The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.rz.Aspen Club lot Split.8-84 s — CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City o f Aspen No. �• t l Staff: \��\'\,1\—� # ?-3-fs� 3z� el ( 0 eRIssith-LAKar PROJECT NAME: 4, l /27_;-66--- 1 ,/, C./C4 APPLICANT: J. {3{tite_4_, /.1.4. (F.5. (;00" Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: C{,rlr Phone: (702__T. 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) ($1 ,010) V IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) C - ", (4:7" ($ 465) • 1 . Special Review PQ ' • 2. Use Determination .tiQ.;� 3. Conditional Use REFERRALS: Date Referred: JAttorney Sanitation District School District Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat.Gas Housing Parks State Hgwy. Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Fire Chief City Electric Fire Marshall/Building Dept. Other AL I /1//:,: i9/4/,/ - FINAL ROUTING: Date Routed: G,; l\ Attorney i Engineering 0-C—• _Building Other rt/Y ....,"■ ...,`". r DISPOSITION: CITY P&Z REVIEW: /2-461 PQ,CAy_ro- yvt_Q 111(40,--ti 0 ,.--1, 0 r- n 143 I'D I hNi ,10.y„ r,".. __C ...{-y,, ),1,--, i?...r.,P ---z, C:,. ,- __- (---‘- a VN .....i1.1,-1.1 --._.‘"- , 1 "::1 t,..! * ■ 0_4(7 zo-ilf rt • N- C - (,1 . 0, I a ' 1'1 i 0 ...'' k? / 11 A Y,-- 1 , (...) - DIr" ail! ■ in e — a.vvi'I I d(A)-(.1)IF,0 1.t-- 0-y‘ L0+ )Lij oo,, v. 0 , 1 ( 1 ',1,9 (4-- -to ._, 111-(h) \I e ri ' co.:4i ) ■ 7 _ - --r) , , t r' q 0 ,t-v ■ ( 0 vi ,-_.-;. , • i i - / ,.. £ v e 0/-7 7 I. e-s) 0_0 1-71(-4-i t)-i/--) i 0 r\ 0(-1-14- ckdop 1 -\.) ... I ly, -/- -1A61 -Icvl Isl_. .--k-, v.) k.■ cl---■ 1 c_Ql lk(44c `--_.,— ''' 11)t._9_ Q_ CI .1 4. ;) a t 0,..17\ (15-, ,...-,..,( , v.:, 1•:____ r-k_c pli I c- i Iio , 1 4 , 0 — t , , r CtThz- , t : , • cr ,--,r / . - -',,) . , __.<_ 2, I ka+ ----V\A(..) (-) I/ 1 1,::... 0,...k----Q \i Q r-; re.(.? ,- 1 rt ' 0 ---- ;'-' I 1 ,- ') ,,---/k '4-- [A-,-9 --- rii ,f_,_,. (.4) ,,,, ,_,, ,,_{., , ..--1 i 1,,,„,1 ,_ . n , ,, : . ..-1 ,), ,,,- , ''._.. 1 -.s- -_, I .. A _:. • €,x e ,$)f-i 1, ; , . ; Li lc/ i *1 ro;11--, -- • (-A-4- °I-tc-r—__(4''''ff\. cl, r L - c- if. ) I . ,.., -- ) 14--1 \&) yvkA,1,---.4- [-,,, \I ; ( , _ 0+ le ri ,-. -1,--(Al_dv, (i2) p e U r'k._,I VI 7.:-_,---p a_c 0 LI a... ;..:.c- XIMIZIONEEieriteft... • , , • -. L. 1 . 12- 1 7 cl 1.1 ,,,z '; : I ---''' •0 \-..._ 4,-- , ‘f., (' _1_ '1 , \1 1 J-1---- '...4 t1 9 t :_..i. IN, ',„ C41_1-,,I : W- 14 ILI n, r (1 14 V] t,6 CA lz-, ;\1,--,, ,-4 .--Tk 9_ "P'+__,, a ,,,^cTr.1 , ' -) ,, 1 - Li i-.( -t I 1 ) toi pq si, 3..; L ouci *:;) . VT, I ' 1 ' ' '\ 4/Li (=-9 ‘`I e_f: C-%C // / °Lee rL3Q(C\ ('S 1(14.1 '' ' ' / / CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: I 1V--1-18S-- ,..4,--,1t-k (-I (: )1—r4 ).r\rt , ,, Q 2/4/ ( -:-0 t L. 'L - _.0 19)1 1-i 0-17) .5.1 -‘_:1- :--, , , — '-i , \ i () 470 \(- . •;-' ( ' c: 'i ( ) _____ . _._ --Ir-r) /---/' i: K - k-•,) i.: - 1 -- , 1 , , ,-- - 1,1/\\ Ordinance No. 2-42---r ( ps 1,14 ._ ., ..... PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Project: Lot 2 - Gordon Subdivision Date: January 17, 1984 _ -—------------- �— . 1 . Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities iirrd services and shall rate each development according to the fol l owi ng 'formu l.:! : 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . • 2 -- Project in .and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. . a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). • Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system. its ability to supply water to the developmen4ianduwithoutnrteeatnentnplantbeyond or other normally installed by the developer, facility upgrading. Rating 2 Comment: Applicant' will loop the water system.improvinqwater 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. _ • .,dc two ( `. Residential GMP Scoring d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points ) . Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 1 Z 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 10 • • 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. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. • Rating 2 0 Comment: The proposed density is consistent with the density range of • surrounding developments. The scale of the development is also com• ,Q patible with the neighborhood. ' 11- �, Y C1�(�.� C2 r% /Y1�t �� P� "�0 �l-2 � raJ ple,e-Yilup. j i &Pt- UQ r l ANC e,s a Y' 4E5 .311- ( • Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Design (maximum 3 points) . Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas , the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and ncreased safety and privacy. N, .ce„, viUcf -�01(4 ur100,) �Iw7l-a- �'�is —�d� 4-C-12--- 1-t'---e ap r1"aCu, 4p„c, v,r � i N CV�d'-�- T-e-- ,ajj � �t)n g 3 V 1S �d�” ; � 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 energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. • Rating 3 • Comment: :Solar orientation, solar water_heati.ng and passive features plus commitments to extra insulation result in conservation of energy. • j. Trails (maximum 3 points). • Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems , whenever • feasible. Rating 3 Comment: An additional desirable trail dediciation 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 ;isable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments . Rating 3 Comment: Meadows along the river will become dedicated open space which are highly desirable as permanent green space. Subtotal 14 )Od 3. Proximity to Support Sei . •..,_s (maximum 6 points) . • The Commission shall con rider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation .nld community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assi ;.Hinq points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportatio': ;,,iaximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is locaH!d further than sic blocks walking distance from an existing cit.: or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an gxisting • city or county His route. • 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating 2 • • Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points ) . The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. • • 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. • Rating 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 three-quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent) . Rating 20 • Comment: 9 low income be$r.•u .. •. • - . nnms = Snck low income housing. "C" . The floor area of the six employee 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: C Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points) . Rating 0 Comment: Points in Categories 1 , 2, 3 and 4 47 (Threshold: 43.8 points) Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS 47 Name of P & Z Member: Planning, Office • • • • • • GARFIELD & HECHT, P.G. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN "GARHEC" 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 EXHIBIT "E" MEMORAN DU M TO: I ayor Stirling arc' Aspen City Council TERU : Hal Schilling, City Manager; ; FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Off i ce'A 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: January 14, 1984 SUMMARY The Planning 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 reading, to rezone Lot 14 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 approved the PUD 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 1.4 consists of 1 .806 acres and presently is occupied by the "Benedict House" and eleven parking spaces. The structure has Cbeen 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 `""'.(' 7cc• .1.'rri..7/r'_j'ay,rly ;le tt c•f 4--;S be referred to as Lot 14W. PROBLEM DIS CUSS ION: 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 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 PULE was approved, the intended use for the Benedict House was to be a restaurant/clubhouse. The zoning placed on it. was PP - 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 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 Genera]. Plan. ALTERNAT IV ES : N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A AINISORY COMMITTEE VOTES The Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimously in favor of forwarding a recommendation for approv.a3 of the re oning from RR to P-15 and subdivision of Lot 14 through amendment of the PUD plat with the conditions listed below. 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend approval of the rezoning from RR to R-1.5 and subdivision of Lot 14 through aanendment 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". 4 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 -a-ppreval of Ordinance No. 44 , Series of 1984 , on first reading, to rezone Lot 14 from RR to R-15. PREV IOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has not previously reviewed or taken any action on this request. 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 .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 referred to as Lot 14W. 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 woul-d--- be left with 1 .038 acres and a single-family house. The new lot, Lot 14W, -would 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-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 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 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 IMPL I CAT IONS: N/A ADM ISORY 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 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 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 "f day of December, 1984 , by Fritz Benedict. LvAKitpess my hand and official seal. l'V8 LAC} :' Notary Public fprIM mmission expires: :)///y -7///4S / EXHIBIT_"A" • -AS'PENePITKIN 1EGIONAL BUILDIP 3 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: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Asper, Colorado 81611 RXHTRTT "R" . • ASPEN*PITKIN . EGIONAL BUILDIR ) DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM • TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Ali 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: EXHIBIT "C" mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 • CITY ,a- :ASPEN 130 `• uthgalena,street asp ncolora o81611 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, 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 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 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. t { 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 Management 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 inspection and verifies that there are two units which are not a duplex, 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 Water 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 sigr_i:-ag in the space provided below and by sending me the original back for our files . Alan Richman ion 14"W Acting Planning Director wief •uilding Official 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. Y . (ra Fritz Be edict Subscribed and sworn to before me on this f day of December, 1984 , by Fritz Benedict. 0AWbi .liiess my hand and official seal. • ); pv8 1G Notary Public • rmmission expires: -7/y / r 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, lop .nn Ballard Administrative Assistant Aspen Water Department GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. CABLE ADDRESS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN "GARHEC" 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 CCGaMC NOV 1 91984 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE 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, By: __�_�� - , Andrew V. Hecht GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Attorney for RSG Development, Inc. AVH/mp ASPEN‘PITKINI=IEGIONAL 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, Zoning Official Paul Taddune, City Attorney Colette Penne, Planning BD/ar offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN*PITKIN `REGIONAL BUILDHVG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer ,I" 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 81611 CITY OI. ,ASPEN 130 o, ,th galena street asp n, Colorado 81611 3037925-2020 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. PJ T/m c Attachment cc: planning Director - Bill Drueding T. Richard Butera December 4 , 1984 Mr. Paul Taddune City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S . Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Paul: I would like to describe to you the circumstances in which a subdivision, that appeared to be illegal, took place at The Aspen Club. 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 100% 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, T. Richard tB�i era TRB/pn cc: Andy Hecht 7e4 .1 2 i(A).01 AC!)( 1, tiloLeo 13,,jej4)-( $1)-- Li1 +11 5.191d• -7,4 /t77 14 4 )44'414 (471;' r:shrl i23- VV6 R.ed F, A,R i=t AAW1,%yid. 6,4* nii4-14ilp, ait 7%11)14 / F 1 p )6 4. , f 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. 77415 e2 0.SFc-r A.- F3F Elr L.E. 13 y ti " ■ 5 ,— eve,',.. /( t//." r l' A 1) 1.4/...� S / t -"r. a .._ r-, w ! rtTS :—.Ii••E . /Q .tt � t °".'� NA so& rry CIAO-t t.)F F t71+44 /rS Ow,r y aE t~l� .C /�P.. , .f •—tTri/io .- Ui S i kt e_," 4 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 - GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN "GARHEC" GGOWE November 13, 1984 D NOV 1 31984 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Richard Grice City of Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 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 AV H/mp Enclosures STEWART 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 . Sinter Zy /~—'-� Apr /i/ /7/- Charles C"%tmith Executive Vice President CCS :dm Enclosures Lot 1 , Riverside Joint Venture Gordon Subdivision c /o Enloe P . 0 . Box 225644 Dallas , Texas 75265 Lot 10 , Elizabeth Marie Ott Calderwood Subdivision c/o Elizabeth Marie Jones P. 0. Box P Aspen , Co . 81612 Lots 8 & 9 RSG Development , Inc . Callahan Subdivision 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 Patricia E . Maddalone Box 635 Aspen , Co . 81612 Ute Park The City of Aspen , Colorado A Municipal Corporation 130 S . Galena Aspen , Co . 81611 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT i 7 1984 I OCT MEMORANDUM TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING DEPT. FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: GORDON SUBDIVISION DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1984 AS 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. JM:ab CITY.. .. $t41aSPEN 13 0 . "'? .a °fir% �"'14F: ' r e e t asp ' x' � � N' 1611 • y WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNER FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983 J 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 -'4'! 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. I .,-• - , i /•• . . . , , 1 .: , .. • i ,......... II ( .*= —---- t , — - ._ .. -7- ! -, ' /‘ .t 4 .....____ t fi - % k i t'.,.. //ti;• I-1._..1 ,r,c- I 0 1 . :.---* , .. !I , \•,,,,,___„0 A ',"-'• ` f I i/ -/ , ,, 1 1"..... , I ‘ E1/4'11,*(. , --- .,. / ,,,' ''''''........ 1 4, 1 t fI,•Q ■•"'S,t • , , , 1; je)b," 1:1 ,,, ''.--/ •: •-' , , • 11,, ^%,!.......- S. / -,!. ,•■■,1 , ..„.■-, ,,,. , I C, I ‘ 1 ,...te' , r•$w ;•.-- ,0 ' ' , ''' LI 71!-- • .,4 11,17-Thr;r------1 III"' ,".. • 1) .. l / ''`It0., { n/ i";' !! Al'' n ., v t, 44 '/ '4 r''' ' i i 44..... .004. ! „''''., '''. .V,/ 1 '-_,, ,„ t 4, ./ ''''-'r''''`, ''' .•;..''''' i . -i ....es... . .,:;.;, ,,,,-_____ i t it ,•••■•-•,:i..,,,,,,-, . ' __;,,ei),,,,,%•.) , pi, t. i ‘P ; 'i''i ;;A ' -. ',, -IC' i ; . .- ' r 1 ,'' 41- ','c) iz +..'4 jr•("),' ' 1 ' ,) • 1 PI ' 4' l'-- 4- ' ;t`:',,,, . t'''':',,•'.1t'hir,:!•' ilt:•,:-' , . . 3 - 1 ''% ,i ' ' ''''-i; 'i ,I li--,,I. • :!. fi---,:ei,,,'-i "ls■ Z '1 -. : 4 . ± i.. $ i. I • ,- 's-' '.- 4-1- "1"---- •," —— , '' '-.. ±'• -,' ,''''-ci3t 1 •tr.,:, t4,,o,,, , .,'T,I,A.,,1"-,i''' -r,•,.'•,,•"*i II ,: - ti • t.-;/..a,,,, •.:-:$.11 i tt:4-i• ; §ai- ,y1,3:,. •::,,,,.:.t.-- t, k 1 ;0,■ 3c ,,s',X;,;;'..•'. ..,',.;;6 -,• ) AO:',6,0i.•,,;;]. -ii;,,‘::,Lir,,,i ; . •-47,,,.,..4.• II Zi,' ?. , 1 . 0,k . t 1,,11 , . • .';'•-‘ /7•81;4:14 :.1.1.0!5•t'i.".i.' f-^ \‘""-----t' -...•'. , . '''",.. i ' • ■ It ;111...A' ''.>....: ,..,; ', ... ' '.\ ,, . il,_ `,,, „, „,:'' i 4i '-i"3i1-■ ;431'''0.,•',..'9;;;1"'s l'i t,./, •....''-- -.'-- 4 —..:, t - i i-2,_.,1---T-s ..-••ss ..... . • v.-) , ''' -. , t,/t±!, • 'IS1 .11/14 ,t-', -..; . f sd-t-g ,„ „ ,,-,1'e,,,,,,?,,,,1 .......) , p ., .... .,* ' C. i IS, . ) '.., . 1 3V1-.. .'•1.. $14, i Fit'ftg •4;t1 '•,!';,4 ;•,1'",•:-6 *. r i.., .., , -. ' .. >P' s 10 : ;',•.,,:i ,1; s -. 6 ) 4...1\ C•1 ' . '-- -- .- - .'> L ; i g : .... • i 4'4, ;1,4 /11 !- -, .K ,..• ..;;, -li - -, : ■,i' ''''. .,.i.i 4 ' 1''' > 4 1) z- ' 'Z' 0 i.)• 'v,•.‘" I;'".•,'/' .'',. -1'; „,!,••,•4' . , %•<•,,, , -,,= - % ,, . ..,,of t ,',•., ' !,i/Nt;, $t''•: ,t",,,,`i.1,-' --'7.4' ---' .' •-."-':.\ Of-I 4' s4;,-",.,•-! ,..',3, — . N.,, . z ® . cl,gg 138j,l, it. ‘,",""•'"•.' l 'iitPaVilC;;!+9 ''' -1 -. 7 ,s* -i Ot4; , ••••i ' 1 "s 3 E ,• ;, ••••••-E :1',.-' ' 1 4; 11 / 4 A/,1 f, ° •' "•• - - 6--4L.;146, 1i;- •,- - n ,•- ,...- : .• •. : *:11,g>06,1-1,'6t,, --,1 ,01 i ''' " 0 .r.' ,,,, 1_ ,..,, „.„-•.,,,, _.:, !,:i 1.1 , ° / „ -. . , ' . , ''dill•a !-, '1.'-"V.',r,:,, iT4 6 ,:' ,Is ,.., 2, . 4 t 4,1,B,' • --- . . :f.i g, ,411, 1,?,-_,!'if“4:-; ,-,..,i°4 i g°•'' •, ,- • 3i0),..,f,,-, xd4,4,,,-,,,4, i, , • , ;-1 46'; 1 -•'?' ' i itt6 • *.;. tl; i „.. ,.4/ ..ci ,...„."---\\'tst,\ * '-..i '' ? q ;01 •-•i. ,• ', -. . ri ; i t,,,-, 4i-,;.x 1,-1 •\st.,—....0-• ;' i (.• 2 45'.' ,/'1 *' ,--r 57 '.*\ . • .,,,-- . ,. „; , • 7 ,,, .::: ,,, 1, A' ..r • 1. ''C' r,- "Figri 'i,'iht.r:.)5 l'.;7315',145',5 ^ ' d-1 G • - "-1 • ; . -, I. , ./ „...„,„----- i 0 , 3 :::,:n' ii•- ,r ”' 7.4/4 k,'4/5 - , , -.,,, , --.S.'..:44._/.".r.._),..,!..-: -. - _,... ...:-..). •-•/...".•-_-__-__22).'",".........--s,.:.4' .--',....-"- ;" .•-., `-.1`1:() - - :,-- 2-,,,,,,"'''.'- ,. -; • - , - ----S E., ' t .,. , f-------7,--74-::---4-,.-------')`;,' •' 3 '`:' 3' 71 3 fi • ' r . I , , :"., ••••:,,'.; •..4:::::,:„S •,• ••,,,„ :-,,,. ',,, -,{.,', ''• t „ • /., ,•'' r ,, • 1:•,.•:-' ' ,"- 4 -'''''-1 i e k,•,., ,- .•,,,, , -. z -".-. - '.+- 1,1, ,'4 ;I -.••,3 ',,, -, 4?" . - tirl 1 I., - .• • P io 1,:s.: , s: ‘` • ‘,, -k,i, ,.4 5.,-,, ,.•:;:•,431 .,i 2 ,• k• f• ; , /,1: ;i t , ••• ,... ,,,,s; . ,,,■., 6;5i (ii 1 - ,,J ,; • ,' : 1,§ • . 3 ', A9,41 . !.,,,:: ,, •- ,•.,;,-• :i. “..' ? R, 7";.-;:•i? ‘r, , ' a I 1 s•k; • - l'-' - , ' • , .. ., !. .. , , . 41, / 4- , t . • i •4 g ta''i-V 4 ' _. ! ■,1, ?, t • • ; 144 qi ' s ''!:71tt[..''g .,1,1!•0.'ri rl, ;4'.? 4:11): " • , , '.., ri XA, I', R a '•:•..,,,..•`,1r„;',..,s,';_t%?,„!,'.', ,•.• °. .!!4'', ' 4 P i'*4':4'''Q '4N)ii'-' 4 & 7: -,,,-p.,,,7„..:••,:!'•.:i.,-0.,.' -4 iy.,•,41.. ---';'• *:•,. 'J : .#,...Nt--r ; , : . ;!;.4.'1'1 ',g .Z "-,? 1 's1', ko OF . - ' .1:,:.-V.i, rl, 11,,•,, it7 ! ..14'',24 ,„,•;' ' .• „... ... '4';' f ';'!,. ;",•s,„4 ,i'',-;., ',./.,;:-. .. .` ,''•i'3.4': ''' '9 > r'}:3 i ‘i'r•'''3 :Ct\ i!t ' ''' " -'-.--*..:',••'' '4; A.".:',":, ;-; •-•'•;' 1. .' .. :-•':) ,. ,1 . ,.'-- ,-■ ,,, •k, Al■Q.,,,... -:/, ■•4,2 ,!q , ,- Q -,, , ,,.• •r- ,,44 ,.—.,.,,, .: '..,. , . , —•••<, , .. — `.V. ' '' '. '' ',-j i Ji ,,,,',.. ., . - ,,,, . , , ,i. ,.',;:..-.. .'';',, 1, : '''' II. J` '' .,-.'' • :.-0 . q ' ' it ::, ' ser' f N . -',..',1s" -•, -''" ..;+` ,,' i4!Co''.:,Y, ' •,. : .'' 4 ' .1 g 1 I r•q t7;•7+ ! 1 1^-7,", !,I:: - ;•;".•. '7,., i. , •'• --, *,• ,:,,:: -,,. :•• •,:., ' t i f„›,", f■ I ,,,,%• •-•., r 4 dpi 1 ' ' -' '-'';'' }'•.. 1 '''.; “:' ':1:%',,,4 ""' ,I.- 41+ ; 1 -,';q- i •"1,' g\ ,..) R, i;;:;-' '; ,-..;; -'4"'' .---- '': :•-;,s,;,';',1 ,-; :4 :' f ' 1 i >,,,,..1 n'' i: ,L /‘ - • ,,,"., •..... .,.i ' ; 7 ;' ..4"-,,;1 ..!,,:' I !'.:.:,,,. ' / ' r,''! 1 1 ';'-'11 44 !"--- -',',' /.. - '/ • '''-- ' ''.. -,'' ; " - , -2.:: fill ; I , :•',;' ' ,,V.,'' ' ''-' 4,-.'s ,: ": ''.., :-.„;± i'. •.- I i 4 ?1 - "'-'•,'; I • - r 1 A .,, : , ^-,...-,, . tQ:;--1 , ....,y, .- I ir I A ri..-;'.. i ',.4 .04, Y• -1''''' ' sl• - - ) '43 i ••:,4 4 ', -',.• ,A v,- ; , 4‘.-".■ ' 1(r) 4 , - -- • • !, 1•4,x 4-. •••4• PS 4',,Y; %•:A:4!r-; jr' -,' i.,- ,-■ ,.- ,-.•,:' V ,rr,„•--,•:-.,:-..•-,-: ,e,--;-, ,, ,',•= .•;•,••••,.- , •• ' -• '••Ji•-•:-!.3 , !, i6e;4 , ;.-. .':;i: .., : -''6' r ri • .1,• Y"', 1, S. '"''' •-, f • i'• '" ',* •' • ',,,,, .- ..: . , • '••• ....",,,-'",•;•:-6 i':-!() -1.S.14 Is" - ''') c' -`; ' ' " r, ' , -''', '' '.- • ", ;-...: 5 ' . . ,., '' 1 t ......,„/ '•' A 1 7.0- . 0 1,4,H-4 :'', ,'., `i) )-*. 7: • -1: :i .^. ..,•!i • ••4'' ',:" :'•' : , :: '.• .',-, : : - : •'-'' .■ - ' •- . ,n, .!'','„i;. 1:';',1 ,; ,"'i 7.' ,. ,N 1 ,... ",'' ; . . . . • S . ",, '. ":. ■■ .••• . ; '''•'.. ' .' r' .' ' • i '' .- ' ' ''' . ;'• ; '•-• . • s'"S . 1 ; , 't "s --• '-'' < ? -`• --, ",•'• - ',, .' • . 4' As ' — • ' ,, ;4„, t • .,1• "'", , ±,r * ''..,' .P •-, '2 ,-; - , , ii ±, . ; , . ' I -"-: ` :1 t4 -'-, '1' • . ' :", ;.•i ,i ; ,-.-1 .1 ".4 ,. , " ': ,:; ,' :,-, -•, '4'±„.• t,' '..:',': ±.;" ": / '" '.'-' " ; ,..• •,'" ;) ".1 - „ : `, r ' s •- ' ' s " • - i,' ' ,,r , , ? . . , , ._ • ' 1 • MEMORAN DU M • 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 single- 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 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 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 formed (through PUD zuendment) let, to be referred to as Lot 14W. Lot 14E, the fathering lot, would be left with 1 .038 acres and a Single-family house. The new lot, Lot 14W, would be 0 .768 acres 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 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 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 main parking let. The applicant indicates that IL can accommodate 13 cars. The easement, addition of the area. to the plat ?i, .: review by the I ngri neer no 0obc:... invent ! Ci adY.,gucy size and access will be re. aired 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 community policy. " When the original PU L) was approved, the intended use for the Benedict House was to be a restaurant/club?ouse. The zoning placed on it was PJ - 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 proxi.r: ity to those uses p,Jrmitted included as conditional uses. " One-family dwellings are permitted uses and a recreation club is a conditional fuse. 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 a.-n character. Therefore, the rezoning to R-15 and POD 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 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 c i i. .; acted 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. PLANNING OFFICE RECOIINENDAT ION: The Planning Office recommends that unless proof of the existence of two dwelling units on Lot 14 (through the verification process ) and proof of the ability to use the liattalone property for replacement parking is provide, you table the application for that documentation. If the documents are available at this meeting, or if you feel the appli c 2t.i.oni can go for"ward to Council N,'i h fi na 1. action being he_Ul until . . ie (1-1 } steci iri_.- d„l on is p o . .<..), c:1-;... :1 I,c or al of thc. Y cii. n(2.7 2 27 Ci', i__. z L < 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 -. - - - s_ - -4 ed ' ar-d eeer ded fog the replacement parking solution h'Znust provide at least -eleven ( 11 )-- parking spaces, ,.. },, _ 2 _ • • ASPEN PITKIN REGIONAL B !LDINr 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 t offices: mail address: lie) East Hallam Street 506 ESE-It Main street n,.r:ai ✓ ...,a ; 6 '311 e �;..,BW..c .,��;;:�... ": .;.d1 .. �G:�..5'. r'1' .>€` .�_ ' "g ,e • • ECE OWE •t NOV 1 9 1984 GARFIELD I�IEGII�', P.C. GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE RONALD GARFIELD VIC i ORIAN SQUARE BUILDING ANDREW V. HECHT TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 "GARHEC" JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN 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, Inca/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 chang s in con .:.tions that h i.v . occurred arc 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, . By: • Andrew V. Hecht GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Attorney for RSG Development, Inc. AVH/mp ''‘,..i.4: , ', v i '';k. t ,,•,',1 ' 1 ..:%\ -c? ,, ,..,..., "(- ifi i . , . ,',.,:. . Nn ., .\,,8. .' ,,f.„ !... �n I \ / f y 1 ' , A\ ,(.' �—y; , / /1 . . .1____ _ /• , , . / ,, , \ \\ \,. , \.‘ \ 4._:, ' . "A , 4,1.- -- -, ., . 41 , \ \,. N /' ›).6 ''')16. '') IV ,::: L'. ' ��. 1 X0)467 . ,, , k b�' •:;:; f " \ . ' n � 1 ,• ' ' � ... - N.\..-.•.•. „Cy.-;-' , 'f.,.<'•/;•.:?,"....:-..:•._•1::..-1:\.,...LI:\'''''';':...-.:\..•\' 's‘.‘,.;\''',: :.:*-..:..1.:::::;:....::. '''''' \ G t0 I 1\ � �,, •i f A > +�` t / _; ; .• I>-„ -�� rf n r 1 a' • ` . .) . • ., \ \i .',.1.' / r. '-.' '' 5- is.:11.1.....-...:'.1.............).....1,: ,,,,.,.----\\,/ ''.\cc) ' ' / / I . / 0 ,_.i ;:fr ' ,, el. :I' . fX/ i, 4' \"('''''''''' \k,' '1,/ilt ,,,,,,,,, '' ' "J/. '*.'' MEMORANDUM - TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office //JJ FROM:- Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department c.:'1f- • BATE: 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 resoond to fi'�al 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 oarknc: exists at the present moment. Apparently the Aspen Club permission to increase their narking lot size for a special 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 - Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment/ Conditional Use Application March 20, 1984 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 lette: 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 F.�rt of Lot 14 has already been conveyed by Goldsamt to RSG Developmon!: 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 . I ; REcorded At 2:3_ .M May 19, 1976 Reception no • l b w_ il Julio Rana REcorder P t 1) 2 fr, , ,1 :4 i • SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT J ICALLAHAN SUBDIVISION i THIS AGREEMENT, made this /5' day of !`z�n._/ , D' 1976, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter i . sometimes called "City") , and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, E FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes collectively called "the owner") , and ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT or s I the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometimes called "the ( , • subdivider"). . I iJ Z T N E S S E T H { - WHEREAS, 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 1. of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. 10S, Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado, i i s designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat") ; and I i ! i WHEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area in the City zoned RR and R-15; and IWHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro- . ( 7 posed development and the improvement of 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 Iaccept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the owner j and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and 1 ! I subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the City of As_ �t_._�_s._ __. .... .._ .. _n c`:_:t a:... of • i laws, rules and zegulations as are a�pl:cab1e; and WHEREAS, the City has in?osed cor�3itic+,as•an3_.requirements in Connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for A 1 i . t: t r . eaoK312 tuclli . f 1 . 1 1 . recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary , tO protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and 1 k WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) of the 1 Nunicipal 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- 1 i went 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 3 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 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 homesite owners a non-exclusive easement for the recreational use of Lot I3-B so long as -- such lot- is not hereafter authorized for-improvement or 'commercial use by P.U:D. amendment or other appropriate . " ' gevernmc .tal approval and shall grant such easements as are necessary for the roads and utilities reflected on the Plat. 1 C. Lot .:o. 14 will be owncl in fee simple title by the i;ol.._n- .. . cC :_ . :.t_c:. con- trolled by or under common control with t'ie Holding -2- L ocoK 3.12 �E 13.2 . 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 oz 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-contain recreational—:acilities. E. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be-- e c_ veye'& in 4afee simple title to the purchasers of these ten home\ (\\, ' sites. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy % by two families; the other lots are for single-family - t - `----..__homes. - F. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family lot. G. Lots 12 and 12-A are cc_1c -.._;t. c:r.•signa'ed as a single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for Lot 12. ' i - - - - - - - - - 11-. _ Lot No. 16 -is-designated as an existing office building for such uses as have heretofore been approved by the City of Aspen. I. All roads as reflected en the Plat and the t ri :'..I. .. . ...,• • . . shall b� o�nc.. !-, t • • .. . r• ration control!. .. 1., - .. .. I ! 1 . 1 1 • -3- 1 7 ! . r •• eooK312 pAc:113 . . • . 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. E __ - Ownership of those lots is being retained by the owner. t 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 property 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 provide up to a maximum of e.65 cfs. of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter .set forth in Paragraph 8(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 the Holding Corporation or its or their assignees, shall make provision for supplying such water to Crystal Lake . • in order to insure its us_ for recreational activity. 2. Subject to the conditions contained in this' paragraph, the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construc- tion of al common improvements which include construction of roads, utilit ie , .I,, - . ,i: ), ink and paving if recuird ;•s subai•;i::"r (the recreational :- trail), as described in the agreement between Pitkin County and Benedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through the subdivision as .:!ice..' on the P: ... '. rental engineering plans. Also inolu,; d :.hill be street lighting /+..wYWY'....Y..'w+.r.'M'YWY'�.• ...-ItiYt...rJ..i...�..r..-�.►..S_ -_ __ _ W+�.i r. -- i'aeu4.+.:...�__rwr«....r...r�w... sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads and traffic signs to 1 r comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve- I vents 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 improvements agreed by the City Engineer to b be $ 271,000.00 , the subdivider shall guarantee through a I i conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment _from a financially responsible lender (irrevocable until the i 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- ; vents have not been installed according to the conditions contained . herein, then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining 4 work and improver...ants cc-Mete:: by such :.ez.ns and in such manner, by contract with or without ruHlic i.:7.ti ;, or otherwise, as it may deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the City out + of the fund: hc!d h. t.'. _. _ s:._,.._:icc_ for t 1 e the City's coats incurre in ccm.letir:; said work and improve- - i ments; provided, hm,:o-.-:-r, in no event shall the lender be obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate estimated sum for those i pr.:;vu.•,--.Ii.�, less those amounts previously paid ! and approved by the City, by reason of default of the subdivider • in the performance o` the terms, conditions, and covenants con- tained 1 this .•ar '. ?. -!!,.,-.-...-r,-, tp - City wav,-c i no right to f . . . • : . . • _red in ex- . i cerS o t' • _ as work, to be • por:cr .. . . ,• . . . • c. .._,.. .._,,i herein progress, f I 1 ' the subdivider m:i}• . t that t'•- of f irr of City Engineer I i sut:....t t. C II , work and improvements. i• t{ i. pe.--_. - -- -- 8COK 312 IAC i fk% i i . I 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 performed and improvements installed pursuant to the } terms of this Agreement, except that ten (10%) percent of the - i estimated cost shall be withheld by the lender until all pro- 1 4 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 j 1 i drawings for all improvements included in Paragraph 2 above. These 3 . i plans and specifications•shali be submitted to the City Engineer and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any e.,nst:uction ) i by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall also be responsible for pro- t i i t viding all r.ccesLar'j c7.c:r.eer?ng and/or surveying services in con- junction with the construction of said improvements. The City j Engineering p . . .. . . . . -,c•ti f -d _ _ Fri to the commencement of construction no ti:,;t ti: wcrk nay be inspected during construction. 3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit 'A" attached hereto ! 1 • and incorporated herein by this reference.) 4. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside.Ditch' for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a ru:•berized material to I prevent seepage onto Lots 8 and 9. If the subdivider finds that use c•f tee r•.:' . • _ . . . . '. .- .ti- - , a feasible altcrnati••c i lir.in.; , , .., _ . . ::11 use best efforts to fine .... • . . - 7. :. .? _ , .,:-7-,..-s, for hi ,clf and his successors 1 1 and es : - , t!..,t ! _ _ ^ .1 v• .._cular traffic to i . e...:e ' . _. . - _..._1111'.1ei, -6- t i I ...ia..,wu, - - -- .sa.�..r sv '..Irr44, -.ewes:.. •i ecoK 312 ;1,ct 116 • of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unle::s such vehicles 1 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 spaces 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 agrees to relocate at subdivider's expense a portion of the recreatien.a1 trail which will be moved to a location approximately as shown on the plat. Such relocation shall be done as follows: By June 15 of the year in which construction is to cc-'tens,- on Lots 13, l3A 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. No rotor vehicle of any kind shall .ever be allowed to use the trail , excepting only such vehicles as are absolutely necessary et the initial construction and subsequent 1_ maintenance and repair of t e -r-_-- - . 7. The sni:divi '- .. - . _ _ t`he a!r in _ the subdivision until at least six months _: _.t: all utilities are in place. • t • > 8. It is ac:,r ' w ; n:: eras : included within or adj_:. Crt to t:.c subelivid•. -i land have previously been used fcr eyrie... :,1 or as ," a•lo'd lands and have been irrigated by waters owned ty t ." ,owner and carried in the tellie Bird Ditch. The City of :pen h,:;:. :-.•blish.d a policy of acquisition of these water right- t ,1 - 1 -y annexed and subdivided lan ' - at the tire.^' ane.,-xat i.en and sel-divi sion approval, 3 when , . • • i d 3 water et , . . . water utiLitic::. 1 b. T•. i . purposol. r- r•r , - ..7_ 1 i • .. i1..G...,. .. _ y-1 i.cwf+iF,r.at4ira.4gei.YY-iL,u.w4" — ��y., F NK312041117 , C. 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 ragreed 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; adjudicated August 25, 1936) , which ore, it ' l' is , 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 !t become necessary to retain the lowest level of Crystal • Lake (as descriL_d in Paragraph 1L of this Agreement) the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of the water right necessary to maintain the lowest water level; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be Construed to require the City to supply ditches; rights •(a, a, of way, pumps, or other facilities necessary to Transfer water to Crystal Lake. ,- 2. That owner h.::r abv crants to the City of Aspen a right of first refusal on the balance of the water right described in s:ihparagraph (1) in the event , such *-- ter right is offered for sale independently of a sale of the lands irrigated by said right. To the ext,, ... __ it • . • r: f .T - to:.:s.al .. shall b• :<< • 1 c ; with said irritated 1 i f lands, and bin': :.• _. -;:.-. and / i 1 • i i ' L . . . i . . .0.......4.,.................. ...4. 464Affi. 0 ..,...0.4...,,, I ' r 1 eooK312 P;GE11 U a . F S . 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. . • 8.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority i right on Hunter Creel, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No. 90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, 1699; headgate trans- ( ferred to Huston Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575, records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Reocrder) hereinafter called E Hunter 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; / . i a. That Owner 'hexel1 grants to the City of Aspen a right of first ze`usa: on t' Hunter Creek water right in the event such right is offered fcr sale independently of a sale t of the l ar.�� s�: w�_ .. ri -ht: and to `-`' fi st refusal ha11 extent allow `: la: , t __ _ •- o= - be deemed a co enant on t`:e lands so irrigated, and bind the owner, his ` _irs, assigns, ar:3 successors in interest. b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith for the acquisition of this right to facilitate .the con- struction of a pack.?e filter phut on Hunter Creek. Ne- gotd _tior' w:ll b.: dcc-cd to be proceeding in good faith ° . said C . • (i) c:ur. ... r anc : 'lo: the Red♦`tauntain Road 1 his lands above Hunter Cz _c t i t -9- .c......::eaw ,...,.,...•. ...,.. - .s>..,m- ..rei.4...i.. 4ti:itx:..,ni.c:i:'a....w..,.:r:.....li[.."CS. .::S..... -•.,.ca►J.ceir...,ti.,.:W......�.... . ec0X312 1ACE j 1.9 r (on the Red Mountain side) , (ii) provision for the future irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider- , . ., . . • , . J _ 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 (i) 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 t to the contrary, the owner and the subdivier, in developing the I- 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 dies having jurisdiction. s1. The City agrees that since the townhouse-condominiums 40 designed do not exceed two and one-half stories in height, and • ' the tonal height of each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope be dfeated around each unit module allowing a maximum of two and Ent-half feet above elevation shown on the 'PUD building plans to . e•Commodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of iiTt Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between • buildings, bet- cen buildings.and tops of carports, as well as the 6eit utilization of existing terriin within the devel^r^rent zone. , 1 j Prior to application for the building permit, the permit applicant will submit 9 ground survey, showing final !",.'til ir.1 la -.aut :end flc;cr elevations, 1 i . noting any variations in the contour. i i ., .* *.....,. ........... .- .+�.«..,,. .,..,,.�. a ........ .., ...,... ..-.., R .« .. .. '. . ,Ir I • 8001(312 rAcE120 i . 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 t` facilities and the clubhouse of the.Callahan Subdivision upon .. `E the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The expenses of F the acquisition, maintenance and operation of such vehicles shall , t be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by t - E the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or 6 any other available means which shall be adequate. • The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a f number sufficient to serve thy need therefor based upon year around operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation I . • facilities and downtown Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles shall not number less than one. The term of this service 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 e this Agreement are fulfilled by other public or private means. • 3. Until the expiration of five years from the date hereof. 14. Limon execution'Of this Agreement by the parties hereto and provided all other ceeditien'e as hsrcin contained have been met by the owner And the Sat- ivi.!c:r, the City agrees to execute i the Plat of the Callahan Subdivision and 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 eOOK312 'ACC/21 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 development 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 subdivider 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 1., improvements shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto • and incorporated herein by this reference. 19. At such time as ar..: to the extent Goldsamt has assigned any of his rig: is here_nd_. or un.dsr any agree er.t with o•'ry r— and such-assignee has asst:-ed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall t ' have no fur . orlcL-_.__ c_..- r.`1-_,_tion. , I F ` ^.et ::a.e hereunto se.: tti•: it hinds nls t!le day a-- year _first ar.ovu written. •A,TT, ES CITY O°�.�BP°`J, a�fflorado Munici'Yal-Corp: iticn 1a,• ..%J . ` y�•rI /Z...$-" g �`--�-_ .� �--mot•��/ •. City. Cly:x — /aJcr �� ✓✓✓/// • ATTEST: _ " BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE LE COMPANY, Owner 1 E . 4 :..,. " r:....., ... , i:w::'•r # 1 i 'e,,:,....*.*******' . .- RJticrt Gr,5171-sant, SuL ivider • i 6 • 7 . . • . • . • • • . . - . . • ! • • • . t • . tooK312 f•a122 ' • STATE OF COLORADO ) • • ) Es. • . ''. • County of Pitkin ) . • . - , - • • . , - . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this • yer:Iday of g/1 ;/, .... , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor of the City of Aspen, 4 Colorado municipal corporation. • -.......- Witness my hand and official seal. . . . • - Jr// , My commission expires: " 4 . : \.....,.......' _ IfirCornrnission expk es January 24, 1973 ..- 7/ ... . - _ r 7 :....: _,,, 6,• . _ . .:-.4:,...■ • - ... • s iiii. -A. "^\,-. • --R-0—eat------y -----______ . • Public • * . - . • .: • . - . • • • :-STATE OF COLORADO ) • . - County of Pitkin ) i"tifAY 4.)1141,24.4.P.- Zir tlice 71. .7)4 i - . • . - • . " /1 The foregoing instrument was a knowledged before me this ! : . ' %., day of (.--:/ /.!.... , 1976, by Frcdrie-A7-Bened-i-etT-Preel-- 1 • ,.., of Benedict Lan4 E, Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation. . . •-',7 . _ . ::- • •. Witness my had and official seal. ..-- - 1 My commission expires: . • - lic".41-y.Cornmislcri mires • 1::.-,.4, ,,•.. •-•.•.•;.• - J a . r 24 . 73 • • , -. _i//T.y,•„...- 1•.---L z 7c"-;-Z:47----,--,,-.•,)---- - - :• I . . • Public ••••. -%%• % pu-.., . - . . ..... •s;.--.......• . . .• . -:--• : .• %......4,-. • • ..);// . . - • , . • . - • . • . • - STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. .1:1.7//c.,;6 .2 f Al/6 7 i'V. hai,,v; zii,f. . - County of Pitkin ) • - - • • . . . • • . • . . , , . • - • - :. : . . --- •-t...;•7: -L: .: • • • . The foregoing in.strumnnt wa acknowledged before me this . , day of ; ,',./ ' • , 1976, b Fredric A. Benedict and kabienne BeneLict' 4 . . . . . . • , - ,-.- - • . Witness my hand and official seal. my commission expires: . . --,.. ° ......";f4•Co.r.--,...i.ss.o' n enires ;a;-;;:ary 24, 1973 ',/, ■L.( 42-/ -'1) . • .. . . •:. . . -- Votary _ _ : ..-•- ikr: 6"-Oi••••• Public - : ‘' . • i*: -: -• •' • • I .,.• .• ' . .1 1 t. 4.1.• ' :, '•. • 1 I -. .A-•. • 1.4.;'••• • . 1 i • 1 ' • -1 ?--- ° i • L I . . . ' 5 • - ; - I �'• tooK312 ■∎ACE 123 i . STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss.County of l'itkin ) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me • this 13 day of A_..ril',•'`-976, by dr-, w_V. Hecht;Attorney- °' i3s-Pact-for- Robert S. Goldsant. . as . Witness my hand and official seal. ,.. - .........,, • •Hy Commissicn.exgires: - - _Ny Cornssmn uw es N r.14. 1,3;..,-'...' , � , _ .11'� �1 .i ( j • f-Q t . I P pfl Jam';• --.`::: .• r 6 Notary ?ubl;c . ... . ,�1/4.1.1:::•1,,, • • . • . • - • • rl�_ • n'".."."...".."..."""7.'"*".�,� C, e...,YuJ. r°,. ''n i 1 if ... • U Cr, N U N 4 N • • • • 43 4, 44 4/ M N M 144 O) • • • • •+ a a a Cr • m u o o o m .4 f. N O O O a b i6 CO h O 4O O 4) a O. O. M o1 O O h o N 40 Is CO N N N h VI OI all O G U+ 0 ••t 0.44 w 4.0 o W •+ . O •4 N • • • y I 41 41 wt g w •1• • 10 m m 0o . v 1 'o .- d :•I.-1 0 0 +- v VIU34 M O Lit) 411 C. - G0 r C/ •S .-I o.+i 0 \o OG k. .m e NI--b In v + • w W W Z 0 a a a A C I st O• O O O • 4 N O v ‘O O O O ►t a.;s of O. N CI E. ►t Z 1 • • • 1 14 E.* w w 6.1 V L7' /-•1 _1. ! c.•.)l c . n • u1 C= 0 t G i .. q' b { O 0 •t 6 . • c..[: •• -4 L.:.. V N oD ••I N Q' Sc • • N a C. ..MI W • In' r a •• Cr 1' ... O ^_ IN 0 .. a 4 . a).-4 o 0 t Co O .e .. C' a • .4 V 1 ♦. w " 1 E: w n ▪ u a 1' U U tT • a) C .. • . 1, - x•.• >: C1 - U C O 7 u r) U w ►, ..:4 I. N.4 1...Q N. s.) 14 C, C. O. 0 0. O• .O U 4 0 • • :• ..w :: z it : O fl.4.1 O 0.w p. w 4 O w •co •C O • -, t:.2u t.i.etle 4` ,.1 �: ,y_ar_ -..'9..�GG. ,w,f��rw�ti.: �.y,= '".v'r.' •,ye l' ' . 83oK312 r;CE12s t EXHIBIT "B" BEVELOPm7NT SCHEDULE - CALLAH\N SUBDIVISION A. Condominiums. Subdivider will commence the construction r_ Of condominium units contained on the Plat in the 1976 or 1977 ' ;.t. construction season, with the completion of such units contemplated . in 1977 or 1978. B. Clubhouse situated on Lot 14. Construction of any improve- Lents to the existing structure and any alterations thereto shall be completed by December 31, 1979. C. Recreational facilities contained on Lot 15. The facilities . situated on this Lot shall be constructed by December 31, 1979. D. Rods and Utilities. Subdivider will commence construction i. of all roads and utilities provided for on the Plat prior to commencing the construction of any other facilities or sale of any single family or duplex lots provided for on the Plat. • • B. Subdivider shall have the right to construct, by staging, any portion of any an of 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- b` provements until all roads and utilities servicing those improve- rents shall have been completed. Construction of utilities and roads to all lots except lots 15 and 16, must be completed . before a certificate of occupancy will issue fur any improve- i. • . Lents thereon. The certificate of o7cuc•, for the improve- t rents on Lot 15 r.h,'ll in r^ .1.: F..' trod to the certificate of occupant" for any other imrrovements. further, subdivider shall complete all landscaping sho•4n on the Plat by December 31, 1978. C. Subdivider will be deemed to have complied with the previsions of the Plat for irpr"v'ener.ts on Lot 15, if such ir+proveae' S . . , . • ..- '' ' ' . ' C.eLiat..4. .^..U. •44.1,11.'irelr.. .iiiirCi;e.i.:-.',Z.....':14-4.'Wjdlilloe...-.6 ne...:'-.... ' '.. —....--. 1 I •gP tom. ala rAcE127 I • • a . .. . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . -:•:- . . . , " .,• . ,. . ',• igligiali'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 times 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 provided 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 subdivider for the construction . . of any such improvement or for damages for failure to construct any of them. - I. To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement, -. the provisions of this Exhibit B shall prevail. . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . .. . . . . . . . .-- . . . , . . . • , -- "?..,,,...,- .....,...,::...". . - - . . . . , .... . . . • -,- . , . . . . , i . .. , •,.. F""414""e""."4.416"--• ' � W a, emK312 FACE i 5 n a n V • iC N L ai a1 41 114w IN w • • • • a Cr a a . WI to 0 0 rl N O CO to •- ni N o 10 dr • 0 .,N in in • .4 x w w in a a • a, ..e .r, • - o a • aw ._ cr I o 0 0 v�c �+ y o, n a _ L: N N r ..3:‘,.'.;,'. _ . • E•A % O a . O ■ 0 N • H 4, a a° a a • o w ,o ►t w o.._,-, ,) cl 1 c ; c. P.4, .0 in .• • '.7.) • f H v y.\ l L. to ax • x a ay a.. a-A . 10.1 41. •C a o 4 a , t ( 1 ! .- somata PACE127 L . . . . . , ▪ 442111°"-do not exceed the footprint or vertical elevations contained on . . --. such Plat for such improvements. -... D. The only sanction for failure to construct any portion of -- any of the improvements on the Plat within the times provided for I , their construction hereunder shall be withdrawal of approval by the City for those improvements not, so constructed and shall in no way I 1 affect the validity of the approval for those improvements constructed 1 . within the times provided 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 subdivider for the construction of any such improvement or for damages for failure to construct any of them. • • , •. I. To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of 1 . • this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement, .• the provisions of this Exhibit B shall prevail. .. , . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ., - - . - 7-C:-- - ' !- . _ ., .," .. , . ,... . , .. . . . -,. . , . - i • /, . • • 1 I i -2- I w,tls..1/sctac':..ct..,....i,,.•.. p ► ., ..... -.. ....r.•.•• .t.r..e..-_:t l:•.i0' i7-.... . ex440 Fit:445 l A ,.._ A,<. . P1-"1, or ..the mile of r _ rl, for the t..nefit .. . of said Portion of Lot 14 or jointly u.: t ;e :.=--n:e:,t o1 s Portion of Lot 14 and other properties on the Subdivision, i and subject to such easements, restrictions, covenants and i I address conditions as may be reflected on such Plat, Amended Plat, eby assigns, nt'), 1 oz on any other document of record or nthervise affect:.ng ,velopme �• crystal said Portion of Lot 14. I z t ssigns, as - 6 9. A transferable non-exclusive irrevocable right arding to, kw I i and easement to tap into and drain service from and.use eater. al approved sever, electric, gas, cable television, telephone and other in Book 5, r der of Pitkin utilities and all ditches and conduits and similar facilities `'', 0- on the Subdivision, with the right to grant lesser rights ded Plat ys, thereto, for the purpose of serving and maintaining Lot 15 197 1977, in Book 6, i and said Portion of Lot 14 of the Subdivision and any ✓ of Pitkin improvements thereon. r ��. - 4. The Property granted hereunder is subject to i e simple title the lien of United Bank of Denver, N.A. + ty utility line , ,�„_,,,h S. This Bargain and Sale Deed is effective conditions as November —, 1982. otherwise of • ty for the benefit r ed,4 bert S. Goldsamt ha Sion, and subject i • - conditions as 1 on any other i STATE OF COLORADO ) : es.t it Lot 15. • - ) COUNTY 0! PITRIN ) • Lot It on ? The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn the easterly , before me this Sl- day of November , 1982, by Robert S. t uimately . Goldsamt. t :k River as the A :h Portion of , WITNESS my hand and official seal. i`' the meets and . w'' My commission expires:'JML� 0.0,147 7 t ' ' re simple title, r , • Zt,f' _ easements, 'zit;��.e o-> • - Notary bl c • 4;• a on such PUGS ouos- t.Asr�, , - •'r of . r N ! ^. :a . P t s • �► Co : 1 °= c° Vi �3. i C f. a :3. as • fmmmmli • ), ,•+'•_ .+�.si•M Vq+*"m".. .,+.+.w....:w•.,p.?..- .,�m..••..+.,.,...•..,,+.www,r...+nw+.n..m.+!".....snw..n..sa..,•,.-,..» ...�e.+.r_:-.,_....�-..,.....� ....._ 1 ., iiirdlOsk, i .. . bi bet eo obc ..: n < en ..`�f. N �b- it:c.:' , el ? '' ..Afi nd gone uo paloet;ez w des se suoi;Tpuoo put suoT3tnzsesz coo. ^JVld‘‘'a:. 'slues-ages II. put 'dtwg3vd uvTzlsepad ns 41Tw zsg3a6o3 Vl�r. 'st3T3 •tdsTs ss; uT 'uoezeyl Pe1en3Ts slusssnozdIT put spunoq 0O3 dM put sleas sgi ;o dsnzns • dq pe3uaptne zsy3zn; so o3 ►T 407 TSg)4LI16 1 t 3O uo;3zod yaps •3*Td P0PueWY Pue 3eid $43 uo uwogs sT sees s43 et sooTH x20,1 bufzeoll e43 of Y►t ;o'I 0bz; 43nos put g3zou rtspiM I Zte3v1Txosddv sunz yoigs Atsgled ueiz;saped sq; ;o slips );sq o3 dtza;ete e41 Jo ;sea dis.esixozdd, sT goiy'+ uoisisipgnS $4; to ►t ;o'Y Eo (.uoffzod. $43) uoizzod ;vu, 'Z ' 'ST 3o'I pies 6u;3oe;;e eSTnsa43o so pzooes ;0 3ussnoo9 ) Ili= zs430 hut uo 30 'lwad POPu y '3eid gons uo pa;oei;sz eq Ate # It sUOTlTpuoo put s3uvuanoa 'suoffoTz;sez 's3uesasta gong 03 1 9 ;os(gns pug 'uoTaTATpgns 043 uo seffzedozd zs4 '1 3o put 30 y o ons ; f f w 5 ZT;ausq s'41 zo; AIluioc zo ST zoq pies ;o ZT;sueq ay, zo; 'pzoosz ' rgesnoN ;o •siwzay3o zo '41114 pepu00K ';tTd flans uo pe;3et;ez eq des ` t ) se suof3Tpuoa put suoT3tnzesaz •s3uasasta itt put (3Tnpuoo so tJ. , r $ s DTI e4; c ' euyi d;TTT3n due ;daaxa)uoazegz s;ue•vanozdwT tie 43Tn zs43s603 st3T3 stdwis ea; uT uoisTsTpgnS sq; uo ST 30'I 'T f861 IT 833 t iL=MO 7012 sopezoto3 •Azuno3 esosd� uivz id ;o zepzoosu put vie/3 $43 ;o spzooaz sq; ;o '92 s6ed Bra Tts pu' ` O o3usq; g ; �,.. '9 I(owH uT 'LL6t 'Li 3subms uo pepzoosz ;oeza43 (.4eid PePu.sy.) eq3 0o f 3vtd pepuasy panosddt iti3T;Eo eq.; pus •optzoio3 •d;unoo T3TTT30 1 # uT(3Td Eo zepzooay put (1CTJ 043 ;o spzoosz s43 ;0 02-L ss6ed .14...7-51c) 'sswas j 'S wog uT 89L6T '6T dew uo papzoosz ;oszsg3 (.ietd.) ;etd . 4 f psnosdde itToTEE0 043 uT pag1zasep AtltinoT3ztd *zoo ow put 13=,-n rte put ' T '(. T i TPq i i Tpgts 04 ti c' .' 03 bu pzooae vo s n nS.) uo s n u v gO ey3 01 .� '=. se 'subissv put ■zossaaane s;T 'optzoio3 'ued.y 'pto(I $ t1 AP-a Od PT.. [ T.;sXIJ OS►T Eo ssazpps u0 6uinty 'uo13esodsoa OptsotO3 • T ;t-. e uo 10 '(.1u3wdoTana0„) ''ANT 'SN:Wdo13A3O 05N 01 sdanuoa put s3uvz6 •• ti Cptl4J 'suSts._ .G;:.xy frz.'I. .n:•. 'xi,::{ n;h q. > aaeld uc'lins 3S Is • put est.opt ut 43T'+ (.letSPIoJ.) 'SWYSOIO9 'S 1S380.1 P-1 0014106 r Five Jo 0330 3'Ivs ONY NIY9HYH • "O Y '41,14 ' i i •- v.". ..l.C.ALAMOMMT•TPrZINIIIIIIK4111........... • - ....; ..• .....1 ••• ■gft 4111(.11• ... •.• • : Vr1 : i This is an application submitted 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 G 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. (Al ? 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: 1 . Plat for Callahan Subdivision showing Gordon property. 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. By Garfield & Hecht, P.C. , its attorney, by And ew V. Hecht Sheldon Gordon by 'Stan 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 43) , one (1i) 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 (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 net 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 - 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. ; 2 . T - resul ' . • - -a available is 165 ,322 square feet not including the land under the water of the Roarin. 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 - 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 - 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 with the response time less than eight (8) minutes. Retail and service 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 - 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 - 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 compatible 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. - 11 - 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 - 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 m:Imement. 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 proposed 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. 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 Anr•ni,ni- I February 29, 1984 { City/County Planning Office .om Kathy Brewer/Legal Department We are unable to reference the attached by [� +` Q 1n ti 4 name alone. Please furnish us with the S = property address. ti .._ N co OFF ICI' Thank you. h 1 ; • 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. • Arthur Glick 1033 Maybrook Dr, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 C." 149".` 444 Vairv■N. cArt4e4tir • • • - — AlimmEN. COLORADO 61611 - - , - - _ • - , - - i 16EN PO# 4mr.sto 0 1 iv illotori AiDe 4N v ley , nd Yvonne Vaughn Silver 4Shkilie ki Olor. r • Frank Out-er -1 lik 2, ci? ,t,..t.,9 Crestmoor Road klf15 N;Reale, TN au. :1.9 1 12.7 3'iN 1 OUT :1.9 :I.A127 341N J. CI 2/2.7/EN RETUFZN TO SENDE:R NOT DELIVEEZ AEI..E AS ADDRESSED UNABLE: TO FORWARD _ . 81811 . .. . – - • Arthur Glick c/o Ardee 857 S. San Pedro St. Los Angeles, CA 90014 r. . . . i I I f i I h i 111! ,li!1 if 1 1111111 ,,L:; ::. ^.1 A 5...;■;::,', A ASPEN COLORADO 81 611 . k i E '•. 't;. ,: - __— ..._ ;1 Herbert T. Goodman 4 c/o The Kissell Company yisi c , 30 Warder Street Q.Springfield, OH 45501 ' . - /C.". 3E 144 (;OLORA 00 818 1 11 . ,./(.5-p E fV:NC\ , ,.....,_............._ _______ ,„, / ''' FF24 ';`2\ ;-r ,--Th------ j :". ' ,..717_ ,,........_.--.77-7."■•,„,, ,........,.... TE ro, 1.!7 •:',:.''. ‘. '................_ --....-....:.•-■,............... 'P ","-`... .--., ; -.''•••:!...,....................„....... c..2j is *0 I l l l 1 td1::1:!(41:::1 1)1 r:::Y::;!:;E I) . -, , -........_7.7/ I 1 1 „.-' RSG Devel"O•pment, Inc. ,-/ Pao._ Robert- S. Goldsmat "4-?.. r4 c/o/Andrew Hecht 114,J° P/O. Box 8237 //A/S pen CO 81611 0/41°1 q4 1 6 - .,, w1 i _ : p ut. A-k..Ast_vvd , -co\---a-Trop.1-0\J e vv\32-vd ro Acco /2-4-11/1 Lo-- -. i2sLOa� f tank 1 L-6* a ( csx_ )4c,ca_ Ecks.,9 vv1/4_,Q_Aj --0 G.° rd 0-ir\ . 4 n.:,(± i CoS0a-Ack4-1 :kdiv sIrn {cud kot� S�.4� o� lL-of. A� V-r-o-, P. k -k k_ 1 . -_ 41ki ,y,e0A,„____ - _ - - -&-- . . --. :. f,_ ,, ,r, ( ,- - , , , . . . . \\ kj , ,,-, s .-- je-5 - . , ,,,,. . „ ' x, c \ . „„(0!-- . c._,-,_,7 --:„ - ' \ c ` \siv - 'pl-% ‘ -v--x-7'>Acti/ x0 • : :' \-i - A ' 49 ` .-6 , Is\ `'\'- . )‘ \ z5 ,c?\- \( ,\ -Nr - _ _ _ - 1, • \\ - _ 6"\ . _ _ ' - - � __.- _- _- ~ �� . '' / , _ x � ^. ` -~/ ` \ . ' ' / ' 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 th, spen Club o expand by adding 1200 square feet of enclos'd restauraxt seating area over the existing deck. While e memorai 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.D. Amendment PAGE TWO Council Action "I move to approve . . . (follow language of P & Z approval) . " "I move to deny. . . " . . -- , „ - ' , . -tf:. - - - 0, _ ..... * '- ., ' . f-," • ' -1,,--,--.. -...-;,-7.---..t...._......-',,f--__ - ..._ — -- — 7,7 ---- --—_:.--_-__--- __•-■;..- R 1 • ...t g () . E- 1 ..t 1 „, 0 .',', _ _ ___ _ ____ . . -.--- ..,_,- .,......„--,,,,.,--— --- . '',...._i . . _________ "*.- ' 4.• .1 ;.- ,..i.i :. ri. PI . 0 ' ■, . ' t - 1 . --I k .3. i a. . i . -,. 61 , -7,--:-_...7,t1 ,,w,,,,--,..,,-,t,,--,,,, 3-2,: ' - 1.'■ .. ,, ,.. i• ..- a, „ -, .. P;,, , , ,i • „..... ..1 -■•.' V- - --- N' '''-' VI • •:■ --- -i .,.‘71— 1:4 ,---.7.,,, N -_)_ t - I ',j : •, . • , r f ? ,0 1 ALL i i 1 'ONI - • N-s., . . -- '...,.• •., - __) r , .7-.7. ,,, • ■%-i -1 ,,,., .._ . , - ., •I tit; 4.- .-: ,T . -1 - 1 ;. .. ...". • .i,„. ,t• . . , .. .. ,, f • . . , - •, . __ • . . . . ... - , -•,- . . .„ . • , . . . . , . ,. . . c ..._ . . r. ": •• • . •, , • . . , . , . _. , • . . • . . . . . . , ' . • • . . . . . . .. . . . • V • Q I f ,n E{ I - -Wiz.. .., j -, _� ._ sh • s I (1 �, i-4-‘, \j - R '.r T C ,. " T 7.1 H R - } i'f:l _.. _. ra.. i .-'.', ii ,,3 V 1 C !j\t 7' 1 ff1' 1_ t • GARFIELD & IIIECkIT9 P.C. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 KATHERINE HENDRICKS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. "GARHEC" June 29 , 1983 •ter � , �� V - Ms. Colette Penne r Planning and Zoning � " � U" 2 1,,33 } City of Aspen ASPEN / • 130 S. Galena St. ,, Ott, J,2 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Club Parking Dear Colette: 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. S - i �i . i i L_ r 1 F Y R „) . 1 _J o ` I a k { 1 ,......_J GARFWLD & HECHT, PC. V ' � `�' � Ms . Colette Penne JUL 13 1 33 '' --Planning and Zoning `� -- -_ `.. June 29 , 1983 ASPEN / F'i i!'.. CO. Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Andrew V. Hecht AVH/mlc cc: T. Richard Butera APP - IV D BY P eNNING DEPARTMENT Jr � " ,v,awam ua-1 -�c,r Ce b,�1 f�1 s ' ,t i eue -}tom �v i'� �cin✓1�.s VDU � ' ' D,,-�-v-�vr►S --��1✓Vk�IMON�' ua✓� I of ih owl (`Ar arm-id) rnc16 1 ; : 041 -u^c Sa',6„o i c v hekc, a Pi- CJ i>rb 1r +It> O,. wry } fob` mrt -fie la},,,,,,.r 1-- or' S L-t� �}�� stia'1 I�u�vti�sc�ecs � I '� �,t� J.S c� eerrvl.Ligewt G ex,+-' "4 �6 CL.) � $� t eke rw i.s . P42_, curVor- ccre ,1 shah( Nit" copewc cit) ar e,p,ts-t-;+vi-e a vsaiue ( rn ®pf� sSWl -co-r- �- �D� arm C,,ccaw►u,� --1-:)(1)91 dueli+/ 1 140 ctreglAS • iS (mo w -6}�►��F, "C et) 1vw-e I" 3cb � � G riti'""` L SP41,41e1 P1491-534t ( 44'.114.a11- � ,so eeiLL, / 'r cc6or�l1 aG - 2), s t sow t� ewer Li - Po pilos pa L Softie aS -Pow- l,zti cy,d✓mss o-. t e5 <_144.4/ oTicind n P OM 7",2k : TPas TPToz j Jo puP pupa Am SSLIfuLIM / L (/, a/ly = sT ssa.zppv AW : saizuxa UOTSSTUJWOD AW • paogng NoTU Aq Ebb' ' �� ,o 2iPp sTuq. om a.zo]aq pabpa1Mour{op SPM buTaba.zof oq ( UINuId tO ASiZROJ • ss ( UQVa0'ZGD ,iu iLv s cm-ED uadsv aqs .io; P,ro ng -[oTQ 4 = ' g;:I a tAr 1 PC-144351/1 (Irk 1 irveNteikR3rirran1) vr-x7 s ` f � Try --1-71,a, ?no -s idAtro/.)2114(re "111-1--> 11+Nr) Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 1975 Mayor Standley called the special muting to order at 7:08 p.m. with Councilmembers . Johnston, Parry, Pedersen, City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney Stuller present. 1 HIGH SCHOOL HOMECOMING BONFIRE High School Homecoming Mayor Standley told Council this was a request from the High School to have their Bonfire• fl bonfire on the Rio Grande Property. Mayor Standley had Chief of Police Hershey and Sanitarian Bob Nelson check it out in terms of the proper place to have this bonfire. Hershey and Nelson agreed it was. , Mayor Standley told Council he had talked to John Ranyan of the High School and reminded j; him that last year's homecoming class did not clean up very well after the bonfirem. 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 19, for the bonfire; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. CALAHAN - Conceptual Subdivision Review Calahan - 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 that is not a permitted use in the R-15 zone; however, it would be permitted in RR. Kane said the planning office would support • 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 narrow 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 existensc 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. j 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 terra "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. ;i 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 i involved in this site; Kane stated he did not have a problem with zoning the site RR. 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 he prepared as well. • • Special Meeting • Aspen City Council September 11, 1975 Councilman Parry said he envisioned this as a really nice club and facility, nice dining Calahan rooms; not as a YMCA camp. The Council was having trouble determining which facility conceptual they wanted. subdivision • 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 be like typical country clubs where there is a lot of social activity. Andy Hecht ji told Council that maybe when this project comes in for a liquor license, the Council • ii 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. fl 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 tt 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, 11 meeting rooms and locker facilities." City Attorney Stuller pointed out that definition has a totally different tone that a leisurely luxury club. • I'. 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 li 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 . fl 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 Ii 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. ii 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 j their own locker for liquor. Hecht 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 r 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, 1.0 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. i, 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. i Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk Regular. Meeting Aspen City Council September 22, 1975 Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 5:69 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt, Johnston, Parry, Wishart, City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney Stuller present. • II MINUTES 11 Councilman Wishart moved to approve the minutes of August 25 and September 8, 1975, ii Council meetings; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Pedersen came into Council Chambers. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE js 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 bou9hit out of sixth penny and the improvements were under sixth penny. All in favor, motion carried. OO`:i_ Regular Meeting Aspen City Council - - October 14,- 19-75 ORDINANCE #61 (Series of 1975) e. 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; I' Johnston, aye; Pedersen, aye; Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion 'I carried. ORDINANCE # 62, SERIES OF 1975 - Rezoning Enclaves I! — _ Ord. 62 I; Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley Rezoning closed the public hearing. Enclaves Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #62, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE f62 (Series of 1975) II 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 Rezoning Aspen View Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Ord. 63,1975 Rezoning Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #63, Series of 1975; seconded by Aspenview Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #63 (Series of 1975) -p AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT OF LAND CONTAINING .1126 ACRES WHICH IS I THE SITE OF ASPEN VIEW CONDOMINIUMS AND ZONING SAID PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL ll MULTI-FAMILY was read by the city clerk. ;I 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. CALAHAN SUBDIVISION - Outline Development Plan Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Callahan Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this was basically the same as approving the Subdivision conceptual subdivision. Conceptual approval and outline development plan are usually ODP 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; Ord.64,1975 seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Benedict - Annexation ORDINANCE #64 (Series of 1975) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TWO PARCELS OF LAND LYING EAST 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 V ACT was read by the city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #64, Series of 1975, 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. j CITY MANAGER !{1 1. Forest Service. City Manager Mahoney asked Council for a. mandate to pursue the • U.S. Forest ' Forest Service review to the Washington D.C. level. Mahoney told Council that the Service - City has been objecting to the Forest Service decision, and unless the Council objected, review the City administration will continuo on with the same objections. ,- 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, I!I 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 PUD ! architectural review was inserted at the request of some Councilmembers. revision 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 brand 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. iORDINANCE #94, SERIES OF 1975 - Amendments to the Subdivision Dedication Requirements Ord. 94 ( City Attorney Stuller suggested that Council table this ordinace because it is not Subdivision F! critical at this time. Dedication '!, Councilman Behrendt moved to table Ordinance #94, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilman requirements 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 Ii Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. Revenues in ORDINANCE #95 (Series of 1975) Special • Improvement ' districts AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING EXCESS REVENUES IN THREE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT li DISTRICT FUNDS TOTALLY $190,793; TRANSFERRING THESE EXCESS FUNDS TO II THE 1975 GENERAL FUND AS AN UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF THE SAME was read II by the deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #95, Series of 1975, on first reading; i! seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. jIORDINANCE #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. Ord. 96 ORDINANCE #96 Callahan (Series of 1975) rezoning AN ORDINANCE ZONING THREE(3) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST END OF ji 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; jseconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor. Standley, aye. Motion carried. ji (ORDINANCES #97 through #103, SERIES OF 1975 - Appropriation Ordinances Appropria- Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinances 097, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, and 103, r di Series of 1975; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ordinances ORDINANCE #97 (Series of 1975) r S AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING (WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND) INTEREST AND RENT • INCOME UNANTICIPATED BUSINESS LICENSE AND CIGARETTE TAX REVENUES Ord. 97 LOAN PROCEEDS AND RECREATION ACTIVITY REVENUES; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS General �i FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, FINANCE, RECREATION, fund j', PLANNING, BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND STREET DEPARTMENTS; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT THEREOF was read by the deputy city clerk • li ORDINANCE #98 (Series of 1975) • AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SERIES OF TRANSFERS OF EXCESS MONIES AND Or 98 APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE CITY'S DEBT SERVICE FUNDS; SPECIFICALLY Debt Service THE SEVENTH PENNY SALES TAX FUND, THE SIXTH PENNY SALES TAX FUND, THE 1972 SALES TAX REtUNDING ACQUISITION FUND AND THE 1970 PUBLIC PURPOSE funds BONDED DEBT FUND; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT was read by the deputy city clerk. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 12, 1976 ORDINANCE #96, SERIES OF 1975 Callahan Rezoning • R I; Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. • IV Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #96, Series of 1975; seconded by Council.- woman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Ord.96, I ORDINANCE #96 , Rezoning (Series of 1975) Callahan AN ORDINANCE ZONING THREE (3) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST END I OF ASPEN AND WITHIN THE PROPOSED CALLAHAN SUBDIVIION, TWO PARCELS I HAVING BEEN RECENTLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY; ZONING PARCEL 1 (CONTAINING • I APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES) RURAL RESIDENTIAL; ZONING PARCEL 2 (CON- I TAINING APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES) R-15 (RESIDENTIAL) ; AND REZONING PARCEL 3 (CONTAINING SIX ACRES) FROM R-15 TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL was I read by the city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #96, Series of 1975, on second reading; I seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; De Gregorio, • aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. 1 Motion carried. ' CITY MANAGER fl 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 Aspen memoranda he would recommend that Armstrong negotiate a new lease with the Aspen Athletic Athletic Club for the Lift #1 building. Mahoney reported that part of the lease was Club that the Rugby Club keep up the repair of the building; in the past they have had some lease 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 jij 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 I. 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 IIthere 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 1 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 Aspen j! Institute's desires. Mahoney had submitted a memorandum to Council simplifying this Institute to a 90 acre purchase for a certain amount of money. Mahoney said he needed some property jl type of resolution to state what direction Council wants to take now. Ij 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 1 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. j; 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. I 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 municipalitieE • and corporations that bay wholesale power from Public Service. The City is required to file an answer with the Federal Power Commission in opposition. Mahoney told Council Public : it was agreed by those attending that to pursue this independently would be a duplication • Service of effort. It was decided to appoint one attorney to represent the group. Pueblo and Rate Greeley use about 2/3 of the energy of this group so they will pay 2/3 of the cost. Increase 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. • _i;1 -E Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 1976 • i IICouncilwoman Pedersen moved not to have Goodheim involved in marketing the second phase k of Jenkins' project; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor with the exception of ji Councilman De Gregorio. Motion carried. • COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT • • II l Mayor or Standley said the agreement started during the budget session and it was left that ; M the City would be willing to pool a like amount of money with the County to the agencies Community !i 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 on 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. Ms. Ericksen 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 maintain and improve the quality of improved service. Mayor Standley asked Ms. Ericksen how she felt about the Mount Sopris involvement. Ms. jI Ericksen said they are being cooperative and helpful. Ms. Ericksen said that after the first paragraph in the agreement "hereinafter participating agencies" will be added. IMs. Ericksen told Council she felt all the agencies were quite comfortable in trying to 0 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. Ericksen said there was a crises line and lots of people on call. il jl Councilwoman Pedersen pointed out in Resolution there was no mention of the Open Door. h Open Door conies under Touchstone as one of their agencies. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #3, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman II Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. II- jRESOLUTION 43 � (Series of 1976) R.es.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 0 of Pitkin County, A \pen School District RE-1, Touchstone Clinic, Inc. , Sopris i' Mental Health Clinic and Aspen Valley Visiting Nurse Association, and 11 WHEREAS, that Section 13.5 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter permits IIentry by the City into agreements with other governmental units, special •districts or persons for the joint furnishing or receiving of commodities li or services, provided such agreements are ratified by the City Council by , • formal resolution, and I WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve such agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the same on its behalf, ji NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: I • I That it does ratify and approve the AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY HEALTH ji 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 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 1 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 I told Council that this instance is a program developed by the Federal government to I provide certain kinds of term lending not available to small businesses; it is not a subsidy program. This is not a program that will take money out of some other pocket. Chase explained the applicant will repay the long over long therm period, not in excess • of 20 years. Because of the mechanics set up by the federal government, the banks are • ii 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, whether or not this program ought to be used by the people in this City. Mayor Standley 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 • 950 Regular Meeting Asper_ 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. Mayor Standley told Council that many FHA projects had come before COG that are identical II i to this. ".. I 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 " FHA application involved. Kane told Council that the developers had repeatedly suggested that this The Aspen Club '' would be an exclusive facility and will not be a public facility. Kane asked if the Cont. City should be in the business of encouraging federal participation in a project that 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 li 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 h have authority over the financial and maintenance arrangements of the club. The club facilities would add attractiveness and a marketing element. Kane pointed out to Council 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 He 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. 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 Callahan Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this is a request for a final plat and a final. Subdivision development plan, final phase of the PUD, approval of the Callahan Subdivision. Clark Final approval told Council there would be four documents filed; subdivision plat, landscaping plan, • tabled plan showing configuration and outline of the buildings. Clark told Council this is a 25 acre proposal with 12 single family dwelling units, a1 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. 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 ii 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 are no longer three stories high; but. 11/2 to 21/2. It looks like they plan to lower the 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- houses could have been up to 2400 square feet. There is a subdivision agreement submitted in the packet drawn up by city engineer Dave 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 Creek. Clark summarized the planning office position; (1) recommend approval of the final plat i' 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 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 . P approval be given for two indoor courts, not three. The applicant would have to go through • a PUD amendment process if the third court were applied for later. The planning office P feels the massing of the building is too strong. ;1 • 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 agreed this does not represent an intensive use of the land. The planning office is also con- cerned it that the buildings integrate with the landscape. _ Ij • • • • • .L t) E E, Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 1976 I 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 Melly Bird in underground culvert. Ellis said to save the Callahan 1 City money, they would put the culvert underground. to carry water, and would coordinate Subdivision ij this with the actual construction. Mayor Standley asked if Ellis planned to do this work cont. Ii this summer and if it were on the construction program. Ellis answered yes he planned Ito do the work, and it was not on the construction program, but is an option worth taking . up. • 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 1 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 1 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 it but wanted it coordinated with the city and county. The planning office did not want to ii 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 in cost if the Council support the loan applica- tion.De Gregorio asked if it made a difference PP Kutik said it was a consideration because it would enable them to pay out in 25 years. tl 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. it 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. jl 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. IICouncilman 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 FFlr'. analysis did not tie in with the subdivision agreement and the site i.nipection. Councilwoman Pedersen withdrew part three of the main motion; Councilman Behrendt agreed. !i 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 h_.d 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. • [Ii Regular Meeting Regular Meeting February 9, 197E Mayor Standley brought up the comment sheet on the FHA application for COG review. I, Andy Hecht suggested tabling it because it would help Council know what kind of project r it will he before they comment. i'; 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. • Ii All in favor of the main motion, motion carried. !i f CONSIDERATION OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ALLEY PAVING - Chateau Dumont Ill City Engineer. Ellis had submitted a memorandum and letter to Council. City Manager All 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 respors3bility 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 condominiumized. 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 approval • said he had checked the building and it would be extremely difficult. to play the "door 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 ¶j the agreement would consist of those three things, it was an existing building. • .1 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. 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 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, tc 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 • over previous approvals; Council had voted for 10,000 square feet of housing, grocery store of 20,000 square feet; 5,000 ,.quire feet of other retail space; Council had • • indicated that 15,000 square feet of office space on the second. floor was too much. Porter said he wanted to rediscuss the basement. Councilman De Gregorio had objected ii • to the health club. Trueman said the health club would he made available to people in the offices, managers of the store, and anyone else who wanted to join. There would i 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 people should go to the planning department to have to problems worked out; it is not ready to be in front of Council; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. i Kane said the largest things that remain uareselved are (1) organization and ultimate disposition of the land and (2) the size of the building. Kane reco=nded a two lot subdivision and a 45,300 scoots foot buildirrl which :.out d contain a 20,000 foot food • ti 68 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 1976 '� Councilman Wishart moved that the City agree to help fund the $3,000 to $4,000 engineer- ] i ing study; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. • CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Subdivision Approval Planner Kane told Council the outstanding item in this subdivision was the size of the Callahan recreation building. There are 34 dwelling units, and expanded clubhouse and the • Subdivision recreation facility. The building had been staked out for an on-site inspection. final sub- division Hal Clark told Council the proposed recreation building was 46,000 square feet; the approval 11 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- i! tation agreement be part of the subdivision agreement. The planning office asked for ',I a revised landscaping plan; it has been submitted, and the planning office agrees to it. li The sewer line easement will go through Ute Park; Ted Armstrong is concerned about the ij 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 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 whatever density is recommended he utilized to meet employee housing for the impact of the development. Kane told Counil he had not worked out a site analysis. Based on 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. • Kane explained to touncil there had been a gradual change and expansion of the facilities. 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. II 1 i Councilman Wishart asked if the Council left out the third covered tennis court, could li 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 o peration 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. Kutik 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. • 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. • 700 WEST HOPKINS - Request for exemption from the definition of subdivision 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 . 700 West why the 700 Hopkins project should be exempt, other than the fact that to impose sub- Hopkins - • division obligations on the conversion of apartments to condominiums accomplishes no Request for • valid purpose under the subdivison regulations. Kistler said the law is very clear. exemption from There are two standards. The fee must be specifically and uniquely attributable to subdivision the subdivision, and there must be some nexus between the subdivision itself and the reason for extracting the fee. • 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 • attracted a need that may exist in the community for more open space. Kistler stated with conversion, there is no such need demonstrated. For that reason, Kistler stated, • 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. • 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. • • zz ..stFrS 4 Aspen City Council January 9, 1978 Regular Meeting_ _._------ -- CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no comments. COUNCILMEh1BER COMMENTS James E. Mcore 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 Malarz, 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 nor:-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 th,•, 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 _a cense 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 M.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 core in order. • • • 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 0 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 B. 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. k� Aspen City Council January 23, 17_.__-.8 Regular Meeting ---- __ _. __ 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 Bd. of Adjustrreia Mayor Standley said that Gil Colestock, Charles Patterson and Fred Smith have been on the reappc,is,trnents Board of Adjustment for years and are requesting reappointment. • Colestock, Smith Councilman Wishart moved to reappoint Colestock, Patterson and Smith to the Board of Patterson Adjustment; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. AMBULANCE PROPOSAL Glenn Scott, Aspen Valley Hospital, distributed a memorandum regarding the acquisition of Ambulance Acqui. . Mountain Ambulance Service. On December 27 the County formally endorsed the hospital's sitio; purchase of MAS. This would incorporate the MAS with the hospital's amublance service. Proposal 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 Ahspen nle Club agreement. Mayor Standley said the proposed schedule looked good. Councilman Parry • Pro lel asked if it duplicated the City's route. H. J. Stalf said he felt Rubey Park pick up po 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 Mayor Standley pointed out that Council had already funded this at $25,000 and told the Aspen Center for Visuall. rts - A A ACVA to submit for approval an operating budget. Missy Thorne pointed out that the Operating salaries are based on hiring in August or September. The director's salary will be Brat $22,000 a year. 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. • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 10, 1978 Swersky told Council if loCdple receive fluoridation during the formative years, it can help their teeth until. thy are 50 or 60. Swersky pointed out that fluoridation is not a medication; it is a natually occurring mineral. Fluoridation in the water produces up to 65 per cent tooth decsv 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 requirce capital improvements. Charlie Schraeder told Coun,il that the State Health Department endorses and promotes fluoridation around the stq:e, Colorado is third in the nation in supplying fluoridation to the population. 34 per c.nt of Colorado receives fluoridation. Schraeder stated that over the past 20 years, the state has determined that fluoridation is safe in any form. Fluoridating the water is the lnly feasible way that all children can receive benefits. This is still less cost and tie most effective way to go. Councilman Behrendt asked if tlere 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 tit 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 10 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 'ouncil 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 ultil 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, C. A. Brown, had purchased 50 per cent interest in Liquor License the Aspen Mine Company. stock transfer - Aspen Mi.ne Co. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the stock transfer; seconded by Councilwoman John- ston. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT - Eagle's Building/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 quest for ;I building. The stairway is a required exit for the second floor. There is an existing encroachment - encroachment in the alley. The new encroachment would improve the dangerous roof over- Ea s le' hang which creates an ice build up 7 or 8 feet into the alley. The encroachment would g denied also provide trash service area, which would improve 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 31/2 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 d 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. Y 94-40 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, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BE'GINN.ING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER, MS, 3905 AM. BEARS N 38011'25" E 158.05 FEET: THENCE S 68°00'00" E 120.00 FEET; THENCE S 49°00'00" E 350.00 FEET; THENCE S 41°00'00" W 361.82 FEET; THENCE N 49°00'00" W 330.37 FEET; THENCE N 00°49'21" E 390. 96 FEET; THENCE- S 60°24'26" 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 Counci's determination of compliance of an annexation petition he 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 perimeter 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 transport.a- 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. • , 0 -! 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 Ms. Smith told Council this is a request to amend the Callahan Subdivision PUD to increase PUD amendment 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 & Z 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 (61. 1/ C by the traffic that will result from the club expansion. ata- J 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 24,000 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 POD amendment should have exactly the same kind of information that goes into the original plan. • • .�' `s . 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 Bus Design at first they were going to have the same design as the County's. GOSH studioes has a 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 Ord. 10,1978 the public hearing. Amerrli r±t to Councilman Wishart moved to read Ordinance 410, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman G1P/Con. .rciai. Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ?`34 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 1978 It1TAL TOTAL P&Z AVERAGE HPC AVERAGE ' W/O DCIv'US BONUS W/BONUS 1. Tom Thumb Building 5455 sq. ft. 18.52 13.4 31.92 4.9 36.82 1 •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 #f13, 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 he 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 apu,oval conditioned upon any landscaping that has been disrupted because of utility lino 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 he gated, and will ha pay parking. If cars are not parked there, but elsewhere, they will be towed. The Aspen Club is working with Stalf are the City bus service coming every twenty minutes. Anderson said he felt it will he better than what is there now. r✓ ")•J Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 1978 Anderson said the Aspen Club will basically be subsidizing the City bus service. Huss told Council they expected 500 new members. Mayor Standley asked how they plan on Aspen' Club satisfying the 'Ci.ty's concerns regarding the rate structure remaining in the range of nd 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 • H. 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 Bus Design was more expensive. Staff had asked for a design from Browne-Wolfe studioes for $125. Approval If this is adopted, the City will owe them $500 for these designs. GOSH will be $125 per 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 Bus Agreement/ Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley pointed out there is nothing in the agreement about when the buses have to be delivered. Mayor Standley stated Elder,Quinn for he wants a penalty clause; delivery of 10 and 10 buses and $500 day for penalty clause. 20 buses (tablel) ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 1978 - Amending L-2 zone district to allow duplexes and single Ord.19, 1978 family dwellings • Am siding h-2 Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Ms. Smith entered into the record a June 8 zone permit memorandum from the planning office; April 7 Kane memorandum to 'P & Z, and growth manage- duplexes and 45 single family meat page 5, which is one of the reasons cited for supporting this proposal, stating 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 he 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 44(38 Regular Meeting -----___--_.—Aspen City Council---- September 11, 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 92.5 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 1 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 fi or detrimental. Councilman Parry agreed, and stated if they had come in originally with �j 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 Ord. 34, 1978 Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilwoman Annexing and Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Rezoning Aspen Club 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, �, ehrendt, nay; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston,Johnson nay; 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 reading 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, he 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 Code 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 10 C.F.NDEC1'FL B.B.M1 t..CO. Continued Mee_ti.nq_ . Plann i n9 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, chance to review the proposed downzoning. ,;,-k G J l'• <<..'� �- 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. Ordinance #66 Jenkins opened the public hearing and closed the public 67 hearing. 71 Hunt moved to table Ordinance #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 Ut.e 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 pre) iminary plat. The applicant has agreed to do that and has no problem with location. Aspen Planning and Zoning Comm sion December 2 , 1975 I Callahan Subdivision Talking about 3 ditches that go through property; (cont'd) 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 large indoor tennis facility which is almost a full City block in size. There is a statement from the Engineering Depart- ment about outdoor tennis court lighting , we are recommending that none of the courts except one set 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 of the 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.; seecn&ed. by . City Attorney Stuller felt that she d thi t think there has been enough thought given to this proposal and didn' t know if they had any legal position to impose that kind of conditional subdivision approval. If the Planning and Zoning would like, theCity Council could consider negotiation and purchase of these water rights at the time of preliminary approval, the final slat approval then make that specific recommendation. _.0- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 2 , 1975 Callahan Subdivision Hunt amended his motion to exclude any concern with (eel-it'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. ('' p 411 iyi 1,,, w 17 1 , 7---,Ar..._111\--, • Elizabeth M. Klym, 60eputy City Clerk • . , ____ • \ _ . ._- L4' • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (OF.N:f L.F.HOECYF.U.e.A L.CO. __.._-_____--__--- Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 20, 1.976 Maintenance Shed the zoning code in the applicable district; but is it (cont'd) compatible with the surrounding land use and uses in the area. City Manager Mahoney reassured the Commisison 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 typed shops will be the only kind in the mall. Herb Klien, . representing the applicarit, ''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 sandwich 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 Planning Department is recommending Stream Margin Review.. -3- . - Planning and Zoning C lission 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 Stuller 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 should 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 Q given by the Planning Office that Callahan is in conform- ity with; seconded by Dobie. All in favor\ motion carries 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. A Elizabeth M. iKlym, D ,p ty City Clerk • �4_ P.eg_ular Meeting Continued_ Planning_ and ZoninaCommission June 7 119977 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 4 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. Lunt moved to recommend exemption from strict application of subdivision regulation of the ! elnick 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-l '--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. i • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves !GPM t0 C.F.NOrCKEL.P.P.N L.C'1. Regular Meeting Continued __ Planning 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 Benedict house. 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 bechanged 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 and 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. ku E C �+ R OD O F PROCEEDINGS .,...., ORADFOW.O pUH Lis NiN,CO.,DENYY:R RECORD s.._...--- 1978 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and�Zoning_ Conuni_�. ion June 20 , The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on June 20, 1978 , at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins , Olaf Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Joan Klar 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 HJ Stalf . Approval of Minutes Klar moved to approve the minutes of June 6 , 1978 , as amended, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Manor House Hedstrom moved to table the Manor House Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat to a special meeting July 6, 1978 , Ensign seconded, All in favor, motion approved. FAR Definitions Nuttall submitted a memo showing the language change for the code. The Board addressed the question of including basements and appropriate definitions . Smith felt they 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, Aspen Club Smith introduced the application.. She noted that this is 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 full subdivision procedures. They are requesting 10, 700 sqft. expansion in the clubhouse and a change in use for the Benedict residence from a restaurant to a single family residence. This would drop the original request for a 4 ,440 sqft. expansion of this residence, Ellis recommends approval subject to his concerns. Smith noted thatTJlthere are two criteria for approving this amendment. A PUD plat may be amended if there have been 1) changes in conditions since the time of the original approval , 2) changes in community policy from that under which the original plat was approved. The applicants feel the change in 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 has changed. They question the change in community policy When the application was initially approved, it was resented that there would be no more than 90-250 pe o p on site at one time. The applicants also felt at that time 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: 1) membership, 2) intensification of the use , 3) size and massing of the structure, 4) traffic and congestion , The Planning Office is not concerned that the membership has changed to locals but wants guarantees that this will continue. Smith noted that there will be many more on • site than 90--250 but that this will be less intensified since there will be no separate dining facility . The Planning Office feels that the recreational club has grown 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 js especially concerned with the traffic situation and notes that not many people take advantage of the mass transit now avail- able. The Planning Office recommends thatr if appr_ovedr 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 �:3on_i_ris Commission June 20, 1978 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 • 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 . Klar 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 times an hour. This would be at the cost of the Aspen 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, Muss said it runs from $12, 000 to $15, 000 a year and that the paid parting and towing will help encourage use of these alternatfVes , They average 40-50 cars that turn over 4-5 times a day, • BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DCNVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S -� Regullar__Meeting _ Asaen Planning and Zoning Commission June 20 , 1978___. Collins asked the status of the single family lots . Huss said they, are undeveloped, unsold, and they c.i,; not have any plans for them presently. IIe said there are 9 single family lots and one duplex lot. H . 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. K1ar 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--32 times a week with some out there every day. Their hours are 7AM--1OPM, 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 to except. 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 feel 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 {_},r, application after one year to consider the . ( • - 2- 1 Regular Peetin Aspen Plann�ing and Zoning COAmission JLly 6 , 19 Ta _- ---- high. He 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/sqft. ' Collins felt they needed more information on the operation and the layout. He did not find this like a paint store. He 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 .. He felt the uses are similar with those listed in the code. Grice noted that conditional uses are not per-mitted. _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. He noted that there are enough applicants for all the space. Ensign moved to find Environetics a use permitted con- ditionally in the NC zone under the categories 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 s.i.nr_e that original application and the club now serves the commu- nity. Smith did not feel it •continues to be compatible -3- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S ---------- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission July 6 1978 1 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 1 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. He 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 12-2" caliper which is about 15 ' tall. Klar asked if they intend to save the trees they will remove( The ar- 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 t.h.i.s 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 th3 closest to the proposed tennis court. He feels -it is too close to the building even with the proposed landscape. He can hear people playing on the other courts at present. He 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( He stated that he has no objections to the expansion( He noted that the downtown area requires 25% 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 disturbance to the land( He 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 tevegetater. in 2-3 years. One of the architects asked the height of the viewpoint in the picture. Benedict estimated it -4-- --�� Regular Neeting Aspen _._Planning and Zoning Commission Jul 6 --- 1 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. Michael 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. He 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 Benedicts 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 bydrerom designing it. He objected to the tennis court, 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 F -5- _ __- �\yECORD OF_ PROCE DINGS 4 URADF'O ftD PU[3 L,I�HSNC+CO..DENVER T „..� � ._..----.- { - � Jules 6 , 1.978 Regular_Meeting__! Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ` 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. Sm +_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 Sinmlen, Deputy City Clerk • 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 ASHLEY ANDERSON, for the Applicant • { } ' S • GARFIELD & BIECHT, 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 JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN "GARHEC" 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 c Ccn:rcct STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN,INC 602 E.HYMAN • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 October 31 , 1984 Garfield and Hecht , P .O . 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 . Sincnerely , 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. 7-1n7::7-77 7rninn (7071AiEsicn 177'77'fl ' richer(' 17.1nninc: Office 2‘.J3pr.,n ClUe 7,e2oni7,(IT,ct !TIplit/.777' 71-e (7.17'nt 17e have re,-Jur:3-te,f. inforlation froz, ,-,-. F) licr,nt which is nece.'=1 : -, ry in orer to 7)re---,orTiy :-.2vluotc, thin ry7,Dlica: tion . Tc sucyjest UThlinq this arTliction to June 19 , I in h os L . t the nececsry infornLicu yi11 be provi('ecl within the nest of wee!-,s. Ye succest that if, by the nest hearing C;,..7te, the inf()rration ha .7, not been submitted, the rublic hear in be cr:nc21TE ,1 the al... licant be rerl.uiretf to reapply when i-,rivete re:-; onin are nest acce7=tec'. this bl.,,incf August 15 , • 77,FoRA:=7 TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FP0!7: P,ichard Crice, Planning Office TT : Aspen Club Rezoning/Lot Split/PUT) Amendment DATT: : Pay n, 1.n34 T:Te have requested additional information from the applicant which is necessary in order to properly evaluate this application . 7e suggest tabling this application to June 19 , 2- r in hopes that the necessary information will be provided within the ne::t couple of weeks. 7e suggest that if, by the neat hearing date, the information has not been submitted, the public hearing be cancelled and that the applicant be required to reapply when private reneninri applications are next accepted; this being August 15 . 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. • 300 WEST WASHINGTON STREET HARLES H. GOODMAN CHICAGp, ILLINOIS 60606 3i51 ;x � r. 41 � . 2 <R r Mr. March 22, 1984 ��r , }N jj Richard Grice Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Grice : On February 27,Charles , I phoned you on the the les Goodman and asked behalf of the you at memorandum.emorandum. t You asked ons on provide more later date as me to thorough answers you could If you would do to the questions . so, either in letter form or calling would at 312 appreciated. X236'6300 it would be greatly Very truly yours , CC>. --":0"407s s Evelyn yn Kouis Secretary to C. H. Goodman CHG:ek Enclosure ,� gS },.. `i+ r r .tn �"%. e' ,�' irc' K�' !M"�. ` # ?°� '� g s°,' � '+r'. ' p�3 s sa 1;4t '''',,,r4='31;:7:' k ` �b° k. -<; t�,.y ,>,., s.,5 �"` w- c, Vi.. 'i GIs b7�'r ai m . ,. i s ,.s i rn �• �"t"»'r ,d` +++e r4 0 �s`Y .;�""<�, r`' rt. .��: „ - - -'5r.r ;$ �,-S4 i#f ,...r 1. h. k n � ,, .`w� 'fi' 4 32 -; X f "' ' 1 � ¢ "tom` 744; '`x" F�,I ^2- ' } a s .. � �u S w � � , s� �: ' 4x,1 m r 7{y aa. Y, k 4� h sue j kfib ,y 2 k 6.y ry 2 4 Y 74 .- �� 3� a ".' �,k €x F T,F, fs:, .r.z :47- ' �r it✓" y ' .(t'r" ✓ . s t ` :A ` aF" ,'; "' r `" '?�',x,"`�. d"'_T,s, °. .."b ` fi �' ;a Y+ '� •-r�, r'`� � n .'�.. '�� '� ..�..,-., �,�'i '� 4'r�' � -�i�'.�°� '�"'� as. � � � t*zf ��k' �: s• +". - yam, �, wt'' xr. f �, .,. _` r+ �..�"c. 'L.. . - �s e�,'''s »t, =€'- v. " ,a r�,,,,�� y,� �-`�� r"5 x , S Y"' z- x y g _,� , r Mrmorcrrdum front . . . g ' . 2-- EVELYN KOUIS DATE 7/3. "'�� Z + # ASPEN CLUB REZONING Z-�• i 1_a�� Road �� ' /� i"R§• '� The folle�':ing questions are to be asked . ��¢4:4 as of Marc-,,-,--, 20, 1984 to Rich Grice, ,: : . Assistant anner, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Tel . 303/925-2020, x226: 1 . Drill the requested zoning be yAw ; R-15 or R-30? , - �.� rr_e e 96 x .. '' ea`-°" 2. What can be done with the property ` ` �,,. ' ma y' ` as rezoned? *'*�.� `;` �� f S. }Uhat 1S the intent Of this reZOning. �+ fir. x qyk �* 4. Please explain the Callahan PUD P `"k . . 1� ` _. F Amendment. �' ` • �� ,� ` t iV fi, aly ,,�, 45'* � ��'' sfi�w Y � SSE.. "� .C:.�r�.��N. 3 �. ''��' :• x w s s fps{`cx max, �,�.J,� �g .Y�' '�. �' u�*ir -r-+ Yom. .yam. ri d�� Pfi U k - • �,- i � r �k ,s e�- k v - . +R's ' r a n anprr Y. 2 " .� +fix • %A"� .-T .� t"us' 'S' s✓�t `".�"�,{' .G�*" .s�Yr✓,. f k`s,� e �:rr�`' t �,-�,3'�"�,3� � `?` � ..�3 �' � �-s x • -�ir�c �x" � � 9' ,: .t <. �. Y sf- K f' J'4-g _ - - ; ! ; q .rte-�'` . �� z '�'S ai,� x "�",t,.�� ' S. .r , :� .w x7.,„rx�w'x ,� .Lz� d+�,' z,� 7 4`. ',e4▪,...,:413...,;,,,,g:;,,,,,,,,._;.,.,-.,--, v .+fihT'r, ',� r �,� 4.. -a p�,. ..^ �. r..e � ▪ '�s ", n`Fb"�'-r are' .r:"+7' a,} l. t�' 4� ,ac°w.,+ - Y'' -ice . '' _ . ., ..,_s 7.+' `-u,# °,*:'� ,63'P. ``_.>, -:'a�-.�.� _"a. .�,f" � .s airz.. �.,. x.` _.� S.s.. +. ¢`�+ .x-+lx..-.._cs-�`,. • , 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,_pLea.se contact the Planning Office , 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611--- (303) 925-262-0-- ext. 226 . s/Perry Harvey • Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning • Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 1 , 1984 . City of Aspen Account. • • • • • r MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department �`*r-1- 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. r Page Two The Aspen Club - Rezoning/Lot Split/PUD Amendment/ Conditional Use Application March 20, 1984 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 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 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 ":_ inspection at the engineering office. CR/co cc: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer Louis Buettner, City Surveyor Paul Taddune, City Attorney GARFIELD & F.C. 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 - •• c: -t . c3 CO to t� .-4 ra c CO . c0 N C) 1) U) to r-1 ; .-C 1 ^C.4 O O. cd c i •ri ' 4-1 •� U) 0 N N 0 N ci 4-) -r( .N I-) -ri :-J U •1-4 4-) •r{ -r 4.) .rt •r4 -,.4 '0 P. M N U C-) N to • N 4-) �. •r-! X 4-) • t' 'D N -.1-4 P. c: N M O Q Q - • f3- M f3- W tr) CO N •ct' Cr) 0 rt .-4 - M M CO O 0 O N M 4T [s 1---r-4 t .) - N CO 7_ - -tf) r-i (71 CD O CO C • v) N. '-0 M CO d- 'D F-'4 N Ft CD N N. CD N C O U ' d N �O G7 • N O. _ • I C . U ?< F-. r � r ns 3--4 Cl)•:1' •t U) O CD CD 7_ n 1_7 t/)I to to � CD P - CV . C.) � `' - < E . < . .a •-1 o •a- - - < -0 I 0 o I i . U < - CD r-4 CD 0 - O O O U !. O UO X o O O 0 N r-4 _ - • N If) t..0 CD CD O C) 4n 4n I t— t� 1 - v) 0 CD O ---4 • N CO N. ' tat O F-4 O N N \p N G) F•4 U CO < t1) t� t') N r-4 if) N VI C) • F-4 4n O .---, 0 LJ) O tt) 4-- O 1` r O •-4 GI • Cy ^ • 'D O tl) O 4-) CD 4-1 t) I'--- N t./) r-4 F-4 • C) 1.0 1,-4 N v 1J) CD=. 0 4-) CO > 0 N r .-4 ? •rl n [t iris t 0 R'' j r4 _C -r4 -t O 4J 44 0 I al (4-4 Cl).-4 0 4- (f) 0 :C ,c. c- o c.. x =+ .-4 •r4 0 0 eJ to cd n cU to N �/. (--4 4-) N t-) .-a N -4 O al '-. U - :3 co `-' 0 0 .7 r-( •r-4 C) N .-4 0 (f) U = " b ) U ••rt 4 to M P v) c: c .= n u) C) .r-4 F, to 4-.1 e) Cr Fr 4.) C3 '3 41) N r. 4t C If) •r-t .-a N o O O .--■ 0 c) Cl-) 0 44 c.) 0 ,.:-2.: -a E- c . a -1 CO u) 0 H -a 0' C MEMORANDUM 4 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 ted 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.M. 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.'.' . _ - Batt: round - 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 _hi story 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 facl i ti es" 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_ - . 7 January 12_, 1976 - Council approved the rezonings_ - - - - February 9, 1976 - Council considered the Final Plat with the amended program . of: • • Indoor facility • 38000 sq. ft. - • Clubhouse - 9400 sq. ft. Residential units 34 - The Planning office argued that the indoor facility had grown too largo, had done beyond concept o� a medium range faci 1 i ty, that the massing was too great for the site and parking inadequate. Council tabled for site . inspection. - • •• February 2.3, 1976 - Council approved the Final Plat subject to a landscaping • F aii-aa—tffi jiiFt:aLion plan and on basis that parking t:ould not be a problem • November IZ, 1960 • • • 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 allo ,ing 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.U.D. and subdivision amendment to add 10,700 square feet to the indoor facility and change th e Benedict residence to single family.. Applicants. requested the change to met 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 crass of building. eee :e 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 he 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.U.D. amendment subject to development of a satisfactory transit system and paid parking. - Also, subdivision exception approval granted. . June 26, 1978 Council considered P.U.D. and .subdivision a:mend:zent 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 outdccr tennis . court; changing footprint of building, landscaping to mask massing, transportation plan . July 10, .1978 - Council approved the P.U.D. amendment subject to transpor-` tation and landscaping plans. The changed conditions ware considered to be .increased local use of club and the trade-off offered was elimination of the restaurant in Benedict House. Referral' Conn nts . • 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 cc:: nunity, • not the changes in the applicant' s'needs. " 3. . City Engineer -- The number of parking -spaces is currently insufficient. Ii the Clirb "could pursue alternate transportation, thDt might alleviate • the problem, but there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the transportation plan has or will work. • 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 deter:►ined whether to continue this winter. . • Planning 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 clown 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 freq.•ently 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 er -community policy since the last P.U.D. amendment in 1973 (which created this configuration) to warrant the amendment today and to incur the i:,--oacts the addition would create. Without the clear mandate of a change in cc,...unity • policy or condition, the community faces the prospect of continual revision • of the P..U.D. plan. If the P&7_ 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. • • • • • • • • GARFIELD & IIECHT, F.C. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE TE ) 925-3 (303) 925-3 0 008 KATHERINE HENDRICKS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. "GARHEC" March 16 , 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: 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 CITY OF ASPk:N 11÷/ AT, c (4 A 40 r9Lui.Pri-- rcr\-'101adt wt-4l. kg- wow uotpi-k . ��B � f . t$ 7 �a 01.j /14, -7--k iy-", ce„.„6„. T. Richard Butera i l5 1177 -. rte, 3 r,— 1yy y �tE P!'� Z U _ '7 , AR 0 February 27 , 198 4 A;pEN ! 'MN Co. F'. ,�_:', ?CE 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 W Liam Stirling r 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 const=antly 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 amore 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 . 474, it* T. Richard Butera TRB/pn attachment • 4 h * t Q P tairst til O Z o ti17.1 L 1 b 7 G' v- - ;.;� .• - H � > z O C .J ^ 0 ._,5 ^�Iy - F% O -D" —!:_-... ,• 0 " —,D -:: ,.., — F-: S = Z..- 0 ■—•—' C--) itill.11.1.1113 : . -, ^' .. v) 7- ^ .—. L4,.< .7..,`�� V ` N ;. .1.. -, p - = 0 CD rD r_ . '..< tabigaj •S ......-.. --., s'''0 :7-: C4-7,- — .: ".: L-.." ,..: ; ...'4 I : til=1‘ 'O r O y — c. O • _ C a r CA re C::)1 I d m A Loop) (7 C C. Y I G t . ta%"14 I 1 t GARFIELD & 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 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 GARFI ELD & H ECHT, 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 L F ti 1. GAR4�IELD & HECHT t Ca i .;' DIY ATTOKPiEI'S AT LAW VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HY AAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 The title company failed to pick up the release of the ', Deed of Trust. i', 1, i V. r k F.. i1 4 :_.a � {�� 1 / r I art t lit u/ Ln�:,r,lrt STEW ART '1'ITL1 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 , CL—(11 Randall Webb Asst . Vice-President Iau;rcl STF'WA]l F TI'FLI 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, r 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 CABLE ADDRESS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 "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 j.1 ilk r 0 6 1c9,' ASPEN / ;7f,',i N C; Pj-tiN';:' _ 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" 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 regulations 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 CITY OF JPEN (iii, MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Assistant Planning Director 42..E-- . ---5 \/■..O oc- 0C' O,..)v-a_it-s\,..` 1 v wL1\. 9,..e.,.,a ."—. r..4._;._51-..-- CA_ " 0 F A — ‘Z-S 4\o ,e .. CAS 's ..` te_ 0 H u 41\ NJ 1 Z� +'rp\,J S i�'k to " e -t \ i. n...\\ Pv0 ti, OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRA E REPORT 2140 AB Made For: Garfield & Becht, P.C . STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, as shown and set forth on t :e recorded pi;Its thereof. f 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., neither.assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any state- ment contained herei:,. Dated at Aspen,Colorado, this 24th day of January A.D. 19 84 at 8:00 A.M. • • STEWART TITL - OF E tNC. - BY 6 / . , Authorized Signature - i • � ` r i r C orvr,n7 • STE'AVART TITLE TLE 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 , _6 ( . ,C\ Randall Webb • • Asst . Vice-President • • ■ STEV ART T I T L `i A 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, Randall Webb Asst . Vice-President 2,141 AB • ALL OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF LOTS 14 & 14A, CALLAHAN 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 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 OWNERS • 2I41. Ali • 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 • 2141 AB Ozs/NERS • 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 ATTORNEY & H C®gT 5 AT LAW VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST yy The 1 ASPEN, COLORADO AVENUE t I of the ' le COmpa n Deed of Trust y fai/ed to pick Up the rP1e aSe OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBR CE REPORT 2140 AB « Made For: Garfield & Hec.ht , P.C. STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, as . hown and set forth on t ;e 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., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any state- ment contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 24th day of January A.D. 19 84 at 8:00 A.M. STEWART TITL • OF ' ..'E 'NC. 4/ _____ BY //; l Authorized Signature GARFWLD & 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" 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 regulations 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 ., GARF ELD & IIECIIT, P.G. 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 scuare 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. By Andrew V. Hecht AVH/mlc - Enclosure 2141 AB ALL OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF LOTS 14 & 14A, CALLAHAN 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 1 n Hamrock 1315 verside Dr . Asp , 81611 Pia ie Beyer PO Bo 1303 Aspen , 0 81612 Robert nd Barbara Bennett 120 S . erry St . Derive , 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 . 1 CI o Gof-6G Rkfep $R RtV2. qXO 3 a q-u S . RSG Development , Inc . 1.4) q loon. Robert S . Gold amt elQ11"GRR .V R- .qoo 394 ace_ ENS , o q foorb L y _ Robert S . Golds mt C b#1; RA're9 Rt - uy=iJy iuo22/ , , 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 2.141 AS Page 2 Arthur Glick A rd e 1033 bco°K PR . - - - - - kotty (4tu.5, CR . - . , cto2io 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 CiLO—Tire— s c o 1 1 Gala rirertrV got 312.6 (4ou f0d ,t' 17001 Stanley and Yvonne Vaughn Silver /� ver OR 2319 Cr'es rm-_.s.�ad • • 61 15051[ • .r 31115 - • . . - I�A54WIlil•�i 0 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 2141 AB • OWNERS 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 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 KATHERINE HENDRICKS ADDRESS AD BLE WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADC" 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 GARMELD & HEGHT, 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. Andrew V. Hecht AVH/mlc 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 ot: 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 and transportation plan and on basis that parking would not be a problem Goldsamt (Aspen Clubs ,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.U.D. 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.U.D. amendment subject to development of a satisfactory transit system and paid parking. Also, subdivision exception approval granted. June 26, 1978 - Council considered P.U.D. 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. Jul,' 10, 1978 - Council approved the P.U.D. 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 Club) 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. Planning 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.U.D. 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.