilling, City Manager
BD/ar
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado B1611
S
r` €
CITY OF ASPEN
130 o th galena street
asp ho r'a'd o 81611
303=925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 10, 1984
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Illegal Subdivision of Lot 14A, Callahan Subdivision
I met with Mr. Butera, current owner of the Aspen Club, regarding
the apparently improper subdivision of Lot 14A, Callahan Subdivi-
sion, and have received the annexed explanation dated December 4,
1984.
You will note from Mr. Butera's letter that he represents that the
allegedly illegal subdivision was inadvertent and will be brought
into compliance. Although one of the primary enforcement goals in
the past has been achieving compliance, please advise whether you
feel Mr. Butera's response is satisfactory or whether other pro-
ceedings should be commenced.
In this regard, please note the following provisions of the Muni-
cipal Code:
* "Section 20-5(a) General Prohibition. It shall be unlaw-
ful for any person, firm or corporation, to violate any of the
provisions of this chapter or to transfer, sell, lease or agree to
sell or lease any lot, tract, parcel, site, separate interest
(including leasehold interest), interest in common, condominium
interest or other division within a subdivision, as defined in
Section 20-3(s), in the City of Aspen until such subdivision has
been approved in writing by the City Council and a plat thereof
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Provided, however, that a written agreement to sell or lease which
is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by the seller with
the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen within a speci-
fied period of time, and which expressly recites that seller's
failure to satisfy such condition within said period of time shall
terminate the agreement and entitle the buyer to the prompt return
of all consideration theretofore paid by the buyer under said
agreement shall not constitute a violation of this section."
Memorandum to City Manager
December 10, 1984
Page Two
* "Section 20-5(c) Prohibited Conveyances. No lot or parcel
of land, nor any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed,
sold subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to
create a new non -conforming use or to avoid or circumvent or sub-
vert any provision of this chapter."
* "Section 20-5(f) sets forth as remedies, among other
things, actions for abatement, refusal to issue building permits,
and withdrawing approval of a plan or plat.
Additionally, Section 1.8 of the Municipal Code, provides that
whenever an act is declared to be unlawful, the violation of any
such provision or ordinance shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment for a period of not more than
ninety days, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion
of the court. Each day any violation of the Code or of any ordin-
ance shall continue shall constitute a separate offense, unless
otherwise provided.
PJT/mc
Attachment
cc: Planning Director
Bill Drueding
I
Mr. Paul Taddune
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Paul:
I would like
which a subdivision,
at The Aspen Club.
T. Richard Butera
December 4, 1984
to describe to you the circumstances in
that appeared to be illegal, took place
In September of 1982 when my wife and I bought an interest
in The Aspen Club, from Robert Goldsamt, his attorneys structured
a rather complex deal. Mr. Goldsamt was taking an approximate
$3,000,000 loss on the transaction, and they were taking every
precaution to make sure that he could recognize that loss on
his income tax.
At the time, Mr. Goldsamt owned all of the real estate
at The Aspen Club, including his lots and house, in his own personal
name. For tax reasons, his attorneys in New York wanted him
to transfer the property from himself, personally, to an operating
corporation that he owns 1000 of the stock. This corporation
is known as RSG Development, Inc.
My wife, Julie, and I bought Aspen Club International,
Inc., the operating company of the Club. We were then given
an option to purchase the real estate at the Club, anytime after
January 1, 1985, for, in effect, $1.00.
All of this was done in order to move the property from
Mr. Goldsamt personally to his corporation and have it age in
that company.
1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8900
Mr. Paul Taddune
December 4, 1984
Page 2
In our agreements with Mr. Goldsamt, it was spelled out
that we were to purchase the Lot Number 14A portion (the parking
lot), Lot #15 (the Club) and when subdivided, one-half of Lot
14A; that half of the lot being the small parking lot at the
Club.
In view of the fact, that we were not going to take title
until 1985, no one rushed to have a subdivision approved of Lot
14A. This is the subdivision in question at the present time.
Andy Hecht handled most of the transaction regarding
the local legal procedures required for Julie and I to buy the
Club. However, Mr. Goldsamt's tax matters were handled by his
New York attorneys. They are the ones who prepared the deed
to transfer the property from Robert Goldsamt to RSG Development
Inc. In doing so, they made an oversight error by including
that half of Lot 14A, that was to be subdivided at a later date.
They obviously derived their legal descriptions from our agree-
ment of sale with Mr. Goldsamt, not realizing that Lot 14A had
not been legally subdivided at that time.
In any event, the matter is being corrected. Mr. Goldsamt
is going to execute a deed from RSG Development Inc. back to
himself, i.e., Robert Goldsamt. Sometime in 1985, assuming that
we are able to get a subdivision of Lot 14A, Julie and I will
take title of 14A and the rest of the real estate of the Club
in Aspen Club International, Inc.
I hope that this brief description gives you more insight
into the error that was made in New York, regarding this matter.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call
me.
Sincerely,
J
T. Richard t era
TRB/pn
cc: Andy Hecht
--AE-7- d
yR /P t
d"filf W411t
---------------- -
4t
10"t fivl'lolt�j fe"da, hot — PC I
Poo
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Jim Adamski, Housing Director
Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Dept.
Heiko Kuhn, Sanitation District
Steve Crockett, Fire Chief
Bill Drueding, Building Dept.
FROM: Richard Grice
RE: Gordon Conceptual Subdivision
DATE: October 5, 1984
Attached is an application submitted with respect to the Gordon
Subdivision and the Aspen Club Subdivision. The application proposes
a variety of changes to the Gordon Subdivision which was granted a
Growth Management allocation during the 1983-84 residential competition.
The Applicant proposes to amend that allocation by combining it with
approvals granted several years ago for the development of the Callahan
Subdivision also known as the Aspen Club. Further the applicant
proposes several changes to the Callahan Subdivision Plat including a
rezoning of Lot 14 and a lot split. Please also note that the applicant
proposes an RBO rezoning on the Gordon Property to accomplish the
proposed density, as represented by duplexes, each of which is half
free market and half employee.
We will be bringing this entire package before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on November 6th. Due to the complexity of this proposal,
your comments would be appreciated in a timely fashion no later than
October 25, 1984. Should you have any questions regarding this
application, please feel free to call me or Alan Richman at any time.
Thank you.
rt4 /'RofEC-r GA.- ►3e rr 1SY rNe' Rs t Corsu"ia�rQ
SAf-�t�RT�a. j�lsT'.%tcr #ca.EAaaK. ii 111-Nr !'ta- /N /sue-1to, , ..
Sit /�tio.�
itl o�-r-r Ta 7,,4oz 1,/icrJ t-.ItiE , /4�so Tryg orc?.ctcT /Z-ecL-,n, , TY4/iQ'
SNQ`vcy NA. f
(%AWN 4 1hp of INP- ,>-P-PKS 4" irs o "sE,e.L.,�E .4 j'r
The applicant reserves the right to alter the course of the ditch
and the width to form ponds in the landscape of the project.
C. The project is served by the Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District from an 8" sanitary sewer main located in the
right-of-way on the site (see Map #5). Each duplex will be
provided with a 4" service line connection. The total estimated
demand is 400 gallons per day per duplex.
D. Electricity is provided by Holy Cross Electrical
Association. Electrical service into the site will be
underground to each duplex. Each free market Unit will have a
200 amp service and each employee unit will have 100 amp,service.
Heat in the duplexes will be electric forced air interconnected
with passive solar collection.
E. The project will provide on -site retainage for
surface and run-off water in excess of pre -development rates.
Surface and run-off in excess of pre -development rate will be
ponded and released at the historical rate into the Riverside
Irrigation Ditch or the Roaring Fork River. At this time there
is no evidence of surface water to deal with (see Map 3).
F. The project will provide two (2) new fire hydrants
on the site. The nearest existing fire hydrants is in the Aspen
Club parking lot (see Map #5). The greatest distance from the
proposed fire hydrants to a proposed residence is 120 feet. The
distance to the fire station is 20 blocks; travel time from the
station to the site is less than 8 minutes.
G. The total site area including the area under the
Roaring Fork River is 3.99 acres. There is no requirement for
•
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN
VIA HAND DELIVERY
GARFIJl LD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
November 13, 1984
Mr. Richard Grice
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
P.
p�6�oe�
NOV 131984 II�
Re: Callahan Subdivision/Gordon Subdivision P.U.D.
Dear Richard:
As a supplement to the radius search for the Callahan
Subdivision which we delivered to you yesterday, enclosed is a
copy of a letter from Stewart Title with an attached list of
adjacent owners to Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mp
Enclosures
STEW,&RT TITLE
OF ASPEN. INC
602 E HYMAN • ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
November 13, 1984
Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re: Adjacent Owners to Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision
Our Order No. 2192 Ti
Dear Andy:
Enclosed, please find a list of adjacent owners to Lot 2,
Gordon Subdivision. This list is effective through November
1, 1984.
Although we believe the facts stated are ture, this
Certificate 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
obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained
herein. /%
Sincer
Charles C,,�'Z-Smith
Executive Vice President
C C S : d m
Enclosures
0
•
Lot 1,
Gordon Subdivision
Lot 10,
Calderwood Subdivision
Lots 8 & 9
Callahan Subdivision
Riverside Joint Venture
c/o Enloe
P. 0. Box 225644
Dallas, Texas 75265
Elizabeth Marie Ott
c/o Elizabeth Marie Jones
P. 0. Box P
Aspen, Co. 81612
RSG Development, Inc.
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Co. 81611
Riverview Condominiums Common Areas
Riverview Associates, a
Partnership
(no address available)
Note: We find no conveyance by said Riverview Associates
(developer) of said common areas, however, their name does
not appear on the Real Estate Tax Roles of Pitkin County
Riverview Condominium
Association, Inc.
c/o Vacation Resorts
709 E. Durant
Aspen, Co. 81611
Unplatted tract lying East of the subject tract and South
of Lot 9, Callahan Subdivision
Ute Park
Patricia E. Maddalone
Box 635
Aspen, Co. 81612
The City of Aspen, Colorado
A Municipal Corporation
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
MR IORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING DEPT.
JIM MAR.KALUNAS
GORDON SUBDIVISION
OCTOBER 16, 1984
p 11e02odls �
OCT 171984
In respect to the water situation, if the applicant still intends to LOOP by connecting
the 8" cast iron in Centennial Circle to the 6" water main in Riverside (Hydrant 242-
244, map 5) as proposed in the original submission, (see our attached letter of
December 13, 1983), water would be available to the applicant for this proposed de-
velopment in sufficient quantity.
Jil : ab
PEN
e e t
611
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNER
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983
RE: GORDON PROPERTY
We have reviewed the application known as the Gordon Property and concur
with the statement that the looping of the water main from the end of
Riverside Drive to the Aspen Club interconnect will improve reliability
of service and upgrade the existing neighborhood distribution system by
providing for an alternate routing of water in the event of a main fail-
ure. However, it should be noted that availability of water to the site
would require a main extension but the looping does create an improvement
to the water system. Assuming that the applicant will install the looped
main extension, water would be available in sufficient quantities to the
subdivision.
JM:lf
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Gordon -Aspen Club Conceptual Subdivision
DATE: November 6, 1984
In order that you properly review the proposed amendment to the Gordon
GMP, we suggest you first consider under what circumstances changes to
approved projects would be allowed.
The purpose for the GMP amendment provisions (Section 24-11 .7 (b)) is
to recognize that circumstances sometimes change subsequent to the
filing of a conceptual application which necessitates minor changes
to some aspect (s) of a proposal. It is not intended to permit an
applicant to gain approval of a particular concept and then to completely
redesign the proposal to represent another concept. It is also not
intended to permit an applicant to amend an application to take
advantage of subsequent regulatory changes which an applicant may
find more desirable. To interpret the GMP amendment Section otherwise
would mean that there are no givens involved in a GMP quota allocation
and that the quota once obtained is simply an asset to be brokered
without obligation to ultimately develop a project consistent with the
concept which was awarded the quota. This is not to say that once a
development concept is submitted that it should never be changed but
rather that the new concept should be resubmitted to a new competition.
We believe that this application is not consistent with the criteria
for a GMP amendment. It represents an entirely new design and concept
not a minor modification to the concept to which the quota was awarded.
The change is necessitated by a contractual arrangement between Sheldon
Gordon and the adjacent property owner.
The amendment must be evaluated under the regulations which were in
effect at the time of the competition. However, it does not meet the
minimum housing requirement which was in effect at the time of the
competition. As shown in our attached rescoring of the application,
the new score results in an alteration of the applicant's position
relative to the other applicant's which competed at the same time and
the application no longer meets the minimum threshold in the housing
section. We therefore recommendation denial of the application to
amend the Gordon GMP project.
r r ::z : wr➢> F w.L PLtT
dos .,': � . • ,
.flrA= G.I!..00 ul.t b O �I bye E .'. ' 'ice• ` !
y r• r T �' ~ s •� (< • MO A iaRi1R+ ur tC10 '•�, Y E
•r'/>r w• wrr' J' >O ARARCUTV �.]� i S S=
._ S~ �- 4w.i •e. u/vr K S E\L<KAI .v nKXil?+fr .LRJ KNOT. __ y' t ��
.. • r aeiE..aa ^(Na w m •► ,. •i..r.+.. . n.a .e ....
•t>♦'Y 00's'•
�7 I • tJftrs M M 1 !•_
✓/ :L?.wEI 1.. t!'f11f •i1�ir' P � , O O !O•NC Y.N r �.i'..aa .ap�yE,
y ( Q•T �� • .iaa ti
r w•• r � � w i~ ay � I I 1 i�,N.�•),.I /Nt (QbfKIO 1fA
-'' 11 J, •Sa•n•es•i rsa. xz sc�n,cT _
1 Ybc^r'r•n YM
�' _ •�• w �T � � ewmcT :.•-o ..o uTTu, mA.wr.r ••
♦' � wY.Mn W/M YCY•�+ •i ♦: O, . _, a tl• C p0•/ YL HT.M .4aa1T Ma '
S.
't.n •`\\v `. • � ! wwr I' \•w:�� �� D 1`ie tip-• �c'f-sr.�f.o
r . ,... -�:d i /�. \n '3 O� �D-i r t.•t AOC .. ..
k� ' ® ,, - ter. � .,. . • a :.� .?j; � m� 'f y s »• a' w a w.cc �jG�•�•.-h'x..•SC.r<. i
*•,, rwr tvoO114 —L< �LI-�' _ e.�io:� I •` A: ' .� r .` 18._4'R_CET �✓!'v
,-
7`:..
w.�(� ' � S - '> Esc :+. •` Nww:
r r , H °co+r� c fco. ova ... ..
x
' _ �`a' t ` F / ..+.� \ p r,.w. ns"" ` Oa._`• �' r .. id T• CJFrt E•.K • CER b APP({ *_
.. . a ate/' r• ! ' L uc Ytrn v •.. .t T,r• aq.. sr. Mt. ✓�..
LP1i`� i � ,., ... ar. '. 'lam � ��•'. ^ :i.
4 ;3 Alt n •�' • r: nia F�. �LV+•'+G ArD :1W NG (4r.�.r: tvw Ar
> T $
�SCMFNTD OF RFGORD tt m q , .wry y +„o r.eo-.+ad. r.w• s ri..•w... s..s'-
{ ws�in ron _ ,jf. ➢ s v , "�� R �^ 'ti a.�a: �.?-�•'t,�'•'O «( �•+•••
rar.<a aawYrxr ��` rRP .aces �r vEr`�('o "ter � !r-rr �r ra. vi-. ma� •
• 4 m wuE _ ti uerrern �... IPwew ....• r..t...,e.IT u..nrr,...,i ->: ..: _ - ' .- ? --P.m.m o..w rw
oYl.•hf! t�!•�T iU TE +tY t ti P�KAtS MAD RGC R�J,T!Ch AOfMI.•••..
' .' `_ _•�� ,`� /rrrFASEN4P Q5 TR.s aYaa.+o,. w,.• a ......... •. w.•... .+.s
A7e,i<._ ac, r TM 011`Y: 'a Ewlaw •.o m •-�• .
p :: �\ M+en.' I .„r N.ury r ••\.n> >..W. r .ner• • rt. Jl, •e/B+. nnJ:_ O+.r _�'% / •
UNPLATT :, •�>•-+*•<vT. ass.K aao w.a sm��.o .a aremw..; Rr Pac :S • ; ���• ---- �rer�+.�sa. c..c. Y.,e •. ew. r+ewrw
.r r '� '••''--'-'� , _ wM.\e .r.. �. w.•a-r• -:F.+- �.....'+••t«. � �.� Srr4.nr...
i /�'�-� •,'. ! \ tmlrT rrse.ere ,oR eaPirs vn.Teb a- -r i,�• A- A` -- '-,• .
\\ �.cTar➢.aT
J � / ��� •., `- �V{?!p^J -PrS� �-fiT_ 10. �i'w- a� a%`*rirn�rM�.c�\o �•ea .z ne.sz �'•'�'a� 4-`� •� II�PIH GTl' (M. -E+Cr �.r[?{ GT`r�►3 �uFi•aaa `,�,'e omr.._ra e. •..w �r w.c.c n Esast'P^rR'"'�. a_ n.�i. �'.•
T _ .Grr�.e....n +e.w r... w .+e ra✓.. ,_ ••� +ca-e-• «..c+� i= Q� /�H� Tra ara-.s.s..... a..:.._..... ...
r ' Nr 7 T•f 111r..aK Yo T... 110412> M .•M• !'f. rOtnGE�� NrYI D't' Y...:.+^J K>'.YIYwV .TU Wir-.+•\':gib. iErv- wrc ar M ..► ..p.... -..v �"..•..`s'..
,i. _ � ! 'C\.aMM '-T.fOIS� G b:LL�r: a p�M' Y MfC�.! 4/r+CR. rYK� T.r. y� Orw Ir•w . ~
/ dAM� �M-�+N!' � Rrr Or..�'pK.. On• (t> � IYYI a0af � 4.o.Ow�.r 'w RnC �� r
t . \ rAF Vf { f •A'>J' •a]RM r wrE y .til A T+� t/'1 i•1 r Y•T R� •Ca .RYr'.YS> � E'r\F•6 MIP >•�
i f � F.RY.Osit �s .0. . .1wME• w, l�•C rO r. � (OO< 6lOT� .•frP .04� iG >GKA h11 Y'� t/1�0r 1: .1f !A; (]+� M r/ � _ - .� '
l tisAT r�r• -•it4C > IA •v p M KP'r . nw Ar .'. T.i c.w.+ rr. w 't( M' r+G :.. .. _ 1TrY6L�ilL
l 1 "' •.off. .! K. T A (:.4'n. o *E re F T '\rlf i.An /W>w�u'.vG ' lSOm ..• .r( ar >K+ J( n •> ,. m'+awGTPD � { i1 .a.--•+.•n.�r�...'. <' Xw•.����xc r�r.r.. A�o-rr. ..�:� L��'► �:i t we •" �rC"m °eCae re *e rns'(. �rLf�....-r'-r . YYY Tv �^'b"••b fiwfvl_ TerTl. ruyr• •>•n+a. w wwG\p
iE ! - •u'S(s ^! wf! CY • (N+G D TM wwr, yNy V fo co sear . nliu. •.�t'J•'G lLoo r.cn T4A >.•..�f'(\�, n1a .s• �naa V'\Pv .lMn O M EOi1..�� v�c'.40 C�f'tC Q�S �Q.� C•- ` • �Pn•,w nnm..r r, ne*r arina a°'"�•'''rz•ts n'>Rm ruT. u�rD.MO
S J � I+ m TUT ...r a .•s .,^ ... nu,.,. ,.a s' T .an.s. T.a •nr. or I.(...tk To�nc �n "0"^'e na w; n�,F..ose ri.iT w. e.w �" wre mww+T �"^'r( or T.¢ as BE:p�EiG_�T�f'ICI�TS
Awc a• . a..a�s. a ... v ..w.+c. w /woos �+o (_ >.i> �lir�•'Ra-KEa u�...r+cerr TRIV +r.,r ri wnrn w .v.o ,w TE '�= r ro
a � � ' rrJtL / Tme � e� airs�e_�. arT.!!➢ ro err ^•o.. n�}iar. a• w rwa.•r: ,o Two. rr.Ir ww- , e' LL�. n� iy,., s a.wv w srar\ a...+ \''S as^•\oeo+ w+en �+�'�S• oo'•. •1'A� i i� M
y. j ro.a.n. oP In m reel: Ttr_eu aswr. ..rr:... »Tarl � G f5..'i
� �-/\� Tdf waa4 TIt•. IA[, 0, rRRsrh G ■ a rer T wip.(..w AAL OF A REM ..G 41Rv! Lnr.:• 1 �., _ nrNT rNr4 Or y rY.T. - , .0�. CfAt! OW 1>� r tI P• a/a M••.•' w- �► •'
`/ 41r I To TO n6 Ll rf MNN• w RK.a_. � P/C 6Ur. Y TMn Q+IT. -� gOmTf1•� G �t�.� OR1C lr� .
5 �K �!/ T ..A..,� .ypy,•s o• S+Y T.RW_ Y •N rr e-r w.oti� T..r_ Na'+s�M rllrT� fALr4 aF :f..o TIW..J tOO,A.eT.p. • .
`1 w!K fr��•f1 P �bt M. ro MA RPNMrG U.4! TO r\M . ��i
r
RPT yqY. 'T,E waK (.JRbP Tr.G TRa Rw.(T r•w.rr w /�
asrr Rw�tr6 A •\wp,h or .tl.ao raGT, ![f/,� Ow LTim rlG TD A IUNT O�T.I. ���tM�`v!i�� r Fes+ .71 w/t).•R/.S �-i w T➢ A P4ulf oR TK aou(RaR�F t.R s M Lbf •i. Ta Rl.o + SJC Rr'•'a.L[' .
�� �.I.O<.aR Yn s., T.a ..Y:a..o w• aro � ASS � �d.,e R..-�... ena.a*.: r.e .000.a,oee� a-ta,.. �: At[er'`••..%Jfl1
" ; r.eo.o: A rlIAYT:i'h'J RJDExi q (L7.D.�. ...� .,. "' .? � ♦ i>�• "mac er • w v ws ji � .c..a`T`4 . • ' ..
.i •�.�y� _ yr �.. .�Y _ 'r'°,.�Ci-w rAac.•"�'� per- .ei.,e.e.•M�~w..�
i
r•6C'��"."Y` _ .. �, _. _ . � �r,a„.... -... rr,�yewyRlTMjy�,.1Mt!1n!Y'�'•'yD''ix` .
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Club - PUD Amendment for Resubdivision of Lot 14;
Rezoning of Lot 14 from RR to R-15
DATE: December 4, 1984
BACKGROUND
In February of 1984, the Aspen Club submitted a request for rezoning
of Lot 14 from RR to R-15, resubdivision of the lot into two sincle-
family lots and PUD amendment was originally submitted. On April 3,
1984, and May 8, 1984, you tabled review pending receipt of additional
information requested by the Planning Office. On June 19, 1984, the
public hearing was closed because the applicant's legal counsel
incicated that the application as submitted was not being pursued.
Although in the interim the applicant has been looking at merging Lome
development within the Aspen Club with an approved development cn the
adjacent Gordon property, the portion of the original application
which you are reviewing tonight deals only with Lot 14 of the Callahan
Subdivision. Lot 14 consists of 1.806 acres and presently is occupied
by the "Benedict House" and eleven parking spaces. The applicant
submits that this is a duplex structure, but a verification of the
units has not yet been completed. This documentation will hopefully
be available by your meeting. The application is to remove the
kitchen in one of these units and to move the unit onto a newly ro.,-med
(through I'UD aacnaient) lot, to be referred to as Lot 1411.
Lot 1.4E, the fathering lot, would be left with 1.038 acres and a
single-family house. The new lot, Lot 10.7, would be 0.768 ac:re_s and
would also be allowed to contain a single-family house. This right
would be from the second unit eliminated from the existing duplex
(provided that the legality of the unit is verified) . Alpine Sur.�.eys
calculated that on this new lot of approximately 33,460 sq. ft. a
house with a floor area ratio of 5,792 sq. ft. could be built. This
figure was calculated without the application of slope reduction.
The use which presently occupies the area of Lot 107 is a parking
lot. The lot accommodates 11 cars. Peak demand times at the Club
require the use of these spaces. The applicant has indicated the
willingness of a neighboring property owner (Pat Mattalone) to grant
an easement to allow for the use of a portion of her property for
parking. The strip of property is accessed by the existing road and
is directly across from the stain parking lot. The applicant indicates
that it can accorzmo6k..1-.--.e 13 cars. The easement, addition of thc area
to the plat and review i),- the Encine-crina Department for
r,k, and access will be re•: ui.red before Council action on this applica-
tion.
Section 24-8.26 (b) allows for "changes in use or rearrangement of lots,
blocks and building tracts" if they "are shown to be required by
changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was
approved or by changes in comm unity policy." When the original PUD
was approved, the intended use for the Benedict house was to be a
restaurant/clubhouse. `11-.e zoning placed on 1- was RI1 - Rural Rcsiden-
ti al. The intention of this zone is "to allc;,i utilization of land for
low density resi(Ilential purposes with customary recreational, insti.tu-
tionzl, public and other compatible uses customarily found in proxi;..ity
to those uses permitted included as conditional uses. " One-f arr.ily
dwellings are permitted uses and a recreation club is a conditional use.
In two separate actions, the commercial square footage of this proposed
"restaurant/clubhouse" was transferred to the club for expansion
0 0
purposes. The house has been used as a residence by the present
owners of the Aspen Club as well as by the prior owner. All of the
commercial component of the club is on the east side of the river and
all development on the west side of the river is residential in
character. Therefore, the rezoning to R-15 and PUD amendment will. be
a zoning to use and the formation of a conforming and compatible lot.
The elimination of the possibility of using the structure commercially
is positive, in the opinion of the Planning Office. The club has a
restaurant facility and the residential use is far less impactive in
terms of traffic generation and parking. The PUD amendment can be
justified by the change in condition being the elimination of plans to
use the house commercially.
If two units did not exist on the parcel, the question of upzoning
would require closer scrutiny. The RR zone requires a minimum lot
size of two (2) acres where R-15 requires only 15,000 sq. ft. If two
units are verified, however, this action will be a rearrangement of the
units on the parcel and the R-15 zoning will make a non -conforming
situation more conforming.
The evaluation criteria for rezoning contained in Section 24-12.5 (d)
which are most germaine to this request are addressed as follows:
1. The rezoning will be compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. The
lots on the west side of the river, the Aspen Club Condo-
miniums, and the Riverside Addition are all R-15. There may
be soire slope and stream margin considerations which will
impact this lot, but the initial survey work completed by
Alpine Surveys would indicate that there is an adequate
building site for a single-family home.
2. Traffic generation will be less, and hence road safety will
be improved with a residential use in place rather than a
commercial use. As discussed earlier in this memo, assurances
must be provi ciecl that the off-street parking to be (-J i imi. n ated
will b2 replaced.
There should be no adverse impacts on air or water quality, provided
that careful construction practices are used during building so that
the river is not disturbed. Utility service to the residence should
not be a problem and since the applicant assures us that two units
exist, there will be no impact on community balance. The zoning is
also compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMIENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends that unless proof of the existence of
two chaelling units on Lot 14 ( through the verification process) and
proof of the ability to use the ilattalone property for replacement
parking is provide, you table the application for that documentation.
If the documents
are available at this meeting,
or if you fecal
the
ap}>l ic.atJ.an can go
forward to Council final
action !)einc�
he cl
t tic. r.eque_ teci
in ormz:.t.icn. is }lrovi.c-�d, wo
recommc nd
c.ppi.-oval
of the rf'..:Zoill.ng Lroill l �', tG :;-15
and E;ui.. :' ., ..�.i C>il G
t,c;',_ :l.�! cro.tt✓i :,enc:r;er:i: o- the 1UD plat .;iLh J:ullcwinc
1. Recordation of a plat approved by the Engineering Department
which includes the sedimentation ponds and an accurate
depiction of the current parking configuration.
2. That two units are verified as existing on the parcel
presently and one unit is eliminated prior to any issuance of
excavation or building permits.
3. That ease;;e..t �era-4-pe4- and replace.;.ent
parking solution e ='Ynust provide at least e' e -� �
parking spaces. Z)
2 -
AS6 ENOPITKI!V REGIONAL 13U!LDIN? = DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office tax
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: November 30, 1984
RE: Butera Dwelling Verification ,
Today I made a physical inspection of the Benedict-Butera residence. In the
easterly portion of the residence was a three bedroom, three bath, kitchen dwelling.
On the westerly portion was a two bedroom, one bath, kitchen dwelling. The
two units were connected by a large breezeway. Under c�irrent codes this would
not meet the 20% common wall criteria for a duplex. What we have at this time
ate two single family dwellings.
cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
.Hal Schilling, City Manager.
BD/ar
offices:
110 Last Hallam Street
Aspens, Colorado SIG-311
mail address:
506 Last Main Street
t
0
•
t
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN
VIA HAND DELIVERY
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIC, ORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
November 16, 1984
C�[2Uw_�
D
NOV 1 91984
TELEPHONE
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
'.GARHEC"
Richard Grice
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: RSG Development, Inc./Sheldon Gordon Application
Dear Richard:
In further support of the above referenced application,
you have requested some evidence of a change in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved to support the
subdivision of Lot 14. I should first clarify that this is not a
lot split; since it is our position that two units already exist
on Lot 14. No additional density will be created.
The chances in cone:',_ti.cns that havc oc cilrred are i hat
the commercial restaurant and club hou:ie which were originzilly
approved for the Benedict residence in the final. plan have since
been changed through City approval to single family use.
Therefore, we now have an opportunity to better plan the use of
Lot 14 as a residential component of the PUD.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Andrew V. Hecht
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Attorney for RSG Development, Inc.
AVH/mp
I
79
--
y� /
�\ . �;:: ...........f
7 8
r 9
8
^ j'� ✓ l
F A R Cts REWRED TO R-iS i 57` 2 f-Z rT
`i ✓ BEFORE SIDPE REDUCTION PER 6:�:L`!^••;
DEPARTMENT FORMULA
- -- - j TOTAL LOT AREA 35.4bl 5o FT
CAItTOUR '.n'ER�AL- BEET.
•
E
C:
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM:- Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department
BATE: March 20, 1984
CA- -r-
RE: The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment/
Conditional Use Application
---------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application and having made several
site visits, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. The contents of this application are not a good
representation of the application. The requirements of
Section 20-19, Exceptions and Exemptions, are vague. This
section has been taken in the past to mean that an exception
application is exempted from the conceptual (Sec. 20-10) and
preliminary (Sec. 20-11 et seq) portions of Chapter 20 and that
the applicant may proceed immediately to the final plat
(Sec. 20-14 et seq) portions of Chapter 20. The materials
received by the Engineering Department do not res_eond to fi-ial
plat submission contents.
2. Creation of an additional residential site in the subdivision
will increase the utility supply requirements of the subdivision.
The utilities should be contacted to see if they can supply
the additional services and if they need additional easements.
3. None of the mapping documents submitted, nor any of the
recorded plattings and amendements, shows the nark-n a! _L
exists at the present moment. Apparently the Aspen C1..13
permission to increase their narking lot size for a s;�ecial
activity during the summer of 1983. There was a possibility
that the parking area would be returned to its original state
following the special activity. If the Aspen Club intends to
keep the parking area as is, it needs to be reflected on the
platting for this amendment.
4. None of the mapping submitted shows clearly that there is
an eleven car parking lot located on the proposed Lot 1411.
Also, this parking lot is insufficiently graded for proper
drainage.
5. There are two sedimentation ponds indicated on the original
platting, one by the parking lot and one on Lot 14. These
were represented as drainage improvements and must be shown
on this amendment platting.
Page Two
The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment/
Conditional Use Application
March 20, 1984
6. The Engineering Department made three site inspections:
A. 1. Tuesday afternoon., 2:30 p.m., March 13, 1984
2. Thursday evening, 7:30 p.m., March 15, 1984
3. Midday Saturday, 11:30 a.m., March 17, 1984
At none of these visits was the parking overflowing the
available spaces. If the 11-car lot referred to in comment number
4 is removed during the lot split process, the remaining
parking would scarcely have been able to handle the parking
requirements witnessed during the site inspections.
7. The Engineering Department would like to take the opportunity
of this review to check with all the utilities to verify that
the design proposals of the original submissions/approvals have
been met. This is a good time to make sure that the utilities
are functioning well. If they aren't, we should obtain commitments
at this time to provide for remedial work.
8. There is an access easement through Lots 7 & 8 to Lot 2
of the Gordon Subdivision. This easement has not been indicated
on previous platting and must be shown on this amendment. it
is recorded at Book 316, Page 961.
9. There appears to be a language problem in the letter: of
application dated January 20, 1984. Paragraph two of the
letter suggests that the lot split will be "excepted from ....
subdivision regulations of the code." See comment number 1
of this review.
10. An inquiry at the Assessor's Office revealed that the western r
of Lot 14 has already been conveyed by Goldsamt to RSG Developr^cn`:
deed recorded at Book 440, Page 444, copies of which are available for
inspection at the engineering office.
CR/co
cc: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
Louis Buettner, City Surveyor
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
1 Julio Mine REcorder
REeorded At 2: _ `flay 19, 1976 Re•ception no 163J
1 I
V
SUDDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOP IE-4T AGREEMEUT
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISIO14
THIS AGREFI-LENT, made this,, day of
1976, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City"), and BENEDICT LAND L CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes
collectively called "the owner"), and ROBERT S. GOLDSMIT or
the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometimes called "the
subdivider").
N I T N E S S E T H
- KAEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of
the owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution,
and recordation, the final plat and'development plan of a tract
of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. 10S,
Range 84 vest of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado,
designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat"); and
UMEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area
in the City zoned RR and R-15;'ard
MEME_AS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement cf the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or ncighL.oring
"•properties by reason of the proposed development and improve -
went of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the o%-ier
and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requi-ements, terms, and conditions of the
City of AF .. i=:'.:_._v_s:_ :. --..._. _r. cf : _: t a:._ oc .._
laws, rules and requlations as are anpli=ablc: and
WHEMNS, the City has Imposed cor�3itic,..as-aghd- requirements
In connection with its approval, execut_lon and acceptance for
9
• OK312 uALdI . E
4
i
recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) of the
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance
that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution
.and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is
agreed as follows:
1. All references to lot numbers hereinafter set forth
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ('Plat').
A. Fee simple title to Lots No. 13 and 13-A will
be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium
owners, subject to existing easements and road and*
utility easements contemplated by the Plat and
additional utility easements as may be required. Lots
No. 13 and 13-A will be used for condominium units.
B. Lot No. 13-B shall be conveyed in fee simple `
i
to a corporation to be organized by the purchaser of i
such property from the owner or by such purchaser's
assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as
'Holding Corporation'. The Holding Corporation shall grant
to all condominium and honesite owners a non-exclusive
easement for the recreational use of Lot 13-B so long as
such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or
-commercial use by P.U.D. amen6ment or other appropriate f
govern"%,.tal apprnral and shall grant such easements
as are necessary for the roads and ut::ities reflected
on the Plat.
� I ;
c. Lot ,:3. 14 will be owncl in fcc simple title
c� - _.:.t_ .. con-
trolled by or under cocmon control with Vie Holding
-2-
OCOK312 i,,u112
Corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict
residence situated on this lot will be converted to
a Clubhouse. The owners of condominium and homesites will
be granted an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage
by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing.
D. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed in fee
simple title to the Holding Corporation or a corporation
Controlled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or -its of their assignees. Lot 14-A will
Contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and -
recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot
15 will-eontain recreationali-lities.
/ 8. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed_in
fee single title to the purchasers of these ten home -
sites. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy
by tro families; the other lots are for single-family '
homes. _
F. 'a.ot No. 11 is designated as a single-family
lot.
G. Lots 12 an! --+ are cc_? _ -•._:L'. .:csicna_ed as a
single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for
Lot 12.
H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of Ashon. '
I. All roads a:: reflected on the Flat and the
shall b,-
control ! ...
-3-
c
-i;
i
COOK31.2 r"c:l 3
Corporation or its or their assignees, and such corpor-
ation shall grant an irrevocable non-exclusive license
to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for
their use. The owner shall retain a non-exclusive
cost-free easement on Crystal Lake Road for access,
ingress, and egress to and from Lots 11, 12 and 12-A.
Ownership of those lots is being retained by the owner.
J. Easements for utility improvements and rights
of way shrill be granted to the Public Utilities as
shown on the Plat.
X. Maintenance of the property and structures in -
eluded within the Plat shall be the responsibility of
the owners of the fee simple title to such uroperty
and improvements; provided, however, when hereunder
any easement is granted with respect to any such land
Or improvement, the cost of maintenance shall be borne
by all grantees of such easements.
L. The City shall previde up to a maximum of C.GS cfs.
of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter
set forth in Paragraph 3(e)(1) for the maintenance of a
water level not lower than the lowest water level in
Crystal Lake as shown on Page 3 of the Plat. The Holding
Corporation or a corporation controlled by or under common
control with t!:e Holding Corporation or its or their assignees,
shall rake provision for supplying such water to Crystal Lake
in order to insure its us_ for recreational activity.
2. Subjc,t to tho conditions contained in this' paragraph,
the subdivider shall f,rovide for the estimated costs for construc-
tion of al corLnon improvements which include construction of
roads, u`_ilitio,;, .�_. .
:n,7
and paving if requirod t-J s,b,ii;,;•,, (the recreational
trail), as described in the a,reement between Pitkin County
and Benedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through
the sub9ivisinn ar. ::'i^.: 1 on tho T.:,
•
engineering plans. Al so inclu.;,,! :.:::�11 br street lighting
-Am Ah
Mr
r BDOK312
sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads and traffic signs to
comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve-
ments shall commence in the spring of the year in which construction
On Lots 13, 13A or 15 is to commence hereunder, or any homesites
are sold, whichever event occurs sooner, and shall be constructed
with due diligence thereafter until completed. In order to
secure the performance of the construction and installation of
-the improvements herein agreed to by the subdivider and the
City, and to guarantee one hundred (100%) percent of the current
estimated cost of the irprovements agreed by the City Engineer to
be $ 271,000.00 , the subdivider shall guarantee through a
conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment
from a financially responsible lender (irrevocable until the
construction is completed) that funds of the estimated costs of
Construction are held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the construction and installation of improvements hereinabove
described. In the event, however, that any portion of the improve-
ments have not been installed according to the conditions contained
herein, then, and in that event, the City ray have such remaining
work and improverents cc -:feted by such and in such manner,
by contract with or without _._c i_,tt=r.-, or otherwise, as it may
deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the City out
of the• fun,:_ h^!d t.. -
_ s:..,.._:icC_ for
the City's costs ins -:c•' in c -pletin•; sa:u worY, and improvE-
Ments; provid, d, e.',-a11 the lender be
obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate estimated
st:.r• for these impr•;v�,..-••,1_J, is_•ss those amounts previously paid
and approved by the City,by reason of default of the subdivider
in the performance o` LL•� terns, conditions, and covenants con-
tained i this : �: ? �! • ,,
"._ City waiv•-•a no right
ex -
be
• i
c.._.:: ,:*,J htsrein progress, j
the subdivider m.i•.• th-V t'•,.o` City Engineer +
sus,-: t t,• - —irk. a%J improvements.
1
ecox= IAU1i.r.
When the City Engineer is satisfied that such work and improve-
ments as are required by the subdivider to be completed in fact,
have been completed in accordance with the terms hereof, the
City Engineer will submit to the lender its statement that it
has no objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much
of the above -specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs
of work perfor7red and improvements installed pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement, except that ten (10%) percent of the
estimated cost shall be withheld by the lender until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
• Engineer. Subdivider shall prepare and be responsible for the
preparation of engineering plans-, specifications, and construction
drawings for all improver-ents included in Paragraph 2 above. These
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer
and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any ez'nstruction
by the Subdivider. Subdivider zhall also be responsible for pro-
viding all r.ccesLar;• crz ne^ring any/or surveying services in con-
junction with the construction of said irprovements. The City
Engin^erir.g r .... .. rc•f*,-
Pricr to the corriencement
of construction no tr:-it tr:-- wcrk may be inspected during construction.
3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit 'A' attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.)
<. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside�Ditch
for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a rutherized material to
prevent scepsge onto 1.ots 9 and 9. If the subdivider finds that
use cf a feasible altcrnati• i!
_._ ;ii use best efforts
to f
5. ?he s:' ? _ . . , for .*.:- :elf and his successors
and nsgi - •• ! �-. ._c.r'_ar traffic to
—6— tr 1
. i
el,cK33.2 ;ndM
at the Callahan Subdivision zrom Ute nvcnu•_ unless such vehicles
are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or deal-
ing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall pro-
vide for any parking, soaces along the border of Ute Avenue
within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. The prohibition
contained in this ;paragraph shall not apply to the parking lot
which presently exists on Lot 16 nor to any expansion thereof.
6. The subdivider agreos to relocate at subdivider's
expense a portion of the recreati^.^.il trail which will be moved
to a location approximately as shown. or, the plat. Such relocation
shall be done as follows: Ey June 15 of the year in which
construction is to cc_=._encc on _ots 13, 13A or 15, subdivider
shall cause such trail to be roughed in place. The easement
to that trail shall be granted to the City and shall be restricted
to the following uses: pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling, and
cross-country skiing. `:o rotor vehicle of any kind shall.ever
be alloi.ed to use the trail, excepting only such vehicles as are
absolutely necessary at the initial construction and subsequent
maintenance and r:-•r3ir of _ .,
.� _ .._ . .
7. The a_ -_ _. - .. in
the subdivision until at 1_•ast sl.. _. atl:7, __c a utilities are
in place.
8. It is
included within or ad;_. Cz•t to t.•.c sub,vid-.3 lanei have
previously been used fcr .:,tic.:. -: l - -. or as .. _a•,Inw lands and
have been irri_;ated h}' waters ^.a '•_' t`: _..ne.r an^! carried in the
Nellie Bird Ditch. The City of ?.-: e.. h..�- a policy of
acquisition of these water ria:;t<
' y annexed and
subdivided Jar— .V the t i^.' ^` .�^ xat ic'a in-'• s•i' .:ivi lion approval,
whcr.
water .......
water utilities-
b. T:. .
ti �-
%3i2 UU117
E
e. To prevent the abandonment of water rights by
discontinuation of their beneficial use.
d. To provide for the acquisition of more senior
rights to guarantee water service to Aspen area users
in time of low supply.
e. To reduce the costs of condemnation for acqui-
sition of water rights in the future. Therefore, it is
agreed as a condition of subdivision approval.
1. That upon recording of the final plat of the
Callahan Subdivision the owner will convey to the City
of Aspen, without further consideration, 0.65 cfs. of
the Nellie Bird Ditch, Priority 3136 (Source: Roaring
Fork River; adju3icated August 25, 1936), which cor-
responds to the ratio of the subdivided lands to all
lands irrigated by this water right. In the event
use of part of such water granted to the City shall
become necessary to retain the lo::est level of Crystal
Lake (as descriLcd in Paragraph 1L of this Agreement)
the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of
the water right necessary to m:sintain the lo.:est water
level; provided, hr-. e:•er, that nothing herein shall be
construed to rez�uire tho city to supply ditches; rights
of way, pu-nps, or other facilities necessary to transfer
water to Cr}sts: l.a c.
2. That owner h:_ r Eby cr ants to the City of
Aspen a right o; first refut-al on the balance of the
water right dcscrit•ed in s:::;paragraph (1) in the event
such -iter right in cffer,:d for sale independently of
a sale of the lands irrigated by said right. To the
ext .. .. • . _ IL' '.�.al
sh all :� z - xi•.h said irritated
lands, ar. �,.'• _ ., a� ;
1
_ .
• L
f
eoox 312 I'AU ?
successors in interest.
3. That the owner does further agree to negotiate
in good faith with the City of Aspen for the grant to
the City (or its nominee) for a nominal fee of a
revocable license to make beneficial use (as allowed
by law) of part or all of the water right described
in subparagraph (1) retained by owner, without jeop-
ardizing owner's interest in said decreed water
right.
9.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority
right on Hunter Creel:, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No.
90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, 1899; headgate trans-
ferred to Huston Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575,
records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Reocrder) hereinafter called
Bunter Creek water right, the acquisition of which is.also of in-
terest to the City of Aspen-' owner agrees, as a further condition
Of this subdivision approval and with reference to said right:
a. That ow er he_e': rants to the Cit•: Of Aspen a right
of first refua- cn t _ !iunter .._eek water rich _n the event
such right is offered for sale independently of a sale
of the 1an� _ _ - sa_' wc- .. ::,=ht: an2. to the
re:us _ : all
extent allo._3 t ls., t:-_ _ o= :_•:st
be deemed a covenant on the lands so irrigated, and bind
the owner, his `:_irs, assiers, anj successors in interest.
b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith
for the acgt:isiticn of this right to facilitate .the con-
structio: of a pactia?c :filter plant on P.ur.ter Creek. Ne-
got= _; ior- w:l? h• c'��-.,,+ to be ; roceeding in good faith
(71 y
his lands a!,,O%, HuaLi,r C::ct an i ._�:o•.: the Red `'ountain Road
-9-
rr..-,. - - - -µ - --- '�ae���.-:.ar�ti+.:.�,.;:.:ciu.l�:.,.:�... i�.�t._.., ,.yr- ...c.�J►:s�—..."r.�...
ec,,x312 I CE�13
(on the Red Mountain side), (fi) provision for the future
irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston
Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider-
ation on the sale of the water right which is equivalent
to its fair market value, with proper credit and allowance
being given for the fair market value of any exchanges,
Concessions, promises, undertakings or other consideration
received pursuant to U ) and (ii).
9. In satisfaction of the dedication fee required to be
paid to the City under Section 20-18 of the City of Aspen Muni-
cipal Code for the purposes set forth therein, the subdivider
agrees that upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan
Subdivision, that he shall make a cash payment to the City in
the amount of $90,000.00.
10. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred
to the contrary, the owner and the subdiv.;:'.er, in developing the
property contained within the Plat and the improvements as herein
described, shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations,
standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and
]lodes having jurisdiction.
)FiFr The City agrees that since the townhouse -condominiums
01 designed do not exceed two and one-half stories in height, and
ttlid total heir..*.t of each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope
96 Eifeated around each unit module allowing a maximum of two and
6sie-half feet above elevation shown on the PUD building plans to
1t6dommodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of
I iit Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between
buildings, bet•een buildings and tops of carports, as well as the
best utiliz.ition of existing terrain within the devel-r.-ent zone.
Prior to application for the building permit, the perrut applicant will submit
ground survey, showing fi-il il' r7 lay»t :in-i floor elevations,
i
rioting any variations in the contour.
. ..,.. .... ...........**-•-,-e+.•+,*�-�--�•-�--+.�-..,..+.r.�-.�.-�-.-•.�.-.....*•..�........ •'sae,+.^�f�•-^tre;-�..•�cts.*^,..- ..
73
BOOK 312 FACE 120
12. Subdivider agrees to pay the City in addition to its
dedication fee the sum of $250.00 which represents the agreed
upon costs for the City to tap into the sewer line in Ute
Children's Park. The $250.00 shall be due and payable upon the
granting of the easement across Ute Children•s Park and Ute
Cemetery for sewer lines by the City.
13. Subdivider agrees to provide at his expense shuttle
bus services consisting of van -type vehicles for the recreation
facilities and the clubhouse of the.Callahan Subdivision upon
the terns and conditions hereinafter set forth. The expenses of
the acquisition, maintenance and operation of such vehicles shall
be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by
the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or
any other available means which shall be adequate.
The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a
number sufficient to serve thq need thercfor based upon year around
Operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation
facilities and do«^town Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles
shall not nu.-iber less than one. The tern of this >ervice shall
be until the earlier of the following occurs:
1. Such van service shall no longer be needed; or
2. Until the transportation services provided by
this Agreement are fulfilled by other public or private
means.
3. Until the expiration of five years from the
date hereof.
It. U-on execetion'd£ this Agreement by the parties hereto
and provided all other ter0iti-n'c as hnrr:n contained have been
met by the owner end the Suh<i%i.'.:::, thu City agrce3 to execute
the Plat of the Callahan Svbdivision anC accept the same for
recordation in the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado,
upon payment of the recordation fees and costs to the City by
=11-
i
subdivider.
15. Failure of the subdivider to pay dedication fee
or to provide the requisite guaranty for roads and utilities
and other improvements prescribed hereunder, shall carry only
the sanction of prohibition of recording the subdivision plat
and final developrwnt plan herein. If the foregoing sanction
is imposed by the City upon the subdivider, it shall release
the owner of all obligations under Paragraphs 8 and 8.2 hereof.
16. The sLLdivider agrees to furnish City with an as -built
survey description for sewer, water and trail easements.
17. The subdivider agrees to allow the City to install a
water line in Ute Avenue at the time subdivider constructs his
eight -inch line greater in size than that eight -inch line, provided,
however, that the City shall pay for the extra cost above the cost
of installing an eight -inch line.
18. The stages for the development of the subdivision
improvements shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
19. At such t:r, as an- to t`.e extent Goldsamt has assigned
any of his her-_...._.r c_ u:3_. any ag_e• -._rt with own'^ r and
such -assignee has assu:7ed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall
have no fur
.._.'e here: nzo sc: th _r
h �ds'a.nd seals Vie day a'.2 Year fir.,_ dCOCL. written.
CITY OF_ASrSN, a-CcrIorado
Mu!I1C2p:11'Corp` : atic
City. Cly:: k .ascr
V
ATTEST: _ _ BEN'EDICT L\ :D i C:+:.'_.E CO':?ANY, Owner
1 _
�. C.
i
it.�:�crl Gorur,snt. Su►,..ivicr
•
• 1
EooK 392 aac 122
STATE OF COLORADO )
as• '
County of Pitkin )
�,� The foregoing instru.-ient was acknowledged before me this
,day of v , , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor of
the City of Aspcn, a Colorado municipal corporation.
......... 'Witness my hand and official seal.'•
K"Jf )iy COMMission expires:
J;ClArCa` mrssien exaWas Jm3ry 24, I978
V -Notary
Public S,T1j�,�',• is •
•••~4.... .,....... •
`STATE OF COLOP.ADO )
County of Pitkin )
�ej",k,7x
The foregoing instrument was a v o a
day of �/ ::"�" _ .no:.ledged before me this
of F,enedict :.Lny s tattle Ca.7Sany, a Colic r _
. reair
y, a Colorado corporation.
'Witness nv ha::3 and official seal,
�,•''' ,� I-, my co zission expires:
=� 3r. Co^�miss cr, expires Jzr ;a;; 24, I9; a ,
- y� 41
. i ,J- Notary
_%P
.•. Public
STATE OF COLOL'l'lD0
County of Pitkin ) ..,:, ��,•C aJ Al,�:.i4cq. j�j_�.k��i ��/.
The foregoin, inctr=nnt wa acknowledged before me this
dBenedictay of w,
nI,nne • 1976, b Fredric A. Benedict and
.
Witness my hand and Official seal.
My co:*-ission Oxi ires:
X, ;,-�,ssum zz�ires
i jv. oC11 Notary
�• Public
0
i
�
ti wilrar i0 � .s...f�f. �.-�.lL:•a:SswrS:i � _ � _�_�.,y� ..r.--
sooK312 � ac:
23
STATE OF COLORADO )
I ss.
County of Pitkin
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of ir:z�-';-`1576, by Flecht-,-Attorney-
ftt-Fact-for Robert S. Golds:.:.t.
Witness my hard and official seal.
s
My Co:..iaissicn.exgires: M
p cormas;on esu-es 14:v. 14• 1,2"
-v Notary Publ4 ...
" 1411.I:::.i1 �•
•
n o / {. r
U p�
la
U N
� H
M 41 M
-' o o a er
co 40
••1 %� N O O O O
Q at of Cl
N o N �p r of H
N [V ^ in Of
b
m C
U .+
o
••1 x
o
w ►+
�
o
v1
4
4
we
w
w
m
v10
aVo°
.
m
-+
•
o : a
C.
0
+i
DU
u,
v
rn
V1 Ella
+C O
e•,
p
O
z
0
o
a
a
N
a
p
I♦; ►7
� L'
�
�
O
O
O
p E
Oi
O,
N
H
a
w
�
a
Li
1
1
p
O
i
V
b
�t •1�
r: .'.
�•.
�.
O
in
S:
N
N
C•�
r•1
.a
W
..
►,
.r
O
y
x
61 .•+ -
o
O
C
n
. ai
in
j {
N N .-a
M A
N A
P• O
P.
P.
U
O
O
O j
�.�a
K
:o
.iou.
dc0
scco
000K312 r; c:'12S
EXHIBIT "B"
CF.VF.LOPM "I^_' SCHEDULr — CALLAIIAV SUDDIVISION
A. Condominiums. Subdivider will cow. ence the construction
of condominium units contained on the Plat in the 1976 or 1977
construction season, with the completion of such units contemplated
in 1977 or 1978.
B. Clubhouse situated on Lot 14. Construction of any improve -
scents to the existing str::cture and any alterations thereto shall
be completed by Decer.er 31, 1979.
C. Recreational facilities contained on Lot 15. The facilities.
situated on this Lot shall be constructed by December 31, 1979.
5.1bdi�yider will commence construction
D. Ro.:ds and Utilities.
c
of all roads and utilities provided for on the Plat prior to cor^eacing
the construction of any other facilities or sale of any single
family or duplex lots provided for on the Plat.
E. Subdivider shall have the richt to construct, by staging,
any portion of any of the facilities provided for on the Plat at any
time he decides within the development schedule heretofore set forth
for such facilities.
F. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any im-
provements until all roads and utilities servicing those ir:prove-
ments shall have been completed. Construction of utilities
and roads to all lots except lots 15 and 16, rust be completed
before a certificate of occupancy will issue fur any improve-
ments thereon. The certificate of for the inorove-
sents on Lct 15 zha'_1 in'r^ ►.. t:o.i tc the certificate of
oeeuoancv for anv other imr•rovenents. Further, subdivider shall
Complete all landscaning sho•+n on the Plat by December 31. 1978.
G. Subdivider will be donned to have conolied with the
prcvi7sions of the Plat for iror - voner.ts on. Lot 15, if such ir+proveme,
.. . _. ..-• 1.. 'mot.:. �.. '.:'L.. •..'/.ai°..'.. ... .. ..
_ „u_c�.vye _ � :.i__--s��•�.:J`"—.'L--W��'it1.Y:ir�l0�ite.Yr._r.r�'.+vi..lrWOw �.v ...r, ___.., .._.�.-. _._�.
• . � • $OOK�� PA; E�z7
OAMON—do not exceed the footprint or vertical elevations contained on
such Plat for such improvements.
H. The only unction for failure to construct any portion of
any of the improvements on the Plat within the tines provided for
their construction hereunder shall be withdrawal of approval by the
City for those improvements not so constructed and shall in no way
affect the validity of the approval for those improvements constructed
within the timesrrovidcd for hereunder, or in any way give rise to
any claim by the City of aspen or by'any party claiming under or
through the City of Aspen against snbdi:•i:?er for the construction
of any such improvement or for damages for failure to construct anv
of them.
I. To the extent of znv conflict between the provisions of 4
this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement, (t
the provisions of this Exhibit E shall prevail_
-- 'c ; .,
p
C.
'
n
=312 CAGE 1w5
p
lu
ww
w
w
A to
N
N
.. . .
u
Q
.D N
4!1
Pi
E4
.-4.-4
co
N
E
�+ x
w�
w a
oa
•
u
-
r4
a
a
1 0
O
0
� C
�
y
w
O'
b
p
C:
N
�
N
z
-
o
H
�
uI
a
C1
O
et
w
F
W
w
►,
w C
~
O
v c
u o
u .�
�+ c
x
a
b'en
.+
v
' X
a
A y
Q. %4
Oa. -�+
04
_ -` ;
401500"do not exceed the footprint or vertical elevations contained on
such Plat for such improvements.
H. The only sanction for failure to construct any portion of
any of the improvements on the Plat within the tines provided for
their construction hereunder shall be withdrawal of approval by the
City for those improvements not so constructed and shall in no way
affect the validity of the approval for those improvements constructed
within the times rrovided for hereunder, or in any way give rise to
any claim by the City of Aspen or by'any party claiming under or
through the City of Aspen ag2inst sub-3ivider for the construction
of any such ir:prcvcmcnt or for damages for failure to construct anv
of them.
1. To the extent of anv conflict between the provisions of
this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement,
the provisions of this Exhibit B shall prevail.
-2-
�rmnaiarsac��: S
t
address
J
eby assigns,
,
velopment'),
Crystal
signs, as
irding to,
I approved
.n Book 5,
!er of Pitkin
led Plat
�4n'
k977, in Book 6,
•
r of Pitkin
QA :,
e simple title
y utility line
conditions as
otherwise of
`
y for the benefit
, 'A
;ion, and subject
i
,onditions as
on any other
tot 15.
Lot 14 on F
the easterly
ximately
k River as the !4
f
h Portion of
he meets and
a
e simple title, j
easements,
I on such
0
A O OR
A n '!
j n
I 7
w440 fuA45
Plat, Arvtndrd Plat, or otherwise of record, for the benefit - -
of said Portion of Lot 14 or jointly for the benefit of su:�
Portion of Lot 14 and other properties on the Subdivision,
covenants and i
and subject to such easements, restrictions,
conditions as may be reflected on such Plat, Amended Plat, I
or on any other document of record or ntherwine affecting
said Portion of Lot 14.
1. A transferable non-exclusive irrevocable right
and easement to tap into and drain service from and use water
sewer, electric, gas, cable television, telephone and other
F,
utilities and all ditches and conduits and similar facilities
on the Subdivision, with the right to grant lesser rights
thereto, for the purpose of serving and maintaining Lot 15
and said Portion of Lot 14 of the Subdivision and any
1
improvements thereon.
t
4. The Property granted hereunder is subject to
the lion of United Bank of Denver, N.A.
is effective
5. This Bargain and Sale Deed
,
November _,, 1962.
�'�obet Gold s amt
STATE OF COLORXDO )
t as.$
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn
to before se this SX day of November , 1982, by Robert S.
Goldsast.
s
WITNESS ay hand and official seal.
e-'�
My cosmission xpiresst� e.Ale
Notary I > c
2
0 •
f •�
.Mad
uaa AN
S UIK
v2plo9
3p 01
Al"..Oa
� 9iYi8
q"AON
iAosdWT
vs pus
11s2s41
sq1 mO
:4TLTln
'2sAO*
two puv
m PTH
l' VO SC
zlft'J:J I
t
Tne pug
uoTlsod
�!gS j0
Y 'le(d r
YI m
x
C"
Y u
< W ^
OD O K
< C7
Q W
C Z
N �
A
W r.
qons uo pelOvT;as eq Arm se suOTlTPuoo pus suoTleAissss
'sluemasvo TTs puv 'Asw4lvd uvT246apad gans 41T^ 30440601
•VIITl stdmTs as; uT 'uoasogl pslenlTs sluvmvnoidmT pus spunoq
pus slsas sql To AsA2ns ■ Aq PsauaPTes 30442n; oq of tT lo'I
;O uoTlsod 43ns 'letd PaPuvmY Pug IvId sql uo uhogs sT omvs
s41 sg 2aATH XsOd buTIROy a44 O: YtT 101 0102; 41n00 pug 412au
ATaltsmTxosddv sung 40NA Atsn41ed uvT2lsapad 044 ;o SfVO
AT2alsga sql ;o lsaw ATelemjxosddv sT 40T4A uOTSTATPgnS sql
ao ►T 30q ;0 (.uoT12Od. 944) uoTlsod legs .Z
-ST 1o'T Piss bu710a;;s ssT.csa4lo jo p2ooas ;o luvmna0p
jog;o Auto uo 20 'lvtd PaPu--v '1wTd flans uo paloollss sq Atss
sg suoT-4Tpuw pug sluguanoa 'suOT10T21582 'sluamasva g0ns 01
laaigne Pus 'uoTsTATPgns sq1 uo saTl2ado2d 29g10 puv l0'I flans 10
11ivuaq sql so; ATluTO4 20 ST 40'I piss ;o 1Tiwaq sq, io; 'p300a2
;o seTn2agl0 so 'leid PaPuamY '1v,d 4ons uo palaaT;as sq As+s
sg suOTlTPuoa pug suOTlvnsavas 'gluamasva IT* pus (1Tn"00 20
vuTT A1TTlIn Auv ldaoxa)uoo2o41 sluo.•-Janosdmj Tis 41Tn ss4labnl
E861 IT 834 +
OT1T4 sTdmTs sa; uT uoTsTATPgnS 044 uo ST 101 'L
I3! !Y'i1GlM 1lllf
s0PV30103 'Alunoa
uTXiTd ;o 2ap2000S Puts VOTa 941 10 spsc1302 vql ;0 '9T s6sd
'9 XOO9 uT 'LL6T 'LT lsnbnY uo papi wal ;ossa4l (.lead POPuasY.)
ivTd PaPuamY Pano+.ddv IvIDT;jo 641 Pus 'opts2otoa 'Alunoa
uTX1Td ;0 2.PTO0au pus X1013 041 So sp2o0vs sql ;0 Ot-L 006sd V o A
'S X00e uT '9L61 '61 ATW uo pap20082 ;001041 (.1aTd.) laid^ m
psAo2dde TsT0T3;0 a41 uT paglj" ap AT2stnOT4jed Vim sv puv
'04 buTpl000v I(.uOTsTATPgnS.) uoTSTATPgnS ug4VITg3 a41 01
W v <<:
of 'su6T$sv pug e1,ssaaans s1T 'opezotoo 'uadzy 'Pvoy aXv'1 s Q-i
Tv1gA:0 OS►T ;0 esaippe us buTAvq 1uoTlv2odjo0 Ops20103 0
�T11
'(.luawdOtanaO.) '•ONI '1N:IWdO'I3A30 OS4 of SAanuoa Pug sluv16 s•• _
•gudtsse .Cc;..zay 'X-I;,a ...•y 'Xiok -aN '4,noS aaetd uolins OS IV
.ti
ssaAPPU uv 411A (.1mvSP1c,J.) '.LWYSC110D 'S 18300H •'
0:4- !
433R TIVS aNY NIYJHYB
-
-
- - -
U
•
•
This is an application subir.itted this 20th day of
September, 1984, by R.S.G. Development, Inc. and Sheldon Gordon
under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for (i) an
Amendment of the PUD plan for the Callahan Subdivision (the
"Subdivision") pursuant to Section 24-8.26; (ii) a rezoning of
Lot 14 of the Subdivision from RR to R-15; (iii) a lot split of
Lot 14 of the Subdivision pursuant to Section 20-19(a)(1)(2) and
(3); and (iv) an amendment to the Growth Management Plan for the
Gordon Property pursuant to Section 24-11.7(b).
With respect to the PUD amendment, the applicants state
that such amendments are required by changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved. Such changes
arise from the contractural arrangement between the owner of the
Subdivision and an adjacent property owner, Sheldon Gordon, for
the acquisition by Sheldon Gordon of a portion of the Subdivision
integrating of the two properties for the purpose of clustering
the residential development which is now marked by more
inflexible residential subdivision to achieve a more creative
flexible land development tailored to the physical
characteristics of the property and the surrounding development.
The requirement for demonstration of changed conditions must be
dynamic in order to accommodate opportunities such as this one.
We are not seeking an amendment to a Planned Unit Development
which has already been fully constructed. The applicants are
simply offering a better more flexible innovative approach to the
development of the Subdivision which is the purpose of the PUD
ordinance.
Concerning (ii) above, the applicants request to rezone
Lot 14 of the Subdivision to conform to the zoned use therefor is
compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the
vicinity of the site. In fact, the commercial classification for
this Lot was a result of a rezoning from R-15 at the time of the
original approval of the PUD in order to accommodate what was
then perceived by the developer to be the need for a large self
contained club house and restaurant facility. All other
development adjacent to this site is residential in character.
The rezoning from the currently approved commercial
zone to residential use will reduce the potential traffic
generation and will have the effect of reducing the potential
impact on utility service in the.vicinity of the site. Such
rezoning could only have a beneficial impact on the air and water
quality in the vicinity from the current zoning. The rezoning
would finally lay to rest the uncertainty of the relationship of
a commercial use in such a residential setting. Further this
change in rezoning would be compatible with the Aspen Area
General Plan of 1966 as amended. In general the proposed
rezoning would promote the health and general welfare of the
residents and visitors to the City of Aspen by further conforming
the uses in this area to the Aspen General Plan. The acreage for
Lot 14 of the Subdivision is-1.806 acres. (AOC3
With respect to (iii) above, the applicants state that
there now exists two (2) separate units on Lot 14 of the �"�
Subdivision. The applicants request a lot split of Lot 14 to
create one (1) additional single family site excepted from Growth
Management Plan pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d) and subdivision
regulations of the Code. The applicants if necessary as a
condition of such lot split, would eliminate the kitchen in the
existing residences and physically join them to each other.
Concerning (iv) above, Sheldon Gordon submits Exhibit
"A" hereto in support of such an amendment.
The applicants in further support of their application
submit the following graphic representations of the proposed
development:
property.
1. Plat for Callahan Subdivision showing Gordon
2. Existing conditions of Lots 4 through 9 Callahan
Subdivision and Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision.
3. Proposed site plan for Lots 4 through 9 Callahan
Subdivision and Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision.
4. Existing zoning, transportation and trails.
5. Proposed water and sewer system.
6. Currently approved site plans for Lots 4 through 9
Callahan Subdivision and Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision.
7. Lot split plat for Lot 14.
Respectfully submitted,
R.S.G. DEVELOPMENT, INC.
gm
Garfield & Hecht, P.C., its
attorney, by Andrew V. Hecht
Sheldbn Gordon' by vStzCn Mathies, his
architect
AMENDMENT TO
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION AND APPROVAL
FOR
THE GORDON PROPERTY
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
On December 1, 1983, a Growth Management Application
was submitted seeking an allotment of three ), three (3)
bedroom free market units that included three 3), one (1)
bedroom low income deed -restricted employee housing units
resulting in three (3) 3,600 square feet duplexes on the 2.187
acre Gordon Property (see Map #6). Three (2), two (2) bedroom
low income deed restricted employee housing units would be
provided off site at the Hunter Creek Condominium Project. This
project scored above the other submissions in the Growth
Management competition and received its requested allotment in
March of 1984.
II. CHANGE IN CONDITION
According to Section 24-11.7(b) of the Aspen Municipal
Code, if an approved application falls within any of the
following criteria of change;
(1) Any change which would potentially alter the
points originally awarded during the GMP scoring;
(2) Any change from the approved architecture and
site design of the project;
(3) Any change in the number, size and type of
employee units; and
E
•
(4) Any modification to the type and level of
physical services and facilities of the project,
then the planning and zoning commission shall rescore
the original application in order to determine whether:
(1) The applicant would no longer meet the
minimum threshold he must achieve in each category or
for all categories to receive an allocation; or
(2) The applicant's position relative to the
other applicant's during the competition would have
changed.
Should either of the above two (2) conditions be
met, the commission shall make a recommendation to the
city council as to whether the applicant's allocation
should be rescinded. Should the above conditions not
be met, the commission shall make a recommendation to
the city council as to the appropriateness of the
amendments to the original proposal and any further
conditions of approval which the applicant shall meet.
(Ord. No. 48-1977, Section 1; Ord. No. 84-1979, Section
1; Ord. No. 16-1980, Section 5; Ord. No. 48-1981,
Section 2).
Mr. Gordon has negotiated an option to purchase Lots 4
through 10 of the Callahan Subdivision (see Map. #1). There are
two (2) courses that the development of these Lots can take.
The first requires no further approvals for
development. Mr. Gordon can simply build six (6) single family
residences on Lots 4 through 9 and a duplex on Lot 10 and after
- 2 -
completing the subdivision requirements and approvals, build the
three (3) duplexes on his original parcel (see Map #6).
The second course of development clusters the
structures along the Roaring Fork River with one (1) structure on
Lots 4 and 5 and a duplex on Lot 10 (see Map #3). The cluster of
structures along the river and on Lot 10 will have the
architectural character, scale and detail of the existing Aspen
Club Condominiums.
In order to maximize the open space, address the unique
topography of the site and emulate the architectural character of
the existing Aspen Club Condominium Units it will be necessary to
increase the height limit of the new structures to match the
existing Aspen Club Condominium units. This limit would be 34'
to the top of a flat roof and would apply to Units A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, H and Lot 10. The increased height will not impact the
neighbors as the elevation of the site is lower than surrounding
sites, therefor views to Aspen Mountain will not be obstructed.
The height of unit I will meet existing zoning limits (see Map
#3) .
This second course of development is the one Mr. Gordon
wishes to pursue. It will enhance the entire neighborhood by
providing a consistent development, more open space, more
landscaping and additional parking for the Aspen Club.
The following discussion will show that:
1. The application still meets or exceeds the minimum
threshold in each or all categories to receive an allocation.
- 3 -
0
2. The applicant's position relative to the other
applicant's during the competition has not changed.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT
A. The new site is 174,092 square feet or 3.99 acres
zoned R-15 P.U.D. located off Crystal Lake Road, bordered by the
Roaring Fork River on the west and by private properties zoned
R-15 on the north and east (see Map #1 and Map #4). The site has
some slopes in excess of 20% therefore a slope area reduction
calculation is required to determine allowable area for
development. This calculation by Alpine Surveys is shown
graphically on Ma
vailable is 165,322
square feet not including the land under the water of the Roaring
- -
Fork River. The minimum lot area for a duplex in the R-15 P.U.D.
zone is 20,000 square feet; however, it Section 24-10.5(2)
(R.B.O.) is applied, the minimum lot area per duplex with
employee housing unit is 15,000 square feet. The three (3)
previously approved Gordon duplexes, A, B & C, are assigned lot
areas of 20,000 square feet each consistent with the allotment
received. The balance of the land area (105,332 square feet)
will allow six (6), D, E, F, G, H and I, duplexes under Section
24-10.5(2). Each duplex having one (1) free market unit and one
(1) low income employee housing unit.
Units A, B and C are consistent with the original
application in size and features. Units D, E, F, G, H and I are
proposed to be four (4) bedroom units of approximately 3,300
square feet with a 600 square foot one (1) bedroom low income
deed restricted employee housing unit for a total duplex size of
- 4 -
E
•
3,900 square feet not including the garage or basement area
without light and ventilation. This floor area is at least 500
square feet less than that allowed for a single family structure
that could be built on any of the Lots 4 through 9. The duplex
on Lot 10 will meet all current F.A.R. requirements for the zone
district.
The site is proposed to be subdivided into ten (10)
parcels, one (1) parcel for each duplex and the remaining parcel
to be common area for the nine (9) duplex parcels and restricted
against further development.
All units except that on Lot 10 will have passive solar
heating and active solar domestic hot water devices.
B. The project is served by the City of Aspen Water
Department. A new cast iron water main will be designed and
constructed according to City of Aspen Engineering and Water
Department standards (see Map. 2).
This water main will connect the 8" cast iron pipe
(C.I.P.) water main located in the Aspen Club parking lot with
the 6" C:i.P. located at the upper end of Riverside Avenue. The
result of this connection will be a loop water main system (see
Map #5). Each duplex will be provided with a 3/4" service line
connection. The estimated demand.is 200 gallons per duplex per
day resulting in a total estimated demand of 400 gallons per day
per duplex.
In addition to providing a loop water system, the
applicant's share of the Riverside Irrigation Ditch
(approximately 1/7) will be transferred to the City of Aspen.
5 -
The applicant reserves the right to alter the course of the ditch
and the width to form ponds in the landscape of the project.
C. The project is served by the Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District from an 8" sanitary sewer main located in the
right-of-way on the site (see Map #5). Each duplex will be
provided with a 4" service line connection. The total estimated
demand is 400 gallons per day per duplex.
D. Electricity is provided by Holy Cross Electrical
Association. Electrical service into the site will be
underground to each duplex. Each free market Unit will have a
200 amp service and each employee unit will have 100 amp service.
Heat in the duplexes will be electric forced air interconnected
with passive solar collection.
E. The project will provide on -site retainage for
surface and run-off water in excess of pre -development rates.
Surface and run-off in excess of pre -development rate will be
ponded and released at the historical rate into the Riverside
Irrigation Ditch or the Roaring Fork River. At this time there
is no evidence of surface water to deal with (see Map 3).
F. The project will provide two (2) new fire hydrants
on the site. The nearest existing fire hydrants is in the Aspen
Club parking lot (See Map #5). The greatest distance from the
proposed fire hydrants to a proposed residence is 120 feet. The
distance to the fire station is 20 blocks; travel time from the
station to the site is less than 8 minutes.
G. The total site area including the area under the
Roaring Fork River is 3.99 acres. There is no requirement for
6 -
it
•
open space in this zone, however the project, including paved
areas such as roads and parking, covers only .80 acres or twenty
one percent (21%) of the 3.99 acre site. This equates to 3.19
acres of open space or seventy nine percent (79%) of the site.
H. The distance to the Lower Elementary School is
approximately 1.5 miles; to the Middle and High Schools 3 miles.
School buses run on Highway 82, within six hundred (600) feet
from the site. There is easy pedestrian access to Highway 82 via
Crystal Lake Road or Riverside Drive.
I. Zoning Code requires off street parking for one (1)
car per bedroom, therefore, a total of thirty two (32) parking
spaces are required on site not including Lot 10 which provides
off street parking on Lot 10. Thirty seven (37) spaces will be
provided by eighteen (18) covered spaces and nineteen (19)
outside spaces, this number provides five (5) guest parking
spaces. Extensive landscaping will minimize the impact of
outside parking spaces to the site and surrounds.
J. The developer will dedicate a public trail and
fisherman's easement to the City of Aspen. The easement will be
below the developed area of the site, adjacent to the Roaring
Fork River. Further the developer will provide a bridge across
the river, connecting directly with the Ute Children's park. and
existing paths.
K. The Aspen Valley Hospital is approximately three
(3) miles away and within ten (10) minutes driving time from the
site. The police department is twenty (20) blocks away wif.h the
response time less than eight (8) minutes. Retail and service
- 7 -
activities are approximately sixteen (16) blocks from the site.
This development will create no noticeable demands on any of the
above mentioned services.
L. The effects of the proposed development on the
vicinity would be highly beneficial and far reaching. The causes
of such will be: new and upgraded utilities lines, space and
energy efficient housing units with quality aesthetics, passive
solar heating, active solar domestic hot water, extensive
landscaping, sufficient parking and roads, new trial and
fisherman's easement with a bridge link. The project will
provide new low-income employee housing units both on site and
closer to community service centers. In addition the project
will be developed at the allowed density resulting in a great
deal of open space, allowing the project to be more compatible
with existing development.
M. If approved, construction of the development will
commence in the spring of 1985 and be completed in the spring of
1987.
IV. COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT AGAINST GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN SCORING SYSTEM
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services:
1. Water: Two (2) points should be awarded since the
project will 1) allow a branch line to become a circuit line,
thus improving service to the area, and 2) increase the City of
Aspen's ownership of water rights within the City limits.
- 8 -
0 •
2. Sewer: One (1) point should be awarded since the
project may be handled by existing level of service and service
improvement by the applicant will benefit the project only.
3. Storm Drainage: Two (2) points should be awarded
since the project will provide on -site retainage for surface and
run-off water in Excess of pre -development rates. Also ponding
will allow desirable landscape aesthetics and controlled release
of water.
4. Fire Protection: Two (2) points should be awarded
since the project will provide two (2) new fire hydrants,
improving existing conditions for the project and the neighbors.
The internal roads will meet requirements for width and turning
radius.
5. Parking Design: Two (2) points should be awarded
since the project will provide thirty two (32) required parking
spaces on site. Additionally five (5) extra guest spaces will be
provided on site. All nineteen (19) outside spaces will be
screened by landscaping.
6. Roads: Two (2) points should be awarded since the
project will provide easy in and out access with the minimum
amount of road possible. Also, the road will be paved to avoid
rutting and dust, minimizing impact on the residents and
neighbors. By clustering the development and providing a single
collection street, Crystal Lake Road becomes safer than before
with the potential of six (6) separate driveways.
- 9 -
9 •
B. Quality of Design:
1. Neighborhood Compatibility: The existing
neighborhood consists of one and two story single family
residences of 2,000-2,400 square feet on lots that range in size
from 10,055 square feet to 17,812 square feet (see Map #2). The
amended development on the Gordon Property consists of nine (9)
two and three story 3,600 to 3,900 square feet duplexes on 3.99
total acres or one (1) duplex per .443 acres of 19,311 square
feet of land.
Taking the slope area reduction for density
calculations into account there is 18,369 square feet per, duplex.
These numbers indicate that the proposed development is
in the same density range as the rest of the neighborhood. This
is not only cclmpatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but
improves the quality of the neighborhood. Together with the
extensive site work and trail easements being given, three (3)
points should be awarded for this section.
2. Site Design: Three (3) points should be awarded
since the project will provide a high quality of landscaping, to
include ponding, and extensive open spaces, all benefiting the
surrounding sites, and public trail users as well as this
project.
3. Energy: Three (3) points should be awarded since
the project will incorporate: insulation values of R-24 in the
walls and R-45 at the roof, orientation within 15' of south,
extensive passive solar heating, and active solar dDmestic hot
water devices.
- 10 -
4. Trails: Three (3) points should be provided since
the project will dedicate a trail and fishermen's easement, and
provide a bridge link, thus furthering progress of the City's
Trails Master Plan.
5. Green Space: Three (3) points should be provided
since: the project will provide seventy nine percent (79%) of
the site as green space. The majority of the green space will be
adjacent to the trial, benefiting residents and public alike.
C. Proximity to Support Services:
1. Public Transportation (from the Gordon site): Two
(2) points should be awarded since the project is less than six
(6) blocks walking distance of a City bus stop.
2. Community Commercial Facilities (from the Gordon
Property): One (1) point should be awarded since the project is
farther than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial
facilities in town.
D. Provision for Low Income Housing:
Twenty (20) points should be awarded since the
development will be fifty percent (50%) low income occupancy.
The project will provide a total of nine (9) employee bedrooms in
a total of nine (9) separate one (1) bedroom employee housing
units. These units will house a total of 15.75 people according
to the Pitkin County Housing Office average of 1.75 people per
one (1) bedroom units. The original submission housed only
twelve (12) people therefore the new proposal houses three (3)
additional people.
9 •
E. Provision for Unique Financing.
No applicable.
F. Bonus Points:
This project makes a substantial contribution to
Aspen's pedestrian trial system by the construction of a foot
bridge across the Roaring Fork River and the dedication of land
for the continuation of the Ute Trial along the Roaring Fork
River.
- 12 -
9
•
ADDENDUM TO SECTION I
Traffic and Parking
Motor vehicles will reach this site by turning off State
Highway 82 onto Crystal Lake Road, a paved street, then onto a
private 2-lane paved driveway that serves the site. At the point
where the site driveway intersects Crystal Lake Road the road is
a one way street bordering the parking for the Aspen Club.
Crystal Lake Road serves The Aspen Club and The Aspen Club
Condominiums at the present time.
The condition of the Crystal Lake Road at this time is
good, the type of vehicle that uses the road is primarily family
cars. The street's posted speed limit is 10-15 mph with speed
bumps to help induce slow vehicular mz-)vement.
The traffic generated by The Aspen Club is constant
throughout the day with a peak occuring after 5:00 p.m. in the
summer and after 4:00 p.m. in the winter as people arrive from
work or skiing to use the facilities.
The traffic generated by The Aspen Club Condominiums is
similar to other housing areas with traffic generated in the
morning and lute afternoon. The volume of traffic varies
seasonally as many of the owners are absentee.
The traffic generated on the prc,posed site will also be
similar to most residential neighborhoods. The hours of use
being primarily in the morning hours, going to work (8:00 to 9:00
a.m.), and in the evening, returning from work (4:00 to 6:00
P.M.).
The estimated traffic count for the employee units should
be 4 to 5 total round trips per day. The estimated traffic count
for the 3 free market units should be 7 to 8 total round trips
per day. These numbers represent the worst possible case without
consideration of the use of alternate means of transportation.
The Crystal Lake Road is capable of handling this increase in
traffic without causing a detrimental effect on the surrounding
neighborhood or road conditions..
Date February 29, 1984
To Cite/County Planning Office
From Kathy Brewer/Legal [apartment
We are unable to reference the attached by
name alone. Please furnish us with the
property address.
Thank you.
Form No. GC-06
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Conditional Use
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 3, 1984, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, to consider the application of T.
Richard Butera and Julie Anthony with respect to The Aspen Club, for
rezoning of Lot 14 known as the "Benedict Residence" from RR to R-15
or R-30 and to consider an amendment to the conditional use approved
for the Callahan Subdivision PUD.
If you have further questions, please contact the Planning Office,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 226.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 1, 1984.
City of Aspen Account.
VAR 0 5 188E '
ASPE(d / PITKIN CO.
PLANNING OF-FIC9
I
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Conditional Use
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 3, 1984, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, to consider the application of T.
Richard Butera and Julie Anthony with respect to The Aspen Club, for
rezoning of Lot 14 known as the "Benedict Residence" from RR to R-15
or R-30 and to consider an amendment to the conditional use approved
for the Callahan Subdivision PUD.
If you have further questions, please contact the Planning Office,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, Co 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 226.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 1, 1984.
City of Aspen Account.
Arthur Glick
1033 Maybrook Dr,
Beverly Hills, 6 90210
lRT�!
CITY/COUNTY PLANN"NG OFF4C;--
130 S. GAL-ENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
E "rul w j
ivol-
4S five
)'0
........................................
F n 24
GOL ',:':7 2l')Z8L)ANl 02/28/8,q
Rl.'--*'RJRN 1*0 S�`NDt'KR
NOT 1.)EIAMERAP.L.L AS ADIJKESA-D
UNABLE 0.) FORWARD
RSG Df;v Iqeopment, Inc.
op
S.
Rober SGoldsmat
c/o drew Hecht
IO.
Box 8237
spen, Co 81611
130 S. GALENA .
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
k
Herbert T. Goodman
c/o The Kissell Company
30 Warder Street
Springfield, OH 45501
FEa
CiTY/CCUmTY eLAW418'44 OFFICAK •
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN. COLORADO 811814
Arthur Glick
c/o Ardee
857 S. San Pedro St.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
A
I I I I f I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
4-11xm~
0
\x
2- ey�lnd Yvonne Vaughn Silver
estmoor Road
le, TN
: L /:� /j wl 02/27/8q
OUT 19 1�273�N1 02/27/8�
RE"PURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORNARD
v
�\\.L E
2 1984 ti�
1
ppGa���—of Lo+fo.� ws- 4-o G--u r� o-;,�
ZC�
y4 v, -la c,-ua- Ao-,%l 5u.bd I' v � S
Lot A
Lo-F
W�4' v�avAcsL
gC�
0
vt�W�v�T �O T � ll-IS-80
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
DATE: December 2, 1980
RE: Aspen Club - P..U.D. Amendment
The attached Planning & oning Memo andum and application deals
with the request of t spen Club o expand by adding 1200
square feet of enclos�d restaurant seating area over the
existing deck. Whiles e memoraA um gives background regar-
ding the request and previous Aspen Club approval and amend-
ments, a brief summary will be made here.
Background
Amendments to the P.U.D. plan may be made "...only if they are
shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred
since the final plan was approved or by changes in community
policy." If this is found to be true, a P.U.D. amendment
may be approved, provided the purposes of P.U.D. approval are
met.
The issues boiled down to:
a. Was there a change of condition?
b. The transportation/parking problem.
The City Attorney argued changed conditions should come from
without, that is, not be created by the applicant himself.
The Planning Office, in tracing the history of amendments,
interpreted the change as one internally imposed by the
applicant. In July 1978, Council had approved a 10,000
square foot expansion of the Club facility for recreation
space and in so doing, the Aspen Club gave up a proposed res-
taurant in the Benedict house. Increased local usage was then
the changed condition cited by the majority of Council.
Today the applicant argues that the membership profile is
further evolving, that tennis members are being attracted to
other clubs because of the lack of finer facilities such as
those proposed. Given the history, the Planning Office finds
the argument circular.
The Planning Commission, however, found changed conditions by
a 4 to 3 vote.
The discussion then centered on the parking difficulties of
the site. Engineering recommended that parking was a severe
problem at peak periods. With cuts in the bus system and the
uncertainty of the Aspen Club shuttle system, the parking
situation had become more acute.
Planning & Zoning Action
Planning & Zoning recommended approval of the Aspen Club
expansion as described in the Planning Office memorandum and
the applicant's letter of October 21, 1980, conditioned on a:
1. resolution of the parking/transportation problem
2. conditional use approval of the recreational club
Alternatives
Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application.
Aspen Club - P.U. Amendment
PAGE TWO
Council Action
"I move to approve ... (follow language of P & Z approval)."
"I move to deny..."
U
-n -4,f
t
lipej
it
UP - -;F
r
f y !` �r .l j}ram +•:: } .{' 1
1
C�
CJ
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
Ms. Colette Penne
Planning and Zoning
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
GARFIE D & HECHT9 P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
June 29, 1983
Re: Aspen Club Parking
Dear Colette:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
I 0-2 y /
I
1
JUL 13 1983
ASPEN PITKjN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
This letter is for use by the City of Aspen in
connection with permission being granted to pave certain
land at the Aspen Club for additional parking.
The Aspen Club is in the process of preparing an
amendment to its PUD and as a part of that amendment will ask for
permission for such additional parking spaces.
We are representing the Aspen Club in that application
and upon the representation of the owners of the Club we hereby
request that the Planning Office approve the paving of additional
parking area in advance of the PUD amendment conditioned upon the
binding commitment of the owner evidenced by this letter that if
the City in the PUD process or otherwise requests the removal of
such pavement it shall be removed by the owner immediately upon
such request without any waiver whatsoever by the City of its
right to require the removal by reason of this consent.
Based upon the foregoing condition and that it involves
none of the prohibited changes set forth in Section 24-8.26(a),
and in accordance with that Section we request that you permit
the paving of the additional parking as reflected on the plans
submitted to you. If this is acceptable to you, please indicate
your approval below.
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ..
si
1,A 2 L o
v6q 0 '0 14, iv-5
Cl - 1!� maA o 2-2
Iz,1946
f ino,.Q Plo_-I—*OVQ-ci
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Ms. Colette Penne
Planning and Zoning
June 29, 1983
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
cc: T. Richard Butera
APP V BY P NNING DEPARTMENT
o r
L
JUL 13 1
ASPEN / PITK94 CO.
Pt. ^�ININ!r' n'.FICE
-,
a"-i wG u. 69A , P,� `Yrdw►
ants �pU auncM [�u�l r IICembial T6,1sy ,':t
�� erg -t-o `-tt�- --� r vt�w►ew-+-,-�+,a�; P,-t-�.,ti, s
off' �st,,awl � ►� ,
hn� ,may1 ► ; �� iun 0-0 cml.ti C)K- Ciea✓G
VyrSfoas� d arrte�£ +t' Ivy wry (off ` y,� C►er;
.L (�
1, }�LA.vLCSL�4GS �'� ��1{ rn� S�f4b�T S�2dlI �Y•
,,, b.
`�C t C�v 1 a� sham r.Jt i w cjtj Ut Off /;4
afc"��►+t-
ea�S
r A-o Mks
vV13x� , a� ti �S c� ► so v�'� vv� e w� r v�w► -tiM ���
—�(„� re sya,l �- ✓'et�'��� , � c� SCasS -�. �cE" `4.�,,e r
v
1 ter- a4 Are
G�J u1 S 04 Z�OVIZ- �?, 1-.9-A S
Ar,REFD Z2(. / \
Dick BuYera for The Aspen Club
g^p,^r OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIIT ) 74
he foregoing was acknowledged before me this � da-,.7
of 19R3 by Dick Butera.
rrtv Commission expires
My Address is: d�
WITNTSS my hand and official seal: D'
Notairy Public
r •
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 1975
li
I Mayor Standley called the special meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. with Councilmembers
Johnston, Parry, Pedersen, City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney Stuller present.
HIGH SCHOOL HOMECOMING BONFIRE
Mayor Standley told Council this was
bonfire on the Rio Grande Property.
Sanitarian Bob Nelson check it out in
Hershey and Nelson agreed it was.
High School
request from the High School to have their Bonfire ng
a rc
q .Bonfire
Mayor Standley had Chief of Police Hershey and
terms of the proper place to have this bonfire.
i
Mayor Standley told Council he had talked to John Ranyan of the High School and reminded;;
him that last year's homecoming class did not clean up very well after the bonfirem. it
Ranyan had promised Mayor Standley they would clean up thoroughly after the bonfire.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the use of the Rio Grande for Friday, September
p
19, for the bonfire; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
i
CALAHAN - Conceptual Subdivision Review Calahan -
I; conceptual
Bill Kane, City/County Planner, reminded Council that the applicant wanted assurance subdivision
about the club house. Kane told Council that Calahan intended to use Benedict's
house as a club house, and as it stands than. is not a permitted use in the R-15 zone; ;!
however, it would be permitted in RR. Kane said the planning office would support j
a proposal to rezone the property to RR. RR is a lower density, but does permit a
number of recreational uses. Kane read the list of permitted uses in the RR zone.
Benedict pointed out that this facility would be a dining room rather than a restaurant.'
Councilwoman Johnston said it was her understanding that this was to be a private club
facility for members and guests only. Kane said he had envisioned it that way also.
Jim Moran, representing the applicants, told Council that services to club members
would include being able to eat there and drink there. Councilwoman Pedersen asked
what the hours for this club house would be. Moran said this was hard to determine;
it depended on when members wanted tennis privileges. Moran said he could anticipate
a harrow time when a meal could be obtained, and,a time range on either side where
members could get soup and a sandwich. Moran pointed out that club facilities, in order'
to support themselves, had to have some services available.
Moran told Council there would be a licensing problem with the state. Club licenses
are available to either an affiliate of a national organization, or to a club that
has been in existense for five years and collected dues from members for five years.
Moran said this clubhouse could either apply for a regular liquor license, or remain
unlicensed and the facility would not have title to liquor and would not sell a drink.
Moran wanted Council to be aware that a club facility which excludes the general public
creates a licensing problem. Moran told Council this because there has been expressed
a desire on the part of the Council, the P & Z, and the developer that this area not
be a public restaurant and bar but be a membership club. This facility should also
be private membership rather than public because it will generate less traffic.
Moran told Council the applicant wanted Council to understand that this facility would
be run on a club basis with dining and drinking facilities in the clubhouse. Moran
told Council the licensing issue would be a problem later on, and he wanted Council to
be aware of this. Mayor Standley said the Council did not have the power to give
this project a liquor license that would be restrictive. The applicant would have to
present assurances to Council that they would be restrictive.
City Attorney Stuller stated that it bothered her that the term "kitchen facilities"
had been expanded into a restaurant, which would give this a very public and high
profile character. Dining hall and kitchen facilites have a much more limited use;
group feeding, etc., was the intention of the definition. City Attorney Stuller
said this problem of definition was brought on by the applicant's broad interpretation
of the wording in the code. City Attorney Stuller said she did not think the City
should compromise the land use considerations to accommodate the liquor license
requirements. Moran said he felt this definition was meant for a recreational club,
the type of golf or tennis recreational club.
Stuller read the uses and said she envisioned large groups of people, sports activities,,
getting fed along with their activities. Her interpretation was not a private bar
and restaurant. Stuller told the applicant she wanted the problem of definition and
the liquor license to remain the problems of the applicants for them to resolve.
Planner Kane said he had not anticipated this project having a liquor license but
rather being like the Smuggler and Aspen Raquet clubs where people could bring bottles
of wine and the kitchen facilities were very low profile. Kane stated the idea of a
three-way liquor license was beyond the scope of anything the planning office had
discussed for this project.
l
Moran asked what conditions Kane was talking about that the planning office would
attach to the RR zoning. Kane answered the planning office would not.encourage a
three-way liquor license for this project. Kane confirmed that the Council and
planning office was having a problem reconciling everything that is going to be II
involved in this site; Kane stated he did not have a problem with zoning the site RR. I
Moran asked what the term "Recreation club" means, this is a condition use in the RR
zone. Moran asked if "recreational club" meant what the applicant had envisioned this
facility as, or if the Council had another definition in mind. Kane said he felt
"recreational club" should be a place where members meet, bring their own liquor and
perhaps meals could be prepared as well.
.3
1851
Calahan
conceptual
subdivision
Special Meeting • Aspen City Council September 11, 1975
Councilman Parry said he envisioned this as a really nice club and facility, nice dining
rooms; not as a YMCA camp. The Council was having trouble determining which facility
they wanted.
I'
Mayor Standley asked Fritz Benedict how many square feet were in his house. Benedict
answered about 4,000 square feet. Calahan told Council he did not think this would l
be like typical country clubs where there is a lot of social activity. Andy Hecht
told Council that maybe when this project comes in for a liquor license, the Council
will find they cannot grant one. The applicant is asking the Council to accept a
recreational club as outlined as a permitted use in the RR zone.
is
Councilwoman Johnston agreed with Councilman Parry and stated she felt it was nice for
people to have a club if they want that kind of experience. City Attorney Stuller told
Council her constraint was looking at the definition of "recreational club" in the code
and reconcile that with the Rural Residential zoning district. "Recreational club" as
outlined in the code, "A building devoted to public use including such facilities as
golf clubs, swimming pool clubhouse, tennis clubhouse, playground and play field
activity centers, or clubhouses and may include kitchen facilities, assembly halls,
meeting rooms and locker facilities." City Attorney Stuller pointed out that definition
has a totally different tone that a leisurely luxury club.
Mayor Standley disagreed and noted that golf country clubs are located in rural areas,
not commercial areas. The RR zone is compatible with a golf club -type facility. Mayor
Standley also stated that bar and restaurant is a very logical element in any type club.
City Attorney Stuller read the Rural Residential zone definition and told Council that
"recreational club" was a conditional use and would have to receive P & Z approval.
Calahan told Council they planned to operate on a twelve month basis and were looking
for local support. Moran told Council that the applicants were attempting to tell
Council as much about their contemplation of this facility right at the beginning to
avoid setbacks later. Mayor Standley said that if Calahan did not dedicate the road
to the City and the City did not accept the road, it is not illegal to isolate the
liquor license by not giving public access. Mayor Standley said the City can leave
the burden of proof on the applicant that they have restricted this facility to members
before the Council would grant a liquor license.
Councilwoman Pedersen stated she did not want to define bar -use at this time and would
not favor any such definition. If the applicant wants a private club, people can have
their own locker for liquor. Becht said that was fine, the applicant just wants to
know what the use is, that food is okay; liquor is okay. Councilwoman Pedersen stated
that if this facility were to be a clubhouse for members, fine; but if it were to be
a commercial venture, she objected strongly.
Kane reviewed this project, telling Council this was a proposal for conceptual subdivision.
The applicants have sought recognition of the proposed density, 34 units; 20 townhouses,
10 single family dwellings and 2 duplex units. This is on a 25 acre site. The applicant
also wants recognition of the circulation system of the layout. The planning office
recommends that the conceptual subdivision be given approval.
Councilwoman Johnston moved that the conceptual subdivision for Calahan be approved;
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
City Manager Mahoney stated that the difference between private and public is not
relevant until the Council knows what the terms are. Private and Public is strictly
monetary. It could be $3,000 to join or it could be $30; there could be some other
form of restriction.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to adjourn the special meeting at 7:45 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
KaVhryn S. Hauter, City Clerk
I Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 22, 1975
I
Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 5:G9 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt,
Johnston, Parry, Wishart, City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney Stuller present.
MINUTES
Councilman Wishart moved to approve the minutes of August 25 and September 8, 1975,
Council meetings; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Pedersen came into Council Chambers.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the.accounts payable for September; seconded by
Councilman Parry.
Councilwoman Johnston questioned the $6,000 expenditure for Colorado Division of high-
ways. Mayor Standley said that was the City's share for the Halperin study, and is
an encumbrance, has not yet been spent. Councilwoman Johnston also questioned the
golf course construction under land improvement instead of recreation. Mayor Standley
answered that the golf course was bought out of sixth penny and the improvements were
under sixth penny.
All in favor, motion carried.
864. 0
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1975
ORDINAICE #61
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE SITE OF THE 700 HOPKINS AVENUE APARTMENT TO
RESIDENTIAL R-6 was read by the city clerk.
Councilwoman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #61, Series of. 1975, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Wishart. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye;
Johnston, aye; Pedersen, aye; Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE # 62, SERIES OF 1975 - Rezoning Enclaves
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #62, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #62
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THREE RECENTLY ANNEXED ENCLAVES LOCATED WITHIN
THE WEST END OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AND REZONING SAID PARCELS AS
RESIDENTIAL R-15 was read by the city clerk..
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #62, Series of 1975, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Wishart. Roll call vote; Councilmembers.Johnston, aye; Parry,
aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #63, SERIES OF 1975 - R&zoning Aspen View
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #63, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #63
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT OF LAND CONTAINING .1126 ACRES WHICH IS
THE SITE OF ASPEN VIEW CONDOMINIUMS AND ZONING SAID PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMILY was read by the city clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #63, Series of 1975, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Pedersen,
aye; Wishart, aye; Behrendt, aye; Johnston, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
CALAHAII SUBDIVISION - Outline Development Plan
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing.
Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this was basically the same as approving the
conceptual subdivision. Conceptual approval and outline development plan are usually
done at the same meeting, but in this case conceptual approval had been speeded up to
accommodate the county in getting their trail agreements worked out. Clark also
told Council the project is exactly the same as was approved under conceptual; 34
total units. The planning office recommends to approval of the outline development
plan. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the outline development plan; seconded by
Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #64, SERIES OF 1975 - Annexation of Benedict Property
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #64, Series of 1975, on first reading;
seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #64
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TWO PARCELS OF LAND LYING FAST OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, THE FIRST CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.1, AND THE SECOND CON-
TAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES, AND ANNEXING THE SAME PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1965 COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT was
read by the city clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #64, Series of 1.975, on first reading, -
seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, aye; Wishart,
aye; Behrendt, aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
CITY MAMAGER
i
I;
I•
Ord. 62
Rezoning
Enclaves
1. Forest Service. City Manager Mahoney asked Council for a mandate to pursue the
Forest Service review to the Washington D.C. level. Mahoney told Council that the
City has been objecting to the Forest Service decision, and unless the Council objected,
the City administration will continue on with the same objections.
Ord. 63,1975
Rezoning
Aspenview
Callahan
Subdivision
ODP
Ord.64,1975
Benedict -
Annexation
ij
'I
U
II
0
it
U.S. Forest
Service -
review
PUD
revision
Ord. 94
Subdivisior
Dedication
requirement
Ord. 95
Revenues ir.
Special
Improvement
districts
Ord. 96
Callahan
rezoning
Appropria-
tion
ordinances
Ord. 97
General
fund
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council
December 22, 1975
they City should have some leverage to deal with it. Ms. Stuller pointed out that the
City may decide, after a period of time, that they don't want architectural review,
that it doesn't work and that it does impose hardships. It could be converted to a
city wide architectural review with standards that are adopted professionally. The
architectural review was inserted at the request of some Councilmembers.
Mayor Standley told Council he had collected ordinances on architectural control and
most of the cities that have this, i.e. Scottsdale, Santa Fe, Carmel, have an identifi-
able architectural style. After talking to people, they feel that Aspen doesn't have
enough contiguity of style to allow the City to enforce an architectural style. Mayor
Standley felt that possibly the City could get away with an architectural code.
City Attorney Stuller explained that the way the code is written states there are three
or four policy objectives to be achieved 1) to maintain the contour and terrain as much
as possible, 2) to use native materials, etc. These are braod and don't impose a style.
The policy objectives are an attempt to curtail extravagances. Ms. Stuller felt the
City doesn't want to dictate styles to the architects.
Roll call vote: Councilmembers Parry, aye; Johnston, aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye;
Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #94, SERIES OF 1975 - Amendments to the Subdivision Dedication Requirements
City Attorney Stuller suggested that Council table this ordinace because it is not
critical at this time.
Councilman Behrendt moved to table Ordinance #94, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilman
Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #95, SERIES OF 1975 - Revenues in Special Improvement Districts
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #95, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilwoman
Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #95
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING EXCESS REVENUES IN THREE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT FUNDS TOTALLY $190,793; TRANSFERRING THESE EXCESS FUNDS TO
THE 1975 GENERAL FUND AS AN UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS; AND DECLARING THAT
AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF THE SAME was read
by the deputy city clerk
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #95, Series of 1975, on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart,
aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #96, SERIES OF 1975 - Callahan Rezoning
Councilman Behrendt made a motion to read Ordinance #96, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #96
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE. ZONING THREE(3) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST END OF
ASPENAND WITHIN THE PROPOSED CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION; TWO PARCELS HAVING
BEEN RECENTLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY; ZONING PARCEL 1 (CONTAINING APPROXI-
MATELY FOUR ACRES) RURAL RESIDENTIAL; ZONING PARCEL 2 (CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES) R-15 (RESIDENTIAL); AND REZONING PARCEL 3
(CONTAINING SIX ACRES) FROM R-15 TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL was read by the
deputy city clerk
Councilwoman Johnston moved to adopt Ordinance #96, Series of 1975, on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart,
aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCES #97 through #103, SERIES OF 1975 - Appropriation Ordinances
lCouncilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinances #97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, and 103,
ISlries of 1975; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
Ord. 98 ;I
Debt Service
funds
ORDINANCE #97
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING (WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND) INTEREST AND RENT
INCOME, UNANTICIPATED BUSINESS LICENSE AND CIGARETTE TAX REVENUES
LOAN PROCEEDS AND RECREATION ACTIVITY REVENUES; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, FINANCE, RECREATION,
PLANNING, BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND STREET DEPARTMENTS; AND DECLARING
THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT THEREOF was read
by the deputy city clerk
ORDINANCE #98
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SERIES OF TRANSFERS OF EXCESS MONIES AND
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE CITY'S DEBT SERVICE FUNDS; SPECIFICALLY
THE SEVENTH PENNY SALES TAX FUND, THE SIXTH PENNY SALES TAX FUND,
THE 1972 SALES TAX REFUNDING ACQUISITION FUND AND THE 1970 PUBLIC PURPOSE
BONDED DEBT FUND; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING
IMMEDIATE. ENACTMENT was read by the deputy city clerk.
•
1933
Ord. 96,
Rezoning
Callahan
Aspen
Athletic
Club
lease
Aspen
Institute
property
Public
Service
Rate
Increase
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council
ORDINANCE #96, SERIES OF 1975 Callahan Rezoning
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #96, Series of 1975;
woman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #96
(Series of 1975)
January 12, 1976
Mayor Standley
i
seconded by Council -
AN ORDINANCE ZONING THREE (3) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST END
OF ASPEN AND WITHIN THE PROPOSED CALLAHAN SUBDIVIION, TWO PARCELS
HAVING BEEN RECENTLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY; ZONING PARCEL 1 (CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES) RURAL RESIDENTIAL; ZONING PARCEL 2 (CON-
TAINING APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES) R-15 (RESIDENTIAL); AND REZONING
PARCEL 3 (CONTAINING SIX ACRES) FROM R-15 TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL was
read by the city clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance
seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote;
aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye;
Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER
#96, Series of 1975, on second reading;
Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; De Gregorio,
Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye.
1. Aspen Athletic Club. Memoranda were submitted to Council from City Manager Mahoney
and Parks and Recreation Director Armstrong. Mahoney told Council that based on these
memoranda he would recommend that Armstrong negotiate a new lease with the Aspen
Athletic Club for the Lift #1 building. Mahoney reported that part of the lease was
that the Rugby Club keep up the repair of the building; in the past they have had some
maintenance problems. Mahoney recommended that the building be returned to Armstrong.
Councilman Behrendt moved that Armstrong negotiate a new lease and that the building
be under his control; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Councilwoman Johnston asked if the recommendation included that the building be made
available to other groups. Mahoney answered yes; prior to this time the City had very
little to say because the building was under the control of the Rugby Club. Michael
Onmacht, representing the Chess Club, told Council his club was very active but had
had a difficult time finding a place to play. Onmacht told Council there was a very
big interest in ping pong; people would like to form a group and find a place to play.
Armstrong told Council it was his idea in remodelling the building to leave it open
enough and use partitions to accommodate more groups.
Jim Moran, representing Steve Wright of the Skier's Chalet, told Council there had been
problems last summer that the parties after a rugby victory created a serious impediment
to Wright's business. There had been loud music, a lot of drinking, and public urination.
Moran stated he would like some direction so that there could not be a big party up
there on City property without type of constraints if the same thing took place in
Wagner park. To use this property as a private social club is an abuse of City property
when it has an affect upon another business. Mayor Standley agreed that this was a
problem last summer. Mayor Standley directed Armstrong to solicit comments and
specific proposals from other interested groups.
All in favor, motion carried.
2. Aspen Institute_. City Manager Mahoney told Council he had been in daily contact
with Joe Slater of the Institute looking for compatibility in both the City's and the
Institute's desires. Mahoney had submitted a memorandum to Council simplifying this
to a 90 acre purchase for a certain amount of money. Mahoney said he needed some
type of resolution to state what direction Council wants to take now.
Mayor Standley said Council had directed him, Mahoney and Councilmember Pedersen to work
with the Institute to find existing areas of mutual interest. Mayor Standley told Council
the Institute is willing to try to put something together with the City. Mayor Standley
said the investigation did not include appraisals or operation capital. Mayor Standley
said he needed a motion from Council if they want to continue working to bring about
a solution. Mayor Standley said he wanted to ask the Institute to provide specific
information in order to figure out what the price might be.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to direct Mayor Standley, City Manager Mahoney and Council-
woman Pedersen to continue to discuss with the Institute officials concerning public
development of the property; seconded by Councilman Wishart.
Councilman De Gregorio asked that before this be considered at a Council meeting, that
the committee schedule a work session so that Council can sift through the'information.
Councilman Behrendt volunteered to be on the committee.
All in favor, motion carried.
3. Public Service Rate Increase. Mahoney reported that he had met with other municipalities
and corporations that buy wholesale power from Public Service. The City is required to
file an answer with the Federal Power Commission in opposition. Mahoney told Council
it was agreed by those attending that to pursue this independently would be a duplication
of effort. It was decided to appoint one attorney to represent the group. Pueblo and
Greeley use about 2/3 of the energy of this group so they will.pay 2/3 of the cost.
Littleton, Glenwood and Aspen will divide up the other 1/3 for the attorney. Mahoney
told Council it is estimated that it will take approximately $30 to 50,000 to pursue this.
1949
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 1976
i
Councilwoman Pedersen moved not to have Goodheim involved in marketing the second phase
of Jenkins' project; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor with the exception of
Councilman De Gregor.io. Motion carried.
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT
Mayor Standley said the agreement started during the budget session and it was left that
the City would be willing to pool a like amount of money with the County to the agencies
Community
identified. The agencies were to work among themselves and come up with a program for
Health
the dispersal of the funds. Mayor Standley asked if the agreement were consistent with
Services
the City's budgeting; Finance Director Butterbaugh said yes.
Agreement
Councilman Behrendt said the various agencies had reported can their past performance and
:worked out levels of service they feel will be fair. Through Betty Ericksen's office
the agencies have tried to work out a reporting and accountability system. Mayor Standley
asked how the minimum service levels relate to the past performance of the various
agencies. b1s. Erickson said it was close to their performance of last year, and is what
they are comfortable with for this year. It also states they will make an effort to
(I maintain and improve the quality of improved service.
Mayor Standley asked Ms. Erickson how she felt about the Mount Sopris involvement. Ms.
Erickson said they are being cooperative and helpful. Ms. Erickson said that after the
first paragraph in the agreement "hereinafter participating agencies" will be added.
Ms. Erickson told Council she felt all the agencies were quite comfortable in trying to
provide the kind of reporting the City asked for. There will be a report from each
agency every month. Councilman De Gregorio said he did not see any facilities open on
Saturdays. Ms. Erickson said there was a crises line and lots of people on call.
Councilwoman Pedersen pointed out in Resolution there was no mention of the Open Door.
Open Door comes under Touchstone as one of their agencies.
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #3, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman
Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION 43
(Series of 1976)
Res.3,1976
Agreement
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for their considera-
REgarding
tion an acceptable AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY HEALTH proposing a joint
Community
services arrangement among the City of Aspen, "the Board of County Commissioners
Health
I of Pitkin County, Aspen School District RE-1, Touchstone Clinic, Inc., Sopris
Mental Health Clinic and Aspen Valley Visiting Nurse Association, and
WHEREAS, that Section 13.5 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter permits
i
entry by the City into agreements with other governmental units, special
districts or persons for the joint furnishing or receiving of commodities
or services, provided such agreements are ratified by the City Council by
formal resolution, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve such agreement and authorize
the Mayor_ to execute the same on its behalf,
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
ll That it does ratify and approve the AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY HEALTH
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and does further authorize
Stacy Standley III, Mayor of the City of Aspen, to executive the same on its
behalf. was read by the city clerk.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to adopt Resolution #3, Series of 1976; seconded by Council-
man Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
A-95 REVIEW - FHA APPLICATION - The Aspen Club
Mayor Standley told Council that COG acts as A-95 review for federal fund programs whether
FHA applica-
private sector or public. In packet there is a copy of A-95 review for an FHA program
tion - The
and a letter from Andy Hecht to COG. Mayor Standley said the City and County both have
Aspen Club
I an opportunity to take a course of action and convey to COG this action.
(Callahan
Subdivision)
Andy Hecht introduced Anthony Chase, attorney from Washington D.C. who is representing
the applicant for this financing. Chase told Council he was representing Robert Goldsamt
d/b/a/ The Aspen Club, who had applied to the Federal government through FHA business
and industry loan program for a grant of 90 per cent of money sufficient to construct
the facilities. Chase said Federal assistance can be divided into two categories;
programs that are of guarantee nature, and programs that are of subsidy nature. Chase
told Council that this instance is a program developed by the Federal government to
provide certain kinds of term lending not available to small businesses; it is not a
i
subsidy program. This is not a program that will take money out of some other pocket.
I
Chase explained the applicant will repay the long ovdr long therm period, not in excess
of 20 years. Because of the mechanics set up by the federal government, the banks are
able to go ahead and provide this kind of financing. The lender is entering into an
insurance arrangement with the federal government.
Chase told Council in accordance with the A-95 procedures, COG is asked to approve any
federal aid applied for. The City has to say yes or no with respect to their feelings,
Iwhether or not this program ought to be used by the people in this City. Mayor Standley
II explained that Region 12 COG has courtesy A-95 review status. Any project brought to
them for federal funding will be circulated back to the local impact area. These are
Regular Meeting Aspcn City Council February 9, 1976
private as well as local projects. Mayor Standley told Council that if the local political
subdivision decides to go with a project, that is the direction that COG will take. I
Mayor Standley told Council that many FHA projects had come before COG that are identical,]
to this.
Planner Kane told Council he was not personally in favor of the application. This project'
will provide an exclusive service. Kane pointed out that Mr. Chase represented that there
was no federal subsidy involved; however, if the project fails, there is a heavy subsidy
involved. Kane told Council that the developers had repeatedly suggested that this FHA application
would be an exclusive facility and will not be a public facility. Kane asked if the ;The Aspen Club
City should be in the business of encouraging federal participation in a project that cont.
appeals to the recreation of 200 to 300 exclusive Aspenites. Kane said he felt it would
affect the City's reputation and posture in COG being a community that would support a
Federal guarantee loan for a facility of this type. Chase said this was not a federal
subsidy even if the loan goes into default; the reserves created from premiums paid on
loans that don't go into default pick up loans that do. Robert Goldsamt told Council the
reason for the application to FHA is that this is an unusual project. The object of using"
this particular program is to stretch out the loan for the longest possible time thereby f�
reducing the annual debt service, enabling Goldsamt to charge less for the people who
want to join.
Kane said the project was presented at conceptual that the homeowners of Callahan would j
have authority over the financial and maintenance arrangements of the club. The club I
facilities would add attractiveness and a marketing element. Kane pointed out to Council i
some language in the application that specifies the intended use of the money like,
communities that are loosing population; provide economic incentive for development of
private business to help inject capital into communities. Kane said they would have to
speak in specific numbers to understand the financing of this club. Councilman De Gregorio
pointed out the application said this project would provide in excess of 100 jobs, but he
has not seen anywhere that would provide housing. j
• �I
Councilman Wishart asked how the guarantee would be paid for. Chase answered the guarantee
fee is one per cent up front. Councilwoman Johnston quoted from the regulations, " the
purpose of the program is to improve economic and environmental climate in rural communi-
ties" and said she did not feel this would improve the environment.
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Plat Approval
Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this is a request for a final plat and a final
development plan, final phase of the PUD, approval of the Callahan Subdivision. Clark
told Council there would be four documents filed; subdivision plat, landscaping plan,
plan showing configuration and outline of the buildings.
Clark told Council this is a 25 acre proposal with 12 single family dwelling units, a
duplex site, 20 townhouses; Benedict's existing home will be expanding into a club house
facility, 7 outdoor tennis courts, and an indoor court facility. Clark said the indoor
court as proposed is 38,000 square feet, club house is about 9,400 square feet. The
approvals to date have been; County P & Z reviewed water line extension to the site;
City P & Z has given conceptual and preliminary plat approval, given stream margin
approval, approved a conditional use for the recreation building in the RR zone and the
club house in the RR zone. The Council approved the conceptual and outline development
plans, and acted to annex two parcels, rezone the club house from R-15 to RR to allow the
conditional use to be approved.
i
! Callahan
Subdivision
Final approval
tabled
�j
li
Clark compared the original plan with the final. The handball and indoor courts have !
changed significantly. Originally there were eight outdoor courts, an indoor facility
of 13,800 for a total of 24,000 square feet of the indoor facility. Now the indoor
facility is approximately 38,000 square feet in size. There have been changes in the
existing clubhouse building; the original size is about 6,000 square feet. The current
proposal is 9,000 square feet. The townhouses have changed significantly. There are
20 townhouses of 800 square feet; the number of townhouses is the same. The townhouses p
are no longer three stories high, but 1' to 2'. It looks like they plan to lower the j
vertical impact of the project, but they have spread the project out on the site. Clark
said these townhouses average out to 2100 square feet. In the previous plan, the town- I;
houses could have been up to 2400 square feet. Ij
There is a subdivision agreement submitted in the packet drawn up by city engineer Dave !j
Ellis and Andy Hecht. Clark outlined the criteria in that agreement; cash dedication of
$90,000, trail easement for the county trail, guarantee of Crystal Lake remaining a visual,:
amenity to the project, bond for subdivision improvements at $193,000, lining the ditch
between lots 8 and 9, acquiring first right of refusal on some water rights in Hunter Cree).
I
Clark summarized the planning office position; (1) recommend approval of the final plat II
and final development plan subject to (a) comments of the city engineer and fire marshal
be incorporated in the final plat and subdivision improvement agreement, (b) additional
landscaping will be revised by the applicant, specifically a more detailed landscaping j
plan developed for the west side of the indoor courts (c) the recreation building has
grown too large, it is over half a block. The planning office would recommend that
approval be given for two indoor courts, not three. The applicant would have to go throug''
a. PUD amendment process if the third court were applied for later. The planning office
feels the massing of the building is too strong.
I
Councilwoman Johnston asked if the reason this project was not in the flood plain because
the elevation was too high. Kane said the planning office's major concern is that, outside
of the senior -junior high school, this would be the largest building. Kane said he agreedi
this does not represent an intensive use of the land. The planning office is also con-
cerned that the buildings integrate with the landscape. �!
•
1951
Callahan
Subdivision
Cont.
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
February 9, 1976
City Engineer Ellis told Council that the fire marshal needs more access to the building,
with the present site plan it is difficult to give coverage. Ellis said the other
important point would be the concurrent easement through Ute Park and Ute Cemetery.
Mayor Standley questioned the subdivision agreement about underground culvert, and asked
Ellis if he planned to put the Nelly Bird in underground culvert. Ellis said to save the
City money, they would put the culvert underground to carry water, and would coordinate
this with the actual construction. Mayor Standley asked if Ellis planned to do this work
this summer and if it were on the construction program. Ellis answered yes he planned
to do the work, and it was not on the construction program, but is an option worth taking
up.
i
Paul Kutik told Council the three tennis courts would take approximately 22,000 square
feet; four handball/squash courts, exercise room, locker, would all be settled into
the back area of Benedict's office building, which is 17 feet above grade. Kutik said
the building is sunk down so the top of the building is lower by 2 or 3 feet than the
trees; one cannot see the building unless they are up above it, on Aspen mountain. Kutik
showed Council an elevation of the trees and the building. Kutik also had a model of
the project built to scale; he showed that the townhouses had been dropped to below tree
line.
Councilman De Gregorio asked Kutik to discuss employee housing. Kutik said he had
discussed this possibility with Goodheim, the P & Z, since they had 4 acres on the south
side of Ute Avenue they would be willing to work out some kind of mix between condominiums
and rentals units. Andy Hecht said at first they went to the planning office to try
to incorporate a housing program. The planning office did not want an ad hoc program
but wanted it coordinated with the city and county. The planning office did not want to
deal with housing at this point. Kutik pointed out that the planning office wanted to
study this area with regard to traffic before they gave a positive answer. Goodheim
said the problem is that the area proposed for employee housing is not the type of zone
by definition of the subdivision and zoning code for housing. It is also not consistent
with general planning principles for this type of density. Goodheim said that the site
is very restrictive.
Councilman De Gregorio questioned the exclusiveness of the club, and asked what a member-
ship would cost, what townhouses would cost. Councilman De Gregorio said he did not want
to see 100 jobs provided, and the City of Aspen has to provide facilities, housing, etc.
Kutik said he wasn't prepared to discuss figures and costs. This would depend on the
amount of facilities available and the number of people he can take in. Councilman
De Gregorio asked if it made a difference in cost if the Council support the loan applica-
tion. Kutik said it was a consideration because it would enable them to pay out in 25
years.
Councilman Behrendt moved to finally approve the Callahan subdivision and simultaneously
table the planned unit development plan pending inspection by the Council and a site
approval.
Planner Kane said he was suggesting the subdivision plat itself can be approved, but that
the PUD be tabled. City Attorney Stuller pointed out this might affect easements,
access roads, and everything else. Piecemeals approvals can get the City into a bind.
Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion.
Kane suggested that stakes be placed to show the physical location of the building so
that Council can see how much land is being taken up. The trees could be flagged to show
the exact elevation of the buildings. City Attorney Stuller said she had received
amendments to the subdivision agreements from Ellis, Jim Moran, and Andy Hecht. Incorpora-
tion of all these comments would be appropriate.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to consideration of this project be tabled pending (1) building
being staked out and site inspection by the Council (2) all changes are incorporated into
a new subdivision documents (3) an analysis and comments by City Manager and City Attorney
on 1980 of the Farmers Home Administration lending; seconded by Councilman Behrendt.
Councilman De Gregorio said he would like added to this to include that there is some
availability of discussion on prices. Councilwoman Johnston said she would like to see
conversations on housing continue. Councilwoman Johnston said she felt that the increased
size of the facilities would attract traffic, rather than for people that live there and
members.
Councilman De Gregorio.made a motion to amend the main motion to include some kind of
figures on how much memberships cost, how much the units cost; seconded by Councilwoman
Johnston.
Councilman Parry pointed out the original concept was not to have a Y camp type situation.
The Council was trying to establish this club not to be a traffic generator.
All in favor of Councilman De Gregorio's amendment with the exception of Councilman
Behrendt. Motion carried.
Mayor Standley pointed out that the third part of the main motion regarding the FHA
analysis did not tie in with the subdivision agreement and the site inspection.
Councilwoman Pedersen withdrew part three of the main motion; Councilman Behrendt agreed,
All in favor of the main motion, motion carried.
Councilwoman Johnston asked if there were some way to pursue employee housing in this
project. Mayor Standley said Council had given them conceptual approval; Council would
have to withdraw conceptual approval and start over with increased density. Kane
pointed out the whole project has been designed for a very low traffic situation. The
project is not equipped to handle parking.
A
Regular Meeting Regular Meeting February 9, 1976
{( Mayor Standley brought up the comment sheet on the FHA application for COG review.
(; Andy Hecht suggested tabling it because it would help Council know what kind of project li
�! it will be before they comment. {i l
Councilman De Gregorio moved to table.the comment on FHA; seconded by Councilwoman
Johnston.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to amend the motion to include analysis and comment by the
City Manager and City Attorney on the contents of material submitted; seconded by
Councilman Wishart. All in favor of the amendment, motion carried.
All in favor of the main motion, motion carried. i
CONSIDERATION OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ALLEY PAVING - Chateau Dumont I�
I;
City Engineer Ellis had submitted a memorandum and letter to Council. City Manager ; Alley paving
Mahoney told Council he was concerned because the City has never accepted the total consideration
responsibility of paving alleys. The City does have the respors�bility of getting safety of reimburse -
and sanitary equipment through, and for keeping the alleys as chuckhole free as possible. ment - Chateau
City Manager Mahoney pointed out if adjacent land owners to alleys decided to black Dumont
top the alleys it would compromise the City's budgetting process.
Councilman De Gregoriomoved not to do any reimbursement since this was not approved by
the Council and would remove the budgetting process from the hands of the City Council;
seconded by Councilwoman Johnston.
Councilwoman Johnston asked what the City's policy regarding reparing alleys was. Mayor
Standley answered that this question was discussed at budgetting time.
All in favor, motion carried.
AZTEC CONDOMINIUMS - Final Subdivision Approval
Hal Clark, told Council this was an application for final plat approval of an existing
Aztec Condos.
building which is being condomini.umized. There are six apartments located on Dean and
Final Sub -
South Monarch. Clark reminded Council one of the conditions of conceptual approval
division
was that the building be checked out for the possibility of the "door game". Clark
"door
approval
said he had checked the building and it would be extremely difficult to play the
game" in this project. Jack Walls told Council the two top units were owned by the
owners of the building; the other four units are single bedroom. Clark told Council
the planning office recommends approval of this project subject to conditions in the
engineer's letter of February 4, 1976, with payment of a land dedication of $9,462.
Councilwoman Johnston pointed out there was no subdivision -agreement. Clark said
the agreement would consist of those three things, it was an existing building.
Mayor Standley said it was difficult to approve something unseen.
Councilman Behrendt moved to table approval pending drafting of the agreement; seconded
by Councilwoman Johnston.
Jack Walls asked if it would be possible to approve the final plat subject to the
agreement, if all the points are taken care of.
i
Councilman Wishart moved that Mayor Standley be authorized to execute the final sub-
division approval and sign the plat pending City Attorney Stuller's acceptance of the
agreement_ given the four conditions identified by the planning and engineering office;
and including the amount of the dedication; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor
of the substitute motion, motion carried.
Council recessed for five minutes.
TRUEMAN PROPERTY - Conceptual Subdivision
Joe Porter told Council that since the last meeting Barry Edwards had gotten together
with City Attorney Stuller and a note had been added to lot 4. City Attorney Stuller I Trueman
said that there were two alternatives; either make a two lot subdivision, or make it Property
four and qualify the allowable density on the fourth. City Attorney Stuller said she Conceptual
did not support. the proposition of two vs. four, but was asked what acceptable Subdivision
language to perpetuate what Trueman wanted to do, to limit the development rights.
Porter told Council there were three things to go over; how to treat the leftover space,,
the 15,000 square feet of office space on the second floor, subdividing. Porter went I
over previous approvals; Council had voted for 10,000 square feet of housing, grocery
store of 20,000 square feet; 5,000 bquare feet of other retail space; Council had
indicated that 15,000 square feet of office space on the second floor was too much. II
Porter said he wanted to rediscuss the basement. Councilman De Gregorio had objected
to the health club. Trueman said the health club would be made available to people in
the offices, managers of the store, and anyone else who wanted to join. There would
be about 100 memberships. Porter said he would also like to include another 5,000
square feet in the basement for service uses like TV repair, shoe shops, someplace
between office and hard retail space. This would be a total 10,000 square foot base-
ment.
Councilman Behrendt moved to table this at this time because the planning department
has not seen or discussed this; these peopl6 should go to the planning depar.tment to
have to problems worked out; it is not ready to be in front of Council; seconded by
Councilwoman Johnston.
Kane said the largest things that remain unresolved are (1) organization and ultimate
disposition of the land and (2) the size of the building. Kane recommended a two lot
subdivision and a 45,000 square foot bui.ldir.g which would contain a 20,000 foot food
Ll
••i
•
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 1976
�I Councilman Wishart moved that the City agree to help fund the $3,000 to $4,000 engineerL
ing study; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
�I
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Subdivision Approval
i
I' Planner Kane told Council the outstanding item in this subdivision was the size of the
recreation building. There are 34 dwelling units, and expanded clubhouse and the
recreation facility. The building had been staked out for an on -site inspection.
Hal Clark told Council the proposed recreation building was 46,000 square feet; the
recommendation of the planning office is 36,000 square feet with two indoor tennis
courts. Clark outlined the comments of the planning office. City Engineer Ellis is
recommending approval of the subdivision. The planning office asked that the transpor-
tation agreement be part of the subdivision agreement. The planning office asked for
a revised landscaping plan; it has been submitted, and the planning office agrees to it..
The sewer line easement will go through Ute Park; Ted Amnstrong is concerned about the
possibility of a wide excavation from a safety factor. The basic disagreement boils
down to two indoor courts or three indoor courts. The planning office has tried to
relate that to the impact of additional use of the building.
Councilman Behrendt asked if the other proposed uses for the recreational building would
be underneath the tennis courts. Paul Kutik answered that the tennis courts would be
the lowest level.
'! Councilwoman Johnston asked that Housing Officer Brian Goodheim address the employee
housing. Goodheim had submitted a memorandum to Council suggested that the five acres
li under the applicant's control at the end of Ute Avenue be considered for employee hous-
ing. Goodheim suggested that the density be worked out by the planning office and
�I whatever density is recommended be utilized to meet employee housing for the impact of
I� the development. Kane told Counil he had not worked out a site analysis. Based on
j� existing zoning, slope reduction, and avalanche control, the density will not be very
great. Mayor Standley pointed out the City did not have any regulations that required
developers to include housing. Councilman Wishart stated in going through subdivision,
it was maintained that Ute Avenue should remain low impact and not create traffic out
there; employee housing would.
Callahan
Subdivision
final sub-
division
approval
Kane explained to touncil there had been a gradual change and expansion of the facilities.
it
The origianl idea had been for a medium range tennis facilities. The addition of the
t hird court would add on more automobile traffic, use of the facility and congestion
�! that was not part of the conceptual subdivision. Kutik told Council that they would
take care of this problem by providing transportation, pick up station, etc. This will
be included in the subdivision agreement.
Councilman Wishart asked if the Council left out the third covered tennis court, could
they set up a mechanism so that the developer could come back later for a third court.
Clark answered they could go for an amended PUD. After the building is in existence and
operation for some time, the City can better assess the impacts.
Councilman Behrendt said between the health club and clubhouse, Kutik is proposing that
90 to 250 people would be on the site at anytime. Councilman Behrendt asked if Kutik
had parking provisions to address that. Kutik noted that a lot of people using the
facilities would also be living there. Councilwoman Pedersen asked Kutik if any trees
or graves would be destroyed by the sewer line going through Ute Cemetery and Ute Park.
Kuti.k answered he had studied the easement carefully and had agreed to replace any trees,
that are destroyed. City Attorney Stuller remarked she had no problems with the
subdivision.
i
Councilman Wishart moved to accept and record the subdivision plat; to authorize Mayor
Standley to execute the subdivision agreement on behalf of the City, and to authorize
Mayor Standley to execute the easement agreement; and to include the reservations of
the planning office and to incorporate exploring employee housing; seconded by Council- .`
woman Pedersen. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, nay; Johnston, aye; Parry,
aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
!! Paul Kutik told Council that Callahan's FHA loan application was being withdrawn.
11
700 WEST HOPKINS - Request for exemption from the definition of subdivision
�I Bruce Kistler, representing 700 West Hopkins, had submitted a letter to Council outlining
the petition for exemption from the definition of subdivision and the reasons Kistler
!� believe the exemption to be applicable. Kistler stated basically there are two reasons
why the 700 Hopkins project should be exempt, other than the fact that to impose sub-
division obligations on the conversion of apartments to condominiums accomplishes no
�I valid purpose under the subdivison regulations. Kistler said the law is very clear.
There are two standards. The fee must be specifically and uniquely attributable to
jl the subdivision, and there must be some nexus between the subdivision itself and the �
! reason for extracting the fee.
j! Kistler said the new subdivision ordinance fees in lieu of land dedication will be used
for acquisition of land or open space. Kistler asked if the 700 Hopkins subdivision li
attracted a need that may exist in the community for more open space. Kistler stated 11
i with conversion, there is no such need demonstrated. For that reason, Kistler stated, 1
the ordinance as written is illegal and unconstitutional. Kistler wanted the City to
recognize that the ordinance is unconstitutional. It is up to the City to take further
steps to rectify this or to operate under an unconstitutional, ordinance. �!
'i
Kistler asked for the money back that 700 West Hopkins paid pursuant to this subdivision
agreement. Kistler said the facts are not there to sustain that a condominium conver-
sion establishes either nexus or specifically and uniquely attributable need. "
I�
700 West
Hopkins -
Request for
exemption from
subdivision
0 , 23 3'7 -
_ _��ieguLdr 11eetin __ __ Aspen_ _ City gouncil
January 9, 1975
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There were no comments.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
James E. Moore 1. Councilwoman Johnston asked if the City were going to get an appraisal on the James
appraisal E. Moore property. City Manager Mahoney said he had just received it this date.
2. Councilman Parry told Council that the trolley car is on its way and should be in
Aspen any day. Councilman Parry said they hoped to drive it through town; then they
Trolley had rented a space at the airport where they will work on restoring it.
3. Councilman Wishart asked when Council had decided to appoint someone to fill the
Council vacancy. Mayor Standley pointed out that this is specified in the Charter, and
Vacant Council also the Charter says the appointment will be for the unexpired term. Mayor Standley
seat said the Council could change this by submitting it to a Charter amendment election.
Councilman Behrendt came into the Council meeting.
Mayor Standley told Council that given the Charter specifications, he had placed an
advertisement in the newspaper announcing the opening. The letters of interest are to
be directed to the Mayor's office through Friday, January 13. These letters will be
placed in a packet and given to all Councilmembers. Mayor Standley asked that each
Councilmember try to champion two people they are interested in. These candidates will
be interviewed the week of January 16 to 20. At the January 23 Council meeting, if
Council is ready, they can make the appointment and have the judge present to swear the
new Councilmember in.
GRANT APPLICATION FOR WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
John Stanford, planning office, told Council the City has applied for $91,800 Federal
Wheeler Opera
historic preservation funds. These projects will be reviewed during the month of
House
February. Stanford said he believed the City has a good chance of receiving the full
request, and asked Council to submit a letter of support. The Colorado Consulting
Committee, a group of around 60 people, will review the applications and make recommenda-
tions. There are three people in this area on the committee; Michael Strang, Ted Mularz,
and Fritz Benedict.
Stanford told Council this is a 50/50 matching grant, and the monies will concentrate on
electric and mechanical work. Councilman Wishart asked if the City was really interested
in turning the Wheeler over to a task force for a long term lease. Mayor Standley
said the City has not made the management decision yet. Stanford pointed out the Wheeler
could he administered by a City agency or a private non. -profit foundation.
Councilwoman Johnston moved that Mayor Standley write a letter for Council supporting
this grant; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
PACO'S TACOS - Application for a 3.2 beer license
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. City clerk reported that the file, posting
Paco's Tacos
and publication were in order.
3.2 beer hearing
Bill Dunn, application, told Council this is for a 3.2 beer license, and basically this
is a renewal. Dunn said he has had the license for over two years with no problems at
all. Dunn did not get the license renewed in August. This is the only over the counter
license in town. Mayor Standley asked if the place was for sale. Dunn said he did have
it for sale, but he was shut down for the off season. Councilman Wishart asked if Dunn
had had any trouble with people taking the beer off the premises. Dunn said mostly
people drink it on the patio. Dunn has had no complaints, no cups in the streets.
Mayor Standley asked for opponents. There were none. Mayor Standley closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Wishart moved to approve the license for a 3.2 beer license for Paco's
Tacos; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Councilwoman Johnston asked that the motion be
amended to state that the applicatant having established that the reasonable'requirements
have not been met for the establishment and that the inhabitants desire the issuance of
this license, that the license is hereby granted for a 3.2 beer license and that this
licenses should be restricted to this type and character. All in favor, motion carried.
M.A.A. LEASE - WHEELER BASEMENT CAFETERIA
Jan Collins requested Council to renew the lease fore the cafeteria to M.A.A. for another
Wheeler Basement
year. Ms. Collins said the lease expires this April and they would like to operate one
Cafeteria -
more summer. Ms. Collins said they are looking for another space, but have not been able
H.A.A. lease
to find one. Councilwoman Johnston suggested structuring this lease like the Pub lease,
renew to the first of 1979, with the City's option to renew for six months, and 60 day
notice. Ms. Collins asked if progress on the Wheeler were not rampant, then is it'
possible they could go another year. Mayor Standley said this is possible; the City
would like to keep their options open.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the M.A.A. lease until January 1979 with options
to renew for six months and a 60 day notice; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in
favor, motion carried.
ASPEN CLUB - Application for a three-way liquor license
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. City clerk reported the files, posting and
publication were in order.
;33v-
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 1978
Ashley Anderson, representing Robert Goldsamt and the Aspen Club, of which Goldsamt is
the sole stockholder, told Council this is an application for a three way license without
extended hours. The facility will be located in the Recreation building at the Callahan Aspen Club
subdivision. The facility will look out over the tennis, squash and racquet ball courts. Application for
The seating is variable and could serve up to 75 persons. At present they plan on seating 3-way license
30 to 35, and will be basically just a service to the club. The manager of the facility
will.be Marvin Huss, who is the manager of the Aspen Club.
The facility is basically a place for convenience as an accommodation for members of the
club and their guests. It will serve light meals in connection with other uses of the club.
Anderson presented a menu. Anderson told Council that the facility will be open when the
recreation building is open; they will not have extended hours, and it will not be a 2:00
cocktail place. Anderson told Council they do not plan on separate advertising of the
facility. Anderson said they see this as another source of revenue to keep the fees down.
Marvin Huss told Council the Aspen Club has a membership of 850, with a total of about
1500 people. Huss said they were trying to structure the membership fees so that anybody
could join the club. Huss said a good 1200 of the members are working people here in
Aspen. There are a lot of business memberships; City, County, Ski Corp, Hospital, etc.
Huss said he felt the Aspen Club had added something needed in the community.
Anderson said he felt this outlet is unique and is needed in the community. Anderson
submitted petitions in support of the application with 852 signatures who are residents
of the City of Aspen. Jeff Johnson told Council he would like to indicate his support
of the application; he feels the Club is good for the community. Johnson said he felt
the license would be good for the club. Johnson told Council he worked in Aspen and
belonged to the Club. Maurie Brodin told Council he was a janitor in town, belonged to
the Club and likes to play squash or tennis, and would enjoy a drink after using the
Club's facilities. '
Councilwoman Johnston said she had no problems with a good club getting a license, but
feels if this is known as the place to go by the public, it may start generating traffic.
Anderson pointed out that the emphasis will be on members and their guests. Anderson
said they agreed in the subdivision agreement to do a shuttle service. They plan to do
this and are trying to figure out the peak times, etc. Councilman Wishart said he felt
that not many non-members will go out there unless they have someone to watch or to meet.
Councilman Wishart said he did not think this would appeal to the drinking public.
Councilman Van Ness asked if the Aspen Club were planning on opening a restaurant eventually.
Anderson said that was a possibility. Anderson said they may come in for approval to
move the location; this depends upon where the restaurant goes.
Mayor Standley said if Council approves this license, they could stipulate that the
license must be converted to a club license in five years or at anytime sooner that the
state legislature changes the law. Councilman Behrendt said he thought the club should
have a license but questioned whether the public should be able to float around.
Anderson said the Club would continue to have membership signs.
Mayor Standley said he had been opposed to all liquor licenses; however, on this specific
application, it was always represented that it would be a licensed premises and that it
would have a restaurant, but that it would be run as a club. Mayor Standley pointed out
that an establishment has to operate for five years before they can have a club license.
Mayor Standley said he would be willing to approve the license with three conditions;
(1) that the Aspen Club convert to a club license after five years or at the time they
legally can do so, (2) stiputlate that no advertising be made either on the radio or
the printed media of their food service and liquor license, and (3) Finally, as stated in
Section 13 of the Subdivision Agreement, the have a shuttle service to the club. Mayor
Standley said he would like to have them submit their shuttle service plan and program
to H. J. Stalf for his approval and subsequent approval by Council no later than the
January 23 meeting. Anderson said he had no problems with those stipulations.
Councilman Van Ness pointed out that the City bus service goes right past the Club. Stalf
said the Mountain Valley route goes to the entrance. Councilman Van Ness said he would
like to see some monitoring being done so that they .don't end up running an empty bus
every 15 minutes. Anderson suggested that Stalf could monitor the bus service and suspend
it if it were empty.
Mayor Standley asked for opponents to the license. There were none. Mayor Standley
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Johnston moved that based upon the evidence presented at a public hearing
held January 9, 1978, relating to the aspplication by the Aspen Club for a three-way
license with non -extended hours, Council finds that they established that the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood have not been met; that the inhabitants of the neighbor-
hood desire the issuance of this license; and that the license is hereby granted for a
three-way license with the following conditions; (1) agree to convert to a club license
within five years or whenever legally possible, (2) stipulation to do no advertising for
their food service or liquor, (3) shuttle bus service plan be provided for five years as
in the original subdivision agreement, this plan to be okayed by H. J. Stalf and referred
to Council and that this license is restricted to this type and character of operation.
Council has found the moral and financial character of the applicant to be all right.
seconded by Councilman Van Ness.
Mayor Standley asked Anderson if they were planning to serve on.the deck in spring and
summer. Anderson said they planned to as soon as the snow is gone. Mayor Standley
suggested amending the premises now so they don't have to come back with an 18-E in the
spring. Anderson outlined the porch area where they planned to serve.
All in favor, motion carried.
`348 0
is
Regular Meeting _ ` _ Aspen City Council
January 23, 1978
at the Wheeler in 1910-20's. The Historical Society has the film cards from that time
and has ordered the films to be re -shown. There will be organ music and the ushers will
wear period costumes.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the special event permits for the Historical Society;
seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Mayor Standley said that Gil Colestock, Charles Patterson and Fred Smith have' been on the
Board of Adjustment for years and are requesting reappointment.
Councilman Wishart moved to reappoint Colestock, Patterson and Smith to the Board of
Adjustment; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
AMBULANCE PROPOSAL
Glenn Scott, Aspen Valley Hospital, distributed a memorandum regarding the acquisition of
Mountain Ambulance Service. On December 27 the County formally endorsed the hospital's
purchase of MAS. This would incorporate the MAS with the hospital's amublance service.
The purchase price is not included in the proposal. Scott said basically they see a
reducation in the amount of money the City and County would have to spend on ambulances.
Scott said the hospital needed from the City an endorsement of the concept and the City's
support to proceed with negotiations in purchasing MAS. Scott said he felt this was a
good opportunity to save some money in the long run and to provide ambulance service.
Mayor Standley asked if they were asking for funds. Scott answered ultimately, yes.
Mayor Standley pointed out that the hospital is a taxing entity To bring in the City
and County is a duplication of taxing on the resident. Mayor Standley said he had no'
problem endorsing the idea of acquisition of MAS, but he did have great problems with
committing city funds to the acquisition. Councilwoman Johnston concurred; as long as a
hospital district has been formed, that is where the costs should be borne. Scott said
he was coming to Council because they fund the ambulance service; the hospital runs it
for the City. The hospital felt they had an obligation to the City.
Councilman Van Ness asked what the City's subsidy is at this point. Finance Director
Butterbaugh answered $27,000 per year. Councilman Wishart wanted to know more about the
contracts with the ski corporations. Scott answered that both ski corporations have given
letters of assurance they will continue the contractual arrangements. They both run
until 1980. Bob Jarrett, owner of MAS, told Council the ski. corporations have been very
fair. Jarrett said he wanted to offer the ambulance service to the City first; after a
certain amount of time he will put it on the market.
Councilman Behrendt moved that because of double taxation by the city and county residents
the City not participate in ambulance acquisition at this time; seconded by Councilwoman
Johnston. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Wishart and Parry. Motion
carried.
Scott stated he would continue to pursue this because he feels it does have some merit.
ASPEN CLUB SHUTTLE BUS PROPOSAL
Mayor Standley reminded Council at the last meeting when Council approved the liquor
license, they asked Aspen Club to develop a shuttle bus according to their subdivision
agreement. Mayor Standley said the proposed schedule looked good. Councilman Parry
asked if it duplicated the City's route. H. J. Stalf said he felt Rubey Park pick up
would be better than what was presented. Stalf said they will put up signs for the
Aspen Club bus stop. Councilman Wishart suggested stopping at the Hotel Jerome. Stalf
said the Aspen Club would keep him updated on ridership and visits to the club. These
routes can be subject to change.
Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the bus schedule; seconded by Councilman Wishart.
Councilman Parry said he would like to have the city parking lot removed as a stop and
have it switched to the Hotel Jerome. Councilwoman Johnston asked that Stalf continue
to monitor this and if he finds that times nobody is riding consistently, work out the
changes. All in favor, motion carried.
ASPEN CENTER FOR VISUAL ARTS - Operating budget
Bd. of Adjustment
reappointments
Colestock, Smith
Patterson
Ambulance Acquisitic
Proposal
Aspen Club
Shuttle Bus
Proposal
Mayor Standley pointed out that Council had already funded this at $25,000 and told the Aspen Center for
ACVA to submit for approval an operating budget. Missy Thorne pointed out that the Visual Arts -
salaries are based on hiring in August or September. The director's salary will be Operating
$22,000 a year. Budget
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the operating budget for the ACVA; seconded by
Councilman Wishart.
Councilwoman Johnston said it was her impression that the City agreed to give money to
bring the building up to code and that the visual arts group would get•the money to
operate. Ms. Thorne told Council that once the building is operating, that is what they
hope to do. The ACVA asked for $25,000 operating budget and $125,000 for renovation.
The ACVA wants the City to .be responsible for the renovation. Once the building is
operating, they will do everything they can to keep it operating.
All in favor, motion carried.
1380
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
April 10, 1978
Swersky told Council if pbple receive fluoridation during the formative years, it can
help their teeth until.th(y are 50 or 60. Swersky pointed out that fluoridation is not
a medication; it is a na t ally occurring mineral. Fluoridation in the water produces
up to 65 per cent tooth decay reduction. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out that the
City is paying to fluoridat, lawns and all the people who visit here. $2600 per year
is not much until it require capital improvements.
Charlie Schraeder told Council that the State Health Department endorses and promotes
fluoridation around the stave. Colorado is third in the nation in supplying fluoridation
to the population. 84 per c.nt of Colorado receives fluoridation. Schraeder stated that
over the past 20 years, the slate has determined that fluoridation is safe in any form.
Fluoridating the water is the 3nly feasible way that all children can receive benefits.
This is still less cost and tie most effective way to go.
Councilman Behrendt asked if here is any study on what happens if the water is fluori-
dated on an intermittent basis. Schraeder answered the optimum amount is 1 part per
million parts. Anything less t}at 7/1.0's rapidly diminshes it effectiveness. Swersky
pointed out there is some natura,ly occurring fluorides in Castle and Maroon creeks.
Mahoney pointed out the City can to fluoridation in the winter months when the demand on
the system is not as big. Mayor Standley said to do this all year round would require
a budget capital expenditure. Mayor Standley said this should be addressed again at
budget time. Jim Markalunas told 7ouncil the request is for approximately $15,000 to
change the -existing chemical feedl,nes and to build a building to house them. The City
does fluoridate from September 1 until June 1. During the summer months of 1976 and 1977
they did not add fluoride because a! the operational and maintenance problems. A group
of Jon Busch, David Swersky, Nina Johnston and one other local dentist will meet to make
recommendations to Council before budget time.
STOCK TRANSFER - Aspen Mine Company
Roger Brown told Council his company, S. A. Brown, had purchased 50 per cent interest in Liquor License
the Aspen Mine Company. stock transfer -
Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the stock transfer; seconded by Councilwoman John- Aspen Mine Co.
ston. All in favor, motion carried.
REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT - Eagle's Buildin5/Andre
David Hauter, representing Andre Ulrych, toll. Council this is a proposal for an encroach-
ment into the alley to enclose a new stairway for the proposed restoration of the Eagle's Request for
building. The stairway is a required exit fox the second floor. There is an existing encroachwnt -
encroachment in the alley. The new encroachmen* would improve the dangerous roof over- Eagle's
hang which creates an ice build up 7 or 8 feet into the alley. The encroachment would denied
also provide trash service area, which would impr,)ve the buildings ability to be serviced.
They would include a trash compactor. Hauter said. this alley encroachment would be an
improvement over the existing condition.
Mayor Standley pointed out the City Engineer in his memorandum said that the renovation
could accommodate all these things so that there would be no need for an encroachment.
The roof will have to be re -done, which will clear up the ice build up. Mayor Standley
said he approved of the renovation of the Eagle's building 100 per cent. As far as
encroachments into the alley, the City's problems with alleys come from encroachments.
Hauter stated one of the benefits would be to define the area that services the building,
and would visually improve the building.
Andre Ulrych told Council that there are no encroachments on the opposite side of the
alley. There is presently a 4 foot encroachment into the alley. Ulrych stated they
cannot completely rebuild the roof. The requested area for the encroachment is needed
to house the stairwell and to bring pipes from the roof in order to get rid of the water.
Mayor Standley said he had a real problem with allowing encroachments in the alleys.
Everytime the City allows this, they get more problems. Encroachments are not in the
best interest of the City, the fire department, the* street department, the trash depart-
ment.
Councilman Isaac moved to deny the application for encroachment; seconded by Councilwoman
Johnston.
Councilman Parry said he would be in favor of this encroachment so they do not have to
move these functions inside the building. All in favor, with the exception of Council -
members Parry and Van Ness. Motion carried.
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION - Aspen Club
Ashley Anderson presented Council a Petition for Annexation for 3'h acres directly south
of the recreation building at the Aspen Club. Anderson told Council they were proposing petition for
to add 8 outdoor tennis courts. There will be no residences, no services, and no build -
Annexation -
ings placed" out there. The tennis courts will be terraced into the hills into a couple Aspen Club
of different levels. The second part of the proposal deals with the recreation building;
the enclosure of the deck, which is already within the footprint, and an expansion of
8500 square feet on the west side. This expansion will be 8 more racquet ball courts and
a small laundry. They will move the snack bar to the deck.
Anderson explained the original proposal would be to expand the former Benedict house to
9400 square feet for a dining facility. They have dropped the dining facility at the
house and will have only the snack bar. They plan to expand both the men's and women's
locker. rooms. There will be 13,404 square foot proposed expansion.
2381
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council
April 10, 1978
Councilman Behrendt asked if procedurally this should be handled under the growth manage-
ment quota as 13,000 square feet of commercial space. Kane answered that the quota is
only for CC and C-1 zones; this is RR. Anderson told Council that 90 per cent of the
members of the club are locals with a waiting list. Mayor Standley reminded Council that
the Aspen Club had offered to build employee housing on the land proposed for more tennis
courts; the City had turned it down because of the access problem on Ute avenue.
Councilman Behrendt asked the implications in terms of density if this were annexed. Kane
told Council it would presumably be RR in the city, which is two units per acre. In the
County it is zoned AF-1, which is one dwelling per acre. Mayor Standley pointed out
the greatest benefit is that if this land is in the City, then the City has more control
over what happens.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution #8, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman
Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #8
(Series of 1978)
Reso. 8, 1978 WHEREAS, there has been filed on behalf of Robert S. Goldsamt a Petition
Annexation - for Annexation and a Request for Zoning of the following described tract:
Aspen Club A. PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP
10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST. OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PI'I'KIN COUNTY
COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER,
MS 3905 AM. BEARS N 38011125" E 158.05 FEET:
THENCE S 68000'00" E 120.00 FEET;
THENCE S 49000'00" E 350.00 FEET;
THENCE S 41000100" W 361.82 FEET;
THENCE N 49000'00" W 330.37 FEET;
THENCE N 00049'21" E 390.96 FEET;
THENCE S 60024'26" E 121.55 FEET;
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.784 ACRES MORE OR LESS
WHEREAS, said Petition and Request has been signed by Robert S. Goldsamt,
dated March 24, 1978, have been considered by the Aspen City Council and said
Petition for Annexation was found to be in substantial compliance with the
requirements of Section 31-8-107(1) C.R.S. 1973, the Colorado Municipal
Annexation Act, and
WHEREAS, it is required by said Act that the Councils determination of
compliance of an annexation petition be by resolution and therefore of record,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado:
1. That the Petition for Annexation dated March 24, 1978, and signed by
Robert S_ Goldsamt be, and hereby is, determined to be in compliance with the
requirements of Section 31-8-107(1) C.R.S. 1973, the Colorado Municipal
Annexation Act; and
2. That it further be determined, and the City Council so finds, that
not less than one -sixth of the perimiter of the area proposed to be annexed
is contiguous with the City of Aspen, and that a community of interest exists
between the territory proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen; that the
territory to be annexed is urban, and that the territory to be annexed is
integrated with the City of Aspen; and
3. That the City Attorney present for consideration at the next
regular meeting an ordinance appropriate to effectuate annexation; and
4. That the City Planning and Zoning Commission commence proceedings
to zone this tract RR/PUD at its earliest convenience
was read by the city clerk.
Mayor Standley asked how many members of Council. belonged to the Aspen Club; Councilmembers
Parry, Isaac and Mayor Standley are members. Council asked that the zoning request be
changed from RR to RR/PUD.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approved resolution #8, as amended, series of 1978; seconded
by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried.
RIO GRANDE PROPERTY - Playing Field/Parking lot
City Manager Mahoney told Council he had a memorandum from Parks director Jim Holland
Rio Grande -
requesting Council appropriate $35,800 for the playing field and showing where the money
playing field
will be spent. Mahoney told Council he had a report for the open space and transporta-
parking lot
tion sales tax showing a surplus in the sixth and seventh pennies. Council can get an
opinion from City Attorney Nuttall on whether it is appropriate to use this money on the
Rio Grande. Finance Director Butterbaugh explained to Council she had reworked the
tax figures for the last five years and included a percentage collection. The rework
shows that within the City the collection has gone above budget; the County collections
are below budget. The City had budgeted on the basis that the County growth in sales
tax collection had been growing more rapidly than the City.
Mayor Standley outlined:: the alternatives from -.. the last presentation; underground
sprinkling system or quick couple on top. Mahoney outlined the recommendation from
Holland, blue grass sod, automatic water, a two-year phase project. First year do the
playing field, second year the rest of it.
. .4
•
4 a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 26, 1978
Councilman Behrendt said the City should allow the applicant to build what he is zoned to
build. The Council should them re -write the law so that it is useful to the tenants.
Danielson pointed out there is no time control or rent control. Ms. Smith told Council
that one of the proposals.the planning office offered was to request at least one of the
units be a studio unit specifically reserved for employee housing.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the conceptual subdivision application conditioned
upon increasing the depth of the parking to 22 feet; seconded by Councilman Van Ness.
Mayor Standley said he would rather vote against it and take chances to see what the City
gets than vote in favor and know exactly what they will get. Mayor Standley pointed out
people come to town, buy a piece of property, throw the tenants out, and build an expensive
condominium. There is 65 per cent absentee ownership in Aspen.
Councilmembers Parry Ven Ness, Behrendt in favor, Councilmembers Isaac, Wishart and Mayor
Standley opposed. Motion NOT carried.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Oliver
Richard Grice told Council this is a request for subdivision exemption for a duplex currently
Subdivision under construction. There is no tenant displacement. Engineering department, Danielson
Exemption - and P & Z recommend approval.
Oliver
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve subdivision exemption conditioned upon a six month
lease; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried.
PUD AMENDMENT - Aspen Club
PUD amendment the
Smith told Council this is a request to amend the Callahan Subdivision PUD to increase
the size of the recreation club at the Aspen Club by 10,000 square feet. The size of the
Aspen Club facility is now 42,000 square feet. In addition, the application requests two additional
tennis courts, and to change the Benedict residence from a restaurant to a single family
residence. This was previously approved to be 9,000 square feet for a restaurant. Ms.
Smith told Council the planning office had looked at this from increased local membership
at a lower fee versus increased impacts. The P & 7, recommended approval subject to a
traffic control plan and contingent upon the expansion receiving conditional use approval.
The recreation club is a conditional use in the RR district. The public hearing will be
July 6.
The PUD amendment must be based on finding that conditions have changed or there are changes
in community policy. The planning office accepts that conditions have changed. The original
concept was to draw membership from the surrounding subdivision. The are drawing membership
from the whole community. Ms. Smith said the Club is looking at a membership of 1700 with
350 to 400 on -site at one time. Their justification for this is that there will be con-
tinued low membership rates for locals. The planning office sees no guarantees of that.
The planning office agrees that the change in the Benedict residence to a single family
"� dwelling would result in a net reduction of trips from town. This is more than offset
rnurriy � L- by the traffic that will result from the club expansion.
Another concern is the size and massing of the building. A criticism from the planning
office is that this facility is actually too big for the site. The initial representation
was that this would be medium sized and would compliment the RR zone. This application is
a 25 per cent increase in the size of the facility. This building started at 2,4,000 square
feet, went to 38,000, is now 42,000 and will be 52,000 square feet with this expansion.
The traffic congestion is a concern also. People drive out there rather than use alterna-
tive transportation modes. This issue boils down to community benefit versus land impacts.
Ms. Smith told Council if they did approve this, they should incorporate the concerns of
the P & Z; transportation, strict parking, control over Ute Avenue, a commitment that no
further expansion of the restaurant space within the Club will occur. The engineer has
comments about an amended plat showing revised easements.
Ashley Anderson, representing the Aspen Club, emphasized the Club has over 90 per cent
local membership, which was completely unforeseen. The Club is very crowded right now.
They would like to take in more members and keep the rates low. The Club is giving up an
approved 4400 square feet from the expansion of the Benedict residence. Anderson showed
the proposed expansion on maps, and explained the purpose of expansion is to expand both
men's and women's locker rooms, to provide office space, the western expansion will allow
six more racquet ball courts, and they are proposing two more tennis courts. As for the
transportation, they will have a parking lot; if a car is not in the lot, it will be towed.
Anderson stated he did not feel it was in the best interest for the Aspen Club to run a
transportation system. They are dealing with H. J. Stalf to try to have city transportation
run out there every 20 minutes. Anderson said with paid parking, towing, and the bus
services, he feels the congestion will lessen.
Jim Moran, representing the Benedicts, told Council he was supporting the planning office
recommendation because the expansion goes toward the Benedict property. Moran stated he
did not feel an amendment to the PUD of this size should have any less analysis or less
information being required than an original PUD application. This is a 10,715 square foot
addition, plus the 2200 square foot of roof which is not included. The PUD process involves
conceptual, preliminary and final, with very specific requirements as to what information is
to be submitted. There should be elevations, landscaping plans, site inspection. Moran
pointed out the PUD statutes state that one of the objectives of PUD is to preserve any
unique characteristics of the site. Moran showed council the original plats with the foot-
print restricted because of topography, and the landscaping plans. The net is to add
10,000 square feet, which is as large as the Benedict building next door. Moran said a
PUD amendment should have exactly the same kind of information that goes into the original
plan.
10426
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council _ _ June 26, 1978___
Moran pointed out the P & Z did not request a site inspection. The original PUD was the
result of all the then 'landowners agreeing what should be done with the land. Moran told
Council one of PUD desires is effective use of open space. The addition will use all of
the open space on Lot 15. The common space is everything in lot 14 but that taken up by
the Benedict residence. If the use is changed to a single family residence, all of the
common space will be gone.
Moran questioned the need for a recreational facility to expand. Moran said he did not
agree with the planning office interpretation that conditions had changed. Any change in
PUD, the City is in effect changing the zoning. A change in conditions does not refer to
a change which is created by the manor in which the applicant has operated his property.
The local response has been solicited and supported by the developer. Moran pointed out
about the guaranteed low rates, this is a private profit making enterprise. The member-
ship agreement said members have no voice in the affairs of the club. Moran pointed out
the original subdivision agreement requires the developer to provide shuttle service
between downtown and the club for one year. Moran said as neighbors, his clients would
like to know what the elevations look like, what the berm will look like when denuded of
Aspen trees, what justification there is for a tennis court so close to the lot line.
Moran said they did not think this application should be approved in its present state.
Anderson said he felt this was a delaying tactic. Anderson told Council they had complied
with the code on this application. Anderson questioned the objections as the Benedict
building is a commercial use. Councilman Wishart agreed he would like to have more infor-
mation on a 10,000 square foot addition to a building. Councilman Wishart said he would
like to have this go through the same process as PUD. Councilman Wishart said he would
like to see the transportation plan working before the Aspen Club expands. Councilman
Isaac said he would like to see some physical documentation that the rates will not go up.
Councilman Behrendt said he felt this represented a continuing story of gross misrepre-
sentation, that almost nothing originally represented in the PUD is as represented. This
is not a small and quiet club. This club does not satisfy the problems is has placed on
Ute avenue, and has created congestion problems on Highway 82. This is a private outfit
under the mantle of a club. Councilman Behrendt asked for a landscaping plan, and the
elevations. Councilman Behrendt said he had questions about expanding the club further
when the Council had questions about putting it there in the first place. This deserves
more than a cursory look by P & Z and the Council. Councilman Behrendt said he would
like more information. Councilman Van Ness said Council should have a site -inspection.
Councilman Isaac moved to table this item until the concerns of the Council have been
addressed; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. A site
inspection was scheduled before the next meeting.
BUS DESIGN APPROVAL
H. J. Stalf told Council their consensus was to have a different bus design. Stalf said
at first they were going to have the same design as the County's. GOSH studioes has a Bus Design
Approval
contract which gives them a royalty of $125 per bus, which for 30 buses would be $3 to
4,000. Stalf presented a design from the Blue Bird factory which incorporation the colors
of the four present routes, and keep a basic theme of stripes. The logo on the front and
back of the bus remains the same.
John Deane, GOSH studioes, told Council when they look at all the different bus designs
in Pitkin County, the one that has finally gotten acceptance from the community as being
attractive and fitting into the environment are the County buses. GOSH studioes spent
many man hours designing these buses. They are designed to look cleaner longer. The
large orange stripe makes the buses easy to see. One of the main tenets of the CAB is
some sort of integration of the City and County bus system. The same design for the City
buses will make it will like one coherent bus system. Deane pointed out the City has
$1,000,000 in buses and should remember that as an artistic community, Aspen has supported
the arts and the local artists.
Mayor Standley said he thought the County buses are great and does not like the City ones
at all. Stalf told Council he had not put much time into the presented design. If the
Council wanted, he would spend more time on the design or the City can just go with the
County system. Stalf pointed out that the County system does not service the tourists that
come to town; the ones that do are the Ski Corp buses.
Councilman Behrendt moved that in the interests of good design, the City accepts the
County design standards and have these people show us how to apply them; seconded by
Councilman Wishart.
Councilman Parry asked if the Council really wanted all the buses to look the same. Should
the downvalley buses actually look different? Stalf said the important thing is to make
the buses look safe, new and attractive. Stalf said the City he had a couple of months
before they had to decide; he feels the design is attractive, but is concerned about the
dollars. Councilman Van Ness said he would be in favor of waiting two weeks. Mayor
Standley said he did not want to see the staff spending time and energy on being designers.
Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion. Councilman Behrendt moved to direct the City
Manager to enter into negotiations with design outfit with a program to get.the buses
painted; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1978 - Amendment to GMP, Allocation for Commercial Development
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Wishart moved to read Ordinance #10, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
Ord. 10,1978
Amendirent to
GPIP/Conmercial
'434
40
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
July 10, 1978
T(ITPI. TOTAL
P&Z AVERAGE :- HPC AVERAGE W/O BONUS BONUS W/BONUS
1. Tom Thumb Building
5455 sq. ft. 18.52 13.4 31.92 4.9 36.82
2. The Hutch
576 sq. ft. 12.42 6.6 19.02 2.18 21.02
3. La Tortue
608 sq. ft. 10.62 6.7 17.32 .56 17.88
WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 12 allocating development in the
amount of 5,455 square feet to the Tom Thumb Building but did not consider the
Hutch and La Tortue at that time because both projects were ineligible, neither
having received a minimum of the total available 36 point or 30 per cent of each
category as required by Section 24-10.5(c) and
WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt Ordinance 10, Series of 1978, an amendment
to Ordinance 48, Series of 1977, which deleted the requirement that commercial
project receive a minimum of 30 per cent of the points in the category of Community
Commercial Services (Section 24-10.5(b)(3)), and
WHEREAS, the Hutch and La Tortue are now eligible for development allotment,
having received a minimum of 30 per cent of the points in each of the categories,
Quality of Design and Historic Features, (Sections 24-10.5(b)(1) and (2)).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen City Council hereby allocates
commercial development allotment to the Hutch in the amount of 576 square feet and
to LaTortue in the amount of 608 square feet and that these projects are authorized
to proceed further with any additional approvals needed by the City of Aspen to
secure building permits.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the unused 1978 allotment of 17,361 square
feet and the unused 1977 allotment of 6,215 square feet for a total of 23,576
square feet be carried over to 1979 for possible distribution at that (or a later)
time unless Ordinance 48 is amended to revise the carry-over provisions
was read by the city clerk
Councilman Van Ness moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 1978, seconded by Councilman
Wishart.
Ms. Smith told Council they had a option of carrying over the 23,576 square feet of unused
commercial space to next year, or Council can specify as they did for loding and residen-
tial that it be split between 1979, 1980 and 1981. Mayor Standley suggested that Council
reserve this option until they decide what is happening. Ms. Smith said getting rid of
the extra will be looked at in a total review. Councilman Isaac said he would vote
against this because he does not like the rules being changed in the middle of the game.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried.
PUD AMENDMENT/ASPEN CLUB
Mayor Standley said the Council had been on a site inspection and had some specific
questions for the planning office and applicant to address. Ms. Smith told Council the PUD Amendment
Aspen Club's offer of continued low membership had no data to support that guarantee. Aspen Club
The planning office is concerned about the intensification of the use; with new member-
ship, there will be approximately 400 people using the club during the day. The applicant
has provided a traffic management plan and parking enforcement; the planning office was
concerned about traffic congestion. The planning office was concerned about the size
and scale of the building, and admitted it was inappropriate for the PUD plan.
Ms. Smith told Council P & Z had seen new landscaping and architectural plans provided
by the applicant. The P & Z approved this amendment with the deletion of the western
tennis court and the reconfiguration of the racquetball. This removes the planning office's
objection to the cut into the ridge. The original plan was totally contrary to the
objections of the PUD, which is to integrate with the surrounding area. The western
tennis court would have totally removed the buffer between the existing tennis courts and
the property next door. The applicant reconfigured the building to within the existing
excavation, also. There will be no modification of the terrain which buffers the two
sites. Ashley Anderson, representing the Aspen Club, showed Council drawings of the
view and told them the addition will be the heighth of the existing racquet ball courts.
Ms. Smith told Council P & Z approved the conditional use subject to the western tennis
court being removed; the footprint of the additional racquet court building being changed
to conform to what Benedict had drawn on the plans; and landscaping next to the Benedict
being immediately completed. The planning office would like the approval conditioned
upon any landscaping that has been disrupted because of utility line placement redone.
The P & Z final condition is approval of the traffic plan and parking restrictions. There
are three approvals necessary; PUD amendment, exemption from full subdivision procedures,
and approval of easement changes.
Anderson told Council the Aspen Club had a specific landscaping plan, which will not
change with this change. Mike Bellow, landscape architect, told Council with the new
building they are not destroying the mound. Bellow told Council they did not submit a
plan because the landscaping will be basically the same as what is there now. Anderson
said the addition is basically going in a vacant space; there will be 8,380 square feet
added. Anderson told Council he felt he had satisfied Benedict's objections. They have
eliminate the major restaurant; they will not expand the existing restaurant. The land-
scape plan will be basically the same. There was some concern about the varying types of
memberships. Ashley explained the membership structure. Anderson said he felt the over-
all benefits outweigh any sort of detrimental effects. Anderson told Council they plan
to blacktop the gravel lot; it will be landscaped according to the original plan. This
will be gated, and will be pay parking. If cars are not parked there, but elsewhere,
they will be towed. The Aspen Club is working with Stalf on the City bus service coming
every twenty minutes. Anderson said he felt it will be better than what is there now.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 1978
Anderson said the Aspen Club will basically be subsidizing the City bus service. Huss
Aspen Club told Council they expected 500 new members. Mayor Standley asked how they plan on
cont'd satisfying the'City's concerns regarding the rate structure remaining in the range of
locals. Anderson answered that it has been difficult to come up with some workable
procedure. Anderson believes the reason they are expanding is so that the Aspen Club
can take in more memberships, and the reason for this is to keep the costs down. If
the rates go too high, people will drop out. That will be the built in control, once
a year. Mayor Standley pointed out there is a carrying capacity; have the Aspen Club
agree they will not carry more than 1700, and the only way they can get new members is'
the dropout of an existing member. The existing members would have the right to sell
their membership. Huss paid if there were an initiation fee they could do that. The
annual fee amortizes the operating costs each year.
Councilman Isaac asked what would happen if a lot of members do not renew. Huss said
their indications are that this will not happen. They feel a strong influx from the
community, and the Aspen Club can service it and keep the prices affordable. Anderson
pointed out this was privately run, but it is a health club where people join. Councilman
Behrendt said this is not a club, is not going to be a club, and the members have no
protection. Councilman Behrendt pointed out the Aspen Club is asking for an 8,000 square
foot expansion and 500 additional members. This is half of the size of the shopping
center that is going in. Councilman Behrendt asked if this expansion would require more
employees. Huss answered perhaps 10. Mayor Standley said this needed action on approving
or disapproving the PUD amendment to include 10,000 square feet on the recreation club
itself and change the use of the Benedict house from dining facility to single family
residence.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the PUD amendment as outlined above; seconded by Council-
man Van Ness. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Behrendt. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the request for exemption from full subdivision for
easement approvals; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried.
H. J. Stalf told Council he felt there should be some provisions for on -going service of
the buses.
Councilman Isaac moved to amend the motion to include the addition of the transportation
plan and the landscaping of easements for the entire Callahan subdivision; seconded by
Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
BUS DESIGN APPROVAL
II. J. Stalf reported to Council that John Deane, GOSH studioes, had told hime they were
not willing to come down on their price per bus. Stalf said he felt this was committing
the City to something for years. Stalf had also asked for a flat one time price; this
was more expensive. Stalf had asked for a design from Browne -Wolfe studioes for $125.
Bus Design
If this is adopted, the City will owe them $500 for these designs. GOSH will be $125 per
Approval
bus for 30 buses. Councilman Van Ness said he did not see any great advantage in the
City buses being identical to the County buses. Stalf agreed that it would be confusing;
the City system is free, the County is a fee system.
Stalf presented two sketches for painting the City buses. Stalf pointed out the City
buses have a large grate in front, which is totally different from the County ones. The
Council felt that the sketches were too similar to County design. Stalf said they would
still use the Aspen Free Shuttle logo and the stripes would be the colors of the present
City bus routes. Deane told Council he had had short notice about the request for a flat
rate, but it would be more expensive. Councilman Behrendt suggested negotiating for
a more reasonable price.
Councilman Isaac moved that the City paint the new buses with the old design; seconded by
Councilman Wishart. Councilmembers Parry, Isaac, and Wishart in favor; Councilmembers
Van Ness Behrendt, and Mayor Standley opposed. Motion NOT carried.
John Deane told Council the Citizens Advisory Board felt that the buses should be totally
integrated. The designs should be the same. The GOSH design for the buses is more than
just stripes down the side. It was well thought-out to be a pleasing design.
Councilman Wishart moved to have the old design for the buses; seconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Behrendt. Motion carried.
BUS AGREEMENT
Councilman Van Ness moved to table until there is an accompanying ordinance; seconded by
Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley pointed out there is
Bus Agreement/
nothing in the agreement about when the buses have to be delivered. Mayor Standley stated
E1der,Quinn for
he wants a penalty clause; delivery of 10 and 10 buses and $500 day for penalty clause.
20 buses
(tabled)
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 1978 - Amending L-2 zone district to allow duplexes and single
Ord.19, 1978
family dwellings
Alrett3ing L-2
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Ms. Smith entered into the record a June 8
zone to permit
memorandum from the planning office; April 7 Kane memorandum to P & Z, and growth manage -
duplexes and
ment page 45, which is one of the reasons cited for supporting this proposal, stating
single family
the City of Aspen would do well to make a positive contribution to balance of the
community. This amendment could reduce the tourist accommodations. Ms. Smith put up
charts showing the remaining areas left to be built out. Essentially there are 343 units
of lodging to be build out; 80 per cent if allocated over the next 15 years, or 18 units
a year. The conclusion of the planning office was that if Council approves this, the
portion for single family or duplexes would reduce these totals. This will accommodate
468
_ Regular -Meeting
-------`-------Aspen_City Council _.-S.eptember-ll,-1978-_.___
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INTERPRETATION - 925 Durant Project
There was submitted a memorandum from City Attorney Stock and a letter from Ashley GMP Interpre-
Anderson requesting clarification and perhaps a change in size if the employee units at tation - 925
925 Durant Project. Anderson said his interpretation of the section was it only applies Durant
to things listed in the residential section; size of units is not listed. Anderson pointed
out these are all employee units; they want to enlarge the units and put more people in
them. Mayor Standley asked what the change in configuration was. Anderson said these
would go from 425 square feet to 1000 square feet studios. Councilman Behrendt asked
why this was not in the original proposal to compete with the other proposals. Anderson
reiterated the size of a unit was not listed as a criteria; when the project was planned
they did not give a lot of thought to the size of the unit because they did not think they
would be locked in.
Councilwoman Johnston said the Council had to make the determination whether this falls
under Sec. 24-10.4(a), and she feels this is a very definite modification of the applica-
tion. Councilman Isaac agreed he understood the applications were binding. Councilman
Van Ness pointed out there were no points assigned to size; Council would not have approved
or disapproved the application is the units were smaller or larger. City Attorney Stock
said he felt Council was trying to get at two items in that section; (1) to allow for ease
in review, that it is impossible for the planning office to review applications that change
daily, and (2) to protect the applicants when they make application.
Housing Director Mark Danielsen told Council the change in the proposal in terms of size
is one that substantially impact employees and the amount of employees that could be
housed. If this application is approved for larger size units, sometime in the future an
application could be changed to smaller units. Larry Yaw said he felt the benefits do
accrue to overall employee housing. This request has come from people specifically hous-
ing their own employees, in the restaurant and hotel market. This request is within the
FARs and zoning laws. Mayor Standley pointed out there is not yet a finite time for
these units to be under PMH; if this is as long as perpetuity, would the owner agree to
the length of time of the agreement. Anderson answered his client would be willing to
put the restriction on as long as everybody else does. Stock said he would recommend the
restriction be the life of the applicant plus 21 years.
Councilman Isaac said he felt the issue was whether an applicant can change his application
as anytime. Councilman Isaac stated it is not fair to the other applicants who have been
turned down; this would set a bad precedent. Councilman Behrendt said he was concerned
this would be doubling the density. Councilwoman Johnston asked if these would be condo-
miniumized; Anderson answered these are totally rentals. Councilman Van Ness said one
question the Council had to answer is whether this is a beneficial change towards Council's
stated objectives. Perhaps a solution would be if anyone wanted to change their applica-
tion, they had to come to Council for a determination on whether the change is beneficial
or detrimental. Councilman Parry agreed, and stated if they had come in originally with
larger units, they would have scored higher. This is a chance to get more employee hous-
ing. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out Council does not know what kind of doors they are
opening by allowing this to go through.
Karen Smith noted the GMP does not have any criteria in it affecting the design; if there
were, this application could not go through because it would change the design parameters.
Ms. Smith said she looked at this application as to whether it would change any of the
points. The only criteria possibly affected would be water, sewer service and parking.
Points on open space or quality of design might have changed, but these were not on the
list of points. Councilman Parry pointed out everyone on Council has been committed to
providing employee units; if one or two bedroom units were allowed, this would be up -grad-
ing employee housing.
Mayor Standley said he was totally in favor of the concept, but did not see an increase in
employee density by creating 1,000 square foot studioes. Two -bedroom units would violate
the zoning laws. Stock told Council under current density, there could be two people in
425 square feet, and under 1,000 square feet, there could be four individuals. Stock
suggested there ought to be a price for low income housing based on square feet, not the
number of people inside.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to deny the request to amend the application by Hans Cantrup;
seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilmembers Behrendt, Johnston, Isaac and Mayor Standley
in favor, Councilmembers Wishart, Parry and Van Ness against. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 1978 - Annexing and Rezoning Aspen Club property
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilwoman
Johnston. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO; AND FOR THE ZONING OF SAID TERRITORY was read by the
city clerk
Planner Karen Smith showed Council where this property is located, across Ute Avenue
from the current recreation building of the Aspen Club. Ms. Smith stated in terms of
zoning, this will go out of AF-1 in the County and be RR with a PUD in the City. Any
development has to go through a PUD process before Council. Density in RR is less than
in AF-1. There are 3.7 acres in the parcel.
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 1978, on first reading; seconded
by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry,
aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston, nay; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
Ord. 34, 1978
Annexing and
Rezoning Aspen
Club
~9489
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council _ October 9,-1978
Mayor Standley said the Council would hold the public hearing and delay the second reading
of the ordinance until after the election.
Chuck Lyons asked what happens if both questions fail at the ballot. Mayor Standley said
it means people are not interested in buying Aspen One. Lyons told Council that people
who signed the petition against the land trade were 20:1, and lived all over town. There
is a lot opposition to this. Lyons presented a. map with marks indicating where the signers
lived, and a petition with 350 signatures. Lyons stated that taking open space and trading
{' it for other open space does not make sense to a lot of people.
Edeltroude Lyons asked why the Council has to get Aspen One now. This has been on a list
for four years; the value has gone up. Right now the City does not have the money, but
they have bought open space. Mayor Standley said the City has been working on this for
four years.
Carol Diffenbach said it was their understanding from the City this land would be left as
open land and that the City had never rezoned public land. Ms. Diffenbach said she felt
the City is going back on its principles, and this should give serious consideration to
everyone who lives near public land.
Pamela Gassman urged the Council to vote against the rezoning and settle the question.
Ms. Gassman said she voted for the Council, that they would uphold what was right. She
aslo voted for the purchase of the golf course and it was a good idea to be buying open
space in the City. These lots are right in the golf course property. Ms. Gassman said
if the Council goes back on its works and turn the land into R-15, she does not feel the
Council can be trusted.
Mayor Standley read a letter into the record from Katherine Reid objecting to the rezoning
of the lots as they are part of the golf course and are open space.
Pat Hodgsen, property owner in the west end, said she felt it was a dangerous precedent
being set by rezoning this property.
Kay Taylor, resident in the area, said Council is setting a dangerous precedent when they
start rezoning open space set aside for a particular purpose for commercial uses.
Andy Di Sabbitini said he did not feel there is enough room taking into consideration the
expanding of the fairways. Many residents are very against this swapping. There should
be another 30 feet for the golf course.
Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman Wishart moved to table the reacting
of Ordinance #33, Series of 1978, until after the election; seconded by Councilman Isaac.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 1978 - Annexing and Rezoning Aspen Club
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Mayor Standley said when Council approved the
Ord. 34, 1978 petition for annexation, it was said the City's zoning is more restrictive than the
Annexing & County's. Jim Reents, planning office, said the P & Z had taken action to rezone the
Rezoning tract RR/PUD. Within the City, except for the C, conservation, district, there is no
Aspen Club zoning directly matching AF-1, which is a 10 acres minimum lot size. Ashley Anderson
reminded Council the petition for annexation was done in March. It was unfeasible to do
what they wanted, so they tabled the proposal. Ms. Smith suggested that Council condition
this upon its not creating a separate development site.
Reents told Council the engineering department has no problems with the application but
would like to see Ute avenue, which is currently an easement, be a dedicated right-of-way.
Reents said this also could be conditioned up not creating a separate parcel except by
the subdivision process. Anderson said they would like to get this annexed; there are no
immediate plans for anything. This may be used for tennis courts. Mayor Standley asked
what the rationale of having Ute Avenue become a public right-of-way is. Reents said
that City Engineer Dave Ellis is uncomfortable about having a private access to most of
the Aspen Club.
Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to table Ordinance #34, Series of 1978, until the Council has
Ellis' comments; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1978 - Liquor License Code
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed
the public hearing.
Ord. 35,1978
Liquor License Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman
Corte Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #35
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSING AND THE CONDUCT OF LICENSED
PREMISES; REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 4 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was
read by the city clerk.
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1978, seconded by Councilman
Isaac.
Councilman Van Ness pointed out in this ordinance that open containers in a car are
illegal; state law does not prohibit this. Councilman Van Ness said it seemed to him to
be opening dorrs to abuse by the police. If the driver is under the influence, there are
PECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FIRM " C. F. MOECKFI 0. B. 0 L. CO.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 2, 1975
Trueman Property
Collins moved to table any action on this application
(Cont'd)
until the Planning and Zoning has had a chan e to
review the proposed downzoning. /_._.f �r
Otte suggested that Thursday, December 4, 1975 they have
a study session on the downzoning and Tuesday, December
9, 1975 they discuss the Trueman Property.
All in favor, of the motion were Goodheim, Dobie, Otte,
and Collins. Opposed were Jenkins and Hunt.
Wedum-Hyman
Jenkins opened the public hearing; and closed the public
hearing and tabled it.
Ordiii&nce #66
Jenkins opened the public hearing and closed the public.
67
hearing.
71
Hunt moved to table Ordinance 1#66, 67, 71, Series of
1975; and Wedum-Hyman preliminary subdivision; seconded
by Otte. All in favor, motion carried.
Callahan Subdivision
Jenkins opened the public hearing on the Callahan
Subdivision, preliminary plat, and three rezoning
applicants.
Clark presented the Callahan Subdivision. Clark passed
out an engineering analysis which Dave Ellis of the
engineering department prepared and was on the preliminary
plat.. Conclusion is on page 4 and theconclusion stated
that all of the above comments and requirements appear
to have workable solutions. The applicant has submitted
extra working drawings on utilities and circulation.
The Engineering Department recommended that conditional
preliminary approval be granted. However, due to the
extent of the conditions which are from the engineering
department and are as follows: An additional 10 foot
set back in case there should ever be a request to
make this a public road, Planning Department agrees with
that. They are talking about extending a water system
up Highway 82 to also cover Mountain Valley area; the
engineering department is requiring 8 inch line rather
than a 6 inch line. All of the conditions in the memo
have been met. We have discussed the water right with
the applicant and they are in agreement with the Planning
Department. The preliminary plat has been sent out to
20 different referral agencies and getting comments back
from referral agencies and incorporating them into the
engineering comments such as the ditch companies,
water and electrical departments, gas companies we
are incorporating all their information on this pre-
liminary plat. We want them to show access off interior
road system rather than highway 82, certain sites
require pumping for sewage, lot 9, for example should
be aware of that also lot 9, riverside ditch goes above
the building site such that we.are recommending that
ditch be culvert on lined above that building site so will
not affect the house. Talking about series of easements
gas line etc., talking about sewer easement going
through the Ute Park to the East that has to be coordin-
ated with City Drainage plans off to,the mountains which
the applicant is aware of. Talking about putting
hydrants in along interior road system, talking about
bike path that has just been resurveyed as of yesterday
by the County and has not reflected on this prel.i.minary
plat. The applicant has agreed to do that and has no
problem with .location.
... 5 -
Aspe Planning and 'Lolling Com110sion December 2, 1.975
Callahan Subdivision
(cons:.' d )
Talking about 3 ditches that go through property;
the Nellie Bird Ditch, Riverside Ditch, and the
Salvation Ditch each of which have own specific
problems these would be water rights we request that
they be surveyed and put on the preliminary plat. Talking
about no obstructions to any of the ditches.
Clark mentioned that there is going to be a larc1e indoor
tennis facility which is almost a full City block in
size. There is a stat.cment from the Engineering Depart-
ment about outdoor tennis court lighting, we are
recommending that none of the courts except one st,f of
tennis courts be lighted at night; there are 7 outdoor
courts and we are recommending that 2 courts be lighted.
We are recommedning that no utility expansion or exten-
sions be made to the area east of the present developed
site and the last items are bascially the proposal has
only 1 employee housing unit in it for the caretaker
ofthe Plum House facility; also they are planning parking
at 2 units per dwelling unit, the townhouses which is 40
spaces. Last item is that the Engineering Department is
recommending that one COS of water right from the
holdings of Mr. Benedict on Hunter Creek be in affect .
dedicated to the City as a condition of annexation of
this land and in addition right of first refusul_ with
a guarentee price on the Nellie Bird Ditch of 3.94cfs
be also given to the City Council the right to negotiate
the price of that water right.
Clark mentioned that the City is going to be providing
water to the property. They would use that as a standard
requirement for subdivision where water rights are
involved. Basically the land and water should go
together.
Hecht, applicant of the Callahan Subdivision, mentioned
that they do not have the water rights; it is something
that Benedict has agreed to consider and consult with
his water attorney to see what can be developed on
that. Hecht mentioned that if they are approved condi-
tionally that they would have no control over the
water rights.
City Attorney Stuller explained that the distinction here
is if the Planning and Zoning make it a,condition of
approval it would be a condition that they cannot agree
with. If the Planning and Zoning make a recommendation
to City Council to negotiate; it is something that they
can deal with later.
Clark also mentioned that they are unclear legally right
now as to what right that the Crystal Lake, which is
in the subdivision, has in effect. It appears to be
seepage from the Salvation Ditch and there is some
question whether that ditch water can be cut off and
the lack, in effect, will be dried up.
Motion hunt made a motion to the effect that the Planning and
Zoning approve the subdivision rezoning of three process
and the preliminary subdivision plat with the Engineering
Department exceptions except for that concerning water
rights and we would recommend negotiations; see-c�,d
City Attorney Stuller felt that sherid-t think there
has been enough thought given to this proposal and
didn't know if they haCi any legal position to impose
that kind of conditional subdivision approval. If the
Planning and Zoning would like, theCi_ty Council could
consider negotiation and purchase of these water rights
at the time of preliminary approval, the final plat
approval then make that specific recommendation.
- G -
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
/OPM W C. F. MOUKcl. D. B. B L. CO.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 2, 1975
Callahan Subdivision Hunt amended his motion to exclude any concern with
(cont'd) water leaving that at the option of the City Council;
seconded by Dobie. All. in favor, motion carried.
Hunt moved to adjourn; seconded by Otte. Meeting
adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
4 ti0
Elizeth M. Klym, joeputy City Clerk
Air . •
RECORD OF' PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
f ORM 70 C. f. 110"KEG B. A. -AL. CO.
Regular Meeting Plannin,2 .and Zoning Commission January 20, 1976
Maintenance Sized the zoning code in the applicable district; but is it
(conL'd) compatible with the surrounding land use and uses in the
area.
City Manager Mahoney reassured the Commisiion there will
not be junk or equipment hanging around the outside area
of the shed.
Public Hearing Kane explained that this is a conditonal use hearing for
Record Shop a proposed record and music accessory shop in the Durant
Mall. There was a vote by the Planning Commission to
include record shops as a permitted conditional use in
the N/C zone. Kane felt the request should be approved
because it represents what the applicant spoke about
at the last meeting and meets the criteria of the
conditional use provision. It will also be a conditional
use if there is an application to put a record shop
in the Trueman property building.
Collins was against putting the record shop in the
Durant Mall. Collins felt by putting businesses for
local residents that the commercial core will deterioate
and tourist typeshops will be the only kind in the mall.
Herb Klien,.representing the applicant, summarized as to
why a record shop should be a use in the Durant Mall.
The business is oriented towards the local resident;
it fits in the N/C zoning district; it provides for one -
stop type shopping for local residents; a record shop
would fulfill frequent buying needs; wide variety of
muscial services will be offered. Klien presented a floor
plan of the music shop which indicated a variety of
services that will be offered.
Jenkins closed the public hearing.
Public Hearing Jenkins opened the public hearing on the bread and pastry
Bread and Pastry shop. Jenkins read into the record a letter from Don
Shop Lemos expressing his support for the bread and pastry
shop.
Hunt asked if Kalin intended to prepare and sell sandwichf
and hot or cold drinks on the premises for consumption.
Kalin replied they would not be. Kalin explained there
will be no baking or any food preparation on the premises
All the goods sold will be shipped in from outside of
the City every morning. The purpose of the bakery will
be to provide just a retail outlet for the items to be
brought in. The total retail area is 450-500 square feet
Jenkins asked for a better floor plan.
Jenkins closed the public hearing.
Callahan Subdivision Jenkins opened the public hearing.
Kane explained the separate actions which the Planning
and Zoning Commission had to take. They are the Final
Planned Unit Development Plan; a Conditional Use
determination forthe recreational facility; a Stream
Margin review; and a revision of the preliminary plat.
Kane mentioned Clark had looked at the flood plain maps,
and the buildings are situated above the 100 year flood
plain and do not affect the Roaring Fork River. The
Plann.i.ng Department is recommending Stream Margin Review.
--3—
- Planning and Zoning C.iission January 20, 1976
Motion Hunt moved for approval of: the Stream Margin Review;
seconded by Dobie. All in favor, motion carried.
Kane went on to the second item which is a Conditional
Use for the operation of a Clubhouse for the recreational
site. The Planning Department recommends the area be
re -zoned RR. Kane mentioned the Planning Department
would like the floor plan to show that the club house
will. be a facility only for immediate members and resi-
dents in the area and it will not be a large commercial
restaurant.
Kane proceeded with the Final Development Plan. In the
agenda packet there was a list of 14 recommended concerns
from the Planning Department which would have to be
resolved before making a motion. The Commission, Kutik
and Hecht went through the 14 points. All of the points
had been resolved with the understanding that the sub-
dividers will make it their responsibility to keep the
lake at the minimum low level. City Attorney Stulle.r
mentioned that the:, agreement will go into the final
subdivision agreement; the water rights and everything wi)
be discussed in that document. Also, Kane felt the
proposed layout for the recreation of the clubhouse shoulc
be part of the Planned Unit Development. Hecht and
Kutik presented to the Commission drawings for the
recreation which will be in that area.
Motion
Hunt moved for approval of Conditional Use of the recrea-
tional facilities as shown on the plan which was presentee
seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
Motion
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Planned Unit
Development on the condition the comments of the City
Engineer are complied with and the comments A thru
given by the Planning Office that Callahan is in conform-
ity with; seconded by Dobie. All in favor\ motion carriec
Aspen View
Hunt moved to recommend re -approval of the Aspen View
Subdivision
preliminary and final plats; seconded by Collins. All
in favor, motion carried.
Motion
Abbott moved to adjourn; seconded by Collins. Meeting
adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Elizahe'th M.-Klym, Dopty City Clerk
-4-
Regular Meeting Continued Planning and Zoning Commission June 7, 1977
the exemption. Planning Office recommended that there be three conditions:
(1) 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants; (2) six month
rental restriction; and (3) payment of the PDF. Conditions 1 and 2
have been included in Scott's condo declaration.
Scott said that a twist to the subdivision exemption, especially
concerning the PDF, is the fact that these are not condo. These are
situations where two people could through a legal rearrangement could
acquire their interest in one unit as tenants in common. Stuller stated
in a memo that a PDF would not be required if compliance with the
subdivision was required. The subdivision code excludes from the definition
of a subdivision the division of land by the acquisition of the land
as tenants in common, each taking an undivided interest with the right
of exclusive occupancy of each dwelling unit, a similar technique.
Scott felt that his case was exempt. This should be on the records.
My write up is called a declaration of restrictions which is similar to
use and occupancy.
Smith stated that Nuttall should review the language in the city code
ragarding the PDF.
Scott said that there would be an undivided one-half interest in the
whole with the exclusive right to the use and occupancy of unit 1 or 2.
Exactly like condo from practical standpoint. Legally it is quite
different.
Kane said that the legal written opinion of the City Attorney is
needed. Clark said that the Planning Office still recommends approval
of the exemption. There is no need to delay the process another two
weeks. Grant the exemption with the PDF. If Nuttall's opinion is
different then CC can take care of .it.
Punt moved to recommend exemption from strict application of subdivision
regulation of the Melnick duplex subdivision when the purposes of those
regulations have been complied with and conditioned on compliance with
conditions 1, 2, and 3 of the Planning Office memo dated 3-19-77. This
motion is for the convenience of the applicant and not a finding of.
fact. Isaac seconded. All in favor, motion passed.
Aspen Club Smith presented the Aspen Club request. The applicant wants to do two
things: (1) make several amendments to the plats and (2) a change in
the final PUD plat which has the effect of taking the dining facility
out of the former Benedict residence and moving it over to the
recreational facility. Previously approved were 8400 square feet in
the Benedict residence. That would have been devoted to the dining
facility. 3400 would have been expansion on the back. The applicant
wants the size of the dining facility reduced, but the square footage
would be added on the recreational facility. The Planning Office does
not recommend approval of this change. The intent of the approved PUD
would be changed. It concentrates the commercial activity in the recrea-
tional facility. Applicant has agreed to prohibit access from Ute
Avenue and require parking on the Highway 82 side. Kane said that the
restaurant had originally only been presented as an extension of the
club. By moving it on to the recreational facility it will be in a more
commercially viable location for a restaurant - it could operate late
into the evening and would attract more people. In the old Benedict
residence it would have had to behave more like a club. The Planning
Office has.reservations at the restaurant being in the recreational
building.
Hunt stated that it would take a large common area out of the whole and
puts into a private residence. It changes the formula of the
development.
. 1 r
l(AM
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Regular Meeting Continued — Plannin& and Zoning Commission .June 7, 1977
Ashley Anderson said that they were not proposing to move the entire
8400 square feet across the river in order to create a clubhouse/
dining facility comparable to the other. We only want 3400 square feet
to make a clubhouse which is a much less intense use. The traffic will
quantitatively be reduced by that 5000 sqaure foot reduction. This is
a member ship club. Firstly the plan works better this way. The
residents seem to prefer this plan. If residential is separated from
the commercial it is more practical. Secondly, the arrival area will
be moved away from the residential area closer to the recreational area.
Ashely displayed the exterior and interior drawings. The maximum heighth
would be 23 feet.
Hunt said that the formula for these buildings was dependent upon the
common space on the Benedicthouse. If you remove the common space, then
you have to remove some of the units. Collins said that the clubhouse
was the key to the acceptance of this plan originally. Ashley said that
he did not feel that the nature of the project would be changed. Isaac
wanted to know from each owner that they did not mind having more of their
common lands cut off.
Anderson said that recreational facility deliveries were allowed from
Ute according to the contract. All clubhouse deliveries are made from
an access road off of highway 82. We will make an agreement to have
all deliveries made from 82. The Club is willing to restrict all
traffic on Ute. Kane stated that a final plat amendment has to•be
submitted and a final public hearing has to be heard before the
restaurant can be located on the other side of the river. The best P&Z
can do at this point is advise Ashley on how you would rule on it.
Hedstrom stated that he would like to hear from those who would be
affected. Secondly, the impact of the traffic should be considered.
Isaac like to see written statement by owners that they would like to
subdivide it again. Hunt stated that they paid for units and they paid
for that common area.
Clark said that there has to be a conditional use hearing before P&Z
can act on it. The subdivision plat has to be changed and that requires
a public hearing. Kane said that if the restaurant moves to the other
side of the river with the recreational facilities, there would be no
obstacles to prevent it from becoming a full fledged restaurant. There
is not an adequate road network nor is it a desirable location for a
restaurant.
Isaac moved to table this application for final plat amendment of the
Callahan subdivision. Hunt seconded. All in favor; motion approved.
Hunt moved to approve amendments to Callahan subdivision sheets 1-4
as on file in the Planning Office. Isaac seconded. All in favor;
motion passed.
Aspenhof Smith stated that the right to review of the Aspenhof Condominiums or
Condominiums the Cooper Building by the P&Z is questionable. It involves a condo
plat which was recorded prior to subdivision regulations. They want to
amend the condo plat to change the interior partitions of the commercial
units on the first arrd second floors. There would be no increase in
square footage and no increase in the number of units. Planning Office
would recommend approval since there is no substantial impact. Since
there was no subdivision plat recorded, PO does not know whether a plat
amendment is required. The best thing would be to approve it, if you
agree, and have it recorded.
I
is
BRADFORD PUBLIBNING CO.. DENVER RECORD
OF P ROC E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 20, 1978
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hold a regular meeting on June 20, 1978,
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Merubers present were Charles Collins,
Olaf Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Joan Kl.ar and Donald Ensign. Also present were
Karen Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office, City Attorney Dorothy
Nuttall, City Sanitarian Tom Dunlop, and Transportation Director Hi Stalf.
Approval of Minutes
Klar tthe n1Allts of in favor, 7
motion approved.
Ensignpprve
amended`,ed
seconded.
Manor House
Hedstrom moved to table the Manor House Preliminary Plat
All
Preliminary Plat
to a special meeting July 6, 1978, Ensign seconded.
in favor, motion approved.
FAR Definitions
Nuttall submitted a memo showing the language change for
including
the code. The Board addressed the question of
and appropriate definitions. Smith felt they
basements
needed further study before their recommendation to
Council because of the possible impacts. !
Hedstrom moved to defer consideration of the amendments
to FAR to the next meeting to allow further study, Anderson
seconded.. All in favor, motion approved.
Club
Smith introduced the application.. She noted that this is
Aspen
PUD Amendment
a PUD Amendment and a Subdivision Plat Amendment request.
Ellis noted that several easements need to be relocated.
P&Z is considering a PUD amendment and exception from
requesting 10,700
full subdivision procedures. They are
for
sqft. expansion in the clubhouse and a change in use
to a single family
the Benedict residence from a restaurant
for
residence. This would drop the original request a
Ellis recommends
4,440 sgft. expansion of this residence,
Smith noted that there
approval subject to his concerns.
this amendment. A PUD plat
are two criteria for approving
be amended if there have been 1) changes in conditions
may
since the time of the original approval, 2) changes in
community policy from that under which the original plat
in
was approved. The applicants feel the change condition
is the unanticipated demand from the locals.
Mary Huss noted that their membership is 1300 members;
300 tennis, 900 health club members, 100 non-resident
members. The Planning Office agrees that this condition
in polic
has changed. They question the change community
When the application was i.niti.ally approved, it was
resented that there would be no more than 90-250 people
that ti.mb
on site at one time. The applicants also felt at
that they would rely heavily on the residents of the Aspen
Club subdivision. The applicants now feel that in order
to meet the local demand, they need to expand. The Plan-
ning Office feels that the potential for increased. member-
ship raises the concerns for four potential impacts:
3) size and
1) membership, 2) intensification of the use,
massing of the structure, 4) traffic and congestion.
the memborship
The Planning Office is not concerned that
that this Will
has changed to locals but wants guarantees
continue. Smith noted that there will be many more on
intensi.fied
site than 90-250 but that this will be less
The
since there will be no separate dining facility,
feels that the recreational club is grown
Planning Office
far beyond the anticipated size. She noted that this Is
the second largest building in the Aspen Metro area, second
to the High School, The Planning Office � s especially
concerned with the traffic situation and notes that not
now avail-
many people take advantage of the mass transit
Planning Office recommends thatf if appr_ovedt
able. The
some agreement be drafted with strict conditions relating
to the above mentioned concerns, She also noted that they
would need a conditional use approval on this expansion.
•
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zonin Commission June Lu, lyiu
This would require a public hearing and notification of
the adjacent property owners. Smith noted that if they
recommend denial, they should recommend approval of the
roof overhang for safety reasons.
Ashley Anderson, representing the applicant, noted that
there must be a change in condition or a change in com-
munity policy. They did not foresee the response from
locals that they have received. They wish to keep their
rates low. They have very crowded conditions presently.
They wish to expand to accommodate this and to allow more k
locals -to join. Anderson showed the expansion on a map.
The Benedict residence is presently 5,000 sqft. with a
4,400 sqft. expansion previously approved for a dining
facility. They are offering to give up this expansion
in the spirit of a trade-off. They wish to expand 108
sqft. for pool equipment storage. He explained the need
for the roof overhang previously mentioned. They wish
an additional 552 sqft. to enclose an existing porch
entrance and six racquet ball courts. He noted the real
need for office space, expansion for the ladies locker
room, mens locker room, relocation and expansion of the
weight room. He noted two additional tennis' courts and
showed the locations. He noted that there is one ease-
ment that needed relocation. They wish to cover one of
the additional tennis courts with a bubble. He stressed
that they want to keep the rates down, especially if they
expand. He noted that they will not expand the snack bar.
Anderson showed. pictures of the site and the proposed
expansion. He felt the expansion minimal.. They do not
request any additional parking. He noted that they will
tow anyone who does not park in the parking area and they
will initiate paid parking. He stated that they will have
a City bus service the Aspen Club. They will subsidize it
and it -will run every twenty minutes,
IClar_ asked when they plan to do this expansion. Anderson
said this summer. He noted that they have such a good
response from locals because the rates are low and the
community is such that it needs a good health club facility.
Huss noted that their non-resident membership is also
reasonable. Huss noted that in January and February they
had up to 80% booking in the racquet ball courts. Klar
asked if they could convert the racquet ball courts if
it turns out to be a passing fad. Huss felt that racquet
ball will continue to be popular,
Smith asked Anderson the size of the club at present.
Anderson estimated 42(000 sqft, Smith estimated that the
expansion will be about 25%, Anderson noted that they do
not intend to expand any more after this. Klar asked if
they will retain the Benedict residence. Huss said they
intend to keep it as a guest house, Anderson noted that
they can sell it. Smith said they did not want to see
it become a guest house/lodge, Ensign asked what they
propose as a transit schedule, Anderson said they will
run it every 20 minutes.
Stalf said they propose to split the Mountain Valley/
Highlands route into two routes, This would increase the
Mountain Valley route from once an hour to three ti.nles an
hour. This would be at the cost of the Ashen Club, He
noted that the Highlands and the High School are requesting
more service and they are working out a way to split these
costs accordingly. He noted that a bus costs $50(000
($10,000/yr. for five years) and that.the Aspen Club will
get part of that from the paid parking. Klar asked about
the van the Aspen Club runs now, Huss said it runs from
$12,000 to $15,000 a year and that the paid par) -A ng and
towing will Delp encourage use of t}rese alternatives,
They average 40-50 cars that turn over 4-5 times a day.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., Dr -VCR RECORD OF PRO C E E D .1 N G S
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 20, 1.978
Collins asked the status of the single family lots. Huss
said they.are undeveloped, unsold, and they do not have
any plans for them presently. IIe said there are 9 single
family lots and one duplex lot. He noted there are 20
condominiums on 2 building sites; 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units,
all sold with a condominium association. The residents
agree with this expansion. There are 80 employee, 15 hours
a day, 7 days a week with two shifts. Collins asked if
there is any on site employee housing. Huss stated that
they use the Benedict residence. They are interested in
putting in some employee housing. Collins asked if they
would need more employees with this expansion. Huss said
no.
Collins asked if Ute Avenue continues past the Club,
Anderson said it continues but it is not a public right-
of-way. Smith noted that there is no requirement for a
public hearing for a PUD amendment if P&Z and Council
recommend approval. They will need a public hearing for
the conditional use hearing. She also noted that they
need two motions to approve this. Ensign asked if they
should take action on this now if they need a conditional
use hearing. Smith said they can condition the PUD amend-
ment on conditional use approval.
Welton Anderson asked how many people are on site now
during a heavy usage period and how many they anticipate
with this expansion. Huss said they are averaging 300/day
and 50-60 at any one time. They anticipate growing to
1,600-1,700 members with 400-450/day and 70-80 at any one
time. They may expand their hours for the early morning
people. Klar asked how much they must be hooked to break
even. Huss said they must have between 75-80% usage of
the club and not exceed 80%.. He noted that most members
use the club between 3-3-2 times a week with some out there
every day. Their hours are 7AM-10PM,
Hedstrom moved to recommend approval of the Callahan PUD
amendment as set forth in the letter of May 24. 1978, from
Garfield and Hecht, inasmuch as it has been shown that
conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant such amend-
ments and subject to the following conditions: 1) develop-
ment of a city transit system subsidized by the Aspen Club
and by initiation of charges for parking and other parking
restrictions satisfactory to the City Transportation Direc-
tor and the Planning Office, 2) securing approval of con-
ditional use for this expansion, Ensign seconded, All in
favor, motion approved.
Hedstrom moved tolexcept under Section 20-19f the Callahan
PUD from full application to subdivision regulations sub-
ject to satifaction of the Engineering Department's
requirements set forth in the memorandum of June 16, 1978,
Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved,
Use Determination &
Grice introduced the application. He noted that P&Z must
Conditional Use
find that a childrens amusement arcade belongs in the
Public Hearing,
definition of recreational and entertainment establishments
Village Pantry -
which are a conditional use in the CC zone. He noted that
Childrens Amusement
this is a commercial arcade and does not coincide with a
Arcade
teen center. He noted the similarity between this appli-.
cation and Alice's Alley although there will be no alcohol
served or permitted, Betty Erikson, County Human Resources
Coordinator, felt this is an excellent location and en-
dorsed a facility in the commercial core for children,,
Grice agreed with this and. did not fee]. it could generate
any more noise than any bar in town. Grice noted a similar
application named the Whale of a Wash. Teen Center, This
was approved conditioned upon the right of the P&Z to
re -review the application after one year to consider the
- 2-
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission July G, 19i8
high. fie felt they would need to order and deliver alot
of their merchandise. Yaw said this is an alternative to
driving to Denver for such specialized needs. Ensign asked
the price per square foot of the space. Yaw said $11/sgft.
Collins felt they needed more information on the operation
and the layout. He did not find this like a paint store.
Ile felt it important to meet the demands of a convenience
center which is the intent of the NC zone. He wanted a
floor plan and documents showing the types and quantity
of the items and services.
Joan Klar entered the meeting.
Hedstrom did not feel the requested information would
affect the substance of the application, He did not feel
this is in the intent of the NC zone. Anderson asked if
there are any similar operations in Aspen to compare with
this application. Yaw offered that Aspen Furniture is
similar. Ensign read the conditional uses in the NC zone.
fie felt the uses are similar with those listed in the code.'
Grice noted that conditional uses are not permitted -uses.
Smith felt that people will go to this store exclusively
instead of stopping by while grocery shopping, etc.
Ensign felt that this is a personalized service, not a
high volume supplier. He felt the professional office
an added extra. Hedstrom did not feel this would generate
substantially more traffic but could not justify this with
the code. Collins felt that mixing uses of the NC and CC
zones will cause both to malfunction. He also noted the
convenience of parking there if one buys ten gallons of
paint.
Yaw felt this serves more needs since it fills 4 or 5 of
the conditional uses in one use. Klar felt this meets a
neighborhood need. Yaw stated that there is 42,000 sqft.
of commercial space in this center including the grocery.
Grice asked if this would set a precedent for conditional
uses. Collins noted that each case is taken separately
on its own merits. Klar asked if there is any more space
available in the Trueman Commercial Center, Yaw said it
was pretty close to being full. 'Ile noted that there are
enough applicants for all the space.
Ensign moved to find Environeti.cs a use permitted con-
ditionally in the NC zone under the catagories of wall-
paper store, carpet, flooring, drapery shop, business
and professional office, Klar seconded.. Roll call vote:
Klar, aye; Anderson, aye; Ensign, aye; Hedstrom, nay;
Collins, nay; motion approved.
Ensign moved to approve the use proposed by Environetics
conditionally, Klar seconded. Roll call vote: Klar, aye;
Anderson, aye; Ensign, aye; Hedstrom, nay; Collins, nay;
motion approved.
Aspen Club Smith noted that Recreation Clubs are a conditional use
Conditional Use in the Rural Residential District, Any expansion to the
conditional use must be approved by P&Z. She noted the
PUD Plat Amendment that was approved a few weeks ago,
The criteria to determine a conditional use expansion are,
1) the proposed use complies with the -requirements in the
code(area and bulk requirements, etc.), 2) the proposed
use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the
zone district, 3) the proposed use is compatible with
surrounding land uses and uses in the area. Smith read
the intents and purposes of the Rural Residential District.
She noted the adjacent land uses are the Benedict Office
Building, single family residences and condominiums, The
club was originally intended to serve the needs of the
Callahan Subdivision. Conditions have changed since that
original. application and the club now serves the commu-
nity. Smith did not feel it continues to be compatible
BRADFORD PUnUSHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning a -id Zoning Commission July G, 1978
with surrounding land uses. She noted a traffic problem.
She felt compatibility with adjacent land uses is affected
by the location of the building improvements on the west
side of the building and the proposed tennis court to the
west of the existing tennis courts. The new court -is at
the property line. it will cut out a major buffer ridge
which would be replaced by a retaining wall. The existing
building is massive but was camoflaged by the natural
ridge. She noted the Planning Office memos of June 30,
June 16, 1978 and the application dated May 24, 1978,
Jim Reents of the Planning Office noted that the proposed
bubble over the proposed tennis court will cut into a
ridge line and will be visible above the ridge line. He
asked if they propose artificial lighting for the courts.
Anderson said there will be lighting in the bubble. Be
noted that the bubble is tan. Huss noted that the lights
will be about 12-14' high and the hours will be 7AM-10PM.
Huss noted that the bubble will be removed in April and
replaced when the weather necessitates it.
Ashley Anderson, representing the applicant, noted a land-
scaping plan. He noted that they are moving the ridge.
He showed the plans on a map. He noted that the tennis
bubble would not be visible from grade. He stated that
the fire access has been moved next to the building.
Smith noted that the zoning is Rural Residential with a
PUD overlay. The setbacks are set through the PUD. She
felt the landscape plan unrealistic since they must re-
move all the natural vegetation. The landscape architect
stated that their landscape plan would restore the natural
vegetation within 2-3 years. They propose trees with a
l�V2-2" caliper which is about 15' tall. Klar asked if
they intend to save the trees they will remove, The a.r--
chitect said it is possible with the aid of an expert.
Another architect noted that the trees and vegetation that
they will install will not be all the same height or type.
Hedstrom asked how far they would have to cut into this
ridge. The architect said they are moving the entire
ridge. Huss stated that they have a real concern for this
and they intend to replace all the trees and vegetation.
Anderson stated that the Aspen trees are 2" in diameter
and the evergreens are 4". He said they will attempt
to transplant as many trees as possible.
Collins opened the public hearing.
Gideon Kaufman Kaufman's office has been in the Benedict Building for
three and one half years. He is also a member_ of the
club. His office is the closest to the proposed tennis
court. He feels it is too close to the building even
with the proposed landscape. lie can hear people playing
on the other courts at present. lie feels it is incom-
patible with the uses of the office building. Anderson
asked if he had any objections to the building expansion.
Kaufman said no.
Fritz Benedict Benedict showed the expansion on a map, lie stated that
he has no objections to the expansion. He noted that
the downtown area requires 250 open space. He objected
to the south side of the building where, a water line was
installed and there have been no attempts to manicure
the dist.urhance to the land. lie provided a sketch of
what the area may look like after the expansion.
He noted that Aspen trees are extremely difficult to
transplant. He did not feel the area could be tevegetated
in 2-3 years. One of the architects asked the height
of the viewpoint in the picture. Benedict estimated it
•
-4- 0
spen APlanning and Zoning Commission July 6, 1978
Its<Ju1ar Meeting g
was from the second floor.
One of the architects noted 20' of natural plant material
that would not be disturbed. Benedict noted his objection
was to the tennis court, not the expansion.
Mi.cha.el:.Teschner Teschner noted that it is difficult to
get a tennis court. He thought it would be nice to have
one more.
Welton Anderson asked if they would be willing to have
only 4 new racquet ball courts instead of 6. Huss said
they have researched their needs and determined the
exact amounts for the best operation of the club. Welton
noted that he would be in favor of the proposal if they
deleted the tennis court in question. Ashley Anderson
noted that their racquet ball courts are more important
than their tennis court.
Huss noted that many people that come to the club are
amazed at how the building is incorporated into the
natural surroundings. Smith said that is what they are
attempting to preserve. Huss said they intend to pre-
serve this effect with their landscape plan.
Hedstrom did not feel tennis courts are open space. Fie
felt that the whole project benefits from the Benedict
property and its open space. He questioned whether this
expansion was a benefit to the community. Collins felt
the impact on the area was important. He noted that this
was originally intended to serve the residents of the
Callahan subdivision and has evolved into a sports arena.
He noted that the zoning is still Rural Residential.
He had reservations that a facility of that scope in that
zone should be allowed to expand. He agreed with the
Planning office's concerns about traffic, open space and
the destruction of the buffer ridge. Ensign was con-
cerned with the tennis court. Klar noted that there are
no objections from adjacent property owners to the expan-
sion, other than Benedict who objects to the tennis court.
She felt the whole city needs more tennis courts but that
this one court has many objectionable points, She felt
they had done a good job of massing in the building ex-
pansion plan. Welton Anderson asked Benedict"s opinion
of the total expansion.
Fritz Benedict Benedict asked that they remove the tennis court and
consider changing the proposed entrance,
Welton Anderson objected to tearing up the natural berm.
He felt this is the only protection for the Benedict
Building. He felt they could achieve their goal by re-
designing it. He objected to the tennis court. Hedstrom
objected to the tennis court and the destruction of the
natural ridge. He felt it would take many years to re-
store the ridge to its natural vegetation.
Ashley Anderson deleted the tennis court from the appli-
cation. He noted that the vegetation that was disturbed
from the water line would be restored. He stated that
the berm will be saved.
Collins closed the public hearing.
Hedstrom moved to approve the conditional use of the
Aspen Club expansion under the following conditions:
1) West additional tennis court adjacent to the Benedict
Office property be deleted, 2) the footprint of the
- additional court building be changed to conform to the
suggestions of Mr. Benedict, 3) the landscaping of the
property adjacent to the Benedict property that has not
-5-
DRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and zoning Commission July 6, 1_978
been completed be pushed to early completion, 4) the
potential traffic increases caused by the expansion
be minimized as described in the PUD Subdivision amend-
ment recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on June 20, 1978, Anderson seconded. Roll
call vote: Klar, aye; Anderson, aye; Ensign, aye;
Hedstrom, aye; Collins, nay; motion approved.
Manor House
Preliminary Plat Smith introduced the application. The applicant wishes
to condominiumize nine units in the Lodge-1 District.
She submitted the Planning office memo of June 30, 1978,
Dave Ellis' memo of June 28, 1978, letter from Lyle
Reeder, a copy of the preliminary plat, for the record.
She noted the conditions of clarifying road easements,
maximizing the parking, committing one studio unit to
employee housing under the conditions stated in the
letter from Marty Kahn of February 28, 1978, and 90 day
right of first refusal. The change from the conceptual
plan is a reduction in three bedroom units. Smi.th noted
that Ellis' concerns could be satisfied prior to the
final plat. Ellis also wants an updated title commit-
ment.
Collins opened the public hearing.
Ensign moved to continue the public hearing and table
action on this condominium application until the next
regular meeting, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor,
motion approved.
Ensign moved to adjourn the meeting, Klar seconded.
All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at.
7:30 PM.
Sheryl Simmen, Deputy City Clerk
0
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 26, 1978
Page Two
1. The giving up of the 4400 square feet of expansion
at the Club House and the reverting of that facility to single
family.
2. The commitment and the condition concerning limited
paid parking and the subsidizing of 20 minute City Bus Service.
In addition, since this expansion will allow, and in
fact, assure that the Applicant will continue to make the Club
available to all locals at an affordable rate, any impacts
of the expansion are outweighted by the community -wide benefit of
the expansion. The Applicant thanks you for your cooperation and
respectfully requests approval of the expansion of the conditional
use.
GARFIELD & HECHT
By ot�Cf
ASHLEY ANDERSON, for the
Applicant
y
I
4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE
RONALD GARFIELD
(303) 925-1936
ANDREW V. HECHT
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
TELECOPIER
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
(303) 925-3008
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN
November 12, 1984
HAND DELIVERY
Richard Grice
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Butera/Callahan Subdivision Radius Search
Dear Richard:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Stewart Title
regarding their update of the radius search for the Callahan
Subdivision.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mp
Enclosure
1
r C:..cr
STEWART TITLE
OF ASPEN. INC
602E HYMAN • ASPEN ,COLORADO 81611
October 31, 1984
Garfield and Hecht, P.C.
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re: Order No. 2141 AB (Lot 14 Radius Search)
Dear Sirs:
Our update of the above referenced radius search (300'/Lot
14, Callahan Subdivision), through 8:00 a.m. October 24,
1984, reveals only one change in the status of the various
ownerships.
Lot 10, Callahan Subdivision has since been conveyed to:
T. Richard Butera
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Co. (no zip code available)
As always, this statement is made subject to the standard
disclaimers as they appear on the original correspondence
dated January 25, 1984.
Thank you again. Please contact us if we can be of any
further assistance.
Sinc,ereIyor
ilk
Randall Webb
Assistant vice President
RW:dm
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Club PUD Amendment - Public Hearing
DATE: June 19, 1984
I have spoken with Andy Hecht, representative for the Aspen Club
in this application. Andy indicated that he was not pursuing the
application further at this time. We understand from other sources
that some alternative plans are being considered which this Commission
would see if they materialize in the future. Therefore, we suggest
that you close the public hearing scheduled for the item.
rIE110RAr?DUII
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Club Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment
DATE: May 8, 1984
We have requested additional information from the applicant which
is necessary in order to properly evaluate this application. We
suggest tabling this application to June 19, 1984, in hopes that
the necessary information will be provided within the next couple
of weeks. We suggest that if, by the next hearing date, the information
has not been submitted, the public hearing be cancelled and that
the applicant be required to reapply when private rezoning applications
are next accepted, this being August 15.
TO: Aspen Planning and :'onincc Commission
FROM: Richarr Crice, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Club Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment
DATE, : Nay n, 1984.
Tle have requested additional information from the applicant which
is necessary in order to proncrly evaluate this application.. ','e
suggest tabling this application to June 19, 1984, its hopes that
the necessary information ;,ill be provided within the next couple
of weeks. T-?e suggest that if, by the next hearing data, the information
has not been submitted, the public Bearing be cancelled and. that
the applicant be required to reapply when private rezorain j applications
are next accepted.. this being August 15.
0
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: The Aspen Club - Lot Split PUD Amendment
DATE: April 3, 1984
A public hearing was scheduled for this date to consider a rezoning,
PUD amendment and lot split application from the owners of the Aspen
Club. The owners hope to obtain the City's approval to build themselves
a home adjacent to the Club.
Unfortunately, the application did not adequately address its impacts
and the established criteria for PUD amendments. The Planning Office
has requested more information which we believe is forthcoming.
We suggest that the public hearing be opened and then table the appli-
cation to May 8, 1984 when the public hearing will be conducted.
• 9
CHARLES H. GOODMAN
300 WEST WASHINGTON STREET • CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6OSO6
March 22, 198#i SKN / PiTXIN CO.
`; PLF;N:ivi+VG OFFICE
Mr. Richard Grice
Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
130 S. Gaiena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Grice:
On February 27, I phoned you on behalf of
Mr. Charles Goodman and asked the questions on
the the attached memorandum. You asked me to
contact you at a later date as you could
provide more thorough answers to the questions.
If you would
calling me at
appreciated.
CHG:ek
Enclosure
do so, either in letter form or by
312/236-6300, it would be greatly
Very truly yours,
Evelyn Kouis
Secretary to C.H. Goodman
,memorandum from ...
EVELYN KOUIS DATE aIA71
.ASPEN CLUB REZONING
1 y 33 Cr-ysra l La-e,
The following questions are to be asked
as of March 20, 1984 to Rich Grice,
Assistant Planner, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission, Tel. 303/925-2020, x226:
1. Will the requested zoning be
R-15 or R-30?
2. What can be done with the property
as rezoned?
3. What is the intent of this rezoning?
4. Please explain the Callahan PUD
Amendment.
..gam
\: '�atA
+'ice +S •� �• J�
r 4'4
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Conditional Use
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 3, 1984, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, to consider the application of T.
Richard Butera and Julie Anthony with respect to The Aspen Club, for
rezoning of Lot 14 known as the "Benedict Residence" from RR to R-15
or R-30 and to consider an amendment to the conditional use approved
for the Callahan Subdivision'PUD.
If you have further questions.— p'Le. e contact the Planning Office,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 8161Y (303) 925-202-0;.ext. 226.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on ilarch 1, 1984.
City of Aspen Account.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department
DATE: March 20, 1984
RE: The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment/
Conditional Use Application
---------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application and having made several
site visits, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. The contents of this application are not a good
representation of the application. The requirements of
Section 20-19, Exceptions and Exemptions, are vague. This
section has been taken in the past to mean that an exception
application is exempted from the conceptual (Sec. 20-10) and
preliminary (Sec. 20-11 et seq) portions of Chapter 20 and that
the applicant may proceed immediately to the final plat
(Sec. 20-14 et seq) portions of Chapter 20. The materials
received by the Engineering Department do not respond to final
plat submission contents.
2. Creation of an additional residential site in the subdivision
will increase the utility supply requirements of the subdivision.
The utilities should be contacted to see if they can supply
the additional services and if they need additional easements.
3. None of the mapping documents submitted, nor any of the
recorded plattings and amendements, shows the parking as it
exists at the present moment. Apparently the Aspen Club received
permission to increase their narking lot size for a
activity during the summer of 1983. There was a possibility
that the parking area would be returned to its original state
following the special activity. If the Aspen Club intends to
keep the parking area as is, it needs to be reflected on the
platting for this amendment.
4. None of the mapping submitted shows clearly that there is
an eleven car parking lot located on the proposed Lot 14W.
Also, this parking lot is insufficiently graded for proper
drainage.
5. There are two sedimentation ponds indicated on the original
platting, one by the parking lot and one on Lot 14. These
were represented as drainage improvements and must be shown
on this amendment platting.
•
•
Page Two
The Aspen Club
Conditional
March 20, 1984
- Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment/
Use Application
6. The Engineering Department made three site inspections:
1. Tuesday afternoon, 2:30 p.m., March 13, 1984
2. Thursday evening, 7:30 p.m., March 15, 1984
3. Midday Saturday, 11:30 a.m., March 17, 1984
At none of these visits was the parking overflowing the
available spaces. If the 11-car lot referred to in comment number
4 is removed during the lot split process, the remaining
parking would scarcely have been able to handle the parking
requirements witnessed during the site inspections.
7. The Engineering Department would like to take the opportunity
of this review to check with all the utilities to verify that
the design proposals of the original submissions/approvals have
been met. This is a good time to make sure that the utilities
are functioning well. If they aren't, we should obtain commitments
at this time to provide for remedial work.
8. There is an access easement through Lots 7 & 8 to Lot 2
of the Gordon Subdivision. This easement has not been indicated
on previous platting and must be shown on this amendment. It
is recorded at Book 316, Page 961.
9. There appears to be a language problem in the lt: er of
application dated January 20, 1984. Paragraph two of the
letter suggests that the lot split will be "excepted from ....
subdivision regulations of the code." See comment number 1
of this review.
10. An inquiry at the Assessor's Office revealed that t1le western part
of Lot 14 has already been conveyed by Goldsamt to RSG Development by
deed recorded at Book 440, Page 444, copies of which are available -r:-
inspection at the engineering office.
CR/co
cc: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
Louis Buettner, City Surveyor
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
e
e
RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
KATHERINE HENDRICKS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. "GARHEC"
March 12, 1984
Mr. Richard GricE
City Planner
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Application of T. Richard Butera, Julie Anthony
and Robert S. Goldsamt - "The Aspen Club"/
Rezoning/Lot Split
Dear Richard:
In further support of the above -referenced application,
I make the following responses to questions you have raised.
1. The density computations for the Callahan
Subdivision are enclosed with this letter.
2. You have requested that the applicant demonstrate a
change in condition that have occurred since the final plan was
approved. Such change was recognized by the City Council on July
10, 1978 when it approved a PUD Amendment requiring the
elimination of the restaurant in the Benedict House (See
Memorandum from Karen B. Smith, Planning Director, dated November
12, 1980 enclosed). That requirement was to insure that the
Benedict House remained a single family residence and the
existing square footage of the house was never eliminated. The
applicant's request to rezone the property to conform to the
required use thereof should be compatible with city zoning
policies that zone districts conform to the permitted uses.
3. With respect to your request for evidence to
support the initial expansion of the Benedict Residence I refer
you again to Smith's Memorandum which indicates that the original
Benedict Residence is approximately 4,000 square feet and was
permitted by Council approval on February 9, 1976 on final plat
approval to be expanded to 9,400 square feet.
Please call me when you have had an opportunity to
review these materials so we can meet to discuss the application
again. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
Enclosure
N
U
�
N
O CL
+)
c3 U
to
O
to
N
O
U)
U ?
i
.4
rl
4-)
+
N
.4
{-)
—4
A
4-3
0
—4
•4 O
C
.1
O C4
co
Ua
M
0
• r-I
t;
N •,�
J
z 0
.-t
N
M
O
O
ko
C] C]
N
M
O
00
4
co
r-4
H
M
co
O
O
4-1
U $
00
W
M
•.
N
Cl
If)
7_
G
N
to
n
. I
O
O
G
co
4-3
v
LO
M
N
co
n
'jt
O
O
N
C
U U
O
d
N
,Cl
a
Q
to _
-
OO
N
N '
R.
O
U
i
M
a
V
co
O
O
O
t 7
q
-)
�
M
M
M
t�
O
v
v
v
.i•
4�
to
"•�
1
O •cI'
U
f O
O O
-
r-1 V O O
p tr)
- :7j '"C3 N
I\
O
O
• . r-i U U
-
OC14
O
W
X U O
O
[�
_
r•-1
�
N
M
M
O
O
O
O
- U
O
O
•--1
N
W
n
9Ot V
CD
Vr
hl
N
�O
N
O
n
N
N
U
i-1 In
O :3
.�
O
to O
M
t—
O
U
O
in O
_Gl
O
r 1
4-)
+-)
t0
U
O
?
.
N
4-J �
C✓
V)
rx
• ri
C
—1
cS .rt
F-
m-
!4
C4
n
11
U +J
44
O
td
U3
O
44
•fit
�)
v O
1
cd
c0
•O
00
O
.-7 r-t
•rl
U
V)
.--1
O
U)
+)
C'
C
11
V1
{�
.�
`+
•c:
to
M
O
(4-4
O
O
O
r1
U C.)
C+.'j
In
0
f •
)
MEMORANDUM v
TO: Aspen Planning & Zopi ng Conuni ssi on
FROM: Karen B. Smith, Planning Director
RE: Goldsamt (Aspen Club) P.U.U. - Amendment
DATE: November 12, 1980
Introduction
.The Aspen Club has requested an amendment of their P.U.D, plan to add 1200
square feet of restaurant space. The addition would be by the
enclosure of space in a greenhouse structure above the existing dick;. Access
to the faci 1 i ty tti 1 I be 1 i mi tea to the main entrance and ti:us serve only raeuihe rs
and their guests. Existing kitchen facilities will be utilized to serve the .
new seating area, and the snack bar wi11_continue to function in much the
same -manner.
Amendments to -the P.M. plan may be by City Council after review
and recommendation by the P&Z "only if they are shotirn to be required by changes
in conditions that have occurred since the final plan bras approved or by
changes in community policy.'.'
Back: round
In order to determine the merit of the proposed amendmment and the context
of changing conditions and community policy, it is necessary to trace the
.history of the original plan and. amendments thereto. The fol l o%-ring are the
relevant dates and actions:
September 11, 1975 - Conceptual subdivision approval by City Ccuncil for:
Indoor facility approx..24000 sq. ="t.
Clubhouse 4000 sq. f t.
Residential units 34
At the time, substantial discussion concerning definition of "recreational
club", 'here was disagreement whether the definition meant V-a kind of
luxury club and restaurant proposed or simple "k:i tchan facilities" in
conjunction with other facilities. CULtnCI 1 decided a cl ubilousa O r r:embers
only would be ok, but not if it became a commercial vanture_
December 2, 1975 -'The Aspen P&Z approved the preliminary plai and recor»�►encied
r approval of the rezoning of Parcel 1 to RR, Parcel 2 to R-15, and Parcel 3
from R-15 to RR.
January 12, 1976 - Council approved the rezonin s-
February 9, 1976 - Council considered the Final k']at :.li th the a, .e;Lded program
Indoor facility 3� 600 sq. t. -
Clubhouse 9400 sq. ft.
Residential units 34
The Planning office argued that the indoor facility had gro:-in too large,
tzacl gorre -beyond concept o� a mcdi um range facility, that"
h,t the r:assi ng was
too treat for the site anc p-�t-king inaclequ:rte. COLM.Cil the
for site
inspc.-ctioil.
February 23, 1976 - Council approved the Final Plat. subject to a l andscispi nq
j;'! Fll) %tii(k l'Etli�'f 1Ut°Z:a tl Un pl <<n and on basis that parking would not be a pi- oblcrn
rrovenruer r c, i tibu ?.
sincemany .club. users live on site.
January 20 1976 - P€J_ approved recreational facility as a conditional -lrsC
conditioned on clubhouse restaurant being 1 imi i:ed to club
January, 9, 1978 - Liquor license approved for small Snack bar facility
SerVlllCj 35 people at a time, Club members only, n0 Sf'j)c�r c:i^ iid`J�'ri:l . 19,
and subject to'a shuttle service for 5 years, and allofir;g service oil porch
in. spring.
June 7, 1977 P&Z considered request to amend plat to chance Gencdict
residence from a restaurant/clubhouse to single farrrily use and r:?ova the "
restaurant square footage (3400 sq. ft.) to the recreational facility.
No action taken.
'June 20, 1978 P&Z again considered the P.U.D. and subdivision aniand.rcent
- to add 10,700 square feet to the indoor facility and change the Benedict
residence to single family. Applicants requested the change to meat local
demand (1300 current.members)...: The P.O. expressed concern over the
.intensification. of use which had gone beyond original representation that "
-only 90 250 people would be on -site at any one time and beyond concept
of heavy use by -residents of Aspen Club. !Applicant represented they had
30Q people per and 50 - 60 at one time. This charge would intensify
the use, cause more traffic congestion, and again increase Hass of building.
Applicant argued greater -local use was a change in condition and this
amendment would allotr.them to keep rates low, /Applicant arge:ed there
would be no expansion of snack bar and this t•rould be the last expansion of
club facility. . 4400 square foot expansion of Benedict residence could be
dropped as a trade off.
P&Z moved to recommend approval. of P.M. amendment subject to dev�lop:�,ent
of a satisfactory transit system and paid parking. - Also, subdivision
exception approval granted.
June 26, 1975 Council considered P.U.D. and suhdi vi s i on a:�.erlc':.?r,t for
the following program:
.-Indoor facility 52000 sq. ft.
- No clubhouse
_ Residential units 35
Tabled for site inspection..
July 6, 19.78 -. P&Z approved the conditional use application ;or er.oansion
of the recreational club subject to:. Deletion of %•:estern outdoor tennis
court; changing footprint of building, -landscaping to mask- massing,
transportation plan,_
JEr1y 10, 1978 -Council approved tf�e P.M.c'.fi?c'nCiTent subject to trans?or-
tation and landscaping plans. Tile changed conditions :.ire considered to
be .increased local use of club and the trade-off offered t:ts elimination
of the restaurant in Benedict Clouse.
Referral Con+nents
1. Environmental Health - No comment as kitchen facility will re : i n the sZ1r:?e.
2. City Attorney -.States the applicant must demonstrate change in condition
and. change *in condition Must corme from rrit:haLl' .. , the condi tions i:hat:
change are in conniunity-needs and i:hat is appropriate for the- cc:: runity,
noL the changes in the applicant's•needs."
3. City f:ngineer - The number of parking spaces is currently insufficient.
If' the Clirb could pursue alterriate transport:atiorr, that might allcviaCe
the proble►ri, but there is not enouc{h evidence to de;ronstrate Chit the
transportation plan has or will t•rork.
•
4. Transportation -- There is 'no agreement today, with city bus for providing
service and city bus route has been reduced to two times per hour. The
Aspen Club ran its own van last ye<<r, but has not detcr:iined 1%,hiather to
continue this winter.
Planning Office Recommendation
While tl.ris requested amendment poses on1%'f 1200 square feet of"nc.1 floor area,
several previous concerns are raised again. The main concern is 1--he intensi-
fication of use that a sit down restaurant facility is likely to lead to.
If successful, the restaurant will mean an additional 50 persons on -site
at any one time, exacerbating the parking/transportation pro!)Ielm. Our
experience with the latter is that the alternative transportation solution
has not worked to reduce auto impact and the parking lot is frclq�:ently over-
flowing in the winter.
Furthermore, previous agreements with the city for van service or pay:aent to
City Transportation for bus service appear to be in limbo.
While the applicant represents that the' restaurant will not be accessible to
the general public, the request itself_ contradicts earlier representations
that the restaurant facility would be -dropped. The previous trade-off to
drop 'the restaurant facility was made in -order to get expanded recreational
area in order to keep rates low, prevent overcrowding, and enhance local
usage
Now, the argument appears to have come full circle, that is, the sit-down
restaurant facility is said to be necessary to keep rates l o,:r_
From the perspective of internal functioning, the ne•,i seating area makes
some sense. Anyone who uses the Aspen Club viould agree that the tra,""fie
from pool to locker room through the snack bar area is not ideal.
However, on balance, we do not find enough of a ch_ nae in con,? i ti on (,I-
comimunity policy since the last P.U.D. amendment in 107b (r:i:i c:; created this
configuration) to warrant the amendment today end to incur the -i;.:pacts the
addition would create. Without the clear mandate of a change in ce r.A:ni ty
policy or condition, the co=unity faces the prospect of Continual revision
of the P.U.D. plan.
If the P&Z does find a change in community policy and reccmme^ds approval,
wee would recommend conditions:
to Reexamination of the transportation/parking solution.
2. Review of schematic architectural plans and a determi:,atierr that the
additional massing is mitigated or minimal to begin with_ _
3.•-Conditional use approval of an expanded recreational club in the RR
zone.
•
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
Mr. Richard Grice
City Planner
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
GARFI E1LD & HEClf T, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
(303) 925-1936
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
March 16, 1984
Re: Application of T. Richard Butera, Julie Anthony
and Robert S. Goldsamt - "The Aspen Club"/
Rezoning/Lot Split
Dear Richard:
You have asked the above referenced applicant to
demonstrate a change in condition that has occurred since the
final plan was approved which will be sufficient to support an
Amendment to the original PUD as previously amended. I
understand that the change you wish the applicant to address
concerns a change that would support the construction of an
additional single family residence within the PUD. The applicant
believes that the change of use of the Benedict House from a
restaurant to a single family residence is sufficient to support
a change in condition to allow a lot split that is otherwise
permitted routinely when no PUD is involved. The change in the
use of the Benedict House from a large restaurant to a single
family residence was the result of the proliferation of
restaurants in Aspen and the realization that such use within a
residential area was not in the best interests of the applicant,
the City and surrounding land owners. I believe this
demonstrates the necessary change in condition for an amendment
to the PUD to permit the lot split.
I will also call you to answer any remaining questions
you may have with respect to density calculations for the
subdivision. However, it might be helpful to note that Lot 14
was not used to support density of any other development within
the PUD.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
cc: T. Richard Butera
Julie Anthony
MITI' OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE
,/ , �,j y
'j CU1 /
�, N
6�tj- AN 0(� htzkt
ve-Ifi ra+, cNQI
C�arl�tcni'r�-�
ro
v-.'
at*�
T. Richard Butera
�I
February 27, 1984 MAR 1484 j
111
ASPEN / PITKIN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
The Honorable William Stirling
Mayor of Aspen
and
Members of the City Council
Dear Bill:
I would like to point out some further information
regarding the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge. I hear a great
deal of talk by the proponents that we must not lose these
developers, who are so knowledgeable and have made such a
commitment to Aspen. I enclose an article in this morning's
Wall Street Journal, which points out that we may have already
lost one of the developers. It appears as though Mr. Roberts
has sold his bank, and perhaps we will now have a new gentleman
interested in the long-term welfare of Aspen by the name of
G.H. Stool. I urge the Council and yourself to demand a full
resume on the proposed developers, so that we, the taxpayers,
and the Council will know the business experience, past record,
development experience, financial capability and a record of
the quality of the work done by them in the past.
My investigation shows that neither Mr. Novak nor
Mr. Roberts, have ever been involved in any major development
directly. I again would like to emphasize, let's not put Aspen's
future in the hands of people who seem to be very nice, but per-
haps do not have the necessary background or financial capability
to do what we in Aspen want them to do.
I would like to point out that it concerns me that the
developers' spokesmen are constantly making comparisons of the
proposed FAR to the existing buildings such as North of Nell.
It seems to me -that this is comparing apples and oranges in
view of the fact that the reason the zoning restrictions have
been put in place, and made so strict, is that we do not want
1450 Crystal Lake Road. Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8900
The Honorable W0iam Stirling •
Members of the City Council
February 27, 1984
Page 2
any more buildings like that. To make a comparison to the
properties in town that no one is very happy with, doesn't seem
to prove anything.
Over the weekend I walked down to the site, and it
suddenly occurred to me that despite the wonderful work done
by Mr. Yaw, there will be a wall of building from the Chart House
to the North of Nell, if the project is finished as proposed.
I would urge each member of the Council and yourself, Mr. Mayor,
to stand out there and view that distance with one long brick
wall set back only a few feet from the road.
The developers' spokesmen are constantly making reference
to the fact that the finished project will have 50% open space.
The problem with that is that most of that open space is at
the top of the site where the sale condominium units are proposed.
We are going to get the open space where the sale condominium units
are regardless of the size of the hotel. As a citizen who visits
the downtown area every day, I'm concerned about the open space
that I can see, i.e. the open space that's visible in the
lower end of the site to the everyday visitor. I believe that
the calculation for the open space on the lower end of the site,
where the proposed hotel is, is significantly lower than 50%,
or is mostly courtyard.
Lastly, as I have stated in the past, do we really need
a convention type hotel in Aspen? This seems to be taken as a
given by many people, until they think about it. There are many
large public rooms being constructed, or proposed to be con-
structed such as Owl Creek Club, the Performing Arts Center and
the new Jerome Hotel. If you add up the available proposed public
space available for large groups in those three buildings, I think
you will find it is more than adequate for Aspen.
You must also consider the fact that it is estimated
at least 35 days a year, Aspen is closed to the outside world by
weather. Therefore, we are not starting with 100% room availabi-
lity calculations - we are starting with approximately 90%. I
think we can all agree that there are very few conventions who
would come to Aspen in late April, May and early June. Therefore,
we would have to subtract another sixty days from the year. At
the developers' cost of approximately $200,000 per room, I wonder
just how many convention type visitors can afford a $200 per
night room rent.
The Honorable William Stirling
Members of the City Council
February 27, 1984
Page 3
Why don't we seriously consider allowing these large
conventions to go somewhere else. I'm sure that any new hotel
from 100 rooms to 300 rooms will provide adequate meeting rooms
from small groups up to 150 people.
I urge you to consider a more realistic proposal, so that
we can all get first class hotel space built in Aspen as soon
as possible. This may mean two or three smaller hotels, that
would be able to maintain high standards and the quality that
all of the proponents and opposition to the proposed hotel agree
on.
The present developers will have $43 million invested in
just their original costs. No one can argue that there will be
no income before a minimum of three years to the present deve-
lopers. If you calculate the interest on the $43 million between
now and the first dollar of income, you then will see that their
costs are over $60 million.
It begins to sound more like a fairy tale as one does more
investigation into the hard facts of this proposed development.
I think that 95% of the people in Aspen, including myself, want
first class hotel facilities. It seems this will only be possi-
ble through the contribution of smaller hotels than the one
proposed.
nce y,
T. Richard Butera
TRB/pn
attachment
0
.f.
00
C)
z
0
F
G
W
c r
tiO3 o
'^
r
_^
0 Q,
f�5�
z-^�x^
Tcj
<
U=C�.C>p.r.
c__y
np=
is
O
... ..
C..+ - ~
G -�
.-.
93
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
0 6
GAREELD & l ECHI T, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
February 6, 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Supplemental Application of T. Richard Butera,
Julie Anthony and Robert S. Goldsamt- "The Aspen
Club"/Rezoning/Lot Split
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
This supplemental application and statement is
submitted in support of the application for rezoning, PUD
Amendment, and lot split subdivision exception submitted on
January 20, 1984 pursuant to Sections 24-12.5, 24-8.26, and 20-19
of the Aspen City Code.
Attached hereto are the following:
1. An Ownership and Encumbrance Report showing the
names and addresses of the owners within the area of the proposed
change.
2. A list including the names and addresses of all
owners within 300 feet of the proposed change.
3. The fee for processing the application.
In further support of the request for rezoning the
applicants state:
1. The rezoning of lot 14 to an R-15 classification is
compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the
vicinity of the site. In fact, the commercial classification for
this lot was a result of a rezoning from R-15 at the time of the
original approval of the PUD in order to accommodate what was
then perceived by the developer to be the need for a large self
contained club house and restaurant facility. All other
development adjacent to this site is residential in character.
2. The rezoning from the currently approved commercial
zone to residential use will reduce the potential traffic
1 0 0
GARNELD & HECH ', P.G.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 1984
Page 2
generation and will have the effect of reducing the potential
impact on utility service in the vicinity of the site.
3. Such rezoning could only have a beneficial impact
on the air and water quality in the vicinity from the current
zoning.
4. The rezoning would finally lay to rest the
uncertainty of the relationship of a commercial use in such a
residential setting.
5. Further this change in rezoning would be compatible
with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966 as amended.
6. In general the proposed rezoning would promote the
health and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the
City of Aspen by further conforming the uses in this area to the
Aspen General Plan.
7. As a revision to our letter application dated
January 20, 1984 the correct acreage for Lot 14 of the Callahan
Subdivision is 1.806 acres. The Applicants further request that
the appropriate zoning classification_ should be R-15 as that is
compatible with all residential zoning in the area.
The Applicants withdraw their request at this time for
an expansion of the club facility.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Richard Butera, Julie Anthony
and Robert S. Goldsamt by their
attorneys Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTOILNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIA SQUARE BULDLVG
601 EAST HY,11AN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
y k
The title comp an failed to pickup the release
of the:; Deed of Trust.
j
STE'AVART TITLE
OF ASPEN, INC.
602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-3577
January 27, 1984
Garfield and Hecht, P.A.
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Our Order No. 2141 AB
Sirs,
In response to my telephone conversation with Mary
Carmichael of January 25, 1984, please be advised that by
limiting the subject of our 300 foot radius search to Lot
14, Callahan Subdivision only, the following names should be
deleted from the list given on the above Order No.:
Kay Ellen Hamrock
Pia Marie Beyer
Robert and Barbara Bennett
Please be advised that this modification is subject to, and
in no way changes, the disclaimer of financial obligation as
stated in the correspondence dated January 25, 1984,
accompanying the original list given on said Order No. 2141
AB.
Thanks Again.
Sincerely,
c of
Randall Webb
Asst. Vice -President
n
STENVART TITI.I
OF ASPEN, INC.
602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . (303) 925-3577
January 25, 1984
Garfield and Hecht, P.A.
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Our Order No. 2141 AB
Sirs,
Enclosed please find a list of all the owners of real estate
within a 300 foot radius of Lots 14 and 14A, Callahan
Subdivision, as indicated by a search of the records of this
office and the records of the offices of The Assessor and
Treasurer of Pitkin County, Colorado.
Although our search was thorough and we believe these to be
all of said names and addresses , it is understood and
agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes,
nor will be charged with any financial obligation or
liability whatever in the completeness or accuracy of said
list.
Thank you for your continued patronage. Please contact us
if we may be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
,?,�__s
Randall Webb
Asst. Vice -President
• !
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
RONALD GARFIELD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
(303) 925-3008
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CABLE ADDRESS"GARHEC"
February 6, 1984
Mr. Alan Richman
Assistant Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Application of T. Richard Butera, Julie Anthony
and Robert S. Goldsamt - "The Aspen
Club"/Rezoning/Lot Split
Dear Alan:
You requested information on how the RR zone
classification permitted a commercial use of the Benedict
Residence. It is my understanding that the original approval
permitted the Benedict Residence as a club house and restaurant
ancillary to the conditional use zone of "Recreational Club" in
the RR zone.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
0Tn)i
i
® 0 1984
ASPEN / PITKIN CO
PLANNIN(7 nf-[-!(;E
GARS&LLD & HEGHT, P.G.
RONALD GARFIELD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
(303) 925-3008
WILLIAM K. GUEST. P.C.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
January 20, 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: T. Richard Butera and Julie Anthony - "The Aspen
Club"
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
The Aspen Club requests by this application
consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council of i) an amendment to the PUD under which the original
approval was granted for development of the Callahan Subdivision
("Subdivision"), ii) an amendment to the conditional use approved
for that PUD, iii) a rezoning of Lot 14 known as the "Benedict
residence" from RR to R-15 or R-30, (iv) a lot split of lot 14 of
the PUD on which the Benedict residence is situated pursuant to
Section 20-19 (a)(1)(2) and (3) of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen ("Code"), and (v) a declaration by the appropriate
governmental authority that the alterations to the Club as
hereinafter outlined do not require a Growth Management Plan
allotment.
To permit a lot split of lot 14 to form two separate
parcels as delineated in Exhibit "A" the applicant requests
rezoning of lot 14 to an R 15 classification and agrees to
restrict the use of the Benedict residence situated thereon to a
single family residence. Those lots are currently zoned to permit
a commercial use of the Benedict residence (lot 14 was originally
zoned R-15 and later changed to RR). The applicant requests a
lot split of lot 14 to create one additional single family site
excepted from Growth Management Plan pursuant to Section
24-11.2(d) and subdivision requlations of the Code. The
aggregate square footage of those lots is 2.696 acres. If zoned
either R15 compatible with the residential character of the PUD,
or R-30 an even more restrictive residential zone classification
than the surrounding land it would qualify for an exception from
the strict application of the subdivision regulations and an
exemption from the Growth Management Plan allotment procedures of
the Code. The proposed development of lot 14 after the lot split
9 CITY OF *PEN 46
MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP
Assistant Planning Director
0N.aV-4- ILS��
CIO 10
a>
hose Ce►..� � Q�•.�.� oM-; v�..� �\ A %J
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRPOE REPORT 2140 AB •
Made )for: Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owncr of
Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, as :shown and set forth on tale recorded plats
thereof.
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of
Robert S. Goldsamt
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following:
A Deed of Trust dated May 19, 1980, executed by Robert S. Goldsamt to the Public
Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $2,000,000.00 or the lesser
amount to which the Note applies, in favor of United Bank of Denver, N.A., recorded
May 21, 1980 in Book 389 at Page 188 as Reception No. 224163.
NOTE: Said Deed of Trust wa re —recorded August 5, 1981 in Book 412 at Page 166
as Reception No. 234686. (Reasons(s) for said re—recording not stated)
EXCEPT all easements, right-of-ways, restrictions and reservations of record.
EXCEPT any and all unpaid taxes and assessments.
This report does not reflect any of the following matters:
1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report
by more than fourteen (14) years.
2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or
until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years.
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate 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., neitherassumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any state-
ment contained lierei:i.
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 24th day of January A.D. 19 84 at 8:00 A.rl:
STEWART TIT_ l:?OF gyPEWNC.
BY //,-
Authorized Siknature
ip
STE'AVA_1ZT TITIA",
OF ASPEN, UNC.
602 E. HYMAN - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - (303) 925-3577
January 27, 1984
Garfield and Hecht, P.A.
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Our Order No. 2141 AB
Sirs,
In response to my telephone conversation with Mary
Carmichael of January 25, 1984, please be advised that by
limiting the subject of our 300 foot radius search to Lot
14, Callahan Subdivision only, the following names should be
deleted from the list given on the above Order No.:
Kay Ellen Hamrock
Pia Marie Beyer
Robert and Barbara Bennett
Please be advised that this modification is subject to, and
in no way changes, the disclaimer of financial obligation as
stated in the correspondence dated January 25, 1984,
accompanying the original list given on said Order No. 2141
AB.
Thanks Again.
Sincerely,
Randall Webb
Asst. Vice -President
S,A,E,i A VA.R.,,11, TJlT1,1
i
OF ASPEN, INC.
602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .
(303) 925-3577 ,
January 25, 1984
Garfield and Hecht, P.A.
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Our Order No. 2141 AB
Sirs,
Enclosed please find a list of all the owners of real estate
within a 300 foot radius of Lots 14 and 14A, Callahan
Subdivision, as indicated by a search of the records of this
office and the records of the offices of The Assessor and
Treasurer of Pitkin County, Colorado.
Although our search was thorough and we believe these to be
all of said names and addresses , it is understood and
agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes,
nor will be charged with any financial obligation or
liability whatever in the completenessor accuracy of said
list.
Thank you for your continued patronage. Please contact us
if we may be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Randall Webb
Asst. Vice -President
. ?1+1 AB • •
ALL OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF LO'i'S 14 & 14A, CALL AiLA`; Si' JI' 1SL0:;
Paul Chesley, Frank Chesley, Jean Chesley
PO Box 94
Aspen, CO 81 612
Kathleen Wilson
fka Kathleen Butterworth
58 Hawthorne Road
Rock Island, IL 61201
Kay Ellen Hamrock
1315 Riverside Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
Pia Marie Beyer
PO Box 1303
Aspen, CO 81612
Robert and Barbara Bennett
120 S. Cherry St.
Denver, CO 80222
Frederick A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict, Fred C. Larkin,
Patricia Maddalone
1280 Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Frederick A.. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict
PO Box 40
Aspen, CO 81611
RSG Development, Inc.
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, CO 81611
RSG Development, Inc.
Robert S. Goldsamt
c/o Andrew Hecht
PO Box 8237
Aspen, CO 81611
Robert S. Goldsamt
c/o Andrew Hecht
PO Box 8237
Aspen, CO 81611
Andrew Hecht, Trustee
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Suite 201
Aspen, CO 81611
Powderhouse Enterprises
PO Box 40
Aspen, CO 81611
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Parano Limited
c/o Gary A. Wright
201 N. Mill St. #106
Aspen, CO 81611
O d:QERS 2141 All,
Page 2 •
Arthur Glick
c/o Ardee
857 S. San Pedro St.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Bobby and Sherry Burns
16200 Dallas Parkway
Suite 100
Dallas, TX 75248
Woodcrest Investment Co., N.V.
PO Box 2257
South Padre Island, TX 78597
Herbert T. Goodman
c/o The Kissell Company
30 Warder St.
Springfield, OH 45501
Stanley and Yvonne Vaughn Silver
c/o Frank Outher
2319 Crestmoor Rd.
Nashville, TN (no zip code available)
Carol Soffer
PO Box 630578
Miami Beach, FL 33163
Lester Crown, Trustee of Aspen Trust
300 West Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60606
John D. Hickok, Trustee
9401 Nall
Suite 101
Prairie Village, KS 66207
Mary Joan Farver
2609 Spring Grove Terrace
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Boyd L. and Sharon Jeffries
3250 Beach Club Road
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Oscar L. and Pati H. Gerber
4656 West Toughy Ave.
Chicago, IL 60897
Charles H. Goodman
300 W. Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Hodge Capital Company
1565 Jackson St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Virginia V. and James B. Carson
336 Knoll Top Lane
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
James Diehl Stout, Sharon Tisdale Stout
17792 Lowan
Irvine, CA 92714
Carlton Evans Beal, Jr., Lynda K. Beal.
104 South Pecos
Midland, TX 79701
ObFINERS
• 2141 AI,
Page 3
C & R Investments
c/o Irwin J. Blitt
8900 State Line Road #333
Leawood, KS 66206
Polgrave Investments Limited
c/o Carlos Loumiet, Esquire
PO Box 012890
Miami, FL 33101
Ben J. Fortson, Trustee
3000 Texas American Bank Bldg.
Fort Worth, TX 76102
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
The title company failed to pick up the release
of the. Deed of Trust.
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBI*E REPORT 2140 AB
• Niade Fror: Garfield & llecht , P.C.
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office th;it the owner of
Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, as shown and set forth on the recorded plats
thereof.
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of
Robert S. Goldsamt
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following:
A Deed of Trust dated May 19, 1980, executed by Robert S. Goldsamt to the Public
Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $2,000,000.00 or the lesser
amount to which the Note applies, in favor of United Bank of Denver, N.A., recorded
May 21, 1980 in Book 389 at Page 188 as Reception No. 224163.
NOTE: Said Deed of Trust wa re —recorded August S, 1981 in Book 412 at Page 166
as Reception No. 234686. (Reasons(s) for said re—recording not stated)
EXCEPT all easements, right-of-ways, restrictions and reservations of record.
EXCEPT' any and all unpaid taxes and assessments.
This report does not reflect any of the following matters:
1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report
by more than fourteen (14) years.
2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or
until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years.
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate 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 obligation or liability whatever on any state -
merit contained herein.
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 24th day of
STEWART TITL , OF E NC.
BY
Authorized Signature
January A.D. 19 84at 8:00 A.1111.
GARFIELD & HECHiT, P.G.
RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
KATHERINE HENDRICKS 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
January 20, 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
Re: T. Richard Butera and Julie Anthony - "The Aspen
Club"
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
The Aspen Club requests by this application
consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council of i) an amendment to the PUD under x•;hich the original
approval was granted for development of the Callahan Subdivision
("Subdivision"), ii) an amendment to the conditional use approved
for that PUD, iii) a rezoning of Lot 14 known as the "Benedict
residence" from RR to R-15 or R-30, (iv) a lot split of lot 14 of
the PUD on which the Benedict residence is situated oursuant to
Section 20-19 (a)(1)(2) and (3) of the Municipal Cede of the City
of Aspen ("Code"), and (v) a declaration by the appropriate
governmental authority that the alterations to the Club as
hereinafter outlined do not require a Growth Management Plan
allotment.
To permit a lot split of lot 14 to form two separate
parcels as delineated in Exhibit "A" the applicant requests
rezoning of lot 14 to an R 15 classification and agrees to
restrict the use of the Benedict residence situated thereon to a
single family residence. Those lots are currently zoned to permit
a commercial use of the Benedict residence (lot 14 %aas originally
zoned R-15 and later changed to RR). The applicant requests a
lot split of lot 14 to create one additional sil:gle family site
excepted from Growth Management Plan pursuant to Section
24-11.2(d) and subdivision requlations of the Code. The
aggregate square footage of those lots is 2.696 acres. If zoned
either R15 compatible with the residential character olf the PUD,
or R-30 an even more -restrictive residential zone classification
than the surrounding land it would qualify for an exception from
the strict application of the subdivision regulations and an
exemption from the Growth Management Plan allotment procedures of
the Code. The proposed development of lot 14 after the lot split
0
GARFIELD & HEGHT, P.C.
Mr. Sunny Vann
January 20, 1984
Page 2
shall be limited by applicable requirements of the Code, limiting
development to two,single family dwellings, one on each lot.
Further the applicant requests permission to make
alterations to the Club facility situated on lot 15 of the
Subdivision. Such alterations and additions will not expand the
foot print of the building. The unused commercial square footage
originally approved for the Benedict residence would be
transferred if necessary to the recreation facility on lot 15 to
support a tiering of three racquet ball courts thus adding
approximately 2,500 square feet of usable space within the
existing building.
The following information will be helpful to support
this request and to demonstrate how much commercial square
footage has already been approved by the City but unused. The
original Benedict residence approved for a restaurant/clubhouse
was for 11,400 square feet (9,400 above grade and 2,000 in the
basement). The original approval for the recreation building was
for 46,000 square feet. On June 20, 1978 4,400 square feet of
commercial use was taken from the Benedict residence and moved to
the recreational building to support an expansion. The balance
of commercial approval of 7,000 square feet has not yet been
used.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Richard Butera, Julia Anthony
and Robert S. Goldsamt by their
attorneys Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
Enclosure
•�,•.:�.!a.;.�►�•z:�t.auk..6.:.._`..�....�i�i'-�4"v'"�:::".i.�_+�..�`.'^F�`..1r_:�<:fe:=#.".tia�'i '°'"'-• -- ..... _. ._.. _. __....._..............;..u�..,,;. _...,....:.r...... .._.. _.
�+ 2141 AB
•
ALL OWNFRS WITHIN 300 FEET OF LOTS 14 & 14A, CALLAHA`: SUBDIVISION
Paul Chesley, Frank Chesley, Jean Chesley
PO Box 94
Aspen, CO 81612
Kathleen Wilson
fka Kathleen Butterworth
58 Hawthorne Road
Rock Island, IL 61201
Kay <1n Hamrock
1315 rside Dr.
Asp 81611
Pia ie Beyer
PO Bo 1303
Aspe , 0 81612
RoberAnd Barbara Bennett
120 Srry St.
Denve80222
Frederick A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict, Fred C. Larkin,
Patricia Maddalone
1280 Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Frederick A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict
PO Box 40
Aspen, CO 81611
RSG Development, Inc.
q(9
RSG Development, Inc
Robert S. Gold amt
e o'.�u Ga R►F_
-goo 394 Aye..
ENy 1 01 1002Z-
Robert S. Golds mt
It)() � sivi, Avg.
uy-,, Ny lm2Z
Andrew Hecht, Trustee
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Suite 201
Aspen, CO 81611
Powderhouse Enterprises
PO Box 40
Aspen, CO 81611
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Parano Limited
c/o Gary A. Wright
201 N. Mill St. #106
Aspen, CO 81611
OWNERS
' Page 2
2 ] 4 I AB
Arthur Glick
J10 bkooK PR
606tiy OtLu5, CA
6Mlo
Bobby and Sherry Burns
16200 Dallas Parkway
Suite 100
Dallas, TX 75248
Woodcrest Investment Co., N.V.
PO Box 2257
South Padre Island, TX 78597
Herbert T. Goodman I,
Stanley and Yvonne Vaughn Silver
TGi a-9'[rYZPZflZ !! E�E�'�i rvTrN rrer� i3 GC o f 5i8 i Lr n/rl4 g Mo R�„A
D
2310 rTPatmnnr Rd (go 5Zl 7 1216
Carol Soffer
PO Box 630578
Miami Beach, FL 33163
Lester Crown, Trustee of Aspen Trust
300 West Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60606
John D. Hickok, Trustee
9401 Nall
Suite 101
Prairie Village, KS 66207
Mary Joan Farver
2609 Spring Grove Terrace
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Boyd L. and Sharon Jeffries
3250 Beach Club Road
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Oscar L. and Pati H. Gerber
4656 West Toughy Ave.
Chicago, IL 60897
Charles H. Goodman
300 W. Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Hodge Capital Company
1565 Jackson St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Virginia V. and James B. Carson
336 Knoll Top Lane
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
James Diehl Stout, Sharon Tisdale Stout
17792 Lowan
Irvine, CA 92714
Carlton Evans Beal, Jr., Lynda K. Beal
104 South Pecos
Midland, TX 79701
" • MRNERS • 2141 Ali
Page 3
C & R Investments
C/o Irwin J. Blatt
8900 State Line Road #333
Leawood, KS 66206
Polgrave Investments Limited
c/o Carlos Loumiet, Esquire
PO Box 012890
Miami, FL 33101
Ben J. Fortson, Trustee
3000 Texas American Bank Bldg.
Fort Worth, TX 76102
V ..
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
WILLIAM K. GUEST. P.C.
GARFIE LD & Hll.eCHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
(303) 925-3008
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CABLE ADDRESS"GARHEC"
February 6, 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Supplemental Application of T. Richard Butera,
Julie Anthony and Robert S. Goldsamt- "The Aspen
Club"/Rezoning/Lot Split
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
This supplemental application and statement is
submitted in support of the application for rezoning, PUD
Amendment, and lot split subdivision exception submitted on
January 20, 1984 pursuant to Sections 24-12.5, 24-8.26, and 20-19
of the Aspen City Code.
Attached hereto are the following:
1. An Ownership and Encumbrance Report showing the
names and addresses of the owners within the area of the proposed
change.
2. A list including the names and addresses of all
owners within 300 feet of the proposed change.
3. The fee for processing the application.
In further support of the request for rezoning the
applicants state:
1. The rezoning of lot 14 to an R-15 classification is
compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the
vicinity of the site. In fact, the commercial classification for
this lot was a result of a rezoning from R-15 at the time of the
original approval of the PUD in order to accommodate what was
then perceived by the developer to be the need for a large self
contained club house and restaurant facility. All other
development adjacent to this site is residential in character.
2. The rezoning from the currently approved commercial
zone to residential use will reduce the potential traffic
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 1984
Page 2
generation and will have the effect of reducing the potential
impact on utility service in the vicinity of the site.
3. Such rezoning could only have a beneficial impact
on the air and water quality in the vicinity from the current
zoning.
4. The rezoning would finally lay to rest the
uncertainty of the relationship of a commercial use in such a
residential setting.
5. Further this change in rezoning would be compatible
with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966 as amended.
6. In general the proposed rezoning would promote the
health and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the
City of Aspen by further conforming the uses in this area to the
Aspen General Plan.
7. As a revision to our letter application dated
January 20, 1984 the correct acreage for Lot 14 of the Callahan
Subdivision is 1.806 acres. The Applicants further request that
the appropriate zoning classification should be R-15 as that is
compatible with all residential zoning in the area.
The Applicants withdraw their request at this time for
an expansion of the club facility.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Richard Butera, Julie Anthony
and Robert S. Goldsamt by their
attorneys Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Bj
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mlc
Jr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen B. Smith, Planning Director
RE: Goldsamt (Aspen Club) P.U.D. - Amendment
DATE: November 12, 1980
Introduction
The Aspen Club has requested an amendment of their P.U.D. plan to add 1200
square feet of restaurant space. The addition would be accomplished by the
enclosure of space in a greenhouse structure above the existing deck. Access
to the facility will be limited to the main entrance and thus serve only members
and their guests. Existing kitchen facilities will be utilized to serve the
new seating area, and the snack bar will continue to function in much the
same manner.
Amendments to the P.U.D. plan may be permitted by City Council after review
and recommendation by the P&Z "only if they are shown to be required by changes
in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by
changes in community policy."
Background
In order to determine the merit of the proposed amendment and the context
of changing conditions and community policy, it is necessary to trace the
history of the original plan and amendments thereto. The following are the
relevant dates and actions:
September 11, 1975 - Conceptual subdivision approval by City Council for:
Indoor facility approx. 24000 sq. ft.
Clubhouse 4000 sq. ft.
Residential units 34
At the time, substantial discussion concerning definition of "recreational
club", There was disagreement whether the definition meant the kind of
luxury club and restaurant proposed or simple "kitchen facilities" in
conjunction with other facilities. Council decided a clubhouse for members
only would be ok, but not if it became a commercial venture.
December 2, 1975 - The Aspen P&Z approved the preliminary plat and recommended
approval of the rezoning of Parcel 1 to RR, Parcel 2 to R-15, and Parcel 3
from R-15 to RR.
January 12, 1976 - Council approved the rezonings.
February 9, 1976 - Council considered the Final Plat with the amended program
o.
Indoor facility 38000 sq. ft.
Clubhouse 9400 sq. ft.
Residential units 34
The Planning office argued that the indoor facility had grown too large,
had gone beyond concept of a medium range facility, that the massing was
too great for the site and parking inadequate. Council tabled for site
inspection.
February 23, 1976 - Council approved the Final Plat subject to a landscaping
plan an ransp� ortation plan and on basis that parking would not be a problem
Goldsamt (Aspen Club a
U.D. Amendment
' November 12, 1980 2.
since many club users live on site.
January 20, 1976 - P&Z approved recreational facility as a conditional use
conditioned on clubhouse restaurant being limited to club members.
January 9, 1978 - Liquor license approved for small snack bar facility
serving 35 people at a time, club members only, no separate advertising,
and subject to a shuttle service for 5 years, and allowing service on porch
in spring.
June 7, 1977 - P&Z considered request to amend plat to change Benedict
residence from a restaurant/clubhouse to single family use and move the
restaurant square footage (3400 sq. ft.) to the recreational facility.
No action taken.
June 20, 1978 - P&Z again considered the P.M. and subdivision amendment
to add 10,700 square feet to the indoor facility and change the Benedict
residence to single family. Applicants requested the change to meet local
demand (1300 current members). The P.O. expressed concern over the
intensification of use which had gone beyond original representation that
only 90 - 250 people would be on -site at any one time and beyond concept
of heavy use by residents of Aspen Club. Applicant represented they had
300 people per day and 50 - 60 at one time. This change would intensify
the use, cause more traffic congestion, and again increase mass of building.
Applicant argued greater local use was a change in condition and this
amendment would allow them to keep rates low. Applicant argued there
would be no expansion of snack bar and this would be the last expansion of
club facility. 4400 square foot expansion of Benedict residence would be
dropped as a trade off.
P&Z moved to recommend approval of P.M. amendment subject to development
of a satisfactory transit system and paid parking. Also, subdivision
exception approval granted.
June 26, 1978 - Council considered P.M. and subdivision amendment for
the following program:
Indoor facility 52000 sq. ft.
No clubhouse
Residential units 35
Tabled for site inspection.
July 6, 1978 - P&Z approved the conditional use application for expansion
of the recreational club subject to: Deletion of western outdoor tennis
court, changing footprint of building, landscaping to mask massing,
transportation plan.
Julys 10, 1978 - Council approved the P.M. amendment subject to transpor-
tation and landscaping plans. The changed conditions were considered to
be increased local use of club and the trade-off offered was elimination
of the restaurant in Benedict House.
Referral Comments
1. Environmental Health - No comment as kitchen facility will remain the same.
2. City Attorney - States the applicant must demonstrate change in condition
and change in condition must come from without." ...the conditions that
change are in community needs and what is appropriate for the community,
not the changes in the applicant's needs."
3. City Engineer - The number of parking spaces is currently insufficient.
If the Club could pursue alternate transportation, that might alleviate
the problem, but there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the
transportation plan has or will work.
Goldsamt (Aspen Clubla U.D. - Amendment
November 12, 1980 3.
4. Transportation - There is no agreement today with city bus for providing
service and city bus route has been reduced to two times per hour. The
Aspen Club ran its own van last year, but has not determined whether to
continue this winter.
Planninq Office Recommendation
While this requested amendment poses only 1200 square feet of new floor area,
several previous concerns are raised again. The main concern is the intensi-
fication of use that a sit down restaurant facility is likely to lead to.
If successful, the restaurant will mean an additional 50 persons on -site
at any one time, exacerbating the parking/transportation problem. Our
experience with the latter is that the alternative transportation solution
has not worked to reduce auto impact and the parking lot is frequently over-
flowing in the winter.
Furthermore, previous agreements with the city for van service or payment to
City Transportation for bus service appear to be in limbo.
While the applicant represents that the restaurant will not be accessible to
the general public, the request itself contradicts earlier representations
that the restaurant facility would be dropped. The previous trade-off to
drop the restaurant facility was made in order to get expanded recreational
area in order to keep rates low, prevent overcrowding, and enhance local
usage.
Now, the argument appears to have come full circle, that is, the sit-down
restaurant facility is said to be necessary to keep rates low.
From the perspective of internal functioning, the new seating area makes
some sense. Anyone who uses the Aspen Club would agree that the traffic
from pool to locker room through the snack bar area is not ideal.
However, on balance, we do not find enough of a change in condition or
community policy since the last P.M. amendment in 1978 (which created this
configuration) to warrant the amendment today and to incur the impacts the
addition would create. Without the clear mandate of a change in community
policy or condition, the community faces the prospect of continual revision
of the P.U.D. plan.
If the P&Z does find a change in community policy and recommends approval,
we would recommend conditions:
1. Reexamination of the transportation/parking solution.
2. Review of schematic architectural plans and a determination that the
additional massing is mitigated or minimal to begin with.
3. Conditional use approval of an expanded recreational club in the RR
zone.