HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Ute City Place.1981-84 `g ,✓r�
j
im 3
S
g {
i
{§
� r
�e
or
a
is
T ITY LA E ''
,F
r �x
y 5 {
g a�
w
£Y
N
i I ,,lltt 4
n
e
x
r
d
s (
x:
i<
a
r r '
4
N f
< e
UTE CITY PLACE
LOTS C , D , E , F , & G BLOCK 118 CITY OF ASPEN
A CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION , REQUEST FOR RBO REZONING
AND EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR A 100% EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT AND
SPECIAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE
Applicants:
Architect:
Application Prepared By:
June 22, 1984
Commerce Realty Corporation
111 Soledad, Suite 1350
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512 ) 2 71-3062
Mr. Alan R. Novak
Tregaron Corporation
1731 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite #300
Washington, D. C. 20009
(20 2 ) 462-0811
Mr. Robert Callaway
Robert Callaway Corporation
4040 Broadway, Suite #501
San Antonio, Texas 78209
(512 ) 822-0200
Jack M. Walls Architects
P. O. Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(3 03 ) 925-3218
John Doremu s
Joseph Wells
Doremus & Company
608 E . Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303 ) 925-6866
INTRODUCTION TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This Conceptual Subdivision Submission and Request for Applica-
tion of a Residential Bonus Overlay District is submitted for
Lots C, D, E, F and G in Block 118, City of Aspen. The development
will provide twenty-two employee housing rental or sale units as
part of the Aspen Mountain PUD ' s employee housing requirement,
with 100% of the building devoted to employee housing.
The property is particularly well-suited for employee housing
development because of its proximity to the Lodge site and the
Commercial Core, and is adequately serviced by existing city
utilities and services . Vehicular travel impacts will be kept to
a minimum as a result of the prime location of this site.
By virtue of its prior approval of the project, the City has
already recognized that the proposal is a highly suitable solu-
tion to a portion of the City' s employee housing needs .
SUMMARY OF PRIOR CITY ACTIONS REGARDING UTE CITY PLACE
In 1981 , C . M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar received a residential
GMP allocation for a proposal to construct 8 free market units
and 14 employee units on the Cooper Street site. Subsequent to
the granting of the allocation, the City granted conceptual and
preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary exemption from
GMP competition for the employee units and first reading approval
of an ordinance to rezone its proposed location from R/MF to
R/MF/RBO.
Later in 1981 , the City imposed a moratorium on projects in the
R/MF zone district while considering zoning code amendments for
the district. In September 1981, however, the City granted Ute
City Place an exemption from the moratorium and allowed the pro-
ject as originally proposed to proceed with final development
reviews . Final approvals, including approval of the Residential
Bonus Overlay, were granted by the City on September 28, 1981 .
Following final approvals, the previous applicants prepared and
submitted for building permit review, plans and specifications
for the proposal. Because of some apparent confusion and mis-
communication during the review process, however, a building
permit was not obtained within the time frame specified in the
growth management regulations.
In February, 1984 the previous applicants requested and were
granted by the City an additional period of 180 days to obtain
a building permit from the Building Department . That extension
terminates August 7, 1984. Mr. Clark and Mr. Kaspar are prepar-
ing to proceed with the previously approved project in the event
that this revised application does not receive City approval.
For comparison purposes , in addition to the conversion of the 8
free-market units included in the previously approved project,
this application includes a reduction in floor area from approxi-
mately 20,417 sq. ft. to 16,845 sq .ft . (17 .5% ) . Site open space
has been increased from approximately 2, 648 sq .ft. (18% ) to 3 , 422
sq .ft . (23% ) . Based on the current method of calculating FAR,
the FAR of the previous proposal was 1. 34 as compared to 1 . 10
under the new proposal. Height remains at 28 feet, the same as
under the previously approved project.
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
20-10 (b) (1 ) Drawings submitted with this application include a
vicinity map illustrating the location of the project . The site
lies generally in the center of a relatively large area of R/MF
zoning in east Aspen. Some enclaves of L-3 zoning have been
applied in this area, including one immediately south of the Ute
City Place site, covering the site of the Brass Bed in Block 118.
The applicant does not own or have under option any parcels
adjacent to the 15, 000 square foot site included under this
submittal.
20-10 (b) (2 ) The attached site plan illustrates proposed site
utilization. The revised site plan is essentially the same as
the previously approved plan with the exception of a reduction in
the footprint along the south side of the building, and a
resultant increase in open space . The site is generally flat
with very little existing vegetation. The existing street system
will remain unchanged except for the new curb cut off of Cooper
Street onto the site.
20-10 (b) (3 ) Tabulation of Data
Density
Since all of the dwelling
terms of Section 24-11 . 4 (
dwelling unit as outlined
1 . Studio Unit --------
2 . One Bedroom Unit ---
3 . Two Bedroom Unit ---
units are deed restricted within the
b) (4) , the minimum required lot area per
in Section 24-10. 5(b) (5 ) is:
-------- 500 square feet of land
-------- 625 square feet of land
-------- 1,050 square feet of land
Based on the breakdown of the number and types of units , the land
required by this proposal is:
6
Studio Units @
500
S .F . =
3 , 000
Square
Feet
12
1 Bedroom Units
@
625 S.F . =
7, 500
Square
Feet
4
2 Bedroom Units
@
1 ,050 S .F . =
4 ,200
Square
Feet
Subtotal Residential
S.F.
= 15, 910
TOTAL LAND AREA
REQUIRED
=
14, 700
Square
Feet
The above
total of 14, 700 S .F .
is less than
the site acreage of
15,000 S.F.
External Floor Area Ratio
The maximum external floor area permitted under Section
24-10. 5 ( g) (1 ) is 1 . 25 : 1 . The total external floor area permitted
and proposed is as follows:
SITE AREA =15,000 Square Feet
MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA=15, 000 S .F.xl . 25 FAR = 18, 750 S .F .
Proposed Floor
Area
1, 202 S
S .F .
2 1 Bedrm. 673 S.F. 2
6 Studios
@ 475 S .F.
(Avg. )
= 2, 852
S .F .
12 1-Bedrooms
@ 762 S.F .
(Avg. )
= 9, 142
S.F .
4 2-Bedrooms
@ 979 S .F .
(Avg. )
= 3 ,916
S .F .
Subtotal Residential
S.F.
= 15, 910
S.F.
Above-Grade
Accessory
Space
= 935
S .F .
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
16,845
S.F .
The total of 16, 845
square feet proposed
is less than the allowed
maximimum of 18,750 square feet.
Proposed Mix by Level
GARDEN LEVEL
Number TvUe Size Bedrooms Total
2 1 Bedrm. 601 S .F. 2
2 1
1, 202 S
S .F .
2 1 Bedrm. 673 S.F. 2
2 1
1,346 S
S.F .
2 1 Bedrm. 685 S .F .
2 1
1 ,370 S
S .F .
FIRST LEVEL
Number Tv
4 Studios
2 2 Bedrm.
R
Size Bedrooms Total
453 S .F. 4 1 , 812 S .F .
917 S .F . 4 1 ,834 S .F .
8 3,646 S.F .
SECOND
AND
THIRD
LEVELS
Number
Type
Size
Bedrooms
Total _
2
Studios
520 S .F .
2
1, 040
S .F .
4
1
Bedrm.
867 S.F.
4
3,468
S.F .
2
1
Bedrm.
878 S .F .
2
1, 756
S .F .
2
2
Bedrm.
1 ,041 S .F .
4
2 ,082
S .F .
10
12
8, 346
S.F.
Total:22
26
15, 919
S .F.
Project Population
6 Studios @ 1 . 25 employees/unit = 7 employees
12 1-Bedroom Units @ 1.75 employees/unit = 21 employees
4 2-Bedroom Units @ 2 . 25 employees/unit = 9 employees
37 employees
REQUEST FOR RBO REZONING AND SPECIAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION OF A
REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE
The applicants hereby request consideration by the City of RBO
Overlay designation for the site. We believe the project is in
full compliance with the requirements of Section 24-10,
Residential Bonus Overlay District with two exceptions. The two
exceptions result from changes in the Area and Bulk requirements
that have been made subsequent to the approval of the original
project as follows:
1 . Open Space
At the time the previous application was approved, there was
no open space requirement in the R/MF zone district.
Subsequent to those approvals, a requirement of 350 open
space has been adopted. The open space provided in this
project is 3, 422 square feet, or 23%. While below the
current requirement, the commitment represents an increase
of 5% in the previously approved open space commitment .
2. Height
When the previous application was approved the project
complied with the height limit in the zone district of 28
feet. Since that approval was granted the height limit was
reduced to 25 feet. Since it is impossible to lower the
building height further without reducing the number of
units, the applicant intends to request a variance from the
height limit from the Board of Adjustment.
REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR A 100% EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROJECT
In compliance with Section 24-11 . 2, the applicants hereby request
review by the City of a request for exemption from the develop-
ment allotment procedures for the Ute City Place project .
Information contained elsewhere in this submittal is adequate to
allow the City to determine compliance with the provisions of
Section 24-11.2 ( f) .
EMPLOYEE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS
Ute City Place is a 22 unit project of new construction. The
project is located on 5 city lots at 909-923 East Cooper Street
directly in town. The project was awarded a 1981 GMP allocation
but has not been constructed because of reasons explained
elsewhere. The original project included 8 free-market units and
14 deed-restricted units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposed
to purchase the property and deed-restrict all 22 units to the
price guidelines for employee housing.
To comply with the Housing Authority' s affordability guidelines
for unit sizes, the revised 100% deed-restricted project would
reduce the size of the original project from 20, 400 sf. to 16, 850
sf. This would make the already approved project even more
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Parking for the
revised project would be 28 cars, in excess of 1 car per bedroom.
ADJACENT LAND USES
Adjacent properties to the site are in residental use. It is
bordered by a six unit condominium project on the west, a twenty
unit condominium project on the south and a triplex and
commercial project on the east. The proposed land uses support
the City' s zoning and general plan objectives of placing density
where facilities are within easy walking distance, or access by
public transit, of required services.
TRANSPORTATION
Cooper Street functions as a major collector street for the east
end of Aspen, and is also the route for the Mountain Valley and
Silverking routes for the Aspen free shuttle bus system. Service
for both of these routes operates on a 20 minute cycle . Roads in
the area have adequate capacity, and are of adequate condition,
to handle the additional travel demand that will be realized from
this development.
Several aspects of this proposed project will mitigate private
vehicular travel requirements. The site is within easy walking
distance of all essential neighborhood commercial and retail
services. It is one and one-half blocks, or roughly 350 feet,
from City Market and Durant Mall neighborhood center. It is
roughly 1500 feet from the central business district, where
expanded commercial facilities are also available.
Twenty-eight on-site parking spaces are provided which more than
adequately meets the City Code requirements . Access to the
parking is provided by way of the alley to the rear of the site,
and an 18 foot wide curb cut off of Cooper Street.
FIRE PROTECTION AND POLICE PROTECTION
The project is located approximately seven blocks from the fire
station and the existing police facilities are within easy access
to the site.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the project will receive careful consideration.
Existing trees on the site will be preserved and protected. If
significant trees are located in an area where the building is to
be located, and if the size of the trees permit, they will be
relocated. Additional landscaping will be provided as outlined
below. The areas to be landscaped include the area fronting on
Cooper Street and the below-grade garden court areas .
1 . The area between the north property line and the new side-
walk will be planted with a combination of aspen and
evergreen trees. Trees and shrubs will be planted at the
north end of the parking area to partly screen the parking
from Cooper Street. The remaining area will be sodded with
grass .
2 . The area between the sidewalk and the proposed curb line on
Cooper Street will be planted with grass sod.
3 . The below-grade garden courts will be landscaped with a
combination of aspen trees, shrubs and grass sod. Sidewalks
will be installed to provide access to each unit.
CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR PRIOR APPLICATION
The following six conditions were imposed on the previous
applicant in connection with conceptual subdivision approval:
1. The applicants ' agreeing to provide an eight inch water
system interconnect on Cleveland between Hyman and Cooper by
working out an equitable arrangement with the Water
Department prior to review for preliminary plat.
2 . The applicants ' meeting the conditions of the City Engineer
concerning the variance for a curb cut on Cooper Street.
3 . The applicants ' providing a sidewalk the length of the
property along Cooper Street.
4. The applicants ' installing fireplaces designed with energy
conservation in mind and limiting the number of
installations to minimize air pollution impacts .
5 . The applicants' giving further consideration to landscaping,
massing and bulk and their relationship to the request for
Residential Bonus Overlay at the preliminary plat stage of
the review process .
6 . Inspection of the site by the Building Inspector to assess
the movability of the historic structure and to report to
the Planning Office as to the results of that visit.
Our commitments regarding these conditions are as follows:
Condition 1 - The applicant will arrive at an equitable arrange-
ment with the Water Department regarding the interconnect prior
to preliminary plat application.
Condition 2 - The applicant agrees to comply with this condition.
Condition 3 - The sidewalk will be constructed.
Condition 4 - The applicant will comply with City regulations
adopted since the previous approval was granted.
Condition 5 - This condition will receive further consideration
and elaboration in the preliminary subdivision application.
Condition 6 - Herb Paddock, former Building Inspector, inspected
the residence, found that the structure was impossible to move
and that in fact if left at its location, it should be abated as
a dangerous building. The previous applicant applied for and
received a demolition permit and demolished the structure.
o _
ASPEN INSTITUTE 90 \01 9
Nv p /
MEADOW
MUSIC TEN
W 14
W� ' HAILUII) LAKE ILVE IN PROJECT
1 E� \V✓J
G1�5 LOCATION
W
r NGtRT S EET
El DM ❑ ❑� o v N
V SMUGGLER �
\ \ _❑_❑ El ❑ El ❑ ❑ 13
\ _ FRANCIS 11
la El ❑ F-1 ❑ALL ❑ w 1�
-- El 0❑ ❑ F-1 '�'l Eax
= Q a SLEEKER = cc
STATE Hip HWAY 82 Et❑y❑��❑�� ❑ ❑ DwcE14l;9- PARK�J j� 9
W a MAIN STREET �9�91.91• �� 8� 81. 91•� �5918�9�8�9�
❑ ❑HOP❑KINS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Zo
z F-1 F-1 ❑ c�
❑Y)❑¢o ❑ ❑ <❑ W J
❑v❑ ❑ c 1 F-1 El 31:
1 R A
ASPEN MALL <❑ ;` 2 � a ,
2 RUSEY C7 PARK SUS TRANSPORT CENTER 4 DURANT
3 ASPEN SOUARE O O D a TO MOUNTAIN VALLEY
4 DURANT MALL
INDEPENDENCE PASS
S CITY MARKET N ' OLO WATERS
8 CITY HALL r� HOLE
FIRE STATION PARK
a OPERA HOUSE k
9 COURI HOUSE ` TE
10 HOTEL JEROME
11 SCHOOL K
�dF
12 NORTH MILL PLAZA rat
13 POSTOFFICE F
14 COMMON ITY CENTER
15 VISUAL ARTS CENTER .4 �I
ASPENJ( �
' SKI MOUNTAIN
I
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
File No. A84-208
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
Aspen Title Company, Ltd. , hereby certifies that title to:
Lots C, D, E, F and G
Block 118
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Pitkin County, Colorado
is vested in:
C. M. CLARK (as to Lots C and D)
and
ALEXANDER G. KASPAR (as to Lots E, F and G)
and that the above described property is subject to the following:
Any and all mineral rights as described in instruments recorded in
Book 93 atPage 83, in Book 93 at Page 92, in Book 93 at Page 178,
in Book 98 at Page 512, in Book 105 at Page 129, in Book 105 at Page 463
and in Book 106 at Page 482.
Terms and conditions of Subdivision Agreement between the City of Aspen
and C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kaspar recorded February 23, 1982
in Book 422 at Page 514 and Plat of "Ute City Place, a Condominium,
Final Plat" recorded in conjunction therewith in Plat Book 12 at
Pages 74 through 76.
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar to the Public Trustee of
Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Mollie H. Maurin, Kathryn Sincovec,
Frances Nelson, Josephine Arbaney, Helen Zordel and Lorraine Grange,
to secure $40,625.00, dated October 17, 1979 and recorded October 17,
1979 in Book 377 at Page 742, Reception No. 218855. (as to Lots E, F, and G)
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar and C. M. Clark to the Public
Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of The First National
Bank of Midland, Texas, to secure $899,000.00, tdated June 23, 1983 and
recorded June 23, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 560,' Reception No. 251176.
(as to Lots C, D, E, F and G)
Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales that
have not been properly redeemed or cancelled.
NOTE: 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 guarantee
of title, and it is understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title
Company, Ltd. is limited to the amount of the fee charged hereunder.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
B
Grant Crenshaw
June 20, 1984 at 8:00 A. M.
FEE: $100.00
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
File No. A84-208
OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
Aspen Title Company, Ltd. , hereby certifies that title to:
Lots C, D, E, F and G
Block 118
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Pitkin County, Colorado
is vested in:
C. M. CLARK (as to Lots C and D)
and
ALEXANDER G. KASPAR (as to Lots E, F and G)
and that the above described property is subject to the following:
Any and all mineral rights as described in instruments recorded in
Book 93 atPage 83, in Book 93 at Page 92, in Book 93 at Page 178,
in Book 98 at Page 512, in Book 105 at Page 129, in Book 105 at: Page 463
and in Book 106 at Page 482.
Terms and conditions of Subdivision Agreement- between the City of Aspen
and C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kaspar recorded February 23, 1982
in Book 422 at Page 514 and Plat of "Ute City Place, a Condominium,
Final Plat" recorded in conjunction therewith in Plat Book 12 at
Pages 74 through 76.
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar to the Public Trustee of
Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Mollie H. Maurin, Kathryn Sincovec,
Frances Nelson, Josephine Arbaney, Helen Zordel and Lorraine Grange,
to secure $40,625.00, dated October 17, 1979 and recorded October 17,
1979 in Book 377 at Page 742, Reception No. 218855. (as to Lots E, F, and G)
Deed of Trust from Alexander G. Kaspar and C. M. Clark to the Public
Trustee of Pitkin Countyy Colorado for the use of The First National
Bank of Midland, Texas, to secure $899,000.00, dated June 23, 1983 and
recorded June 23, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 560, Reception No. 251176.
(as to Lots C, D, E, F and G)
Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales that
have not been properly redeemed or cancelled.
NOTE: 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 guarantee
of title, and it is understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Tittle
Company, Ltd. is limited to the amount of the fee charged hereunder.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
B
Grant Crenshaw
June 20, 1984 at 8:00 A. M.
FEE: $100.00
o//��LJ� eJ . cXYf LGII�
/ J
May 8, 1984
Sunny Vann
Planning Department Head
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lots C-G, Block 118
City and Townsite of Aspen
Dear Sunny:
Enclosed is the fully executed consent to joint development
application which we discussed yesterday. This is submitted to the
City of Aspen on behalf of my clients expressly conditioned upon
acceptance by the City of the terms and conditions contained therein.
It is specifically understood that the re-zoning to RMF/RBO
together with the present growtif management approval and allocation
will stay intact until such approvals are relinquished subsequent to
or contemporaneously with closing of the sale from my clients to
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas.
Very truly yours,
Douglas P. Allen
DPA/jb
Enclosure
May 4 , 1984
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re : Consent to Joint Development Applications
Gentlemen :
Please be advised that the undersigned , being the record
owners of Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118 , City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado ( the "property" ) hereby agrees to be, and by this
letter represents that such owners are , a joint applicant with
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, with respect to
the 1983 Lodge GMP, Coneptual PUD, and subdivision applications
previously submitted to your office on or about October 1 of last
year under the title "Aspen Mountain PUD - The Lodge/Galena/Top
of Mill . "
It is expressly understood , .'of course , that in the event a
mutually satisfactory purchase agreement covering the Property
has not been signed by and between the undersigned (as Sellers )
and Commerce Savings Association and/or its assignee or nominee
( as Purchaser ) prior to the time the Lodge Phase of the Aspen
Mountain PUD is submitted to the Aspen City Council for final
approval , the consent set forth herein shall be of no further
force nor effect and the Property shall not be directly burdened
or affected by any of such applications . In the further event
that a purchase agreement covering the Property is entered into
but does not close and the buildings are not conveyed to Pur-
chaser for any reason whatsoever , the Property shall not be
burdened or affected in any manner by the GMP, conceptual PUD or
subdivision approvals . It is further xp ssl.y, agreed that until
the purchase referenced above is con mma t e joining in
this application by the undersigned s .�all not f ct the existing
GMP and subdivision approvals rela i g to"" t} perty.
C. M. C] ark
Alexander G. Casper
Sy,
4 n
x r 4 W 3 0
&.� Y.
77mi
tJ3d000 ".
Ali
b, HF
w8ai F' S W .4 ..
WOW
uj
Ir
� sa
fF.., � :'� $. .>. 8 ,Sb'x a w� 9 aq:... :a � f•.
nn 1 � a1s -. Ndw
-,AM
let
a• " 'tc"Y• Y • �`r�'xRM1 � ,�C�e 3ra4.�� r8 "a � � ftr,� '�N,Ak : ,%�'+'.
__, t ,. N { ,:: r,Y't�� ,Y set• ' §' �. i ':: R 4w ^°'q?:' 3 2
vzb f f. a d K fi"ays s r "eJs i
•••PPP � �; ^Ak' 'dis, Y�� x Rf ,T:y��y' J ".n[a �
>w,r r.'... $ E 8 ;x!d wR t{ NN s f z 5•�` � '8 �"e".:s .:i•."
.L 3 3 ti 18
SN dQH
�•,, �i N, :" r 8
�_t
Ir
AO
mrow
x
.f '•ws b'� 'N. 4 '" xl"'
1 F Sc:
a .y
c
#- n 1'm• xFn
x' xMa• rh b� � 1 � Yf�l c � # Y
4 <
��. h a�.;. �Rl Y�'�°a a 7 �,� F�[ � �{� RG g �x "s :} +F �.,�". °d• i QAr«}. ae A`i� z : _ � :.. ; `[ ��
9N•�n �,� .. *n l. SR1a� : V r .n 'F ,y�{f F .
,,. .t '. :,�►^RF, E '�$: i� nr.,�lA+ X ,� r.r f R r +,f Y'
r�$y�,;'.
AANgy� s:>: f �t[ �
�Lj N
4 inI' 6 X' y 4
.P �.
� ~*a►uA .yF �R'.>' g` ii x?•s°%s*. ,'kz4 iN.. ''3)'�'. �. . ,. y .
f
J
CIT PEN
130 sa ,T y; le street
t
a s p e n r d ,'"81611
November 24 , 1980
Mr. Jack Walls
P.O. Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Ute City Place
Dear Jack:
•i
As per our telephone conversation and your letter of
October 9, 1980, all the conditions concerning the referenced
project meet with my approval.
If you have any more questions, please feel free to
contact me at 925-2020, Extension 214 .
Thank you.
Sincerely,
&Ala A. H4Vk--
Daniel A. McArthur
City Engineer
ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT
P. O. Box 528 Tele. 925-3601
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Nov. 13, 1980
Jack M. Walls
P. 0. Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Jack,
i
In regards to the Ute City Place Development of -22 units located at
Cooper St. between West End and Cleveland Streets. This project can be
serviced by the Aspen Sanitation District. At this point we have adequate
capacity in the trunk line and the plant to handle the increased flow
from this project.
HK/ld
Sincerel.'.;
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Sanitation District
• 6 tl i Y t V; '
Kindly change your mailing list for the
following : -
Benjamin F,
P Grizzle
Post
Office Box 33
Washington, D.C. 20044
4J o _
� M
� O
U t�
IJV; Grizzle has been deceased since March 17 , P U
1981 , and his mail in the future should be o o
sent to his widow : 4 o
Mrs . Mary R. Grizzle Q �: E1
120 Gulf Blvd.
a�
Bel leaf r Shores r o w
Indian Rocks Beach , Fla.
33535 r-+ o o -j
� �
x
fir
JUNX
P KIN
�
a�
I
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130s street
j aspen, 81611
�YFD
Hil i a d E. H gee
C� Pos Offi e - 96
Ape , Co l 0 1612
° Ep,39 DEL
_- ..=Noma
r
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130S street
aspen, 81611 h _
John Mason Reynolds , Jr. -
1310 SW 172
Seattle, Washington 98108
s,
-
F F,
r
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado 81611
.' Pitkin Co.
Real Estate &
Management Co.
L 410 East Hyman
Aspen, Co.
81611
I JUN
ASPFN KIN
PLANNING OFFICE 4 .,
Aspen/Pit g Office"*-',' —
,
130 s treet
c
aspen,• '' 1611 V-1
i\Ds=R
r
John P. Tracy rf
1302 Pesol Street a
Boulder, Colorado 8030'
,l
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130s street
aspen, 81611 '
! - r
i1
P
Roger E. Dehring
Post Office Box 5618
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130s street
aspen, 81611 ;
s
Daniel J. Rooch
Sally C. Rooch
8123 Via de Logo
Scottsdale, Arizona 85257
jj
r
�h
Aspen/Pit Wing Office
130s street p .
aspen, 81611
Jeffre H. Sachs
Suite 518
1660 incoln
Denv r, Colorado 80203
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130s street
aspen, 81611 k _t
Milton Zale
Linda Zale
2141 North Clifton Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60614
05/'30/4 1.
,'53309&41
I''E(l.F,',N TO ta1::.f'il1f:.R
I
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130s streets y
aspen, 81611
,q k
-Stephen P. Wright
Post Office Boy 4055
t
''Aspen , Colorado 81612
`T r
.seen/Pit wing Office
130 s street
aspen, 81611
Harvey Wein
1899 N.Ey 64th Street
No. Miafni Beach, Florida 33162
i
-,spen./Pit. ' ning Office
130s street
aspen, 81611 -
Estelle Stone Ellis
1900 6th Terrace
Shawnee Mission , Kansas 66208
.... .- ........, `� ...,w"
ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDINd DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning & Zoning Commission and the City
Council
FROM: Herb Paddock -- ----
DATE : April 22 , l9 el
RE : Existing Structure at 923 E . Cooper
The Building Department has inspected the above residence in
order to determine its suitability for moving to a new location .
Our inspections revealed quite conclusively that the structure
not only would be impossible to move , but if left at its present
location it should be abated as a dangerous building.
Therefore , the Building Department will issue a demolition permit
for the existing structure in order that the proposed "Ute
City Project" may proceed.
xc : John LaSalle
Butch Clark ;
Jack Walls ,,: APR P
506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973
Aspen / itkin Manning Office
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineering Department
City Housing Director
City Electric
Aspen. Sanitation. District
Mountain Bell
Fire Marshal/Buildi.ng Department
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat Submission
DATE: May 19, 1981
Attached is an application requesting preliminary plat approval for property
located at 923 E. Cooper Street. The applicants, C.M. Clark and A.G. Kaspar,
competed in the 1981 residential GMP process. They are requesting approval
for the construction of 22 condominium units, rezoning pursuant to Residential
Bonus Overlay and exemption of the employee housing units from the GMP. This
item has been scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on June 16, 1981 ; please review and return any comments to me no later than
Thursday, June 4. Thank you.
�CtO/'a� E/�
GA. Y SFw �ICE T141S � Ec % � S TAI
! et�
(j
r6 it.a .
A
MEMORANDUM
91981 '
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office t
�y'�rFE•iiS l{Vi7 Vi ''!v�
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
DATE: June 8, 1981
RE: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, Lots C, D, E, F, and G, Block 118,
O.A.T.
Having reviewed the above application for preliminary plat, rezoning, special
review, and condominiumization, the Engineering Department has the following
comment:
Provided the applicant proceeds with the conditions attached at the conceptual
stage regarding curb cuts on Cooper Street, signing, sidewalk, and water
system improvements (as he states he will ) we have no problems or further
comments regarding the application at this time.
_ SLEMON, MAZZA & LASALLE, P C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ".-
vt
434 EAST COOPER STREET
DAVID R. SLEMON ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .il ' ", '
ANTHONY J. MAZZw TELEPHONE 92:-2 ,
TELEPHONE 9252043
JOHN D. LASALLE
June 5 , 1981
Mr. Jim Markalunas HAND DELIVERED
City of Aspen Water Department
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Ute City Place Condominium Development
Dear Jim:
This is to confirm the agreement which we reached
after meeting in your office recently with regard to partici-
pation between the City and the developer with respect to the
construction of the proposed 8" interconnect on Cleveland
Street between Hyman and Cooper Street. As you recall , the
developer is constructing a 22 unit condominium project (64%
of which units will be deed restricted as employee housing) .
Although there is a 52" water line running down Cooper Street
and passing directly in front of the site of this project,
it is my understanding that you believe that line to be in-
sufficient to handle the demand of this project and, there-
fore , that you desire that an intercept line be constructed
on Cleveland Street connecting the 12" line on Hyman Street
with the 52" line on Cooper Street, therefore adding a loop
which is a needed improvement to the system in general and an
8 " line to which this project could tap. Since the 8" inter-
cept line is advantageous to both existing and future users in
the neighborhood in general, as well as to this particular
project, I understand you favor some participation by the City
with the developer in the capital cost of construct_ !;.. of the
line on some equitable basis. In a memorandum to Planning
Department which you prepared you indicated some tment
of the plant investment fee would be appropriate _ e, event
the developer constructed the line.
During the period since this project haE going
though the various approval processes , a si`„ ” _ _ -_:�nge
occurred by virtue of the fact that in the recur: elec-
tion , the voters approved a bond issue for improv a . t to the
water system among which are the construction of a 12` line up
Cooper Street, as well as the 8 " intercept line on Cleveland
between Hyman and Cooper, thus it is no longer nee.= : ry for
the developer to construct the proposed intercept the
SLEMON, MAZZA & LASALLE, P.
-- --
Mr. Jim Markalunas
June 5 , 1981
Page Two
Cith has already contracted to have that construction done as
a result of the passage of the bond issue. Because of the
passage of the bond issue, a significant increase in plant
investment fees charged to new users is expected in the near
future for the specific purpose of servicing the debt repre-
sented-by the bond issue. - - - - - - - -
With the above facts in mind I would like to propose
the following agreement between my clients , C. M. Clark and
A. G. Kaspar , the developers of Ute City Place, and the City
of Aspen with respect to water service to their development:
Since the City will definitely be doing the construction as
opposed to the developers and since the exact amount of the
increase in the plant investment fee is unknown at this time ,
but it is the mutual desire of the parties that there be an
equitable participation between the developer and the City in
the construction of the intercept line, I would propose that
the developer be able to elect either of the following two
options based upon which of them results in a lower payment to
the City by the developer :
1 . The developer will pay the full plant investment
fee based upon the current rates plus an additional amount
equal to one-half of the actual cost of the por, Ion of the
new intercept line running from the 12" line oriHyman Street
to the hydrant on the south side of Cooper Street (by your
calculations a distance of approximately 330 ' ) ,,or, alternatively,
2 . The developer would simply pay the total amount
of the new, increased, plant investment fee which is antici-
pated to take effect July 15 , 1981 , v-hichever dollar amount
results in a lower payment by the de7.-doper to the City.
If you are willing to recommend that the City -accept
the proposal outlined above , I would appreciate your so indi-
cating by signing the extra copy of this letter in the space
provided.
y tzu' ours,
lr
JDL:d , < John L LaSalle
� /for SL ' ON, r7AZZA & LaSALLE, P.C.
r
Jim Markalunas , City of Aspen
.,Water Department
1i
1
CITY. .'_OF � ASPEN
130 soth galena street
aspen- coloradn 81611
ASPEN WATER DETPARTMENT
TO: Planning �yy
FROM: Jim Markalunas
v
F
RE: Ute City Place
DATE: November 21 , 1980
k
resubmitted, I have no objections to the proposed project. The proposed
interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper would up-grade
and improve the City water system. Predicated upon this concept, the
:project should be approved.
i
cc: Jack Walls
CITY OF ASPEN
JUN 9 1981 ',Ls
130 south galena street LL. _ ._..__
aspen, colorado 81611 AS`-IE / HM'IN CO.
PLANNING OFHGE
303-925-2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE. June 9 , 1981
TO: Alan Richman
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE. Ute City Place Preliminary Plat Submission
Tne applicant has correctly stated the applicable provi-
sions of the Aspen Code and appears to have complied
with all necessary technical requirements .
The procedures set forth in Article XII of Chapter 24
must be followed to enact the necessary zoniny change.
PJT:mc
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611 _ _
IT�ti
' i�}Nits 7
MEMORANDUM `' r
TO: City Attorney
City Engineering DepartmentAFj �R .�tr'
City Housing Director
City Electric
Aspen Sanitation. Distrilct
Mountain Bell
Fire Marshal/Building Department
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat Submission
DATE: May 19, 1981
Attached is an application requesting preliminary plat approval for property
located at 923 E. Cooper Street. The applicants, C.M. Clark and A.G. Kaspar,
competed in the 1981 residential GMP process. They are requesting approval
for the construction of 22 condominium units, rezoning pursuant to Residential
Bonus Overlay and exemption of the employee housing units from the GMP. This
item has been scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on June 16, 1981 ; please review and return any comments to me no later than
Thursday, June 4. Thank you,
�0.r �
' y
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: ✓,f City Attorney
City Engineering Department
City Housing Director
/City Electric
Aspen. Sanitation District
Mountain Bell
Fire Marshal/Building Department
, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
t
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat Submission
DATE: May 19, 1981
Attached is an application requesting preliminary plat approval for property
located at 923 E. Cooper Street. The applicants, C.M. Clark and A.G. Kaspar,
competed in the 1981 residential GMP process. They are requesting approval
for the construction of 22 condominium units, rezoning pursuant to Residential
Bonus Overlay and exemption of the employee housing units from the GMP. This
item has been scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on June 16, 1981 ; please review and return any comments to me no later than
Thursday, June 4. Thank you.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Ute City Place Preliminary,Plat Submission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, June 16, 1981 at a meeting
to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall , 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, to review the preliminary plat submitted by C.M. Clark and A.G. Kaspar
requesting approval for the construction of 22 condominium units, rezoning
pursuant to Residential Bonus Overlay and exemption of the employee housing
units from the growth management plan for property located at 923 E. Cooper
Street in Aspen. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 298.
s Olof Hedstrom
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 21 , 1981
City of Aspen Account
Ul� %I
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning & Zoning Commission and the City
Council
FROM: Herb Paddock
DATE : April 22) , l9ii ��
RE : Existing Structure at 923 E . Cooper
The Building Department has inspected the above residence in
order to determine its suitability for moving to a new location .
Our inspections revealed quite conclusively that the . structure
not only would be impossible to move , but if left at its present
location it should be abated as a dangerous building.
Therefore , the Building Department will issue a demolition permit
for the existing structure in order that the proposed "Ute
City Project" may proceed.
xc : John LaSalle
Butch Clark
Jack Walls
533 E.-List Mriin Street Ar-pon, Colorado 003/025-5073
UTE CITY PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
ty. List of Area Property Owners
(those within 300 feet)
Block 117, Aspen
Block 118 , Aspen
Block 111 , Aspen
Block 112 , Aspen
Block 113, Aspen
Block 119 , Aspen
Block 35 , East Aspen
Block 34 , East Aspen
Block 37 , East Aspen
Block 40 , East Aspen
William LOUSh '
Rita Loushin 2n
Post Office BOX 252 Aspen. Color do 81612 Amolioa A. del
Frank A. Loush 4905 Hal Abel
Post lOf • LO shin DenverI Coloradoy
f.ice 80220
oro
seen, Colorado 582
1612 Post office Kelleken
Post
Charles Tower Aspen. Colorado 8
Aspen, COlor O 8114 James L• Sherman 1612
612 s R•
Frank Albert 4032 Linden Laughlin
William d J• Loushin In Western Spings, x
Aspen,Office o shin Walter Ste Illinois 60558
Pen 582 Frie nger
Co C lorado 81612 1631dPrince
rlke Stenger
Post
Curtis
Offic yens Oltowa' Ontario Wales Avenue
Aspen, Color BOX 215 Gerald , Canada
Pawnee 81612 Joseph W. Magner, Jr.
1444ee plastics 73 India Doering
. Jr.
Wichi t South Tyler r Roc Winnetka n Il 01°s d
Kansas 67209 Peter A.
Walter and F post Off LOoram
Ottawa,1pce f Walese Stenger Aspen. Colorado 8724
ntario Drive Coo 1612
. Canada per
Robert S. Street
Elizabeth Sherman L 4ttle Old Cantrell Part,oa ship
350 North De Sherman Glenn Eugene Arkansas d 203
Riverside, Ill plain e Road Post p f ugene Law 72 fice
5941p es' Doering. J 0546 Aspen. Colorado 8537
West Bl r. 1612 C.Milwaukee, Wleconn d Road Post .Off ark ice
Sandra ' Fnegan ASPen, Colorado 8161 X5062
2
84 Rollin illegal Alexander
New g Ridge coo C. M. G. KasPar
Canaan, Connect ' Post Office Connecticut 40
Maurice De Howard 068 Aspen, Colorado 81612 5257
Edward Muir ker William J.
21300 Nanc Sheehan t
Farm Post y E' Sheeha
Farmington. Michigan d48 Aspen, Co BOXn571 611
204 lorado 81612
B.'T & S.B' Sutko Bras
R•E5 & `T' S• Wskl 926 East Duran ssociates Beet
4755 Grand V Carver
iew Drive t
Peoria Illinois 1611
61614 seen, Colorado 81611
James L. Roger E. Dehrin
Jame Sherman Post office g
4032 Lirnden Ahlln Madison, Wiscons1 618 81612
Western venue n 53705
Springs, Illinois David B. Meltzer
Donald Ru 60558 South State St ;W,e #14E
`=a r
shneck Jr. Chicago, Illinois r 60603 loin 6p611
80ySoutushneck
erryton, New York PostapfdfPyrity per
10591 Milwaukee e BOX 2p54 .ton
Wisconsin Box 9332
53201 >r ado S1612
_bu rY Riding
Yland 20810
.ar
r
Marsden L. Wilhems Michael Dennis Lange
Lavon I. Wilhems Post Office Box 9423
Ridott, Illinois 61067 Aspen , Colorado 81612
John Hayes Jack Jenkins
Marjorie M. Hayes Eleanor A. Jenkins
Post Office Box 407 17605 Highway 82
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Carbondale, Colorado 81623
George H. Murphy R. Scott Keller
Betty S. Murphy Post Office Box 2804
1258 Ridgeway Drive Aspen, Colorado 81612
Sacramento , California 95813
Harold Horiuchi
Donald J. Erickson Edith Horiuchi
Marian G. Erickson 6205 West Jefferson
1102 Plummer Circle Denver, Colorado 80235
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
Nickolas Pasquarella
E. Sawyer Smith, Jr. Bette E. Pasquarella
685 East Cooper 805 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen , Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611
David Melton Frederick Marshall Karsten
Mike Otte Douglas S. Hill
Post Office Box 3715 203 South Hookum Parkway
Aspen , Colorado 81612 #616 , Apt. 631
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
Colonial Savings & Loan
Association Camilla D. Trammell
217 South Stemmons Trustee of Testamentary Trust
Post Office Box 806 2 Briarwood Circle
Lewisville , Texas 75067 Houston, Texas 77019
Brigid Mary Mulligan Andrew R. Pfeiffenberger
Post Office Box 4153 Bernadetta B. Pfeiffenberger
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Franklin H. Pfeiffenberger
Peggy M. Pfeiffenberger
Ajax Land & Cattle Co. 760 South Steele
c/o Dopkin Deaver, Colorado 80209
Post Office Box 4696
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Donna Galvin
Treneer, Edna M.
Louis J. Gregorich 1255 Riverside Drive
Edward P. Gregorich Aspen, Colorado 81611
Post Office Box 142
Aspen, Colorado 81612 W. C. Meors
1914 Peninsular Road
Gilbert A. Wehrenberg Akron , Ohio 44313
Family Trust
Post Office Box 18226 Matthew Oblock
Reno, Nevada 89511 Post Office Box 573
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Aspen Skiing Corporation
Post Office Box 1248 Richard A. Hargreaves
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Virginia Hargreaves
3N580 Meadow Road
Janice A. Kase Addison, Illinois 60101
159 Ramona Road
Partola Valley, California 94025 Samuel Braxton
Al Gross
V. George Stakley Roger Brown
Betty Stakley Post Office Box 4194
17524 Romar Street Aspen, Colorado 81612
Northridge , California 91324
3.
r
Robert E. Scheible Richard Dirkes
Shirley L. Scheible Laverne A. Dirkes
1716-G Wi,ldberry Drive Post Office Box V
Glenview, Illinois 60025 Manhasset, New York 11030
Davis Ammons Tibor F. Nagey
9 Polo Club Drive Patricia G. Nagey
Denver, Colorado 80209 Route 1
Post Office Box 331
Seven Seventy Seven Inv. Easton, Maryland 21601
Corporation
777 Broadway Kurt Kreuger
Denver, Colorado 80203 1221 La Collins Drive
Beverly Hills , California 90210
Holland & Hart
600 East Main Robert William Walker
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Route 3
Norfolk, Nebraska 68701
Thomas Gary Todvick
Carol Lee Todvick Janet T. Bohlen
2354 North 7th Ada J. Lamont
Grand Junction , Colorado 81501 4710 Quebec Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
George Joseph, Jr.
Marilyn D. George Victor Sherman
Post Office Box 18517 Michael Nasatir
Denver, Colorado 80218 Richard Hirsch
Michaeline Re
Robert E. Scheible 9911 West Pico Boulevard
Shirley L. Scheible Suite 1000
1716-G Wildberry Drive Los Angeles, California 90035
Glenview, Illinois 60025
Robert B. Lehoman
Ronald Weissman Post Office Box 8294
Jon S. Okun Aspen, Colorado 81612
Post Office Box 8421
Aspen , Colorado 81612 Martha Pyeatt Menefee
19822 Hooshootoo Road
Stephen P. Wright Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
Post Office Box 4055
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Paul W. Husted
James F. McIntyre
Eliot & Ann Bliss 3060 Joyce Way
19130 Sylvan Street Golden, Colorado 80401
Reseda, California 91335
Colorado Leasing Prop.
Jane F. Wright c/o Bruce McDonald
Post Office Box 3771 23820 West 8 Mile Road
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Southfield, Michigan 48075
Lt. Col. Michael A. Stedham Charlton H. Chatfield
1506 Sharon Drive Corrigan Lane
Silver Springs , Maryland 20910 Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
Benjamin F. Grizzle William C. Randall, D.D. S.
Post Office Box 33 641 Southdale Medical Bldg.
Washington , D.C. 20044 6545 France Avenue South
Minneapolis , Minnesota 55435
Robert C. Saunders
Salley B. Saunders Elizabeth A. McGinley
Post Office Box 25821 9 Marland Road
700 South Wedtern Colorado Springs , Colorado 80906
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125
Arrowhead Condominium Inc .
R. C. Banks Post Office Box 389
Post Office Box 242 Aspen , Colorado 81612
Midland, Texas 79701
4 .
Janice Lee Spencer John P. Tracy
349 South Meadows Avenue 1302 Pesol Street
Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Boulder, Colorado 80302
Fleet White Dohse J. Jeffrey
Nyla White 350 Dohlia Street
193 The Masters Circle Denver, Colorado 80220
Costa Mesa, California 92627
Maxcelienne S. Tavernier
Frederick Micholas Heller 855 Arbogast
Post Office Box 422 Shareview, Minnesota 55112
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Nathan Landow
Robert E. Gordon 4710 Bethesda Avenue
Walter H. Birk Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Dennis L. Wenger
Amy Britvar Hans B. Cantrup
720 East Hyman Avenue Post Office Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81612
Evelyn Yerkes Martin Schlumberger
Post Office Box 11275 2516 Woody Creek Road
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Woody Creek, Colorado 81656
Pieces of Seven Realty North Star Partners
Corp. 914 Waters Avenue
120 Maywood Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611
Rochester, New York 14618
Walter O. Wells
John Mason Reynolds , Jr. 21550 Lake Street
1310 SW 172 Cassopolis , Michigan 49031
Seattle, Washington 98108
Alta Loma Inv. Co.
Garth G. Gilpin c/o Raleigh Enterprises
Travis J. Harrison 8560 Sunset Boulevard
Joan G. Harrison Los Angeles, California 90069
Post Office Box 10502
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Thomas A. Spain
Old Orchard Road
Ernie Meissner Armonk, New York 10504
157 King Street W.
Kitchener , Ontario , Canada Avilla B. Bates
15 East 2300 Riverside Drive
George H. Harlan Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
Margaret R. Harlan
6716 Westwind Bates Lumber Co. Inc.
El Paso, Texas 79912 Post Office Box 7095
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104
Alan B. Bowles II
611 Hoska Drive Hooligan Properties
Del Mar, California 92014 23820 West Eight Mile Road
Southfield, Michigan 48034
Thomas B. Boguess
Carolyn J. Boguess Karl Boker
8309 East Boulevard Drive Robert Boden
Alexandria, Virginia 22308 Post Office Box 58
Deptford, New Jersey 08096
G & H Investment Co.
A Partnership Composed of Dr. Richard F. Jacobs
Dr. H. William Seifer 1150 N.W. 14th Street
Gerda Seifer Miami, Florida 33129
6471 Mantova Street
Long Beach, California 90815 Judith R. Bielinski
4935 Club House Circle
Boulder , Colorado 80301
5.
t
Bernard Gray James C. Hindman
Post Office Box 10251 Adriana P. Hindman
Winston Salem, No. Carolina 27108 4500 Downers Drive
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
Charles E. Owen
Charlotte L. Owen Jerome Blumberg
1125 Elmwood Suzanne Blumberg
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Post Office Box 2767
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Robert A. Dean
Melanie C. Dean K.R. &T. Associates
Post Office Box 80953 6807 Fernshaw
San Diego, California 92138 Dallas, Texas 75248
Burton Davis Michael E. Warner
Carolyn J.E.N. Aldham Craig E. Liebel
1326 H. Street, Suite 21 1045 Celestial Drive
Bakersfield, California Cincinnati , Ohio 45202
Don H. Hoff Dr. Robert Dean
Marji L. Hoff Post Office Box 80953
5451 Vista Del Arroyo Drive San Diego, California 92138
Lacrescenta, California 91314
James W. Wehsener
David Meneghetti Sharon B. Wehsener
Nora J. Meneghetti 4014 Mt. Terminus Drive
10933 Westwood Drive San Diego, California 92111
Palos Hills , Illinois 60465
L. Richard Fried, Jr.
Ronald Schoepflin Marsha A. Fried
Adolph Schoepflin 841 Bishop Street
Nancy Schoepflin Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
343 Nome Street
Aurora, Colorado 80010 Hans B. Cantrup
Post Office Box 388
Robert P. Morris Aspen, Colorado 81612
Andrew F. Koploy
Post Office Box 9069 Leland F. Bartlett
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Josephine M. Bartlett
Post Office Box 936
Brigitta Jacobsen Aspen, Colorado 81612
James Robert Barash
465 Roxbury Circle Peter Hershorn
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 555 East Durant, Apt. 3-1
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Robert W. Bilstein
Michelle M. Bilstein Richard J. Meeker
4935 Club House Circle Allison D. Meeker
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Post Office Box 2329
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Theodore Haf to 1
Howard Parkin Richard Barnett
873 Emerald Trail c/o David Dangler
Martinsville , New Jersey 08836 The Northern Trust Company
50 Sough LaSalle Street
Goerge Vranesh Chicago, Illinois 60675
Elta Jo Vranesh
Post Office Box 871 The Dexter Group
Boulder, Colorado 80302 26400 Southfield Road
Lathrup Village, Michigan
Michael C. Kravitz
6807 Fernshaw Richard J. Meeker
Dallas, Texas 75248 Allison D. Meeker
Post Office Box 2329
Jack 0' Neill Aspen, Colorado 81612
Doris A. O'Neill
416 Kresse Circle
Hopkins , Minnesota 55343
6 .
•
C. C. Harris - Jerry Monkarsh
Post Office Box 4390 Joyce Monkarsh
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Chester Fexestein
Nancy Fexestein
Richard Morton 2292 Betty Lane
Helen Morton Beverly Hills, California 90212
Suite 805
Security Trust Building Mogulhopper Properties
700 Brickell Avenue c/o M. A. Tighe, Jr.
Miami , Florida 33131 Northern Trust Company
50 South LaSalle Street
Vincent Building Co. Chicago , Illinois 60675
25484 Meadowbrook
Novi , Michigan 48050 Michael W. Syeto
Dave Thomas
C. M. Clark c/o IBM Ltd.
Joseph T. Zoline 257 Consumers Road
Post Office Box 566 Willowdale, Ontario, Canada
Aspen, Colorado 81612 N2J4R
Jaye K. Murray Theodore A. Haftel
Post Office Box 352 Howard Parkin
Aspen, Colorado 81612 873 Emerald Trail
Martinsdale , New Jersey 08836
Kenneth Maurin
Mollie Maurin Gary F. Glasgow
Post Office Box 13 Estela A. Beale , M.D.
Aspen, Colorado 81612 2601 South Quebec #5
Denver, Colorado 80231
Gideon Kaufman
Jerome Meister Jeffrey H. Sachs
Post Office Box 10001 Suite 1518
Aspen, Colorado 81612 1660 Lincoln
Denver, Colorado 80203
Ross E. Goldstein
Thomas B. Rosenberg - - - - Leonard Horwitz
1022 East Hyman June Horwitz
Aspen, Colorado 81611 1290 Pembroke Lane
Topeka , Kansas 66004
Barry D. Edwards
600 East Hopkins Ann Grace Turnbull
Suite 101 Post Office Box 15005
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen , Colorado 81612
Megan L. Mancini Roderick F. McPhee
Kent F. Mancini Punahow School
Post Office Box 4763 25 Pipeic Pali
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Honolulu, Hawaii 96802
Sheila S. Draper Robert E. Bond
Candida E. Hooper 3530 Central Avenue
Post Office Box 4081 Shadyside , Ohio 45947
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Claude Carlisle Smith, Jr.
Susan Lum Mary Margaret Smith
Post Office Box 1571 31/35 Frenchurch Street
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Plantation House
London, England
David Colville Reeves
Post Office Box 100 Genevieve F. Martin
Suite 4802 119 C Shoreline Rd. L.B.S.
Toronto Dominion Bank Barrington, Illinois 60010
Toronto III, Canada
Robert F. Reiser
Larry M. Saliterman Thorwald Trolle
Robert M. Levine 137 Greenly Road
2240 Lee Avenue North New Canaan, Connecticut
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
7.
Randolph Jacobs William R. Johnson
c/o First National Montana 810 Roxbury Road
Missoula, Montana 59801 Rockford, Illinois 61107
Blake Construction Co. , Inc. Estelle Stone Ellis
c/o Al Seewalsky 1900 6th Terrace
1776 K 8 T. NW Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66208
Washington, D.C. 20006
Stefan T. Edlis
Winston A. Puig 5333 North Elston Street
1900 North Oregon Chicago, Illinois 60630
Suite 102A
El Paso, Texas 79902 Edgar G. Ingalls
Mary M. Ingalls
James L. Gerrie, Jr. 411 Medical Arts Building
Judith N. Gerrie Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
28926 Dover Ridge Drive
Ranchos Palos Verdes, Martin Fine
California 90274 Helen M. Fine
58 Samona Drive
Hooligan Prop. Miami, Florida 33133
23800 West Eight Mile Road
Southfield, Michigan 48034 Betty S. Byers
Post Office Box 1952
Charles H. Dankworth Aspen, Colorado 81612
Clara M. Dankworth
3903 North Mission Hills Road Neligh C. Coates, Jr.
Northbrooke, Illinois 60062 Post Office Box 4949
Aspen , Colorado 81612
Stephen H. Hart
c/o Chuck Brandt Don D. Crawford
600 East Main Jack B. Crawford
Aspen, Colorado 81611 3401 East Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90803
Dr. Michael J. Wasserman
Golf Mile Professional Bldg. Betty S. Byers
Suite 925 Post Office Box 1952
Niles, Illinois 60648 Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dr. John G. Miglioni Melvyn A. Anholt
Post Office Drawer A 1100 The Doctors Center
80158 700 Fannin
San Diego, California 92138 Houston, Texas 77030
Carlton J. Hunke Alexander L. Gross
614 19th Avenue South Post Office Box 10760
Fargo, North Dakota 58107 Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lee R. Lyon Albert Gray
Joanne R. Lyon Kathleen Gray
800 North Atlantic Richard S. Weissman
Kansas City, Missouri 64116 Anthony Zazzu
Rosalie Zazzu
Paul D. Scheele 29 Alney Avenue
c/o Gordon Young Cherry Hill , New Jersey 08003
71 East Division Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610 Penny Colburn
Anthony T. Mitchell
Michael Di Lorezo Post Office Box 3896
1034 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81612
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dennis H. Ostermaier
Winston A. Puig Marvin L. Kay
1900 North Oregon Post Office Box 4173
Suite 101A Aspen, Colorado 81612
El Paso, Texas 79902
8 .
r
Alexander Gross Basil J. Falcone
Ronald G. Domont James and Audrey Altounian
Post Office Box 9200 516 North Lexington Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lake Forest, Illinois 60045
Eric A. and Janet Teddlie Stanley Green
William L. Wood, Jr. 6300 North River Road
Martha Wood Suite 305
c/0 5736 Stonegate Rosemont, Illinois 60018
Dallas, Texas 75209
Stone-Kuske Co.
Hildigard E. Hattie 5904 South Atlanta Avenue
Post Office Box 496 Tulsa, Oklahoma
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Donald M. Norris
Jere D. McGaffey Judith P. Norris
c/o Foley & Lardner 4016 Picary
First Wisconsin Center Northbrooke, Illinois 60062
777 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee , Wisconsin 53202 Polly King Dodge
68 Marland Road "FPG" T
Michael P. McPhee Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906
1256 Green Meadow Lane
Littleton, Colorado 80121 John F. Weldon
c/o First National Bank of
Avenales Aviation, Inc . Chicago Reo 50544
Post Office Box 197 One First National Plaza
Shandon, California 93461 Chicago, Illinois 60670
Calvin Robert Schoonhven William L. Wallen, III
1320 South Oak Knoll 899 Skokie Boulevard
Pasadena, California 91106 Chicago, Illinois 60062
Nathaniel Robbins Rebecca T. Ayers
Mary D. Robbins 21 Lakewood Drive
5023 Woodale Lane Racine , Wisconsin 53402
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Eugene D. Mandel
George Cook Jordan Helen W. Mandel
Elizabeth B. Jordan 360 North Bedford Drive
801 West 57th Street Room 417
Kansas City, Missouri 64113 Beverly Hills , California 90210
Richard W. Hansen Betty J. Weiss
Joanne B. Hansen Post Office Box 1595
2 South 502 Heaton Drive Aspen, Colorado 81612
Batavia, Illinois 60510
Walter Herbst
De Walt H. Ankeny, Jr. Sandra Herbst
930 Dain Tower 86 Salem Lane
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Evanston, Illinois 60204
John D. Kousi Robert A. Grich
Edward A. Danohy 210 Bennett Avenue
Patricia Danohy Long Beach, California 90803
127 Chester Avenue
Garden City, New Jork 11530 William Kennel
1318 Melbrook Drive
Colorado Leasing Properties Munster, Indiana 46321
23800 West Eight Mile Road
Southfield, Michigan 48034 Joseph S. Ehrman
c/o Sidley & Austin
Robert M. Price , Jr. One 1st National Plaza
c/o B. R. Oberle Suite 320
6204 Saint Albans Circle Chicago, Illinois 60603
Edina, Minnesota 55435
9.
+ r
George M. Walker Nicholas and Marlene Bockwinkel
2461 Shannon 3639 Virginia
Northbrook, Illinois 60062 St. Louis , Missouri 63118
Benjamin Greene John L. Frey
50 Hazel Avenue 415 South Spring Street
Highland Park , Illinois 60035 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Daniel Brook Bartlett Martin Greenberg
Edward Wayland Bartlett Village Squire
606 West 49th Terrace Main Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Westport, Connecticut
Holligan Prop. Kurt L. and Alice M. Curtis
23820 West Eight Mile Road 117-03 Curzon Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075 Kew Gardens , New York 11418
Winston A. Puig Ann Amabile
Suite 101A Post Office Box 2794
1900 North Oregon Aspen, Colorado 81612
El Paso, Texas 79902
John W. Little
Grant Brothers Post Office Box 15025
500 Coffman Street Aspen, Colorado 81612
Post Office Box 948
Longmont, Colorado 80501 R. W. and Bury Stolz
815 4th S.E.
Frank K. Griesinger Jamestown, North Dakota- 5840.1
Suite 1412 Superior Bldg.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 John M. Custer
1020 East Durant, #302
W. Baker McAdams Aspen, Colorado 81611
Penelope E. McAdams
711 Louisiana Richard J. Reynolds
Suite 700 Post Office Box 7013
Houston, Texas 77002 Aspen, Colorado 81612
Jennie Cowling Donald R. and Judy Wrigley
Earl Cowling Post Office Box 3399
939 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81612
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Margaret Bonar Day
Sepp H. Kessler Post Office Box 923
Jane Kessler Aspen, Colorado 81612
Post Office Box 33
Aspen, Colorado 81612 Boomerang, Ltd.
500 West Hopkins
Louise M. Frisby Aspen , Colorado 81611
Post Office Box 15024
Aspen , Colorado 81612
J. Bradley and Salley B. Gibson
Leslie T. Gilkerson
1020 East Durant Avenue , Apt . 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
10 .
MEMORANDUM
TO : Building Department - Bill Drueding, Stan Stevens
FROM : Alan Richman , Planning Office
RE : Ute City Place
DATE : January 12 , 1983
I have been informed that you have received an application
for a building permit for the Ute City Place on Cooper Avenue
between West End and Cleveland Streets (Lots C , D , E , F and G,
Block 118 , City of Aspen) . This project competed successfully
in the residential GMP in 1981 and was awarded 8 free market
and 14 employee units .
During the subsequent subdivision review process for this
project in 1981 , the City of Aspen adopted a moratorium on
residential development in the RNiF zone . Since this project
had been in the process well in advance of the moratorium,
City Council granted it an exemption from the provisions of
the moratorium by a resolution adopted on September 28 , 1981 .
As you are well aware , City Council eventually adopted changes
to the area and bulk requirements in the residential zones
as an outcome of the moratorium in the RMF zone district .
In the opinion of the Planning Office , the exemption from the
moratorium granted to the Ute City Place project also carries
over to any application of the new area and bulk requirements .
We believe that it is only fair to process this application
for a building permit under the prior regulations since it was
originally submitted under the GMP in good faith and subject
to these restrictions . Unless we receive any instructions to
the contrary , T�,e would recommend that you follow this procedure
in your review of this application.
Please let me know if you need any additional materials from
our files as you process this application.
cc : Sunny Vann
Paul Taddune
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, RBO, Exemption of Employee
Units from GMP and Condominiumization
DATE: June 11,_ 1981
Zoning: R-MF
Lot Size: 15,000 square feet
Location: 923 and 909 Cooper Street (Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118,
City of Aspen) between West End and Cleveland Avenues.
Background: This project is one of three which received an allocation
during the 1981 Residential GMP Competition. The applicant
satisfied the requirements of conceptual presentation before
P & Z with the original GMP submission and received conceptual
approval before Council on March 23, 1981. The conditions of
that approval were as follows:
1. The applicant agreeing to provide an 8" water system inter-
connect on Cleveland between Hyman and Cooper by working
out an equitable arrangement with the Water Department prior
to review for preliminary plat;
2. The applicant meeting the conditions of the City Engineer
concerning the variance for a curb cut on Cooper Street,
including,
- that the curb cut will only be used as an entry to the
site, with the exit being through the alley and signs being
erected for this purpose,
- that signs be erected indicating right turn only from
Cooper and no left turn from Cooper,
- that all signs shall be erected at the owner's expense
and shall be approved by the City,
- that the owner shall apply to the State DOT in Glenwood
Springs for approval of a driveway permit on Highway 82.
3. The applicant providing a sidewalk the length of the pro-
perty along Cooper Street.
4. The applicant installing fireplaces designed with energy
conservation in mind and limiting the number of installa-
tions to minimize air pollution impacts; and
5. The applicant giving further consideration to landscaping,
massing and bulk and their relationship to the request for
Residential Bonus Overlay at the preliminary plat stage of
the review process.
6. Inspection of the site by the Building Inspector to assess
the movability of the historic structure and to report to
the Planning Office as to the results of that unit.
Applicant's
Request: Based on the Planning Office efforts to streamline the review
process for projects which have received a GMP allocation, the
applicant is requesting the following concurrent reviews:
1. Preliminary plat subdivision
Memo: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, RBO, Exemption of Employee
Untis from GMP and Condominiumization
June 11, 1981
Page Two
2. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay.
3. Exception from subdivision to exempt the employee
units from the GMP.
4. Exception from subdivision for condominiumization.
The applicant proposes to build 22 units, including 12 units
deed restricted to low income guidelines, 2 units deed restricted
to moderate income guidelines and 8 free market units, as
originally proposed in the GMP application.
Review of
Requests: The Planning Office has assembled the review comments of the
various referral agencies and will address each of the dis-
crete requests of the applicant.
1. Preliminary Plat Subdivision
The application has address each of the six conditions placed on
the conceptual subdivision approval as follows:
a) The applicant has provided a letter dated June 5, 1981,
attached for your review, confirming the agreement reached
between the applicant and the Water Department regarding
two alternatives for payment of the 8" interconnect on
Cleveland between Hyman and Cooper.
b) The Applicant has agreed to meet the conditions of the
City Engineer concerning the variance for a curb cut on
Cooper Street.
c) The applicant has agreed to provide a sidewalk the length
of the property along Cooper Street.
d) The applicant has agreed to limit fireplaces to eight of
the units and to design them with energy conservation in
mind.
e) The applicant proposes to plant Aspen and Evergreen trees,
shrubs and grass sod as landscaping. These features are
shown on the plat itself. Massing and bulk concerns are
addressed in relation to the request for RBO.
f) The applicant has provided a memo from Herb Paddock, dated
April 22, 1981 and attached for your review, that the
building at 923 East Cooper would be impossible to move and,
if left at its present location, should be abated as a
dangerous building. The demolition permit was therefore
issued and the building was subsequently demolished.
Other significant aspects of the preliminary plat include:
- The plat shows 26 parking spaces for the 26 bedrooms, resulting
in no need to waive the parking requirements for the zone.
- The applicant proposes the drainage be provided by means of
transfer to gravel sumps in the alluvial subsoil , as proposed
in the initial application.
- The site is within walking distance of the central business
district.
No major negative comments were received by the Planning Office
regarding this application. In fact, the reviewing Engineer and
City Attorney commented that the application was among the finest
either had ever reviewed. The only new condition resulting from
Memo: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, RBO, Exemption of Employee
Units from GMP and Condominiumization
June 11, 1981
Page Three
this review came from the City Electric Department which made
the following comment:
1. The applicant should provide the load requirements for electric
service, particularly if electric heat is to be used or not.
The Planning Office therefore recommends that you approve the
applicant's request for preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant paying the City its share of the cost of
the water system improvement based on the arrangement worked
out between the applicant and Jim Markalunas;
2. The applicant meeting the conditions of the City Engineer
concerning the variance for a curb cut on Cooper Street,
including:
- using the curb cut only as an entry to the site, with the
exit being through the alley and signs being erected for
this purpose;
- erecting signs indicating right turn only from Cooper and
no left turn from Cooper;
- erecting all signs at his own expense and having them
approved by the City Engineer prior to their erection;
and
- applying to the State DOT in Glenwood Springs for approval
of a driveway permit on Highway 82;
3. The applicant providing a sidewalk the length of the property
along Cooper Street;
4. The applicant providing the City Electric Department with
information concerning the required loads for the project,
including whether or not electric heat will be used; and
5. The applicant in all other respects following the original
proposal outlined in the GMP submission for which points
were awarded and an allocation received.
2. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay
Applications for rezoning to RBO are permitted in the R-MF zone as
long as the parcel meets the minimum lot size of the district, which
is 6,000 square feet. Multi-family dwelling units are permitted
in the R-MF/RBO if at least one-half of the units are deed re-
stricted as employee housing.
The applicant meets the minimum area and bulk requirements of the
RBO district. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required for
this site is as follows:
A studio requires 500 square feet of land.
A one bedroom unit requires 625 square feet of land.
A two bedroom unit requires 1050 square feet of land.
Since the applicant is proposing 6 studios (3000 square feet
needed) , 12 one-bedroom units (7500 square feet needed) and
4 two-bedroom units (4200 square feet needed) his total of
14,700 square feet needed is permitted on the 15,000 square
foot parcel .
Memo: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, RBO, Exemption of Employee
Units from GMP and Condominiumization
June 11, 1981
Page Four
The applicant also meets the lot width, front, side and rear,
yard requirements, maximum height limit (28 feet) and has no
open space requirement to meet in this district. The external
FAR for this site is 1.25:1, resulting in a maximum FAR of 18,750
square feet. The applicant proposes a total floor area of
15,876.5 square feet.
The applicant states that based on the current price guidelines
for deed restricted housing, the units would be rent or sold
at the following rates:
(dumber/Type of Unit Rental Price Sales Price
4 - 568 S.F. studio-low $ 272.45 $34,056.00
2 - 648 S.F. studio-low $ 311.04 $38,880.00
4 -- 818-S.f. -1-bedroom-1 ow - $ 392-.83 $49,104.00
2 - 634 S.F. 1-bedroom-low $ 304.13 $38,016.00
2 - 1135 S.F. 2-bedroom-mod. $ 715.18 $80,599.20
However, the Planning Office notes that according to Section
24-11.4(b)(3)(cc) , units which exceed the maximum square footage
limitations for employee units shall be restricted in retail and
sales price terms to the appropriate size limitation. As a re-
sult, following are the guidelines which should be followed:
(dumber/Type of Unit Rental Price Sales Price
4 - 568 S.F. studio - 600 S.F. max. $272.45 $34,056.00
2 - 648 S.F. studio - 600 S.F. max. $288.00 $36,000.00
4 - 818 S.F. 1-bedroom-800 S.F. max. $384.00 $48,000.00
2 - 634 S.F. 1-bedroom-800 S.F. max. $304.13 $38,016.00
2 - 1135 S.F. 2-bedroom-1000 S.F. max. $640.00 $71,000.00
The applicant also suggests that since Council can be expected
to revise its guidelines in October, it would be expected that
the revised guidelines would be those followed. The Planning
Office would instead argue that the guidelines in effect at the
time the RBO is granted and the exemption for the employee units
from the GMP is approved should be those which are charged at
occupancy of the units, much the same as is being required of the
Marolt project. The applicant would then be eligible to escalate
rents or sales prices on an annual basis within approved rates of
the City of Aspen.
Section 24-10.9 of the Code provides review criteria for designa-
tion of a site within a residential Bonus Overlay District. Each
criteria is addressed below.
1. Compliance with PUD statement of purposes - The project
will promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services as infill development
which can be easily be serviced. The project achieves a
beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas
since it is compatible with the existing multi-family
character of the neighborhood.
2. Compliance with any adopted housing plans Since 12 of
the units are to be deed restricted to low income guidelines
and two units to moderate income guidelines and since the
project proposes studios, one and two bedroom units, it
contributes to the employee housing mix needed by the City
of Aspen. As noted above, the applicant should be required
to deed restrict the units to the sales price/rental guide-
lines in effect at the time of final approval of the RBO
Memo: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, RBO, Exemption of Employee
Units from GMP and Condominiumization
June 11, 1981
Page Five
and GMP exception by City Council . This criterion also
refers to deed restriction against condominiumization of
rental units. The applicant should be encouraged to main-
tain a mix of rental and sales units to meet this stipula-
tion.
3. Construction Quality and Unit Size - The building will
involve custom wood frame construction with exterior materials
such as redwood or cedar siding and trim. The wood fascia
and the sloping roofs will receive a metal with dark brown
finish. Many of the units are sized to exceed the maximum
limitations of the GMP and since they must nevertheless be
priced based on the maximum limitation in square feet, will
provide an excellent value to the purchaser or renter.
4. Dispersal of Deed Restricted Units - The project integrates
free market and employee units within the same building. The
project also integrates employee units into an area which
is characterized predominately by free market units.
5. Environmental and Social Iripacts - As an infill development
the project should cause minimal impacts on the existing
social and environmental fabric of the community. However,
P & Z should recognize that in order to provide the maximum
number of employee units, the applicant has requested the
full doubling of density allowed, resulting in a massive,
bulky building encompassing the entire site.
6. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use - This area consists
mostly of multi-family, condominium developments and as such,
this project is in keeping with its basic character.
7. Auto Disincentives - This project is located on both the
Mountain Valley and Silverking bus routes. It is located
within two blocks walking distance of City Market. It also
recognizes that residents will nevertheless have cars and
so provides one parking space per bedroom.
8. Adequacy of Utilities - Among all the referral comments on
this project, the only one which presented any problem was
water service. Since the applicant is planning to participate
in the improvement of water (and resulting fire protection
service) , this one limiting factor should be eliminated.
Based on this review of the appropriate evaluation criteria, we
recommend that you approve the applicant's request for rezoning to
RBO, subject to the following conditions:
. 1. The applicant agreeing to stage the rental/,sales prices so
that they do not exceed the maximum square footage limita-
tions of Section 24-11.4(b)(3)(cc) of the Code;
2. The applicant agreeing to deed restrict the 15 employee units
to the appropriate low and moderate income guidelines which
are in place at the time of approval of the RBO and exemption
from GMP by City Council , with annual price adjustments
according to the approved rate of the City of Aspen; and
3. The applicant making every effort to maintain a balance of
rental and sale units among the fourteen employee units.
Memo: Ute City Place Preliminary Plat, RBO, Exemption of Employee
Units from GMP and Condominiumization
June 11, 1981
Page Six
3. Exemption of the Employee Units from the GMP
Section 24-11.2(f) of the Code provides that review criteria for
exemption of employee units from the GMP including "a determina-
tion of community needs considering, but not limited to the type
of units, and the rental/sale mix of development.
The criteria upon which to evaluate the exemption from the GMP
of employee units have been addressed in the previous review of
the rezoning to RBO. The Planning Office recommends that you
approve this request. We recommend that you reiterate the above
three conditions which were also for the rezoning while adding
the following condition:
4. The applicant providing deed restrictions limiting the six
studios and 6. one-bedroom units to low income housing
guidelines and occupancy limits and the 2 two-bedroom units
to moderate income housing guidelines and occupancy limits.
4. Condominiumization
The applicant proposes to condominiumize the 22 units but has not
yet determined which of the units will be rented and which will be
sold. At the time of application, two units were located on the
proposed development site. The house at 923 East Cooper was in
poor condition and has been unoccupied for the past five years
since its owner died. This unit was demolished following the
issuance of a permit by the Building Inspector. The unit at
909 East Cooper was owner occupied until the applicant purchased
the property. Since that time, it has been rented on a short term
basis at prices which exceed the employee housing guidelines. The
applicant plans to demolish this structure as well .
The applicant also makes the following statements:
- There will be no tenants displaced as a result of condominiumiza-
tion.
- No tenants have been required to move involuntarily in the last
18 months.
- The proposed 14 deed restricted units will result in a net in-
crease in the supply of low and moderate income housing.
Based on the above review, the Planning Office recommends that you
approve the applicant's request for condominiumization, subject to
the following condition:
1. The applicant restricting all units to six month minimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year.
UTE CITY PLACE
(a Condominium Project)
1. Preliminary Plat Approval
in Conjunction With Sub-
division Procedures
Application For : 2 . Rezoning Pursuant to
Residential Bonus Overlay
District Procedures
3. Special Review to Obtain
Exemption of the Employee
Housing Units From the
Growth Management Plan
4 . Condominiumization so that
the Units May be Separately
Sold if the Developer so
Desires
Date of Submission:
Project Owners : C. M. Clark and A. G. Kaspar
300 West Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-6969
Project Architect/Planner: Jack M. Walls Architects
Post Office Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81612
925-3218
Project Engineer/Surveyor: Johnson-Longfellow & Associates
-Post Office Box 5547
Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615
923-3496
Project Attorneys: Slemon , Mazza & LaSalle, P.C.
434 East Cooper Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-2043
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
and
PURPOSES OF APPLICATION
The applicants are seeking the appropriate ap-
provals so. that they can construct 22 condominium units on
a 15 ,000 square foot parcel of land which is located within
the original townsite of Aspen, and is presently zoned
R-MF. The project is being developed pursuant to the
recently adopted Residential Bonus Overlay District provi- .
sions of the Aspen City Code and thus , more than one-half
of the units to be constructed will be deed restricted as
employee housing. The project has already proceeded through
and received the appropriate allocation under the 1981
Residential GMP competition. The project has also already
received conditional conceptual subdivision approval from
the City Council . This application is for concurrent approval
under four separate categories in the City Code, all of which
are required in order for the applicant to proceed to develop
the property in the manner just described:
1. Preliminary Plat Approval in Conjunction With
Subdivision Procedures;
2. Rezoning Pursuant to Residential Bonus Overlay
District Procedures;
3 . Special Review to Obtain Exemption of the
Employee Housing Units From the Growth Management Plan; and
4 . Condominiumization so that the Units May be
Separately Sold if the Developer so Desires.
This application is organized into four separate sections
corresponding to the four separate procedures under which
the applicant is seeking approval.
1. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
Subdivision approval is required in connection with
the development of this property due to the fact that it
involves the construction of multi-family units which are
intended to be condominiumized. In accordance with the City
Subdivision Regulations a preliminary plat is being submitted
along with this written application.
The following information, supplementary to or
regarding the information required by Section 20-12 of the
Aspen Municipal Code to be submitted on or with the prelimin-
ary plat. Reference will be made to the subsection of Sec-
tion 20-12 which is being addressed;
(a) - (g) -- on plat;
(h) The single internal street is shown on the
plat. The paved surface on Cooper Street (Highway 82) is
48 feet in width, which includes shoulders. It does not have
curb and gutter, but does have shoulders on either side of
the road. A sidewalk exists across the street and, in accor-
dance with one of the conditions for approval of the conceptual
subdivision, the developers will install a sidewalk the
length of the property. The existing roads in the area have
adequate capacity, and are of adequate condition to handle
the additional travel demand to be realized from this develop-
ment. The alley to the rear of the site, which is located
between Cooper and Durant Streets, has been closed at the
east end and is, therefore, a dead-end alley. Since Cooper
Street, in this area doubles as State Highway 82 , the City
normally prohibits any new curb cuts. However, the City
Engineer has approved this curb cut based on Section 19-102
of the Municipal Code which permits the City Engineer to
grant a variance in the event of unusual conditions. In
granting such a variance the City Engineer set the following
conditions (also imposed as a condition to conceptual approval)
which the developer has agreed to:
1. The curb cut will be used as an entry only to
the condominium project. Signs will be erected indicating
that a right turn only will be allowed and that a left turn
may not be made into the project by individuals travelling
west on Cooper Street (State Highway 82) .
2. Exit will be through the alley and the appro-
priate sign or signs will be erected for that purpose;
3. All signs will be erected at the owner ' s expense
and shall be approved by the City;
4 . The owner has made necessary application for
the driveway permit to the State Department of Transporta-
tion in Glenwood Springs to permit the turn from State
Highway 82.
Drainage from the building
roofs will be provided by means of transfer directly to gravel
sumps in the alluvial subsoil, thereby feeding the aquifer.
It should be noted that development of this property will
result in the extension and looping of a major City water line
in the area from P. I.F. and will provide greater water pressure
fire flows , overall improved water service and fire protection
safety for the residents of this portion of town. In conjunc-
tion with the GMP application, both Willard C. Clapper, Fire
Chief, and Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Department, indi-
cated that they had no objection to the project and, in
addition, that the inner-connect would improve the City water
system. (See letters of each entity attached) .
(i) The site of the subdivision has very little in
the way of existing vegetation or other natural landscape
features. Thus, landscaping to be performed by the developer
will be extremely important to the final product. Any
existing trees on the site will be preserved and protected.
If such trees are located in an area where the building is
to be located, and if the size of the tree permits , they will
be relocated.
(j ) The property is located in the original Aspen
townsite and is not located within any zone that constitutes
a natural hazard area.
(k) The architect for the project, Jack Walls,
has arranged for a soil report in conjunction with the design
of the foundation for the building. With respect to projected
traffic generation, the site will contain 26 off-street parking
2.
spaces. The property is serviced by Cooper Street which is
also Highway 82 . This portion of the street right-of-way is
approximately 75 feet in width and the paved surface varies
from 45 to 48 feet. Cooper Street functions as a major col-
lector street for the east end of Aspen and is also the route
for the Mountain Valley and Silverking routes for the Aspen
Free Shuttle Public Transportation System. Service for both
of these routes operates on a 20 minute cycle. While there
are not locally specific numbers available, a national house-
hold trip generation number for single family residences in
suburban settings is approximately seven one-way trips per
day for private vehicular activity. Several facets of this
proposed project will mitigate private vehicular travel re-
quirements. The site is within easy walking distance of all
essential neighborhood commercial and retail services. It
is one and one-half blocks, or roughly 350 feet, from City
Market and Durant Mall neighborhood center. It is roughly
1,500 feet from the central business district, where expanded
commercial facilities are also available. Assuming an esti-
mated four one-way trips per day per unit, approximately 88
trips would be generated by this project. However, this
number must be discounted by the fact that the property is
immediately adjacent to shopping opportunities and is ser-
viced literally on the front doorstep by free urban trans-
portation. Thus , it would be safe to assume that no signifi-
cant traffic generation should be caused by this project.
With respect to air pollution, the proximity to services
discussed above should discourage use of automobiles , the
major cause of air pollution. In addition, one of the condi-
tions for conceptual approval was that the applicant install
fireplaces designed with energy conservation in mind and that
the applicant limit the number of installations in order to
minimize air pollution impact. The applicant intends to comply
with that condition and hereby represents that less than one-
half of the units to be constructed will have fireplaces and
those that do will have energy conservation and air pollution
minimization features. A meeting was held with both the
Planning Department and the Engineering Department prior to
the preparation of this application and neither Department
requested any additional information.
(1) As stated earlier in this application , the
extension and looping of a major City water line in contem-
plated in connection with this development which both the
Water and Fire Departmens have indicated will be a benefit
to the residents of this portion of town so there will clearly
be no adverse effect upon the surrounding area. Drainage
occasioned by runoff from the roof of the building is to be
handled by means of transfer directly to gravel sumps in the
alluvial subsoil, thereby feeding the aquifer. A preliminary
meeting was held with both the Planning and Engineering
Departments and no additional information was requested.
(m) Site Data Tabulation - The project is located
in a R-MF zone and consists of five 30 feet by 100 feet lots
totalling 15 ,000 square feet of land. A total of 22 condo-
minium units are proposed for the site., 14 of which are
employee housing units and 8 of which are free market units.
26 on-site parking spaces are provided and those parking
spaces are shown on the plat. The size and type of dwelling
units are broken down as follows:
3.
EMPLOYEE UNITS FREE MARKET UNITS
Low Income
4 - 568 s/f studios 6 - 1096 s/f one bedroom
2 - 648 s/f studios 2 - 1316 s/f two bedrooms
4 - 818 s/f one bedroom
2 - 634 s/f one bedroom
Moderate Income
2 - 1135 s/f two bedrooms
There is no requirement for open space in the R-MF
zone district. See Section 24-3. 4 of the Aspen Municipal
Code.
(n) Most of the information called for in this
subsection appears on the plat. With respect to landscaping
the main areas to be landscaped consist of the area fronting
on Cooper Street, and in the below-grade garden court areas.
1. The area between the north property line and
the new sidewalk will have a combination of Aspen and ever-
green trees , mainly Aspen , planted. Trees and shrubs will
be planted at the north end of the parking area to partly
screen the parking from Cooper Street. The remaining area
will be sodded with grass.
2 . The area between the sidewalk and the proposed
curb line on Cooper Street will be planted with grass sod.
3. The below-grade garden court areas will be land-
scaped with a combination of Aspen trees, shrubs and grass
sod. Concrete sidewalks will be installed to provide access
to each unit.
(o) A zoning change is being requested in conjunc-
tion with this application which would change classification
of all of the property which is the subject of this applica-
tion (Lots C, D, E, F and G in Block 118 , City of Aspen) from
R-MF to the zoning designation Residential Bonus Overlay
District.
(p) The names and mailing addresses of the owners
of adjacent properties as obtained from the Assessor ' s office
for Pitkin County is appended to this application.
2. REZONING
(To Residential Bonus Overlay District)
Application is hereby made pursuant to the provi-
sions of Article X of the Aspen Municipal Code which provides
for Residential Bonus Overlay Districts. That Article was
added to the Aspen Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 16 , 1980 ,
and the purpose stated at the outset of the Article in Section
24-10-1 " . . to provide for present and future housing needs
of the community by authorizing the development of bona fide
low, moderate and middle income housing free from speculative
investment influence and for primary residential use by local
4 .
residents. " It is submitted by the applicant that this
project complies with each and every requirement contained
in that Article and that as such it is appropriate that the
property in question be rezoned from R-MF to Residential
Bonus Overlay District.
A. The project complies with all of the techni-
cal requirements contained in Article X.
Section 24-10. 4 Permitted Uses. The project is a
multi-family dwelling unit which is a permitted use in the
Residential Bonus Overlay District, which will be superimposed
over a site within the R-MF zone district.
Section 24-10 .5 Area and Bulk Requirements.
(a) The minimum lot area in the R=MF zone is 6 ,000
square feet, the subject site consists of 15 ,000 square feet.
(b) Since one-half or more of the dwelling units
are deed restricted within the terms of Section 24-11. 4 (b) (3) ,
then the minimum lot area per dwelling unit as outlined in
Section 24-10 . 5 (b) (5) shall be followed.
1. Studio Unit. . . . . . 500 s/f of land
2 . One Bedroom Unit . . . 625 s/f of land
3 . Two Bedroom Unit . . 1 ,050 s/f of land
Therefore, the breakdown of the number and types of units
are as follows :
12 - 1 Bedroom Units @ 625 s/f = 7 ,500 s/f
4 - 2 Bedroom Units @ 1050 s/f = 4 ,200 s/f
6 - Studio Units @ 500 s/f = 3 , 000 s/f
TOTAL LAND AREA = 14 ,700 s/f
The above total of 14 ,700 square feet is less than the allowed
maximum of 15 ,000 square feet.
(c) The minimum lot width need only be 60 feet.
The widths of the lots in question which constitute the site ,
total 150 feet.
(d) The minimum front, side and rear lot require-
ments of 10 , 5 and 10 feet, respectively, have been observed.
(e) The maximum height of 28 feet has been observed.
(f) There are no accessory buildings and there is
no requirement for open space in the R-MF district.
(g) Because more than one-half of the dwelling
units to be constructed on the site will be deed restricted
in the terms of Section 24-11.4 (b) (3) , the maximum external
floor area ratio shall be 1. 25 :1. The calculation is as
follows :
Site Area = 15,000 s/f
Maximum F.A.R. = 15,000 s/f x 1.25 = 18,750 s/f
First Floor = 4 , 897 s/f
Second Floor = 5 , 997.5 s/f
Third Floor = 4 , 982 s/f
Total Floor Area = 15 ,876 .5 s/f
5.
The above total of 15 ,876 . 5 square feet is less than the
allowed maximum of 18 ,750 square feet.
Section 24-10 . 7
(a) Section 24-10 . 7 permits the application for
designation of the site as an area within a housing overlay
district to be made at any time during the year.
(b) (1) The preliminary plat being submitted in
conjunction with the subdivision process is intended to also
serve as the site plan required by the said Section
24-10.7. Elevations and floor plans which were submitted
with the Growth Management Plan application (and are attached
hereto) , together with the preliminary plat being submitted
herewith should be sufficient to satisfy the requirement
that material described under Section 24-8 . 7 (d) and (e) of
the Code be submitted along with the application for designa-
tion of the site as a Residential Bonus Overlay District.
(b) (2) A description of the total number of dwelling
units categorized by type, square footage, number of bedrooms
and baths has been set forth earlier in this application
under the subdivision portion thereof. The construction
method to be utilized will be custom wood frame construction.
With respect to the employee housing units, the rental and
sales prices established by the City Council and in effect
at this time would make the projected sales prices and monthly
rentals as follows :
Rental
Type of Unit Price Guidelines Rental Per Unit
4 568 s/f Studios . 48 rer s/f (low 272 . 45
income)
2 648 s/f Studios . 48 per s/f 311. 04
4 818 s/f One Bedroom .48 per s/f 392. 83
2 634 s/f One Bedroom .48 per s/f 304 . 13
2 1135 s/f Two Bedroom .63 per s/f (moderate 715 . 18
income)
Sales Prices
4 568 s/f Studios $60 . (low income) 34 ,056 . 00
2 648 s/f Studios $60 . 38 ,880 .00
4 818 s/f One Bedroom $60 . 49,104 . 00
2 634 s/f One Bedroom $60 . 38 ,016 . 00
2 1135 s/f Two Bedroom $71 . per s/f 80 ,599. 20
(moderate income)
Since the Council is expected to revise its current guidelines
in October of this year, prior to occupancy of the units , it
would be expected that the revised guidelines would be those
followed. With respect to the free market units , the following
represents the projected sales prices (no rentals are anti-
cipated) :
6 1096 s/f One Bedroom Sales Price $274 ,000 per unit
2 1316 s/f Two Bedroom Sales Price $361,900 per unit
6 .
While C. M. Clark and A. G. Kaspar are joint owners
of the project, C. M. Clark is the managing partner and should
be considered the developer. His experience as a developer
is as follows :
1 . Developed three subdivisions, two in Indian Hills,
Colorado, and one in Aspen (Pitkin Mesa) for a total of 139
single family, multi-family, commercial and individual lots.
2. Constructed approximately $70 million dollars
worth of buildings as a general contractor, including
Pomegranate Inn, Holiday Inn, Snowmass Commercial Core Area,
and approximately 150 multi-family units in the Aspen area.
3. Developer and owner of Courthouse Plaza Building.
4 . Developer, owner and builder of numerous single
family and duplex homes through the Aspen area.
B. The project satisfies the review criteria con-
tained in Section 24-10. 9 of the Municipal Code.
Criteria (a) requires that the City Council find
that the proposed development is appropriate for the neighbor-
hood considering architectural design, bulk and density.
Neighborhood means an area four blocks in length (2 blocks
on either side of the site or area) . The neighborhood in
which this project is located consists primarily of other
multi-family or townhouse projects and some commercial uses
(City Market and adjacent commercial buildings) . The property
is bordered by a six unit condominium project on the west,
a 20 unit condominium project on the south and a triplex and
commercial project on the east. As stated earlier in this
application , its architectural features will include custom
wood frame construction with exterior materials including
stained redwood or cedar tongue-and-groove wood siding, with
stained redwood or cedar trim. The wood fascia and the
sloping roofs will receive a metal with dark brown finish.
All of the architectural aspects mentioned above will comple-
ment the construction presently in the neighborhood. There-
fore , with respect to its bulk, density and design, it is
eminently appropriate for the neighborhood. The project will
achieve the following other purposes included in review
criteria:
1. It complies with most of the planning and
development statement of purposes as set forth in Section
24-8 . 1 of the Municipal Code.
2 . Its emphasis on deed restriction for low and
moderate income housing (14 of the 22 units) obviously ad-
dresses a major goal of the City with respect to the addition
of employee housing.
3 . The architectural design maximizes construction
quality and unit size.
4 . Because the project integrates within a single
building, deed restricted and free market units, and is in a
neighborhood of exclusively free market units, it obviously
aids in geographic disbursal of deed restricted units.
5 . Since the development is in an area of similar
developments and close to the commercial core area, there is
a minimization of adverse environmental and social impacts.
6 . As stated above, because of the area in which
7.
it is located, the project is compatible with surrounding
land uses and zoning.
7. Since it is located on that portion of Highway
82 which doubles as Cooper Street and as was demonstrated
in the Growth Management Plan submission, the project is
located on both the Mountain Valley and Silverking bus routes,
thus providing immediate proximity to transportation and
since it is located only two blocks from the commercial core
area of Aspen, it clearly will discourage the necessity of
automobile use and yet its on-site parking spaces provides
on-site storage of automobiles which can be expected to be
brought to town by the project 's residents.
8 . The adequacy and availability of utilities
has been shown in the Growth Management Plan submission and
in the subdivision portion of this application, and in addi-
tion it has been shown that the project will actually result
in better water service for its neighborhood because of the
eight inch inner-connect to the water system.
3. SPECIAL REVIEW (FOR EXEMPTION
OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS FROM
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
General Statement. Section 24-11. 2 of the Munici-
pal Code contains the permissible exceptions to the Growth
Management guota system. 24-11.2 (h) exempts housing units
constructed pursuant to Section 24-11 . 10 , subject to the
special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 24-11.10
describes employee housing as low, moderate and middle income
housing units approved under the provisions of Section
24-11.4 (b) (3) . Section 24-11.4 (b) (3) is the provision within
the Growth Management quota plan whichprovides points for low,
moderate and middle income housing mix within a residential
development which goes through the Growth Management Plan
process. This development has gone through the Growth Manage-
ment Plan process and its free market units have been approved
under the appropriate provisions, thus it is now appropriate
for the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to
consider exempting the employee units from the Growth Manage-
ment Plan under the exemption process described above.
According to Section 24-11.2 , the review criteria which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should use
in approving the exemption shall include the following:
"A determination of community needs considering but not
limited to the number of units to be constructed, the type
of units , and the rental/sale mix of the development. "
As stated above, the number of employee units to
be constructed is 14 of the total of 22 units. It is cer-
tainly worth noting that since the Growth Management Plan
quota system has been implemented by the City, few, if any,
employee units have been constructed pursuant to the provi-
sions of that plan. Thus , it would seem clear that there is
a continuing community need for the construction of such
units. The applicant herein has targeted June 1 , 1981, for the
commencement of the construction of these units, subject, of
course , to completion of the approval process. Thus, if the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council grants this
exemption, construction of badly needed employee units will
take place immediately (construction financing for the project
has already been secured) . This is not a situation where
the developer merely seeks to accumulate quotas for future
construction. In the mix of units the developer has emphasized
8 .-
low and moderate employee units (there are no middle income
units in the project) and in fact, the vast majority of the
units (12) are low income units. Only two of the employee
units proposed will be moderate income units. With respect
to the rental/sale mix of the development, the developer
would prefer to retain maximum flexibility with respect to
that matter and to make the decision as to whether or not and
when to sell the units depending on his particular needs and
requirements from time to time. It should be noted that
C. M. Clark, the developer of this project, has been primarily
engaged in the business of holding real property for rent on
a long-term basis to local employees for the past 15 years.
He is presently the owner of 61 units which are rented on a
long-term basis by some 160 employees. It is his intent to
continue through this project the business of holding real
estate for rent. However, it does become necessary from
time to time for him to sell some units and thus, it is dif-
ficult for him to predict at this point in time exactly how
many units will be sold and how many will be held for rent.
However, it seems clear from recent housing studies that both
rental and sale units are in high demand.
Based on the above, it is respectfully requested
that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council ap-
prove the exemption of the employee units of this project from
the provisions of the Growth Management Plan.
4 . CONDOMINIUMIZATION
Application is hereby made for condominiumization
of the 22 units which are proposed to be built on the site
which is the subject matter of this application. Most of the
provisions of Section 20.22 of the Municipal Code regarding
condominiumization are inapplicable to this situation since
new construction is involved. However , there are two existing
structures on the property which the applicant intends to
demolish prior to construction of the new building. The con-
cerns with respect to existing tenants and a supply of low
and moderate housing do not apply to the existing houses since
they have never been rented long term, and since the project
provides for 14 low and moderate income units, the supply of
such housing will actually be increased by the approval of
this condominiumization.
(a) The premises known as 923 East Cooper Street
is an old structure which has no heat, no plumbing, no founda-
tion and has been unoccupied for the past five years since
its owner died. The owner was the only occupant prior to that
time. Thus, it had never been rented. The premises known as
909 East Cooper Street was owner-occupied until the applicant
bought the property and since that time the only rental has
been on a short-term basis and the premises have been unoccupied
since the last short-term tenancy which ended in April of 1981.
(b) As can be seen from the information submitted
in connection with the other aspects of this application ,
14 of the 22 units proposed to be built on the site will be
deed restricted as either low or moderate income employee
units .
Addressing the criteria stated in Section 20-22 :
1. There will be no tenants displaced as a result
of condominiumization.
2 . No tenants have been required to move in the
9.
e
preceding 18 months prior to the application.
3. 64% of the condominium units will be deed
restricted so that they can only be sold or rented according
to low and moderate income guidelines.
4 . Because of the above-mentioned deed restric-
tion, the rental price of 64% of the units to be constructed
cannot be increased after condominiumization except pursuant
to the applicable guidelines.
5. Since there are no tenants being displaced,
relocation need not be considered.
6 . At this point in time the applicant' s plans
are not settled as to whether any or all of the units will
be sold or rented.
CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
The following six conditions were imposed on the
applicant in connection with receipt of conceptual subdivision
approval:
1. The applicant agreeing to provide an eight inch
water system interconnect on Cleveland between Hyman and
Cooper by working out an equitable arrangement with the
Water Department prior to review for preliminary plat.
2 . The applicant meeting the conditions of the
City Engineer concerning the variance for a curb cut on
Cooper Street.
3. The applicant providing a sidewalk the length
of the property along Cooper Street.
4 . The applicant installing fireplaces designed
with energy conservation in mind and limiting the number of
installations to minimize air pollution impacts.
. 5. The applicant giving further consideration to
landscaping, massing and bulk and their relationship to the
request for Residential Bonus Overlay at the preliminary plat
stage of the review process.
6 . Inspection of the site by the Building Inspector
to assess the movability of the historic structure and to report
to the Planning Office as to the results of that visit.
The present status of those conditions is as follows:
Condition 1 - The applicant is in the process of
arriving at an equitable arrangement with the Water Department
and will have done so prior to the hearing on the preliminary
plat.
Condition 2 - The applicant has agreed to all aspects
of this condition and has applied to the State Department of
Transportation for a driveway permit.
Condition 3 - Sidewalk will be constructed.
Condition 4 - Only eight of the 22 units will have
fireplaces and those will have energy conservation features
by virtue of being generating, outside air fireplaces capable
of heating a major portion of each unit.
10 .
Condition 5 - Addressed in the subdivision portion
of this application.
Condition 6 - A memorandum is attached to this
application from Herb Paddock, the Building Inspector,
indicating that he inspected the residence, found that the
structure was impossible to move and that in fact if left
at its present location, it should be abated as a dangerous
building. See attached. The applicant has, as a result of
that memorandum, applied for and received a demolition per-
mit and plans to demolish the structure in the near future .
SUMMATION
It is submitted that the applicant has comprehen-
sively addressed and complied with all of the requirements
of the four separate procedures under which the applicant
is seeking approval. The applicant wishes to call to the
attention of the Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion and the City Council that it is the applicant 's desire
to complete the construction of this project by December of
this year so that it can be fully occupied next winter . In
order to attain that goal it is vital that construction on
the project begin as soon as possible, preferably no later
than June, 1981 . It should be noted that there is a signi-
ficant overlapping in the information and other requirements
contained in these four procedures and the Growth Management
quota -plan approval process which the applicant has just
successfully completed. Bearing in mind the time constraints
for construction in this area, the overlap in the information
required in the various approval processes and the desire on
the part of City Government to provide low and moderate in-
come housing which the community so badly needs and this
project will provide (in a manner which features on-site
integration of free market and employee units at a location
with a proximity to services which in itself will act as an
auto-disincentive) it is respectfully requested that this
application be processed with the utmost speed possible under
the circumstances.
11.
C O O P E R 8 T R E E T
N
r - EMPLOYEE UNITS
PROP. LINE f 4 1 BEDROOM APARTMENTS W
- F
-8- �4� S EACH
\ r
2 — 1 BEDROOM APARTMENTS
�. R D E N - �� Uf\R�ya.0
I � (m +( -6-3-3.6 SF EACH O
LIV LIV LIV LIV 0
LIV LIV J
KIT KIT KIT KIT U
KIT KIT
( J
.1 . j
2
W
OR OR
a
.R OR ■R OR
O R D N C O u R `� I
vwov. LIME
A L L E Y
o a 16 GARDEN LEVEL PLAN
O P E R 8 T R E E T
RIGHT TURN ONLY c 0
EMPLOYEE
LI
4�1 u
N ITS
2 — 2BEDROOM APARTMEN TS
1-3-3rw—.2 SF EACH
0
4 — STUDIO APARTMENTS
W�
ir SF EACH (3
to I
—"-
Ni 13
s -1 10
LIV LIV LIV
KIT KIT KIT KIT
J
iVEST
/-T 8 SLEEP SLEEP
rd
N r e B SLEEP SLEEP
B R 4 4 S R
IL
tu KIT KIT 7L
Ix
S R i I ►� a =.�13d 8 R LIV LIV B -°qR
'u
PI
T--
..........
lz
P A
R K
P 0
1111 .101 -9 1 6 1, 3 21
-7 4
lsc' o" L
EXIT .4-- ----
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
C O O P E R 8 T R E E T
T�7 N
EMPLOYEE UNITS U
2 — STUDIO APARTMENTS W
j! -"0 SF EACH
FREE MARKET
TOWNHOUSE UNITS O
14 15 76 77 18 l 6 - 1 BEDROOM APARTMENTS O
i 1095.6 SF EACH
LIV OR BR OR OR � Y
3 2 — 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS ifif
p 7 1316.2 SF EACH 0
J B KIT .'�1� j
W „� O
E �B. E El B, E
C O R R 1 D O R N
w
,-4 E �B E E �B B E j
J
KIT 4 U � � z
'.
o W
2
a
LIV BR BR OR OR
Y Q
13 19 20 21 22
a
a
n
El
Q
P A R K I N 0 B E L O W
A L L E Y
0 5 i6 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
C O O P E R B T R E E T
FTI I
H H u
N
W
'j ! TO
15 16 17 18 i 0
0 00 J
ROOF Q
DECK
/ _ LIV LIV LIV LIV
KIT KIT KIT KIT �,, ', 40
BR
e B e B liil El
t J „
,B B� �B B J
BR Z
QW
KIT KIT KIT KIT n L
LIV LIV LIV LIV ■�
■
ROOF Q
` DECK 19 ° 20 0 0 21 0 22
A L L E V
Q�w`�16 THIRD FLOOR PLAN
uunuon ui1=
HNIiI !■ III __ �� �IflIIN ( ■h (III Hill
o
� H�u!� ■�� u�l �Ilnli■ I■! � ■ ■
I e� I� Ian � � I I � ■ ,. mm
� � �aaaaaa r 1 I I� .., , I�� �� Iq�� III IWI■ � 1
- • • - � �'_': Mir - • s - I��■ naa�naam® ,�. _�mu�nas����,iauia�iamm���� = anaannu�i� ,
•
NIA IIIIIIIINI IINtI
� I � � I III■I� '�I��lI �i i■! I 'gl!�I�I � C�� ��n�moiil
��II ICI �■ ( I� IIII I� IIIIL 'Niglllllll 1
mum ■ rune� �■ ��m �� II
11■i !1111�i111 _MMI����t�, �I��III� �� i��ll��i i � � �
i����alllll�mii ��a■uuuanmununu�,�p�INn�anummaa aua �m��i� -• • ,
W
I, I
0
M;6
- Q o
SCALE °; 5 r15 EAST ELEVATION J
0
Nu
-- J
Jz
Jill ," Qw
� lil , N
- � Q
SCALE O 5 15 WEST E L E VATION
El
Q
�,� LIVING LIVING
I' W
H
BED RM. E T. E T. BED RM. ICI
BRI D6E
LIVING BED RM. BED RM.
COOPER � , I ALLEY
y ,
BRIDDE
IT.
LIVING BATH BED RM.
Q 0
SCALE °`,,�5 is LIVING SECTION J
O
m U
w
KIT. BATH BATH KIT.
a
ORSQ. B. B. DRBO. o
Wes, 7(, II ����� ��I�� �� � ■
_
it KIT. BATH BATH KIT. �
L2
'II LIVING BA BED RM.
Z
SCALE 0.��„15 �i6 UTILITY SECTION
I
1
t
i
t
t
hi
W
r
la
k ,a
s .
t,.
j
.,a..,
_
I
L TY LA E
G . M . P . SUBMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Ute City Place Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning/Final Plat/Exemption of
Employee Units from GMP/Condominiumization
DATE: August 4, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FOR :
Zoning: R-MF
Lot Size: 15,000 square feet
Location: 909 and 923 East Cooper Street (Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118,
City of Aspen) between West End and Cleveland Avenues.
Background: This project is one of three which received an allocation during
the 1981 Residential GMP competition. The applicant satisfied
the requirements of conceptual presentation before P & Z with
the original GMP submission and received conceptual approval
before Council on March 23, 1981 . The applicant then returned
to P & Z with the following concurrent requests:
1 , Preliminary Plat Subdivision
2. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay
3. Subdivision Exception to exempt the employee units from the
GMP,
4. Subdivision Exception for condominiumization
P & Z recommended approval of each of these requests at their
meeting on June 23, 1981 ..
Applicant's The applicant is requesting final approval from City Council of
Request: the four reviews listed above. The applicant proposes to build
22 units, including 12 units deed restricted to low income guide-
lines and occupancy limitations, 2 units deed restricted to
moderate income guidelines and occupancy limitations, and 8 free
market units, exactly as originally proposed in the GMP applica-
tion,
The request to rezone the site to Residential Bonus Overlay
should be processed by Council in the same fashion as any other
request by a private landowner to rezone his land, with the
exception that RBO requests may be heard at any time during
the year. The RBO must, therefore, be heard as an ordinance to
amend the zoning map and requires two readings for adoption.
You approved Ordinance 38, series of 1981 which rezones this
site from R-MF to R-MF/RBO on first reading at your meeting on
July 13, 1981 . To assist you in your final review of the RBO,
the Planning Office will repeat below the information included
in that initial review.
RBO Review Applications for rezoning to RBO are permitted in the R-MF zone
Criteria: as long as the parcel meets the minimum lot size of the district,
which is 6,000 square feet. Multi-family dwelling units are
permitted in the R-MF/RBO if at least one-half of the units are
deed restricted as employee housing.
Memo: Ute City Place Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning/Final Plat/
Exemption of Employee Units from GMP/Condominiumization
Page Two
August 4, 1981
Th,e applicant meets the minimum area and bulk requirements
of the RBO district. The minimum lot area per dwelling
unit required for this site is as follows:
A studio requires 500 square feet of land,
A one bedroom unit requires 625 square feet of land.
I
A two bedroom unit requires 1050 square feet of land.
Since the applicant is proposing 6 studios (3,000 square
feet needed) , 12 one-bedroom units (7,500 square feet
needed) and 4 two-bedroom units (4,200 square feet needed)
his total of 14,700 square feet needed is permitted on the
15,000 square foot parcel . Council should recognize, how-
ever, that without the RBO the permitted density on the
site would be half of that shown above and would allow
the applicant to build, for example, only 12 one-bedroom
units, or six studios and 4 two-bedroom units or 6 studios
and 6 one-bedroom units. This RBO request, as can be seen,
does represent a maximizing of allowable density on the
site.
The applicant also meets the lot width front, side and rear,
year requirements, maximum height limit (28 feet) and has
no open space requirement to meet in this district. The
external FAR for this site is 1.25:1, resulting in a maximum
FAR of 18,750 square feet. The applicant proposes a total
floor area of 15,876.5 square feet.
The applicant states that based on the current price guide-
lines for deed restricted housing, the units would rent or
be sold at the following rates:
Number/Type of Unit Rental Price Sales Price
4 - 568 S.F. studio - low $ 272.45 $34,056.00
2 - 648 S.F. studio - low $ 311.04 $33,830.00
4 - 818 S.F. 1-bedroom - low $ 392.33 $49,104.00
2 - 634 S.F. 1-bedroom - low $ 304.13 $38.016.00
2 - 1135 S.F. 2-bedroom - mod. $ 715.18 $80,599.20
However, the Planning Office notes that according to Section
24-11.4(b)(3)(cc), units which exceed the maximum square
footage limitations for employee units shall be restricted
in retail and sales price terms to the appropriate size
limitation. As a result, following are the guidelines which
should be follows:
Rental Sales
Number/Type of Unit Price Price
4 - 568 S.F. studio-low - 600 S.F. max. $272.45 $34,056.00
2 - 648 S.F. studio-low - 600 S.F. max. $288.00 $36,000.00
4 - 818 S.F. 1-bedroom-low - 800 S.F. max. $384.00 $48,000.00
2 - 634 S.F. 1-bedroom-low - 300 S.F. max. $304.13 $38,016.00
2 -1135 S.F. 2-bedroom-mod.-1000 S.F. max. $640.00 $71,000.00
The applicant also suggests that since Council can be
expected to revise its housing price guidelines in October,
prior to occupancy of the units, that the rental/sale prices
for these units should be those for new units which you will
adopt at that time. However, historically, if a project
has been approved prior to the revision of the guidelines, it
only receives the price increase given to existing units and
not those for new units. The annual price increases
Memo: Ute City Place Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning/final Plat/
Exemption of Employee Units from GMP/Condominiumization
Page Three
August 4, 1981
over the past two years have been 17% for new construction
and 9% for existing structures, adopted in the fall of
1979, and 14.5% for new construction and 8% for existing
structures approved last October. The Planning Office
recommends that the housing price guidelines for this pro-
ject be those in effect at the time that RBO rezoning is
approved and that the project be eligible for a housing
price increase as an existing structure when annual revisions
are made this fall .
Section 24-10.9 of the Code provides review criteria for
designation of a site within a residential Bonus Overlay
District. Each criteria is addressed below.
1. Compliance with PUD statement of purposes - The project
will promote more efficient use of land and public
streets, utilities and governmental services as infill
development which can be easily be serviced. The project
achieves a beneficial land use relationship with sur-
rounding areas since it is compatible with the existing
multi-family character of the neighborhood.
2. Compliance with any adopted housing plans - Since 12 of
the units are to be deed restricted to low income guide-
lines and two units to moderate income guidelines and
since the project proposes studios, one and two bedroom
units, it contributes to the employee housing mix needed
' by the City of Aspen. As noted above, the applicant
should be required to deed restrict the units to the
sales price/rental guidelines in effect at the time of
final approval of the RBO by City Council . Finally,
since the annual housing survey indicates a need for
low income units which are available for purchase rather
than rental , the applicant's proposal to condominiumize
the units is also in keeping with adopted housing plans.
3. Construction Quality and Unit Size - The building will
involve custom wood frame construction with exterior
materials such as redwood or cedar siding and trim.
The wood fascia and the sloping roofs will receive a
metal with dark brown finish. Many of the units are
sized to exceed the maximum limitations of the GMP and
since they must nevertheless be priced based on the
maximum limitation in square feet, will provide an ex-
cellent value to the purchaser or renter.
4. Dispersal of Deed Restricted Units - The project inte-
grates free market and employee units within the same
building. The project also integrates employee units
into an area which is characterized predominately by
free market units.
5. Environmental and Social Impacts - As an infill develop-
ment the project should cause minimal impacts on the
existing social and environmental fabric of the community.
Council should recognize that in order to provide the
maximum number of employee units, the applicant has
requested the full doubling of density allowed, resulting
in a massive bulky building encompassing the entire site.
However, the design does employ a sunken courtyard effect
to offset the size of the building.
6. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use - This area
consists mostly of multi-family, condominium developments
and as such, this project is in keeping with its basic
character.
Memo: Ute City Place Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning/Final Plat/
Exemption of Employee Units from GMP/Condominiumzaton
Page Four
August 4, 1981
7. Auto Disincentives - The project is located on both
the Mountain Valley and Silverking bus routes. It is
located within two blocks walking distance of City
Market. It also recognizes that residents will never-
theless have cars and so provides one parking space
per bedroom.
8. Adequacy of Utilities - Among all the referral comments
on this project, the only one which presented any pro-
blem was water service. Since the applicant is planning
to participate in the improvement of water (and resulting
fire protection service) , this one limiting factor
should be eliminated.
Planning Office
Recommendation: Based on this review of the appropriate evaluation criteria
we recommend that you approve Ordinance 39 , Series of
1981, on second reading.
Council Action: Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendation,
the appropri'ate motions are as follows:
"Move to read Ordinance 38, Series of 1981"
"Move to approve Ordinance 38, Series of 1981"
Additional The Planning Office has reviewed the other three concurrent
Concurrent requests by the applicant and will present the issues in-
Requests: volved and the recommendations for each individually.
1 . Final Plat Submission
The applicant has submitted a Subdivision Agreement which
specifies the manner in which the conditions of conceptual
and preliminary plat approval will be met. The City Attorney
has reviewed this Agreement and determined that it meets the
requirements of the Code, while the Engineering Department
has reviewed the agreement to determine whether all necessary
improvements related to the project have been provided.
Both are in agreement that the Subdivision Agreement and
final plat are adequate to meet the requirements of the
Code and to take care of the previous conditions placed
on the project's approval . A copy of the Subdivision
Agreement is included in the packet for your review.
Council Action: Since this Agreement ties up all of the previous conditions
of approval of this development, the appropriate motion by
Council for final plat approval is as follows:
"Move to approve the Ute City Place Final Plat Subdivision
subject to the following condition:
The applicant executing the Subdivision Agreement and
recording it along with the other documents of Final
Approval . "
2. Exemption of the Employee Units from the GMP
Section 24-11 .2(f) of the Code provides review criteria for
the exemption of employee units from the GMP including "a
determination of community needs considering, but not
limited to the type of units, and the rental/sale mix of
development.
The criteria upon which to evaluate the exemption from the
GMP of employee units have been addressed in the previous
review of the rezoning to RBO. In addition, the applicant
Memo: Ute City Place Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning/Final Plat/
Exemption of Employee Units from GMP/Condominiumization
Page Five
August 4, 1981
has submitted to the Planning Office building plans for the
employee units which document that what is to be built is
substantially the same as what was originally proposed in
the GMP application. The Planning Office recommends that
you exempt these units from competition under the GMP.
Council Action: Should Council concur with the Planning Office, the appro-
priate motion is as follows:
"Move to exempt the six studios and six one-bedroom low
income housing units and two two-bedroom moderate income
housing units of the Ute City Place development from compe-
tition under the GMP subject to the following condition:
- The applicant recording the building plans for the
units along with the other documents of final approval . "
3. Condominiumization
The applicant proposes to condominiumize the 22 units but
has not yet determined which of the units will be rented
and which will be sold. At the time of application, two
units were located on the proposed development site. The
house at 923 East Cooper was in poor condition and has been
unoccupied for the past five years since its owner died.
This unit was demolished following the issuance of a permit
by the Building Inspector. The unit at 909 East Cooper
was owner occupied until the applicant purchased the property.
Since that time, it has been rented on a short term basis
at prices which exceed the employee housing guidelines. The
applicant plans to demolish this structure as well .
The applicant also makes the following statements:
- There will be no tenants displaced as a result of Condo-
miniumization.
- No tenants have been required to move involuntarily in
the last 18 months..
- The proposed 14 deed restricted units will result in a
net increase in the supply of low and moderate income
housing..
Based on the above review, the Planning Office recommends
that you approve the applicant' s request for condominiumiza-
tion.
Council Action: Should Council concur with the Planning Office recommendation
the appropriate motion is as follows:
"Move to approve the request to condominiumize the Ute
City Place development, subject to the following condition:
- The applicant restricting all units to six month minimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. "
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM it C.f.HOECNEL 8.B.B L.CO.
ORDINANCE NO. 38
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS C, D, E, F AND G,
BLOCK 118, IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN ,
COLORADO, FROM R/MF TO R/MF/RBO
WHEREAS , the Aspen City Council -has been presented with a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning ConuAss ion to amend
Section 24-2. 2 of the Municipal Code , and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the same for the
benefit of the City of Aspen,
s
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Section 24-2. 2 ( Zoning District Map) is hereby amended by
changing the zoning of Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, from R/MF
to R/MF/RBO, subject to full compliance with the Final Subdivision
Plat and Subdivision Agreement for the area, and the two following
conditions :
1. The applicant agreeing that the rental/sa 1es prices for
the employee units will not exceed the maximum square
footage limitations of Section 24-11 . 4(b) ( 3 ) ( cc ) of the
Code ; and
2. The applicant providing deed restrictions limiting the
six studios and six one-bedroom units to low income
houFiny guidelines and occupancy limits- and the two
two-bedroom units to moderate income housing guidelines
and occupancy limits . The price guidelines to which the
units are restricted shall be those which are in place
RECORD Or PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM f0 C.F.HOECNFE B.B.6 L.CO.
for new units at the time of approval of the RBO and
exemption from GMP by City Council. The units shall be
eligible thereafter for annual price adjustments as
existing units , according to the approved rates of the
City of Aspen.
Section 2
If any section, subsection, sentence , clause , pnrase , or por-
tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti-
tutional by any court of competent 3urisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct anti independent provision and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por-
tions thereof.
Section 3
That a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the
day of 1981 , at 5: 00
P.M. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , Aspen , Colo-
rado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same
shall be published once within a newspaper of general circulation
within the City.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held on the day of
1981.
Herman Edel
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM% C.F.MOECKEL B.B.d L.CO.
FINALLY adopted , passed and approved on the day of
1981.
Herman Edei
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
3
• L
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,
1981 , by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herein-
after referred to as "City") and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER
G. KASPAR (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sub-
divider" ) .
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City
for approval , execution and recordation, a final plat (herein-
after "the plat") concerning the construction of a 22 unit
condominium building on property owned by Subdivider known as
Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118 , City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1981, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval subject to
specific conditions and on July 13 , 1981, the City Council
granted final plat approval ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is willing to approve,
execute and accept for recordation the plat on the condition
that Subdivider agree to all matters contained in this agree-
ment; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose certain condi-
tions and requirements in connection with its approval , exe-
cution and recordation of the plat, as are necessary to
protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider is willing to acknowledge ,
accept, abide by and faithfully perform all of the condi-
tions and requirements imposed by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20-16 (c) of the
Aspen Municipal Code , the Subdivider is required to pro-
vide assurances that it will faithfully perform the condi-
tions and requirements as hereinafter agreed to prior
to the City 's acceptance and approval of the final plat;
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 mutually agreed as follows:
I.
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Subdivider and its assigns shall be responsible
for the construction and installation of all improvements
required by Section 20-16 (a) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
and as are indicated on the plat. The nature , extent and
estimated cost of such improvements shall conform to the
schedule annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" .
II.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section 20-16 (c) of the Aspen Municipal
Code and prior to the issuance of any permits for construc-
tion, Subdivider shall provide a guaranty for no less than
one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated costs of the im-
provements indicated on Exhibit "A" annexed hereto and made
a part hereof and as approved by the City Engineer. The
guaranty to be provided by Subdivider shall be in the form
of a cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loan
association; or shall be in the form of an irrevocable site
draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible
lender ; and such guaranty shall give the City the uncondi-
tional right, upon default, by the Subdivider , or its succes-
sors or assigns , to withdraw funds upon demand to partially
or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As
portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer
shall inspect them and, upon approval and acceptance, he
shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for
2.
that portion of the improvements except that ten percent
(100) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer.
The Subdivider, its successors and assigns shall
and hereby agree to provide unto the City a warranty as to
all improvements for a period of one (1) year from and after
acceptance by the City of such improvements .
The Subdivider, its successors and assigns shall
further guarantee by a maintenance bond or other suitable
means , the repair of any existing improvements damaged during
the course of construction of new improvements pursuant to
the provisions of this Article.
III.
PARKING SPACES
The Subdivider , its successors and assigns shall
designate and provide twenty-six (26) on-site (off street)
parking spaces meeting the requirements of Article IV of
Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as such parking spaces
are indicated and designated on the plat.
IV.
WATER LINE
The City of Aspen is in the process of construc-
ting an 8" intercept water line on Cleveland Street between
Hyman and Cooper Streets. At such time as construction is
completed on said line and on the line to be constructed on
Cooper Street (so that the Subdivider has the ability, sub-
ject to the appropriate application to the Water Department ,
to tap on to the Cooper Street line) , and the City has adopted
the anticipated new plant investment fee structure , Subdivider
3 .
agrees to elect one of the two following options at his
sole discretion , prior to being permitted to tap on to said
line :
1 . Subdivider will pay the full plant invest-
ment fee based upon the current rates plus an additional
amount equal to one-half of the actual cost of the portion
of the new intercept line running from the 12" line on
Hyman Street to the hydrant on the south side of Cooper
Street (a distance of approximately 3301 ) or, alternatively,
2. Subdivider will pay the total amount of the
new, increased, plant investment fee which is anticipated
to take effect August 5, 1981, whichever dollar amount
results in a lower payment by the Subdivider to the City.
V.
DEED RESTRICTIONS
Subdivider agrees that Units 101 through 106,
201 , 203, 205, 206, J and K, will not be rented or sold
except in accordance with the low income guidelines estab-
lished by the City of Aspen for the period October, 1980
to October, 1981 , plus such increases as are permitted by
those guidelines and that Units 201 and 204 will not be
rented or sold except in accordance with moderate income
guidelines established by the City of Aspen for the period
October, 1980 to October, 1981 , plus such increases as are
permitted by those guidelines.
Subdivider agrees that all of the units in the
project will be subject to the following rental restriction :
If any unit is rented, it must be rented for a term of not
less than six months per calendar year and for only two
shorter tenancies per calendar year.
4.
VI .
FIREPLACES
Subdivider agrees not to install any fireplaces
in 14 of the 22 units and to install Majestic metal fire-
places, Model Number MHC 36 , which are energy conserving,
free air fireplaces , in each of the eight other units.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Subdivider and City and their
respective successors and assigns.
B. This Agreement shall be subject to and con-
strued in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado
and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
C. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or
any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section
or the application thereof in any circumstance is invali-
dated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, and the application of any such
provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
section in any other circumstance shall not be affected
thereby.
D. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties herein with respect to the
transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or
amended from time to time only by written instruments execu-
ted by each of the parties hereto.
E. Numerical and title headings contained in this
Agreement are for convenience purposes only, and shall not
be deemed determinative of the substance contained therein.
F. Any notices required to be given to the parties
to this Agreement shall be deemed to be given if personally
delivered or deposited in the United States mail to the
parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses
5 .
indicated below:
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subdivider or its successors or assigns
C. M. Clark and A. G. Kaspar
c/o C. M. Clark
Post Office Box 566
Aspen , Colorado 81611
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have here-
unto set their hands and seals on the date and year respec-
tively indicated in full understanding and agreement to the
terms and conditions herein contained.
CITY OF ASPEN
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
By
Herman Edel
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune
City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss .
County of Pitkin )
The above and foregoing Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corpora-
tion, and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR, was acknowledged
before me this day of , 1981 , by
HERMAN EDEL, Mayor , and KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk, of the
City of Aspen.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires :
Notary Public
6 .
C. M. Clark Alexander G. Kaspar
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The above and foregoing Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen , Colorado, a Municipal Corpora-
tion, and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR, was acknowl-
edged before me this day of 1981,
by C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires :
Notary Public
7 .
EXHIBIT "A"
To Subdivision Agreement Between
The City of Aspen and
C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kasper
Improvements to be constructed and installed by Subdivider:
Estimated
1 . Sidewalk the length of the property Cost
along Cooper Street to City specifications; $ 2625. 00
2 . Road sign indicating that a left $ 100.00
turn may not be made into the project by indivi-
duals travelling west on Cooper Street (State
Highway 82) .
Construction Schedule:
Construction of the above improvements will be completed
not later than October 1 , 1982.
10.0
REVIEW EX& .nT
IOw `.-.'U a.AL l„_E hl'1'1' k1,:Ct;
l': .. ,.:R's ri�..)�,�`.,'.Z(.?�.L�)t'Y7 ltv 'L'Li�, ��--F•;I= �.t�.11 is_Cr.,i�.1_ _
RESOLUTION NO.
(. uLius 01 i�t3l)
WHEREAS, an huqust: 24 , 1981 , the Aspen City Council did adopt.
Ordinance Igo. 50 , Series of 1981 , imposing a month Mora :or iwo on
the construction andfoi: c':.p ansion of all buiininys located in the
11-MF _one district , and
':a11EttRAS, Section 3 of said ordinance provides that City
Council may , by resolution, e);ewyt: an application aireaJj in the
reviuw process tro :l the r tr u Lions of the morat:o io� ii , upon
special nevi w and considering the ion of the Planninj
Office, the City Council finds that the area and bulk of the Pro-
posed new building or expansion of an existing buildAW in reason-
ably compati6 e with requirements currently in existence and those
under consideration for the R-MF zone district , and
WHEREAS , the ute City Place development received ai GAP a i lo-
cation during the 1981 residential competition and has proceeded
through its subsi?qi)ent reviews ,, including conceptual and prel imi -
Nary plat subdivision and received preliminary onenption of its
employee units from competition under the GMP and first reading
approval of an ordinance to rezone its proposed location from R-ti'
to R-MP/RBO, and
WfitRMS , the f:irlal plat approval , condowiniuruization , final
exemption of the employee units from competition udder the GMP,
and second reading of ordinance No. 38 , S<c ies of 1981 , rezoning
the Cite City Place site to R-i plwo have been held in. abc yance
tn, 1;uyo, jt•:ion of T_he iiVl'c1wiiuw on kC-"M Zono dis-
trict , on-J
01" PNOGEU_.PINGIS 100 Leaves
FI,Pv C.F.H1,1101 R.4.A 1, -
-1 Y L: v d talc'
arid 1)".A i k o 1 tll, ill,ice duvc.Lopment and, as a
multi-faii1j.1y development a s.,ubs-tantial number of
employee unit:; , finds it- reasorlabJy cotcipatible with the re:quire-
ment,s currently jr: exi:; ttmce acid 1--hose under consideration for the
R-MF zono disc-r. ict ,
i,.fjV,V_fj 'Till 112 kESOLVED BY I'HE CPVY COUNCIL OF Thh'
C'J,.Py OE, A,SPr.N, COL,C)RADO:
That it does heroby grami- s},_)eciai review exei-apt.ion to the Ute
City PI.Elc(_ cje\7c!1m._).i-tent from the moratorium on the construction 0-1---
new buildings in tile R-MIl' zonu
Dated
I, Kathryn 6, rock , duly appointed and acting City Clerk ok
the Cj.,(--v of Aspen, Colorado, do hereI>y cortify that the foregoing
is a true: and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, cat a special me- eting held
on the day of
hathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
SLEMON, MAZZA & LASALLE, P C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
r
434 EAST COOPER STREETry
DAVID R. SLEMON ASPEN, COLORADO 818111
AREA CODE 3t� ,,..
ANTHONY J. MAZZA EPH 23- ,
a]OHN D. LASALLE 1,
June 5, 1981 r
Mr. Jim Markalunas HAND DELIVERED
City of Aspen Water Department
Aspen , Colorado 81611
Re: Ute City Place Condominium Development
Dear Jim:
This is to confirm the agreement which we reached
after meeting in your office recently with regard to partici-
pation between the City and the developer with respect to the
construction of the proposed 8" interconnect on Cleveland
Street between Hyman and Cooper Street. As you recall , the
developer is constructing a 22 unit condominium project (640
of which units will be deed restricted as employee housing) .
Although there is a 5z" water line running down Cooper Street
and passing directly in front of the site of this project,
it is my understanding that you believe that line to be in-
sufficient to handle the demand of this project and, there-
fore, that you desire that an intercept line be constructed
on Cleveland Street connecting the 12" line on Hyman Street
with the 5z" line on Cooper Street , therefore adding a loop
which is a needed improvement to the system in general and an
8 " line to which this project could tap. Since the 8" inter-
cept line is advantageous to both existing and future users in
the neighborhood in general, as well as to this particular
project, I understand you favor some participation by the City
with the developer in the capital cost of construction of the
line on some equitable basis. In a memorandum to the Planning
Department which you prepared you indicated some adjustment
Of the plant investment fee would be appropriate in the event
the developer constructed the line .
During the period since this project has been Going
through the various approval processes , a significant
occurred by virtue of the fact that in the recent Cit.-,-
tion, the voters approved a bond issue for improvements to the
water system among which are the construction of a 12" line up
Cooper Street, as well as the 8" intercept line on Cleveland
between Hyman and Cooper, thus it is no longer necessarjr =or
the developer to construct the proposed intercept since �:e
SLEM- 1, MAZZA & LASALLE, P C. ,
Mr. Jim Markalunas
June 5 , 1981
Page Two
Cith has already contracted to have that construction done as
a result of the passage of the bond issue. Because of the
passage of the bond issue , a significant increase in plant
investment fees charged to new users is expected in the near
future for the specific purpose of servicing the debt repre-
sented by the bond issue.
With the above facts in mind I would like to propose
the following agreement between my clients, C. M. Clark and
A. G. Kaspar , the developers of Ute City Place , and the City
of Aspen with respect to water service to their development:
Since the City will definitely be doing the construction as
opposed to the developers and since the exact amount of the
increase in the plant investment fee is unknown at this time ,
but it is the mutual desire of the parties that there be an
equitable participation between the developer and the City in
the construction of the intercept line , I would propose that
the developer be able to elect either of the following two
options based upon which of them results in a lower payment to
the City by the developer :
1 . The developer will pay the full plant investment
fee based upon the current rates plus an additional amount
equal to one-half of the actual cost of the portion og;, the
new intercept line running from the 12" line on Hyman `Street
to the hydrant on the south side of Cooper Street (by your
calculations a distance of approximately 330 ' ) or , alternatively,
2 . The developer would simply pay the total amount
of the new, increased, plant investment fee which is antici-
tiated to take effect July 15 , 1981 , whichever dollar amount
results in a lower payment by the developer to the City.
If you are willing to recommend that the City accept
the proposal outlined above , I would ap7.reciate your so indi-
cating by signing the extra copy of thiE letter in the space
provided.
Y t u ours,
JDL :d - john D. al le
or SLEMC_: , MAZ ZA & La SALLE, P.C.
Markalunas , City of Aspen
:,ater Department
SUBDIVISION / PUD AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,
1981 , by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herein-
after referred to as "City" ) and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER
G. KASPAR (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sub-
divider" ) .
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City
for approval, execution and recordation, a final plat (here-
inafter "the plat") concerning the construction of a 22 unit
condominium building on property owned by Subdivider known
as Lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of Aspen, County
of PA-kin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on June 23 , 1981, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval subject to
specific conditions and on July 13 , 1981 , the City Council
granted final plat approval ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is willing to approve,
execute and accept for recordation the plat on the condition
that Subdivider agree to all matters contained in this
agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose certain condi-
tions and requirements in connection with its approval , exe-
cution and recordation of the plat, as are necessary to
protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivider is willing to acknowledge,
accept, abide by and faithfully perform all of the condi-
tions and requirements imposed by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 20-16 (c) and 24-8 .6
of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Subdivider is required to
provide assurances that it will faithfully perform the
conditions and requirements as hereinafter agreed to prior
to the City 's acceptance and approval of the final plat;
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 mutually agreed as follows:
I.
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Subdivider and its assigns shall be responsible
for the construction and installation of all improvements
required by Section 20-16 (a) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
and as are indicated on the plat. The nature, extent and
estimated cost of such improvements shall conform to the
schedule annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" .
II.
♦ FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section 20-16 (c) of the Aspen Municipal
Code and prior to the issuance of any permits for construc-
tion, Subdivider shall provide a guaranty for no less than
one hundred percent (1000) of the estimated costs of the im-
provements indicated on Exhibit "A" annexed hereto and made
a part hereof and as approved by the City Engineer. The
guaranty to be provided by Subdivider shall be in the form
of a cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loan
association; or shall be in the form of an irrevocable site
draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible
lender ; and such guaranty shall give the City the uncondi-
tional right, upon default, by the Subdivider , or its succes-
sors or assigns , to withdraw funds upon demand to partially
or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As
portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer
shall inspect them and, upon approval and acceptance, he
shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for
2 .
that portion of the improvements except that ten percent
(10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer.
The Subdivider, its successors and assigns shall
and hereby agree to provide unto the City a warranty as to
all improvements for a period of one (1) year from and after
acceptance by the City of such improvements.
The Subdivider, its successors and assigns shall
further guarantee by a maintenance bond or other suitable
means, the repair of any existing improvements damaged during
the course of construction of new improvements pursuant to
the provisions of this Article.
III.
PARKING SPACES
The Subdivider, its successors and assigns shall
designate and provide twenty-six (26) on-site (off street)
parking spaces meeting the requirements of Article IV of
Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as such parking
spaces are indicated and designated on the plat.
IV.
OPEN SPACE
The requirements of Section 24-8 .19 of the Aspen
Municipal Code regarding open sapce and common facilities
maintenance agreement are inapplicable to the project, since
Section 24-3 .4 of the Aspen Municipal Code does not require
open space in the R-MF zone district.
V.
WATER LINE
The City of Aspen is in the process of constructing
an 8 " intercept water line on Cleveland Street between Hyman
and Cooper Streets . At such time as construction is com-
pleted on said line and on the line to be constructed on
3 .
Cooper Street (so that the Developer has the ability, sub-
ject to the appropriate application to the Water Department,
to tap on to the Cooper Street line) , Developer agrees to
elect one of the two following options at his sole discre-
tion, prior to being permitted to tap on to said line:
1. The developer will pay the full plant invest-
ment fee based upon the current rates plus an additional
amount equal to one-half of the actual cost of the portion
of the new intercept line running from the 12" line on
Hyman Street to the hydrant on the south side of Cooper
Street (by your calculations a distance of approximately
3301 ) or, alternatively,
2 . The developer would simply pay the total
amount of the new, increased, plant investment fee which
is anticipated to take effect July 15, 1981, whichever
dollar amount results in a lower payment by the developer
to the City.
VI.
DEED RESTRICTIONS
Developer agrees that units will
not be rented or sold except in accordance with the low in-
come guidelines established by the City of Aspen for the
period October, 1980 to October, 1981 , plus such increases
as are permitted by those guidelines and that units
will not be rented or sold except in accordance with moderate
income guidelines established by the City of Aspen for the
period October, 1980 to October, 1981, plus such increases
as are permitted by those guidelines .
Developer agrees that all of the units in the
project will be subject to the following rental restriction :
If any unit is rented, it must be rented for a term of not
less than six months per calendar year and for only two
shorter tenancies per calendar year .
4 .
r
VII.
FIREPLACES
Developer agrees not to install any fireplaces
in 14 of the 22 units and to install Majestic metal fire-
places, Model Number MHC 36 , which are energy conserving,
free air fireplaces, in each of the eight other units.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Subdivider and City and their
respective successors and assigns.
B. This Agreement shall be subject to and con-
strued in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado
and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
C. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or
any paragraph, sentence , clause, phrase , word, or section
or the application thereof in any circumstance is invali-
dated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, and the application of any such
provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
section in any other circumstance shall not be affected
thereby.
D. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties herein with respect to the
transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or
amended from time to time only by written instruments execu-
ted by each of the parties hereto.
E. Numerical and title headings contained in this
Agreement are for convenience purposes only, and shall not
be deemed determinative of the substance contained therein.
F. Any notices required to be given to the parties
to this Agreement shall be deemed to be given if personally
delivered or deposited in the United States mail to the
parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses
5 .
indicated below:
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subdivider or its successors or assigns
C. M. Clark and A. G. Kaspar
c/o C. M. Clark
Post Office Box 566
Aspen , Colorado 81611
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have here-
unto set their hands and seals on the date and year respec-
tively indicated in full understanding and agreement to the
terms and conditions herein contained.
CITY OF ASPEN
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
By
Herman Edel
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune
City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss .
County of Pitkin )
The above and foregoing Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corpora-
tion , and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR, was acknowledged
before me this day of 1981 , by
HERMAN EDEL, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk, of the
City of Aspen.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires :
Notary Public
6 .
C. M. Clark Alexander G. Kaspar
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The above and foregoing Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corpora-
tion, and C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR, was acknowl-
edged before me this day of , 1981,
by C. M. CLARK and ALEXANDER G. KASPAR.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires :
Notary Public
7 .
EXHIBIT "A"
To Subdivision Agreement Between
The City of Aspen and
C. M. Clark and Alexander G. Kaspar
Improvements to be constructed and installed by Subdivider :
1 . Sidewalk the length of the property along
Cooper Street to City specifications;
2. Road signs (to be approved by the City
Engineer) indicating that a right turn only will .
be allowed from Cooper Street and that a left
turn may not be made into the project by indivi-
duals travelling west on Cooper Street (State
♦Highway 82) and that exit must be made through
the alley.
4=. eve s X
No
cq7 K X,
3U c I
, '
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: STAFF: .21,211
-
2. APPLICANT: /0 v t -? �
, , ,
3. REPRESENTATIVE:
4. PROJECT NAME: Pre I 1'ro 1(�Cii'
5. LOCATION: tv
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin
P.U.D. :2_Exception 8040 Greenline
=Special Review Exemption View Plane
Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use
HPC Residential Bonus Other
f yen
a / Re l',�l
S A I o�z,-)h/6, 6i
7. FERRALS: Ing
j
op
N.2 >4 Attorney Sanitation District School District
_Z\ Engineering Dept. ) Mountain Bell —21,.-Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Parks - State Highway Dept.
Water Holy Cross Electric Other
City Electric X Fire Marshal/Building Dept.
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
Y
9. DISPOSITION: /
P & Z �// Approved Denied Date
Council V/' Approved V/ Denied Date.
Z4s lit
� Jcl•-( �o..� �w.7-C� — �2.0�.�''C�yl 1,ow..,e. �v�� ``�'�D v. c -'1
AA Fk
StZ a�► �--aw. � Z gv�Se�
10. ROUTING:
/Attorney �Building Engineering Other
f -
, � 1. The applicant paying the City its share of the cost of
the water system improvement based on the arrangement worked
out between the applicant and Jim Markalunas;
i 2. The applicant meeting the conditions -of the City Engineer
concerning the variance for a curb cut on Cooper Street,
including:
- using the curb cut only as an entry to the site, with the
exit being through the alley and signs being erected for
this purpose;
- erecting signs indicating right turn only from Cooper and
no left turn from Cooper;
- erecting all signs at his own expense and having them
approved by the City Engineer prior to their erection;
and
- applying to the State DOT in Glenwood Springs for approval
of a driveway permit on Highway 82;
3. The applicant providing a sidewalk the length of the property
along Cooper Street;
4. The applicant providing the City Electric Department with
information concerning the required loads for the project,
including whether or not electric heat will be used; and
5. The applicant in all other respects following the original
proposal outlined in the GMP submission for which points
w re awarded and an allocation receivednn. ( 11 r
` Alfe%lcA-t ��t�nn..l �_ pJJR CA(kY- J .L, % Q1�✓r. rc�tS f a12alf�.t V
• �Vt.�.. t/^AA :J r.�t7. �.. ,X CO..,PKU1 QK\.ri��6 CI-A` eLA� IAI *, fA-* vl 4 v-A
'$K3A� .,,..- df,-4.4
.1. The applicant agreeing to stage the rental/sales prices so
that they do not exceed the maximum square footage limita-
tions of Section 24-11.4(b)(3)(cc) of the Code;
2. The applicant agreeing to deed restrict the !il employee units
to the appropriate low and moderate income guidelines which
are in place at the time of approval of the RBO and exemption
from GMP by City Council , with annual price adjustments
according to the approved 'rate of the City of Aspen; and
4.N,The applicant providing deed restrictions limiting the six
studios and 6• one-bedroom units to low income housing
G�» guidelines and occupancy limits and the 2 two-bedroom units
to moderate income housing guidelines and occupancy limits.
The applicant restricting all units to six month minimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
September 25, 1981
John LaSalle
Slemon, Mazza & LaSalle
434 East Cooper Street
Aspen, Coiorado, 81611
Dear John,
This letter is to confirm our conversation today regarding
the Ute City Place GMP project. It seems clear to me that we are
correct in our interpretation of the RDO Ordinance that once your
property is rezoned to RMF/Rbo, it is still acceptable for you
to build a less intense development than permitted by the zoning.
Therefore, if you wanted to build only a duplex, exempt from GMP,
on the property, this would be allowed. If, however, you decide
to build a multifamily project which differs from your approved
GMP allocation, you will have to process an amendment.
I have discussed this matter with both Sunny and Paul and
they both concur in this interpretation. Please call me if you
. need further clarification.
Sincerely,
M, .
Alan Richman
Assistant Planning Director
AR:kb