HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.201910011
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
October 1, 2019
4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.COMMENTS
IV.MINUTES
IV.A.Minutes from August 6th 2019
minutes.apz.20190806.pdf
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.A.1040 Black Birch Drive, Special Review for Top of Slope Determination
Continue to November 19th, 2019
1140 Black Birch memo_10-1-19 continuance.pdf
VI.B.1001 Ute Subdivision/PUD: Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040
Greenline Review & Major Subdivision to memorialize existing improvements on this
property
1001 Ute Memo To P&Z.pdf
Exhibit A_Staff Findings & Review Criteria.docx
Exhibit B_Ordiance 24 (Series 0f 2006)_PUD Approval.pdf
Exhibit C_Subdivision & PUD Agreement For 1001 Ute.pdf
Exhibit D_Letter From Neighbors Representative.pdf
Exhibit E_Public Noticing Affidavit.pdf
Exhibit F_1011 Ute Application.pdf
Resolution A_Approving Request WITHOUT CONDITIONS.docx
Resolution B_Approving Request with conditions.docx
VII.OTHER BUSINESS
VIII.BOARD REPORTS 1
2
IX.ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS:
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments
shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues.
Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda
and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting.
Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute
presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the
Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items.
The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is
not designated as a public hearing.
All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public.
2
3
Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be
tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated
violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request
the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting.
Revised July 8th, 2019
3
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2019
Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Brittanie Rockhill,
Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Rally Dupps Absent: Jimmy Marcus, Don Love
Staff present:
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Kraemer, Deputy Planning Director
Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator
STAFF COMMENTS
Mike Kraemer introduced herself and stated that he will be staffing Planning and Zoning meetings for
the time being in place of Jennifer Phalen while she is serving as the interim Community Development
Director. He also stated that the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association will be having a
conference in Snowmass Village this September and encouraged the Commissioners to attend a
workshop for planning and zoning commissioners being held there in September. He stated that the
Community Development department would cover their cost.
Ms. Bryan stated that, if more than two Commissioners plan to attend, the City will have to notice it.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. McGovern voted to approve the minutes from July 2nd, 2019. Mr. Marcoux seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Marcoux stated that his girlfriend works for the Utilities department and he has other friends there.
He will not benefit financially from this project and can be fair and impartial in this hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
480 Doolittle Drive, City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Facility Major Public Project Review
Garrett Larimer introduced himself as a planner with the City of Aspen and introduced the hearing. He
stated that the water treatment plant property was annexed into the City in 1982 and in ‘83 it was
rezoned to the public zone district and an SPA overlay was applied to the property, which is effectively
the same thing as planned development. It was an amended SPA that established the dimensional
limitations that apply to the property today. He stated that lots one through 24 contain the affordable
housing on Water Place and lot 25 is the Water Treatment Plant lot which hosts the water treatment
facilities, which is the subject of this application. There has been some mention of another affordable
4
housing project out at the subject site, which is a separate application. This application only deals with
improvements to the water treatment plant facilities. The Planning and Zoning Commission today is to
provide a recommendation to City Council for Major Public Project Review, Planned Development
Review, 8040 Green Line review, Growth Management Quota System Review, Transportation and
Parking Management, and Conditional Use Review. A major public project review is mandated by
Colorado State law for government applicants to facilitate expedited review for government application.
This expedited process requires a decision by City Council within 60 days of a complete application. The
expedited review includes a Development Review Committee review. These comments can be just kind
of advisory in nature or they may place conditions of approval on the application to be included in the
final ordinance approved by City Council. The next step is a Planning and Zoning hearing to provide
recommendation to City Council and then a combined review with City Council that combines project
and detailed review.
Mr. Larimer showed an image of the water treatment plant site on the slide and pointed out the existing
administration building, raw water building, electric and distribution facility, and the Leonard Thomas
Reservoir. He described the water treatment process. He stated that the improvements to the existing
site are an addition to the administration building, a new vehicle maintenance and storage facility, an
expansion to the existing West plan, expanded Leonard Thomas reservoir capacity, and expanded and
improved residual treatment area. The administration building addition is proposed because the
existing administration building can't house the existing staff there currently. The proposed addition
would accommodate all staff so that they could work in the same admin office.
Mr. Larimer stated that a new vehicle maintenance and storage facility is proposed. This is a 3,200
square foot prefabricated structure and complies with the dimensional requirements of this zone district
and is proposed to allow for the storage of materials and equipment that are used to maintain the
equipment and vehicles in the water treatment plant. Currently, they're stored around the site and
different buildings, equipment and vehicles are stored outside. This would allow for a single location for
all that equipment and those vehicles to be stored so that they can get in out of the weather and the
maintenance can be more efficient.
Mr. Larimer addressed the expansion to the west plant addition and pointed out a structure that stores
equipment and materials that are currently transported back and forth from there to the west plant.
The addition will allow those equipment and materials to be stored in the same facility. The Thomas
Reservoir expansion is proposed so that they can increase their raw water storage capacity. And with
increased raw water storage and increased capacity, the water treatment process needs additional
residual treatment area so a second backwash pond is proposed and improvements to the existing
backwash pond and dewatering bed are also contemplated. All of the proposed improvements to the
water plant facility are included in a phasing plan, so not all of these will happen at one time. The initial
phase will be the vehicle maintenance and storage facility in 2020. Phase two, beginning 2021 through
2022, includes a new backwash pond, improvements to the existing backwash pond and dewatering
area and then the expansion to the west plant building. Phase three is the administrative office addition
and then phase four begins in 2025 and is the reservoir expansion.
Mr. Larimer stated that the Water Treatment Plant facility is considered an essential governmental and
public utility use which is a permitted use in this public zone district. The vehicle maintenance facility is
listed as a conditional use in the zone district. Finally, the dimensional limitations for the zone district
are set through the adoption of a planned development. The majority of the dimensional limitations
established in 1984 via SPA amendment are unchanged going forward. Any change in height setbacks
5
are allowable FAR. The amended SPA approval that established the dimensional limitations had 11
parking spaces lifts listed. Twenty-two currently exist on site. Staff is recommending that that existing
condition be carried forward and the dimensional limitations for clarity moving forward.
Other land use reviews include Major Public Project Review, Planned Development Review, 8040 Green
Line, and Conditional Use Review. Staff has found that the application meets the review criteria for
those four reviews. Transportation and Parking Management is also required. As part of that, a
transportation impact analysis that provides alternative transportation methods for the impacts of the
development is required to be submitted and reviewed by Engineering and Transportation. They have
recommended that there be a condition at the approval that they satisfy the TIA requirements prior to
building permit issuance so staff is recommending that condition be included for the project moving
forward.
Mr. Larimer stated that the last piece is for the Growth Management Review. There are two substantial
parts of the growth management review. The first is allotments, the second is the employee generation
review. The water treatment facility is considered an essential public facility which does generate
allotments. However, there's no cap on annual allotments for a central public facility in the land use
code, so the application complies with the annual allotments requirement. Next is employee
generation, which is prescribed in the land use code depending on use. For public uses, there's a full-
time employee equivalent number associated with office type uses for facilities and uses that are not
typical office uses. The land use code provides a path where employee generation can be evaluated
based on the current employees at the facility rather than a floor area calculation. And because of the
unique nature of this use, it's been determined that this is the most appropriate way to determine the
employee generation. The applicant submitted a current employee report that shows 26.5 full time
employees on site. APCHA and planning staff have reviewed the report and APCHA’s recommendation
with staff support is that an employee generation audit be required prior to building permit issuance
and then at the two-year anniversary of the issuance of certificate occupancy and this audit will be used
to determine if additional employees are generated. Staff recommends that P&Z support the audit
condition and determination of no additional employees at this time with a condition that there will be
an audit later that will track any additional employees generated. As employees are generated,
affordable housing mitigation will be required at that time, so staff’s recommendation is that the
Planning and Zoning commission recommend to City Council approval of a major public project review
and associated land use reviews for the water treatment plant improvements subject to conditions.
Mr. McKnight asked if commissioners had any questions for staff.
Ms. McGovern asked what’s happening to the existing chlorine building.
Mr. Rossello responded that they plan on keeping it for the time being. At some point, they may wish to
put a wet well in that location for some stormwater management. But for the time being the structure
is usable for other purposes.
Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the
meeting over to the applicant presentation.
Patrick Rawley introduced himself as a representative from Stan Clauson Associates. He introduced
Andy Rossello, Ryan Loebach, Craig Lawrence, and Margaret Medellin. He stated that they held two
6
public meetings and they did receive some questions from neighbors and confusion with the
forthcoming affordable housing project but no negative comments.
He stated that the new maintenance vehicle storage will be about 3,200 square feet. This will house
new and existing equipment and get it out of the weather. The proposal also includes expansion of the
existing administration building to consolidate employees as well as provide some badly needed
meeting space, which currently occurs in some of the operational areas of the water plant. The
chlorination will be integrated into the existing west plant and the existing building will be utilized. The
SPA provides over 170,000 square feet of floor. The residual treatment area will go through the site
plan, but that is to allow the existing pond to be maintained and to be clean, as well as to provide for
some additional operational capacity. This would significantly increase the supply of water for the City.
There will be no new operations or new functions as a result, but the applicants are completely fine with
a two year look back on it option and will address any increases of employees at that time. As Mr.
Larimer stated, this is a development that's going to be phased over a period of years to support the
business central public facility. He showed the site plan on the slide and stated that it’s about 50 acres.
He pointed out where the new affordable housing project will be going and stated that it's separate
from the operations of the water plant. He showed the storage area for the equipment, the
coordination facility, and the admin building. He asked Mr. Rossello and Mr. Mr. Loebach if they have
anything to add.
Mr. Rossello stated that they just replaced their boom truck due to serious maintenance issues caused
by being stored outside. They are making million-dollar investments into critical equipment and it
should be well maintained. The roof serves a very good function. It's all south facing so they can put a
solar panels on it and offset energy use.
Mr. Rawley stated that it's a very utilitarian building. The admin building utilizes the existing footprint,
just filling in the rear half of what is currently a deck for offices and meeting rooms. The intent is to
continue the economy of the existing building and use the same structural system.
Mr. Rawley showed the north and south elevations on a rendering on the slide. He showed a rendering
of the west plant addition. He stated that the reservoir expansion is full concept, adding to the Thomas
Reservoir, which will increase the water supply. He asked Mr. Rossello if he would provide additional
information on that.
Mr. Rossello stated this is an operational facility. This isn't the large reservoirs that were discussed on
Castle and Maroon creeks. Currently, the City of Aspen has five to six hours of storage on a peak day.
This project will bring the facilities to a level that can provide 24 hours of storage.
Ms. Medellin stated that the current pond is about 10-acre feet and this project may double net size.
Mr. Rawley stated that this project will involve phasing from 2020, through 2025. This has been
provided for in the 10-year budget. City Council will have additional review of these. He showed on a
rendering on the map where the 22 parking spaces will be located.
Mr. Rawley stated that the proposal does not necessarily generate additional employees, but the
applicants are happy to work with APCHA moving forward. They will work with the Parks Department to
ensure appropriate construction, fencing, and protection of any station up there. Because of the
necessity of fence around the site, adding a sidewalk or pedestrian amenities to the site to comply with
7
the TIA doesn’t really work. The applicants are working with the Engineering Department for other ways
they can meet their TIA requirements and they suggested participating in are some pedestrian
improvements around Doolittle. The site already has bike facilities, showers, and shuttles from
Glenwood Springs for a carpool.
With that, Mr. Rawley turned the meeting over for commissioner comments.
Ms. Carver asked if neighbors had concerns over the pitch of the roof.
Mr. Rossello stated that it’s behind a closed facility and only a few neighbors can see it from their
residences.
Ms. Carver asked how people can access the public trails.
Mr. Rossello stated that fence does not encompass entire property. There are public trails located
outside of the fence. He showed on a picture on the slide where the public trails are located.
Mr. Dupps asked where the displaced earth will be moved.
Mr. Loebach stated that it does not have yet have a home. Possibly Elam Construction property.
Mr. Rawley stated that a portion would be used onsite.
Mr. Marcoux asked if there will be improved security.
Mr. Rossello stated that they plan on relocating the fence line before the project occurs and will
continue to keep all their fences locked.
Mr. Dupps asked how the applicants are doing the retention at the earthen dam.
Mr. Loebach stated that it’s an earthen embankment that they would excavate down to the same
elevation as the current bottom of the existing reservoir and then treat and keyway in that soil into the
existing earthen embankment. The limits of where you see the blue line would be the toe of that
earthen embankment. At this point, it’s basically a green exercise to figure out the quantities and
estimate cost so that they can anticipate when they could afford to build that. In addition, Ms. Medellin
has an RFP going out that is looking at the Water Resource Plan as a whole. On the table would be
multiple options. Those two included, maybe an addition including that the Wood Creek parcel or the
old Elam Quarry could become a reservoir or the three wells downtown could be treated for potable
consumption. They have to analyze their raw water needs and potable demand. At this point it’s very
conceptual.
Mr. Walterscheid asked how they will store water when they do the expansion.
Mr. Loebach stated that they would need to do the west reservoir first in order to have a sister reservoir
to send water to. The next phase would be to take down the existing reservoir to expand to the east.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they will stay separated.
8
Mr. Loebach stated that they would be two separate bodies of water.
Mr. Rossello stated that there won’t be any interruptions in service.
Ms. Carver asked where the wells downtown are located.
Mr. Loebach stated that there is one in Gondola Plaza, another across from Rio Grande Place, one at the
Jerome Professional Building.
Mr. Rossello encouraged the Commissioners to visit the water plant.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Ms. Rockhill stated that it seems well thought out and necessary.
Mr. McKnight stated that the proposal is modest and seems to be just for what is needed.
Ms. McGovern stated that she would like to clarify whether reviews will be for each CO or the CO of the
final project.
Mr. Kraemer stated that staff have a draft condition today that deals with the audit and CO. He
suggested that the commission include some language in the resolution and check with the building
department about how to handle the permitting. He suggested saying something at the final
completion of the last permit.
Ms. Bryan stated that she is okay with the commission including language to that end.
Mr. Rossello stated that they’re open to audits whenever they occur and would be open to multiple
audits if necessary.
Mr. McKnight stated that two years after the final phase sounds good.
Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution 10 of series of 2019 recommending approval of the
upgrades an expansion of the water treatment plant facility with conditions as noted in sections 2 and 3
of the resolution. Ms. Rockhill seconded. Resolution passed with a vote of 7-0.
ADJOURN
Ms. Carver motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:20 PM. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Jeannine Stickle
Records Manager
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner
MEMO DATE: September 26th, 2019
MEETING DATE: October 1st, 2019
RE: 1140 Black Birch Drive, Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope Determination
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Clayton Clark
REPRESENTATIVE:
Andrew Dillon, Forum Phi
Architecture
LOCATION:
1140 Black Birch Drive. Lot 14 Black
Birch Estates
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is located in the Low-
Density Residential (R-30) zone
district in the Black Birch Estates
subdivision. The property is
developed with an existing single-
family home.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting an
alternative top of slope
determination from what is
specified by the City of Aspen
Stream Margin Map. This request
requires a Special Review
procedure by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Do to a noticing issue Staff recommends a continuance to the
November 19th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting date.
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of 1140 Black Birch Drive, highlighted in
blue:
10
Page 2 of 2
REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE:
A Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope hearing requires that public notice be provided in the
following manner: (1) posting of the property, (2) mailing to neighbors, and (3) publication in the local
newspaper. Unfortunately, the full notice requirements were not satisfied, and Staff recommends a
continuance of the request to the November 19th, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting date.
Continuing the hearing will preserve the City’s published notice in the newspaper and while providing the
Applicant enough time to complete the mailing and posting requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a continuance of the request to the November 19th, 2019 meeting date.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to continue the 1140 Black Birch Drive Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope
Determination to November 19th, 2019.”
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner
THRU: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner
RE: 1001 Ute Subdivision/PUD: Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040
Greenline Review & Major Subdivision to memorialize existing improvements on
this property
MEMO DATE: September 26, 2019
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2019
APPLICANT:
Leathem Stearn, Manager; Ute Mesa Lot 1
LLC., Ute Mesa Lot 2 LLC., 999 Ute Avenue
LLC., PO Box 3211, Westport CT, 06880
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon,
Bendon Adams, 300 SO Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
LOCATION:
999, 1001, 1011 Ute Avenue, plus common
area parcels A, B, & C; Legally Described as
Lots 1, 2, 3, A, B, C; 1001 Ute
Subdivision/PUD; according to the Plat
thereof filed May 9, 2007, in Plat Book 83 at
Page 95 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
CURRENT ZONING:
Moderate Density Residential (R-15) with a
Planned Development (PD) overlay
SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting approval to
memorialize existing improvements (Exhibit
F) that are inconsistent with the original PD
approvals and include improper grading,
placement of mechanical equipment on open
space parcels, and location of residential
dwellings at an elevation higher than
previous PD approvals. All subject
improvements are identified in the following
pages of this memo. This is a two-step review
process with an initial recommendation by
the City Planning and Zoning Commission and
a final decision by City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Several of the improvements can be reasonably relocated
to appropriate locations on site and certain areas of the
property can be regraded to ameliorate the existing
slope. Staff recommends these improvements be
rectified and come into compliance with the original PD
approvals. Other inconsistent improvements are more
permanent in nature and bringing these into compliance
may not be a reasonable option. Staff recommends some
improvements be memorialized in existing locations, as
outlined in the staff recommendation on Page 14 of this
memo.
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Street View 12
______________________________________________________
1 The lease is scheduled to expire in 2083.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following
recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Major Amendment- pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.110.F, Planned Development,
Major Amendment; and
• 8040 Greenline Review- pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review;
and
• Major Subdivision- pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.070.A, Major Subdivisions, Land
Subdivision.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review all requests and provide a recommendation to City
Council. City Council is the final review authority.
SPECIFIC REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT
The submitted application requests a Major Amendment to a Planned Development or a Major
Subdivision to memorialize the following improvements that were not previously permitted:
• Maintain location of air conditioning units & a portion of a staircase on Common Area Lot A;
• Maintain existing tennis court pathway on Common Area Lot B & provide off-site ADA compliance
at the Gant property; and
• Maintain portion of existing window well (which is associated with the dwelling of Lot 3) on
Common Area Lot C.
Upon review of the application, property, and previous approvals, additional development has occurred
on the properties and is required to be addressed:
• Non-compliant grading and fencing on Lot 3 & Common Area Lot B;
• First floor elevation and grading discrepancy on Lot 1 and Lot 2 relating to the free market
residences.
BACKGROUND:
Prior to 2006, the 1001 Ute Subdivision/PUD was called the Ute Mesa Subdivision PUD. It was located
along the southern side of Ute Avenue, at the base of Aspen mountain, across from the Gant H otel and
adjacent to Ajax Park. At the time, 4.1 acres of the property was located within unincorporated Pitkin
County and 2.8 acres of the site was located within City limits. A portion of the property was improved
with three tennis courts that were under a 100-year lease with the Gant for the use of guests at the Hotel.1
Much of the remaining property was densely vegetated with mine tailings located under the soil.
In 2006 City Council approved the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision & PUD via Ordinance 24, 2006 (Exhibit B).
A subdivision Agreement between the developer and the City was recorded in 2007 (Exhibit C). The
approval subdivided the property into seven parcels as depicted in Figure 3
13
ORIGINAL PUD APPROVALS
The PUD was in the Medium Density Residential (R-15) Zone District. Pursuant to the PUD approvals, Lot
1 and Lot 2 were each permitted to develop a single-family dwelling. Lot 1 was approved for 23,636 sq.
ft. of lot area and Lot 2 was approved for 28,286 sq. ft. of lot area . During the original PUD approval
process, the applicant requested the ability to develop up to 5,040 sq. ft. of floor area per residence in
exchange for gifting the City a 4.1-acre parcel of open space along the southern portion of the PUD. The
open space was considered a critical link to the Ute Trail. City Council approved the additional floor area
for each residence with the condition that the applicant would take measures to reduce the bulk and
mass of the two dwellings. The open space that was gifted to the City is identified as Common Area Lot
D.
As part of the PUD process, the applicant also agreed to build an on-site “for-sale,” three-bedroom,
Category 4 affordable housing unit. The affordable housing unit is located on Lot 3.
The PUD maintained the 100-year lease with the Gant for the use of the tennis courts by hotel guests.
Because the tennis courts were used for commercial purposes, the PUD approvals included a condition
that the courts would meet ADA accessibility requirements from Ute Avenue . The tennis courts are located
on Common Area Lot B.
Figure 3: 1001 Ute PD Site Layout
14
Given the steep slopes and previous mining-related activities on the property, Common Area Lot A was
preserved as open space to incorporate the necessary drainage improvements for the subdivision and t o
accommodate much of the previous mine-waste material, which was required to stay on site. Common
Area Lot A serves as an open space parcel for the benefit of subdivision. It is not a public asset and has no
public use or access. Common Area Lot C contains the driveway and was approved to connect all parcels
on site. During the approval process, Council was concerned about the visual impact of the driveway and
retaining walls that would be constructed on Common Area Lots A and C. On May 11, 2007, Community
Development Staff extended the recordation deadline for the PUD via a Notice of Decision, giving the
applicant additional time to redesign the driveway and retaining walls to reduce their visual impact and
more fully address Council’s concerns. Visual impacts of the free-market residences were also a concern
and resulted in an approved 1st floor elevation limitation.
Following the initial PUD approvals, the proposed design of the two free-market single-family dwellings
were granted variations from the Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard from the Planning and
Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 9, Series of 2007 . This standard was intended to limit the bulk and
mass of buildings.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT
In September 2013, Community Development staff worked with the homeowner to administratively
amend the Subdivision/PUD Agreement to expedite issuing the certificate of occupancy for the free-
market dwelling on Lot 2 while ensuring that all the original subdivision approvals were met. The
Subdivision/PUD amendment allows the final certificate of occupancy to be issued for the free market
residence on Lot 2 and the affordable housing unit on Lot 3 prior to completion of construction of the
tennis court walkway. However, the amendment requires the tennis court walkway to be constructed
and completed prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the free-market residence on Lot
1.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT
In early 2014 the construction of the free market dwelling on Lot 2 was near completion. The property
owner planned to short-term lease the house around March of that year when the Community
Development Department was informed that construction of the on -site affordable housing unit had not
made significant progress. Although the original PUD approvals did not specify a deadline in which the
affordable housing unit needed to receive a certificate of occupancy, staff was concerned that the dwelling
would not be completed in a timely manner. On March 17, 2014, the Community Development Director
administratively amended the Subdivision/PUD agreement, requiring the affordable housing unit on Lot
3 to receive a final certificate of occupancy prior to issuing one for the free -market residence on Lot 1.
Following the PUD amendment, the free-market dwelling on Lot 2 was issued a certificate of occupancy.
As of today, the free-market dwelling on Lot 1 and the affordable housing unit on Lot 3 are still being
developed.
15
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Community Development Department received a complaint regarding two issues related to the
development of the 1001 Ute Subdivision. (1) “The construction of a berm on the northwest side of
[Common Area Lot A] and change in slope abutting our client’s prope rty line; and (2) the placement of
two mechanical boxes on the northwest lot line of [Common Area Lot A], which were outside any
approved building envelopes and which did not appear in the approved plans” (Exhibit D). Upon receipt
of this complaint, Community Development staff analyzed the original PUD approvals against existing
improvements on the entire site.
In visiting the property, staff identified several improvements that appeared inconsistent with previous
approvals; the applicant included these in the submitted land use application. From further research staff
has concluded that the following improvements were depicted in the original PUD approvals or are not
associated with PUD and do not require further City review:
• Utility bunkers located Common Area Lot C and Common Area Lot A;
• Two boulders located on the western property line;
• Site Walls and tennis facility located on Common Area Lot B; and,
• Boulders in Ajax Park.
Staff has concluded that other improvements are inconsistent with the original PUD approvals and should
be addressed. The following improvements in question are identified based on their location within the
PUD:
Common Area Lot A-
(See Figure 4)
1. The placement of air conditioning
units (Figure 5)
2. The front staircase of the free-
market dwelling on Lot 2 encroaches
into Common Area Lot A (Figure 7)
Figure 4: Improvement Survey
Key
Lot Boundary
A/C Units
Stairwell
Common Area Lot A
(Open Space) Lot 2 Free Market Dwelling Common Area Lot C
(Driveway) 16
Figures 5 & 6: Air Conditioning Units in Question
Figure 7: Staircase of free-market dwelling. The location of the
individual in the photo is approximately where the staircase
encroaches into the open space 17
Lots 1 & 2 (The location of the free-market dwellings: the dwelling on Lot 2 has received a certificate of
occupancy and the dwelling on lot 1 is still under construction )
1. The finished grade of both dwellings appears to be at an elevation of 8,012 ft. The original PUD
agreements and approved building permits depict the dwellings at a finished elevation of 8,007 ft
(see Figures 8 & 9).
Between March & April
2008, building permits for
Lots 1 & 2 were submitted
and approved by Zoning.
The permits included site
plans and elevation
drawings depicting the
proposed dwellings on each
lot. The plans and drawings
represented the finished
grade of each dwelling at an
elevation of 8,007 ft.
In April 2008, the
Engineering Department
approved a grading plan
for the PUD, representing
the finished grade of Lots
1 & 2 at 8,007 ft;
consistent with the site
plans approved by Zoning.
In September 2008, the
Engineering Department
received a change order
to amend the grading plan
of the PUD. The project
contractor and the site surveyor submitted letters outlining the changes. According to the letter
from the surveyor, “The site has been re-graded at the direction of Providence Builders of Aspen
and Mozian and Associates to raise the southwestern half of the site approximately 3’-5’ in
elevation.” The letter continued by listing which items on site were affected by the grading
changes, one of which was “the driveway as it runs along the southwest side of the Tennis Courts,
increases in grade to 6.3%, which complies with the City of Aspen and PUD regulations.” Changes
to the finished elevation of either residence was not mentioned in the letters. The Engineering
Department reviewed the revised grading plan for compliance with Engineering standards. T he
request to change grading was not reviewed by the Zoning Department for compliance and
construction of the first-floor elevation of both dwellings was established at 8012 ft.
Figure 8: Site Plan- Recorded as an Exhibit with the Subdivision
Agreement
Figure 9: Improvement Survey (Existing Conditions)
18
Common Area Lot B (the location of the 3 tennis courts)
1. As mentioned earlier, the City permitted 1001 Ute
to maintain a 100-year lease of the three tennis
courts with the Gant Hotel and ADA accessibility
was required. During the site visit, it appears the
courts are not ADA compliant (Figure 10). It should
be noted that the First Amendment to the
Subdivision/PUD Agreement requires the tennis
court walkway to be constructed and completed
prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy
for the free-market residence on Lot 1, which
includes ADA accessibility, pursuant to the original
PUD approvals.
2. The original approvals depict a wall along the
northeastern boundary of Common Area Lot B, along Ute Ave. According to the representations
made, the wall was intended as an aesthetic feature and would be no higher than three feet in
height (Figure 11).
In visiting the site, the existing wall
measures 3.5 ft. to 6 ft in height
and is used for retainage (Figures
12 & 13). The height and use of the
wall appear inconsistent with
original approvals as well as the
grading on Common Area Lot B. It
should be noted that the
unauthorized grading may
contribute to the noncompliant
ADA accessibility to the tennis
courts, however, staff cannot fully
determine this at this time.
Figure 11: Site Plan Presented to City Council in 2006
During Review & Approval of the PUD
“3’ Stone Veneer Wall to Define Property with
Opening for Driveway and Path to Tennis
Courts”
Approved Locations of front walls
Figures 12 & 13: Existing Retaining Walls along Front Lot Line of Common Area B Facing Ute
Ave.
6.1’ 5.2’ 4.2
’
4.5’
Figure 10: Non- ADA Compliant Walkway
from Ute Avenue to tennis courts
Grading
19
Lot 3 (Location of the Affordable Housing Unit)
1. The original approvals depict a
wall along a portion of the
northeastern boundary of Lot 3.
Similar with the representations
made regarding the wall along
Common Area Lot B, this wall was
also intended as an aesthetic
feature and would be no higher
than three feet in height (Figure
14). In visiting the site, the
existing wall spans along the
entire front lot line of Lot 3 and
measures 3.5 to 5.6 ft. in height.
The existing wall is also used for
retainage (Figure 15). The height
and use of the wall appear
inconsistent with original
approvals as well as the grading
along Lot 3. It should be noted
that the finished grade of the affordable housing unit may be inconsistent with the original
approvals because of the amended grading of the lot.
Figure 14: Site Plan Presented to City Council in 2006
During Review & Approval of the PUD
Approved location of
front wall on Lot 3
Figure 15: Existing Retaining Wall & Grading Along Front Lot Line
of Lot 3
5.6’ 3.75’
Grading
20
2. A portion of the window well that was constructed along the rear of the affordable housing unit
appears to encroach into Common Area Lot C. Additionally, the retaining wall along the driveway
appears to encroach into Lot C.
Figure 18: Retaining wall encroaching into Common
Area Lot C
5.1’
Figure 17: Window Well at Rear of
Affordable Housing Unit Encroaching
into Common Area Lot C
Key
Boulder Retaining Walls
Lot Line
Figure 16: Existing Boulder Walls Encroaching into Common Area Lot C
21
STAFF FINDINGS:
The Community Development Department finds that many of the existing improvements do not meet
several criteria associated with a Planned Development Review, 8040 Greenline Review and a Major
Subdivision Amendment. Each improvement in question is discussed below based upon its location within
the PUD:
Common Area Lot A (Open Space)
A/C Units & Stairwell: Common Area Lot A serves as an open space to the benefit of the two free -market
residential dwellings. It was preserved as an open space to incorporate the necessary drainage
improvements for the subdivision and to accommodate much of the previous mine-waste material, which
was required to stay on site. Placement of the air conditioning units and the encroachment of a portion
of the stairwell contradict the intended purpose of this open space. The applicant requests a Major
Subdivision to adjust lot lines and incorporate these improvements within the boundary of Lot 1. Given
the intended use of Common Area Lot A, staff finds that this request does not promote an efficient pattern
of development nor does it optimize the use of the limited amount of land ava ilable for development,
both of which are criteria associated with a Major Subdivision. Additionally, staff is concerned that
amending the lot lines to accommodate these structures could lead to additional development rights for
the property on Lot 1. The existing locations of these improvements were never reviewed or permitted by
city staff. Staff recommends that these improvements be removed from the open space.
Lots 1 & 2 (The location of the free-market dwellings; the dwelling on Lot 2 has received a CO and the
dwelling on Lot 1 is still under construction)
Finished Grade: The finished grade of the free-market dwellings appears to be at an elevation of 8,012 ft.
The original PUD agreements depict these dwellings at a finished elevation of 8,007 ft. Duri ng the review
of the PUD in 2006, both dwellings were granted 5,040 sq. ft. of floor area; 1,240 sq. ft. more than the
recommendation from Community Development staff. At the time, the applicant discussed strategies to
reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the dwellings including a maximum ridge height of 25-ft. as
measured from finished grade and 27-ft. to the ridge. The dwellings were also granted variations from the
Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard via P&Z Resolution 9, (Series of 2007). Many of the review
criteria associated with 8040 Greenline Review, Planned Development Review and a Major Subdivision
Amendment are intended to minimize the height and bulk of dwellings and to blend structures into the
open character of the mountain. Many of these criteria were in place in 2006 when the dwellings were
reviewed for compliance. Furthermore, the building permits that were reviewed and approved by Zoning
depict the elevation of each dwelling at 8007 ft. Due to representations made, additional floor area was
approved by City Council & the variation from the Secondary Mass RDS standard was granted by P&Z with
the understanding that the mass and bulk of each dwelling would be minimized. Staff finds that the
difference of 5 ft. contradicts the representations made during previous approvals and increases the bulk
and mass of each structure to a threshold that diminishes the open character of the surrounding
mountain.
Below are two options for the Planning and Zoning Commission to Consider. It should be noted that
permits were duly issued for both properties and relied upon by the applicant. The certificate of occupancy
was issued for Lot 2 and the development of Lot 1 is nearly complete.
• Option #1: Comply with previous approvals (not recommended). 22
The Attorney’s office will be at the P&Z Hearing to answer questions.
• Option #2: Amend previous approvals to memorialize existing first floor elevation (recommended).
Common Area Lot B (The location of the 3 tennis courts)
ADA Accessibility: The existing lease with the Gant to use the three on-site tennis courts was permitted to
continue during the approval process of the PUD, with the condition that ADA accessibility would be
provided to the Courts from Ute Avenue. The First Amendment to the Subdivision/PUD Agreement
requires the tennis court walkway to be constructed and completed prior to issuance of a final certificate
of occupancy for the free-market residence on Lot 1. Approval of a Planned Development requires the
developer to provide public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Staff finds that on-
site ADA accessibility is necessary to properly serve the site and to comply with ADA standards required
by the property. Consistent with the previous approvals, on-site ADA accessibility to the tennis courts
should be provided.
Retaining Wall: The height and use of the wall that was constructed along the northern boundary of
Common Area Lot B, adjacent to Ute Avenue appears inconsistent with the wall depicted in the original
approvals of the PUD. The original approvals represent a 3-ft. tall wall along Ute Avenue, which was
intended to serve as an aesthetic feature. The existing wall appears to be retaining several feet of soil and
the wall height varies from 3.5 to 6-ft. Criteria associated with 8040 Greenline Review is intended to
minimize the disturbance of terrain, vegetation and natural features. Review Standards associated with a
Planned Development are intended to ensure that buildings and structures reflect the neighborhood scale
and character. Staff finds these criteria and review standards are not met. The original grading and
drainage plans reviewed and approved by Engineering did not depict a retaining wall in this location,
meaning that retainage along the northern boundary of the PUD was unnecessary to meet Engineering
standards. Furthermore, the use of the wall for retainage appears to be inconsistent with the front yards
of surrounding properties in the neighborhood. The front yards of nearby properties are graded in a
manner that is consistent with the elevation of the street. Staff recommends removal of the front retaining
wall and the regrading of Common Area Lot B to be consistent with the original PUD approvals. An
aesthetic wall not exceeding 3-ft. in height can be rebuilt once the grading comes into compliance.
Lot 3 (Location of the Affordable Housing Unit)
Retaining Walls: Similar to the approvals associated with the wall along the front of Common Area Lot B,
the proposed wall on Lot 3 was approved as a veneer with a maximum height of 3 ft. The height of the
existing wall varies from 3.5 – 5.5 ft. and is used for retainage; the height and use of the wall are both
inconsistent with previous approvals. Additionally, the original approvals depict the wall spanning only a
portion of the northern boundary of Lot 3 (See Figures 14 & 15 on the pr evious pages of this memo). The
existing wall spans the entire front boundary of Lot 3. The criteria discussed above regarding the wall on
Common Area Lot B also apply to the existing wall on Lot 3. Staff recommends removal of the retaining
wall. Given the presence of the affordable housing unit on the Lot, regrading all of Lot 3 to comply with
the original PUD approvals may not be a feasible option. However, staff does recommend regrading
portions of Lot 3 to an elevation that relates to the street as much as possible. An aesthetic wall consistent
23
with the original approvals and not exceeding 3-ft. in height may be rebuilt once the regrading is reviewed
and approved by Community Development.
Window Well: The window well that was constructed at the rear of the affordable housing unit appears
to encroach into Common Area Lot C. The original PUD approvals depict the footprint of the affordable
housing unit within the boundaries of Lot 3. However, it appears that the window well provides egress to
the basement of the affordable dwelling unit and may be required to achieve compliance with building,
fire, or accessibility codes. Staff finds that the existing location of the window well does not negatively
impact the functionality or efficiency of the driveway on C ommon Area Lot C and serves the purpose of
life safety for the basement of the Affordable Housing Unit. Instead of amending lot lines or the PD
approvals to memorialize the existing location of the window well, staff recommends approval of its
current location pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.K, Exceptions for Building Code
Compliance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has 3 recommendations regarding the subject improvements. Recommendations are based
upon issued permits and the feasibility of bringing improvements into compliance.
1. Staff recommends denial of the request for a Major Amendment to a Planned
Development, 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision for the improvements listed
below. Staff finds that these improvements were never approved and can be
reasonability rectified to comply with the original PUD approvals:
• Common Area Lot A:
o The A/C Units and the stairwell should be removed from Common Area Lot A.
• Common Area Lot B:
o The retaining wall should be removed, and the lot should be regraded to
comply with original PD approvals. A 3-ft. tall aesthetic wall may be erected
following review and approval from Community Development staff.
o On-Site ADA accessibility should be provided from Ute Ave. to the tennis
courts.
• Lot 3:
o The retaining wall should be removed, and the lot regraded as much as
possible to comply with original PD approvals. Following review and approval
from Community Development staff, a 3-ft. tall aesthetic wall may be erected
in the configuration depicted in the original PD approvals.
2. Staff recommends approval of the request for a Major Amendment to a Planned
Development 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision to memorialize the existing
first-floor elevation of the single-family dwellings on Lots 1 & 2.
3. Staff recommends approval of the existing window well on Lot 3 pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.575.020.K, Exceptions for Building Code Compliance.
24
PROPOSED MOTION:
Staff recommends approval and denial, depending upon the improvement in question . There are
two resolutions attached. Both are written in the affirmative. Resolution “A” approves all
improvements included in the request. If the Commission agrees with the applicant and wants to
recommend to City Council approval of a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040
Greenline Review & Major Subdivision to memorialize all improvements, the Commission should
make a recommendation of approval for resolution A via the following motion:
1. “I move to recommend approval of the request for a Major Amendment to a Planned
Development, 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision, to memorialize all subject
improvements within the 1001 Ute PUD, with no conditions.”
Resolution “B” includes staff recommendations to remove certain improvements and to
memorialize other improvements. If the Commission agrees with staff’s recommendation, the
Commission should make a recommendation of approval for resolution B via the following motion:
2. “I move to recommend approval of the request for a Major Amendment to a Planned
Development, 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
• Common Area Lot A:
o Remove the A/C Units and stairwell from Common Area Lot A .
• Common Area Lot B:
o Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot to comply with the original PUD
approvals. A 3-ft. tall wall may be erected following review and approval from
Community Development staff.
o Provide on-site ADA accessibility from Ute Ave. to the tennis courts.
• Lot 3:
o Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot as much as possible to comply with
original PD approvals. A 3-ft. tall aesthetic wall may be erected following review and
approval from Community Development staff.
o Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020., Exceptions for Building Code
Compliance, the existing window well on Lot 3 may remain in its current
configuration.
• Lot 1 & Lot 2:
o Amend PD/Subdivision approvals to memorialize the existing first floor elevation of
the single-family dwellings on Lots 1 & 2. As depicted on the improvement surve y
in the application for the properties the first -floor elevation for the residences on
Lots 1 & 2 is 8,012 ft.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings & Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Ordinance 24 (Series of 2006) | PUD Approval
Exhibit C – Subdivision/PUD Agreement for 1001 Ute Ave. Subdivision
Exhibit D –Letter from Neighbors Representative
Exhibit E – Public Noticing Affidavit
Exhibit F – 1011 Ute Application 25
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
1
Staff comment:
The following staff responses to review criteria relate to the proposed development. Not all of the
proposed development relates to all of the applicable review criteria, and as a result, certain Code sections
and staff responses will target certain aspects of the request.
26.445.050 Planned Development – Project Review Standards
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall
rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to
the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall
be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the
development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance
granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall
consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans.The proposed development complies with applicable
adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Response: The subject property is not subject to a regulatory master plan.
B. Development Suitability.The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land
unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including
flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides,
mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%,
and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare
of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation
techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering
Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The
City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be
defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response:The existing landscaping addresses geological hazards and meets the drainage,
mudflow and other related requirements of the Engineering Department.
C. Site Planning.The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting
this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
Staff Response: The existing landscaping addresses geological hazards and meets the
drainage, mudflow and other related requirements of the Engineering Department.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute
to the identity of the town.
26
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
2
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not met. The existing dwellings were each
constructed 5-ft. higher than the original PUD approvals. Given the property’s prominent
location at the base of Aspen Mountain, staff finds that these structures diminish the
visual significance of the surrounding geologic and vegetative features. However, given
that building permits were duly issued for the free market residences on Lots 1 and 2,
compliance with previous grading and first floor elevation requirements may be limited.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Response: The siting of the free-market dwellings is inconsistent with the PUD
approvals. The finished grade of eachdwelling is 5-ft. higher thanwas approved. However,
given that building permits were duly issued for the properties, compliance with previous
approval regarding grading and first floor elevation requirements may be limited.
The retaining wall that was constructed along the front boundary of Lot 3 and Common
Area Lot B is inconsistent with previous approvals. As depicted in the representations
made to City Council during the PUD review process as well as the site plan that was
recorded with the subdivision agreement, an aesthetic wall was approved along the front
of the PUD and was to be no taller than 3-ft. in height. The existing wall measures 3.5 – 6
ft. in height. The grading that occurred behind wall raises the finished elevation of the
affordable housing unit on Lot 3. It appears the finished grade of this dwelling is 3-4 ft.
higher than what was approved.
The finished grade of the affordable dwelling obstructs its visual relationship to the street
and is incompatible with the neighborhood context; dwellings and structures located on
neighboring properties are built on a grade and elevation that is compatible with the
street.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the
Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement
of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses
of the project.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number
of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the
proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive
27
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
3
techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking
may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for
dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject
to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments.
Staff Response: Staff finds criteria 1-5 not met.During the original project review with the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, there was concern regarding the
potential bulk and mass of the proposed dwellings; particularly given that the property
was locatedadjacent to Aspen Mountain. When the PUD was reviewed by P&Z on May 2,
2006 and by City Council on August 14, 2006, Community Development staff
recommended that each residence be granted a floor area of 3,800 sq. ft. per residence.
This recommendation was intended to maintain a consistent neighborhood context with
the adjacent Hoag subdivision.
At both hearings, the applicant requested a floor area of 5,040 sq. ft. per residence. P&Z
recommended approval of the applicant’s request, and Council subsequently approved it.
The approval limited the maximum ridge height of each dwelling to 25-ft. as measured
from finished grade and 27-ft. to the ridge. The site plan that was recorded with the
approvals depicted the finished grade of each dwelling at an elevation of 8,007 ft.
The dwellings that were ultimately constructed were built at a finished grade of 8,012 ft.
However, given that building permits were duly issued for the free market residences on
Lots 1 and 2, compliance with previous approvals regarding grading and first floor
elevation requirements may be limited.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual
character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter
26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and
Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Responses: Staff finds the criteria not met. During the PUD review process in 2006,
the homeowner representative made representations in the application to P&Z and City
Council that the base floor elevation of the two free-market residential dwellings would
“be at a lower elevation than the highest house in the Aspen Chance Subdivision. By
comparison, the existing houses located to the east on Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 and the
Newfoundland Claim are significantly higher in elevation than the houses proposed on Ute
Mesa PUD Lots 1 & 2.” City Council ultimately granted each free-market residential
dwelling a floor area of 5,040 sq. ft.
28
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
4
1 The Secondary Mass standard was intended to reduce the bulk and mass of buildings
Following the approval of the additional floor area, both free- market dwellings were granted variations
from the Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard1 via P&Z Resolution 9, (Series of 2007). At the P&Z
hearing, the homeowner representative stated that “the houses would sit down and the garage was
completely underground and from the street this would read as a one-story building.” The free-market
dwellings were ultimately approved at a base elevation of 8007 ft. but were built at an elevation of 8012
ft. However, given that building permits were duly issued for the free market residences on Lots 1 and 2,
compliance with previous approval regarding grading and first floor elevation requirements may be
limited.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities.The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and
improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques,
and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a
Development Agreement.
Staff Response: This criterion is not applicable.
G. Engineering Design Standards.There has been accurate identification of engineering design and
mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban
Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented
within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: The PUD meets all applicable Engineering standards.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities.The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of
the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and
implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a
Development Agreement.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not met. The homeowner was permitted to
maintain the existing lease with the neighboring Gant Hotel for hotel guests to use the
three on-site tennis courts. Ordinance No. 24, (Series of 2006) and the Subdivision
Agreement both require ADA accessibility to the tennis courts from Ute Avenue.
Additionally, the First Amendment to the Subdivision & PUD Agreement requires
completion of construction of the tennis court walkway prior to issuance of a final
certificate of occupancy for the free-market residence on Lot 1. These requirements were
intended to ensure ADA compliance for commercial use of the tennis courts. The existing
path to the tennis courts does not meet ADA accessibility standards.
29
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
5
I.Access and Circulation.The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular
access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access
from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under
private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access.
Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited.
Staff Response:This criterion is not applicable.
26.435.030.A 8040 Greenline Review- Applicability
The provisions of 8040 Greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet
above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) in the City and all development within one hundred fifty (150)
feet below, as measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection
26.435.030.B.
26.435.030.C 8040 Greenline Review Standards
No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline
unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development
considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the
possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain
hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary,
cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
Staff Response: The project was affected by geologic hazards but was designed and
approved according to City Engineering standards.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed,
runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Staff Response: The project was affected by geologic and drainage hazards but was
designed and approved according to City Engineering standards.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the
City.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain
on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not met. Access to the tennis courts from Ute
Avenue is not compliant with ADA standards, which was a requirement in previous
approvals. It should be noted that issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the
free-market residence on Lot 1 is contingent upon completion of the construction of the
tennis court walkway.
30
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
6
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and
natural land features.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not met. Although grading was approved for
much of the PUD to meet Engineering standards, it appears that additional unapproved
grading took place on site. As a result, the two single-family dwellings were developed at
an elevation that is inconsistent with previous approvals. The finished grade for these
dwellings was approved at an elevation of 8007 ft. and the dwellings were developed at a
finished grade of 8012 ft. Additionally, the grading and the retaining walls that were
constructed along the northern property boundary- along Ute Avenue are also
inconsistent with previous approval.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and
grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not met. Common Area Lot A was intended to be
maintained as an open space. Several air conditioning units and a portion of the stairwell
associated with the dwelling on Lot 1 are located in this lot. Additionally, the retaining
wall located at the western side of the affordable housing unit, along the driveway,
encroaches into Common Area Lot C, which was intended for vehicular access. This wall
appears to be to the benefit of the affordable housing unit and was not depicted in its
current location in any approvals.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
Staff Response: The free market-dwellings were each granted 5,040 sq. ft. of floor area;
1,240 sq. ft. more floor area than was recommend by City staff. The additional floor area
was granted by City Council with the understanding that the mass and bulk of each
dwelling would be reduced by developing each structure at an elevation that was
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. During the review process of the PUD in
2006, the homeowner representative made representations in the application that the
base floor elevation of the two free-market residential dwellings would “be at a lower
elevation than the highest house in the Aspen Chance Subdivision. By comparison, the
existing houses located to the east on Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 and the Newfoundland Claim
are significantly higher in elevation than the houses proposed on Ute Mesa PUD Lots 1 &
2.”
Following the PUD approval for additional floor area, the two free-market dwellings were
also granted variations from the Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard via P&Z
Resolution 9, (Series of 2007). At the P&Z hearing, the homeowner representative stated
that “the houses would sit down and the garage was completely underground and from
the street this would read as a one-story building.”
The free-market dwellings were approved to be developed ata base elevation of 8,007 ft.
but were built at an elevation of 8,012 ft. However, given that building permits were duly
issued for the free market residences on Lots 1 and 2, compliance with previous grading
and first floor elevation requirements may be limited.
31
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
7
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly
maintained.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate
access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
26.480.090.D Subdivision Amendments- Major Amendment
If the Community Development Director finds that the amendment request is inconsistent with the
original approval or represents a substantive change to the allowances and limitations of a subdivision,
the amendment shall be subject to review as a new subdivision pursuant to the procedures and
requirements of this Chapter.
26.480.070 Major Subdivisions
The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council,
after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Major subdivisions are
subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, the standards and limitations of Section
26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards, and the standards and limitations of each type of
subdivision, described below. All subdivisions not defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall be
considered major subdivisions.
A. Land Subdivision.
The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual lots or parcels shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards:
1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 – General
Subdivision Review Standards.
2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use
of the limited amount of land available for development.
Staff Response: Staff finds criteria 1 & 2 not met. Common Area Lot A was intended to be
preserved as open space. Several air conditioning units and a portion of the stairwell
associated with the dwelling on Lot 1 were placed within this area. The locations of these
improvements contradict previous approvals.
3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and
structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance
or contribute to the identity of the town.
32
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
8
Staff Response: The visual character of surrounding geologic features, specifically, Aspen
Mountain is negatively impacted by the development of the single-family dwellings at an
elevation of 8012 ft. However, given that building permits were duly issued for the free
market residences on Lots 1 and 2, compliance with previous grading and first floor
elevation requirements may be limited.
4.The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development
because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow,
debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity
including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any
other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare
of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate
mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title
29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be
accepted with specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a
Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable. The project was affected by
geologic hazards and was designed and approved according to City Engineering
standards.
5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques
necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 –Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen
Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a
Development Agreement.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable. The project was affected by
geologic hazards and was designed and approved according to City Engineering
standards.
6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve
the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not met. Previous approvals require ADA
accessibility from Ute Avenue to the tennis courts to the benefit of the hotel guests at the
Gant. The existing path does not meet current ADA standards and is inconsistent with
previous approvals.
7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management
approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including
compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development
as applicable.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
33
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
9
8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620
and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said
Chapter.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable
9.A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Response: An updated plat will be provided if determined necessary.
10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Response: A Development Agreement will be provided if determined necessary.
26.480.040 General Subdivision Review Standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition
to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
A.Guaranteed Access to a Public Way.All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal
vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal
vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained
under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and
emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited.
Staff Response:Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
B.Alignment with Original Townsite Plat.The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent
practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the
subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features
of the site may be approved.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
C.Zoning Conformance.All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which
the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A
single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate.
A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
D.Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities.A subdivision shall not create or increase the
non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct
the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the structure
need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a structure
spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the
subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non-conformities
will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a
34
Exhibit A | Staff Findings & Review Criteria
10
development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be
time-bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
35
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
36
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
37
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
38
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
39
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
40
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
41
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
42
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
43
Exhibit B | PUD Approval
44
Exhibit C
45
Exhibit C
46
Exhibit C
47
Exhibit C
48
Exhibit C
49
Exhibit C
50
Exhibit C
51
Exhibit C
52
Exhibit C
53
Exhibit C
54
Exhibit C
55
Exhibit C
56
Exhibit C
57
Exhibit C
58
Exhibit C
59
July 10, 2019
By Email
Jim Pomeroy
Zoning Enforcement Officer
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
jim.pomeroy@cityofaspen.com
Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision
Mr. Pomeroy:
If you remember, we represent Gunter Schaldach regarding his family’s residence located
at 785 Ute Court (Lot 2, Chance Subdivision), which abuts the northwest side of 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision. In 2017, we contacted the Building and Planning and Zoning Departments
regarding two issues related to the development of the 1001 Ute Subdivision: (i) the
construction of a berm on the northwest side of Lot A (Common Area) and change in the slope
abutting our client’s southeast property line, and (ii) the placement of two mechanical boxes on
the northwest lot line of Lot A (Common Area), which were outside any approved building
envelopes and which did not appear in the approved plans.
In December 2018, following a formal complaint that I submitted on behalf of our
client, you informed us via email that there were a number of structures that were completed in
the open space area, including the two mechanical boxes about which our client complained,
and indicated that the Subdivision would be allowed an opportunity to legalize the work. We are
writing to lodge our client’s objection to any legalization of the work, if the Subdivision does
move forward with any land use case.
In terms of the two mechanical boxes, they are located exactly 10 feet from our client’s
property line on a steep slope; they are clearly visible from our client’s backyard and home.
They were installed on a concrete slab with no sound or visual mitigation. We recently
confirmed with the Zoning Department that the mechanical boxes, along with several other
structures, were installed on open space property outside the building envelope(s) from the
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
60
residence(s) they service, but that the Subdivision would be afforded an opportunity to legalize
the work.
Our client writes to object given the impact to our client’s property. The mechanical
boxes are located at the edge of the setback on a slope that directly faces our client’s home
(while remaining completely hidden from any residential structure that is part of the Ute Avenue
Subdivision). There are no steps that can be taken to completely alleviate the sound and visual
impact on our client’s home. These mechanical boxes could easily be installed on the parcels for
which improvements they serve; instead, Ute Avenue Subdivision wants to place the burden of
the unpleasant utilities on our client.
In addition to the specific reasons why our client objects to any amendment to the Ute
Avenue Subdivision Approvals stated above, our client objects on equitable principals.
Specifically, throughout the course of the project, the developer has ignored zoning regulations
and made misrepresentations to our client regarding the development. While these reasons may
not be enough to find a zoning violation, they certainly weigh against granting an amendment to
the approvals for blatant violations.
As stated above, our client complained about a second aspect of the development: the
construction of a berm on the northwest side of Lot A (Common Area) and realignment of the
slope that abuts our client’s property. Although the Zoning Department has indicated that there
is nothing they can do about the construction of this berm and the change in the slope, it was
not part of the plans and the developer specifically represented to our client during construction
that the slope would be returned to its original state.
Attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively, are Ute Avenue Subdivision’s proposed
landscaping plan that was submitted as part of its application, a report commissioned by the
Schaldachs in 2009 regarding changes in the slope, and the as-built survey. As you can see, Ute
Subdivision recontoured its property, creating a steeper slope along the northwest property line.
The 7970’ contour line now runs most of the length of the property line, while the 7980’
contour line was pushed to within 15-20’ of the property line. (Exhibit 3.) The proposed
grading shows a more gradual, albeit steeper than the original, slope along the property line,
especially along the western part of the properties, and a slope that ran more perpendicular to
the property line. (Exhibits 1 and 2.) The proposed grading plan, if it was followed, would have
allowed the Shaldachs to enjoy more sun and a less restricted view from their backyard, which
they previously enjoyed.
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
61
1001 Ute Subdivision’s blatant disregard for the zoning regulations and
misrepresentation of their intentions to their neighbors, in addition to the specific reasons stated
above regarding the placement of the mechanical boxes in the open space, weigh against
granting their current application for amending their approvals. 1001 Ute Subdivision improved
its usable landscaping by burying its neighbors, specifically, our clients, in a shadowy
embankment and placing its unsightly and noisy utilities in full view or our client’s home. If
Council were to grant an amendment to the approvals merely because these improvements
already are installed, it would condone this type of underhanded behavior at the expense of the
City’s approval process.
Thank you for your consideration of our client’s objection to any application to amend
the approvals for 1001 Ute on this issue. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Heather Manolakas, Of Counsel | Peck.Feigenbaumpc
By:
cc: Client (via email)
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
62
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
63
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
64
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
65
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
66
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
67
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
68
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
69
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
70
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
71
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative
72
Exhibit D | Letter from Neighbors Representative73
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
_____________________________________________________, Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
_____________________________________________, 20______.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, ____________________________________________________ (name, please print) being
or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with
the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
_______ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
Paper or paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
_______ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
Materials, which was not less than twenty two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26)
Inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height.
Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the
_______ day of ______________________, 20____, to and including the date and
time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached
hereto:
_______ Mailing of notice. By mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development
Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E) (2) of
The Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice
was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S mail to all owners of
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy
of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
________ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized
and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section
26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary,
including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was
presented to the public is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
1011 Ute Avenue
October 1 19
Chris Bendon
13 September 19
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
74
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit75
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit76
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
77
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
78
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: User Defined Area on 09/09/2019
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
79
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G RD #12A
RICHTER VALERIE A TRUST
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
6214 N 34TH ST
HARTMAN DOYLE & MARGARET
MIDLAND, TX 79702
PO BOX 10426
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
WATCHMAKER LINDA L REV TRUST
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424
4527 BRUCE AVE
NADJAFI MORTEZA & HEIDI
ORLANDO, FL 32803
736 N MAGNOLIA AVE
GESSNER RICHARD W REV TRUST
MASSILLON, OH 44646
1705 11TH ST NE
RICE MARGARET A
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221
13912 FLINT
SEGUIN JEFF W & MADALYN B
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER AVE #412
BW & VC REV PROPERTY TRUST
KIRKLAND, WA 98033
7630 115TH PL NE
JJA FAMILY LLC
OWENSBORO, KY 42301
2145 FIELDCREST DR
RODAN FAMILY LIV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
35 UTE PL
TAYLOR SUSAN ANN
ASPEN, CO 81611
970 POWDER LN
AMERENA ROBIN
MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3006,
250 ST KILDA #507 SOUTHBANK
POPE AIDAN RICHARD
NEW YORK, NY 10013
220 CENTRE ST #4
BRYANT NANCY
ASPEN, CO 81611
555 E DURANT AVE STE 5A
LHG HOLDING LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL
SCHIRMER LESLIE M TRUST
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113
4100 E QUINCY AVE
C-L HOLDINGS LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
MEYER WILLIAM J
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
1101 17TH ST NW #1000
SIEGEL LOIS H QPRT
SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143
6358 MANOR LANE
LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY TRUST
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
ST MARYS OF ASPEN LLC
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
1532 S.E. 12 STREET PH1
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PTNSHP LLLP
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G RD #12A
GRAHAM NELL C
BASALT, CO 81621
10 PINE RIDGE RD
VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNE
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
1738 BERKELEY ST
MIKA PATRICK D
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
630 N TEJON ST
2021 INVESTMENTS LLC
JANESVILLE, WI 53545
1000 E MILWAUKEE ST
CRONIN F CARLETON & TOBY ANN TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048
8748 DORRINGTON AVE
MERRILLS DAPHNE
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
217 SCAIFE RD
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
80
NUTTER GEORGE E & LYNDSAY
CANADA M4G 3P3,
223 HANNA RD
TORONTO ONTARIO
VARGAS GERMAN JAVIER
NEW YORK, NY 10028
450 E 83RD ST #18D
SCHARLIN GLORIA REV TRUST
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133
10 EDGEWATER DR #4A
DE GUZMAN KATHLEEN
NEW YORK, NY 10013
220 CENTRE ST #4
BECKER BARRY W IRREV TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89107
2404 RANCHO BELLAIRE CT
BECNEL DANIEL E JR & MARY HOTARD
LAPLACE, LA 70068
425 W AIRLINE HWY #B
NERNEY THOMAS P & CHRISTINE WALKER
WAYNE, PA 19087
1190 DEVON PARK DR
RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS
TIBURON, CA 94920
PO BOX 127
BAYLDON BARBARA W REV TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504
647 W BARRY AVE
BELL MEREDITH W REVOCABLE TRUST
ATLANTA, GA 30309
147 17TH ST NE
ZLN RESIDENTIAL TRUST
ELMWOOD, LA 70123
701 EDWARDS AVE
FRY LLOYD EDWARD
PIQUA, OH 45356
1335 STRATFORD DR
PYRFEKT PROPERTIES LLP
SARASOTA, FL 34231
1424 CEDAR BAY LN
COHN JOHN R & BARBARA O
DALLAS, TX 75225
3533 GREENBRIER DR
CRUM THOMAS F & CATHRYN R
ASPEN, CO 81611
991 UTE AVE
ARNETT DAVID & BETTE
TUCSON, AZ 85718
5333 N CAMINO REAL
1001 UTE AVE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 UTE AVE
SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
8 PARKWAY DR
MCCORMICK ROGER F FAMILY TRUST
OWENSBORO, KY 42304
PO BOX 21532
KONIN FAMILY TRUST
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
1936 LOMA DR
610 S W END RENTALS E201 LLC
NAPERVILLE, IL 60540
608 HENNING CT
KRAMER KRISTIN REV TRUST
BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134
26171 WOODLYN DR
ASPEN SKI TIME LLC
CUAJIMALPA MEXICO DF 05120,
BOSQUE DE CIDROS #114 DEP 1301
COL BOSGUE DE LAS LOMAS DELEGACION
GOODSIR SUSAN A
LAKE BLUFF, IL 600441300
1000 CAMPBELL CT
TEN TEN UTE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
19 UTE PL
SANDITEN EDWARD STANLEY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11566
ICIE JACKSON LLC
NEW YORK, NY 100224608
390 PARK AVE FL18
DILLARD WILLIAM T II & MARY A
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-0486
PO BOX 486
OGURI JOINT LIVING TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
1570 ROSE VILLA ST
SCHWARZ REV TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
860 ARDEN RD
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
81
KLETTENBERG JULIEN & ANNA LISA KART
DARLING POINT NSW 2027 AUSTRALIA ,
7-95 DARLING POINT RD
FELSON ZACHARY S IRREV TRUST
HAYWARD, CA 94541
1290 B ST #212
SCHRIER DEREK C & CAMERON CECILY H 2000 REV TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121
230 SEA CLIFF AVE
MEHL HARRIET F REV TRUST
NEW YORK, NY 10019
350 W 57TH ST #17A
SEWELL BEVERLY J TRUST
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
884 QUAIL RUN DR
DEWAAL IAN & JESSICA
ASPEN, CO 81611
747 S GALENA ST #302A
FRYKLUND ROBERT
HOUSTON, TX 77005
2917 DUKE ST
LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP
HENDERSON, NV 89052
2836 PATRIOT PARK PLACE
WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST
ST LOUIS, MO 63105
236 LINDEN AV
HOWELL JOHN D JR & SARA
JONESBORO, AR 72401
809 SOMERSET LN
CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L
DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515
201 39TH ST
RAMSEY STACIE A
MADISON, NJ 07940
39 CANTERBURY RD
SCHARLIN HOWARD
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133
10 EDGEWATER DR #4A
JACOBS HARLAN & DEBRA TRUST
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
SCHALDACH NANCY
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
10259 MONTE MAR DR
UTE PLACE #8 LLC
SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94111
655 MONTGOMERY ST # 1700
SEWELL RALPH B TRUST
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
884 QUAIL RUN DR
SLOANE RICHARD & CAROLYN
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
PO BOX 3149
FELSON JAYME N IRREV TRUST
HAYWARD, CA 94541
1290 B ST #212
HARVEY BRIAN L
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
PO BOX 240011
GANT G304 LLC
MEMPHIS, TN 38125
3340 PLAYERS CLUB PKWY # 160
CARDALL FAMILY TRUST
SAN DIEGO , CA 92109
2404 LORING ST #61
MAX ROSENSTOCK & CO
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
7839 E SORREL WOOD CT
FOSSIER MIKE W REV TRUST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
9 OCEAN VISTA
MOEN DONNE & ELIZABETH FAM TRUST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
8 CABALLEROS RD
BEEM CORPORATION
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
1201 CURRIE AVE
HEATZIG BONNIE & ERIC
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
5304 BOCA MARINA CIR
BITTEL HANNAH FAMILY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
WAGNER GANT PROPERTIES LLC
WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323
3480 MIDDLEBELT RD
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
82
GROUP 102 LLC
DUBLIN, OH 43017
6400 RIVERSIDE DR BLDG B
999 UTE AVENUE LLC
WESTPORT, CT 06880
PO BOX 3211
SEIFERT BROTHERS COLORADO TRUST
SHOREVIEW, MN 55126
4459 SNAIL LAKE BLVD
KWEI THOMAS & AMY
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142
75 CAMBRIDGE PKWY PH8
JRB RE HOLDINGS LLC
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78231
4114 POND HILL # 203
WEST ROGER G & DONNA A
BATON ROUGE, LA 70808
6650 BURDEN LN
A SUNSHINE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE # 200
LEVINSON BONNIE REV TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
2127 BROADWAY #1
1001 UTE AVE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 UTE AVE
LHG HOLDING LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL
WEKSTEIN TRUST
BOSTON, MA 02199
100 BELVIDERE ST #9A
UTE PLACE TEN LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
228 ST CHARLES AVE #800
WARREN MATTHEW L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507
2022 BASELINE DR
ACR CAPITAL LLC
HARTLAND, WI 53029
N57 W30614 STEVENS RD
NEWTON BARBARA LOUISE
ASPEN, CO 81611
322 W HOPKINS AVE
RONCHETTO LYNN A
NEW YORK, NY 10017
320 E 42ND ST #101
DEPALMA JOHN R
GLENDALE, CA 91206
710 W WILSON AVE
BITTEL ARI FAMILY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
KAUFMAN MICHAEL A & SHERRYL W
E BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816
7 FERNWOOD CT
FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD
OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2P2E7,
30 CARTIER ST
GANT 203 LLC
BELLA VISTA, AR 72714
PO BOX 5278
FAVROT CAFFREY
METAIRIE, LA 70005
124 CHARLESTON PK
SIMON JEROME M
STAMFORD, CT 06903
1294 ROCK RIMMON RD
ICIE JACKSON LLC
NEW YORK, NY 100224608
390 PARK AVE FL18
BESHARAT GERALDINE
ELBERTON, GA 30635
9 WOODLAND RD
MORRIS TRUST
RIVER FOREST, IL 60305
906 FRANKLIN
ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
700 UTE AVE
N & D CRAIR FAM TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 900494828
727 S BURLINGAME AVE
DIAMOND NATHAN & LAUREN S
MIAMI, FL 33156
5465 BANYAN TRAIL
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
83
WOODWARD TERRY TRUST
OWENSBORO, KY 42303
3662 BRIDGEPOINTE
MACHADO MONICA M
NEW YORK, NY 10028
450 E 83RD ST #18D
ROSS DWAYNE A & DUREE M FAMILY REV TRUST
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33324
10740 PEGASUS ST
323 BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES
PITTSBURGH, PA 15217
5860 SOLWAY ST
MERRILLS DAPHNE TRUST
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
217 SCAIFE RD
DAVIS TERRY CONNALLY
SHREVEPORT, LA 71106
1046 ONTARIO
COLORADO R E PARTNERS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60604
111 W JACKSON BLVD 20TH FL
GONZALES FELICE G
SANTA FE, NM 87501
1400C CERRO GORDO RD
MCCOY TRUST
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
623 E 2100 SOUTH
KEENAN DANIEL M TRUST
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401
1716 SEVERN FOREST DR
BRENER DANIEL M & SHARON G
BELLAIR, TX 77401
5202 POCAHONTAS
KONIN FAMILY TRUST
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
1936 LOMA DR
GANT CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 S WEST END ST
BARTOK PETER & COLLEEN
COLUMBIA, MD 65203
321 WEST BURNAM RD
RYAN ASPEN LLC
JANESVILLE, WI 53545
1000 E MILWAUKEE ST
SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE
FLOSSMORE, IL 60422
1225 BRAEBURN
APPLEBAUM LOUIS
SAN MARCOS, CA 92078
1857 SHADETREE DR
MILLS ISOBEL PARKER
ATLANTA, GA 30327
1780 GARRAUX PL
SIMPKINS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE TETLOW
HOUSTON, TX 77019
2921 AVALON PL
GRAHAM MAUREEN & THEODORE L
COLUMBUS, OH 43230
477 E JOHNSTOWN RD
TATEM SUE BINKLEY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12373
ASPEN VIEW LTD
SIDNEY, OH 45365
100 S MAIN AVE #300
BURKE ASPEN LLC
HARTLAND, WI 53029
W308N6183 SHORE ACRES RD
STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS GEORGIA LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30305
3060 PEACHTREE RD #425
HAM PROPERTIES LLC
METAIRIE, LA 70005
300 HECTOR AVE
WERNST INC
BEDFORD, NH 03110
1 HARDY RD #1001
HIRSCH MARY H TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 S WEST END ST #D203
PROSTIC MARJORIE SUE TRUST
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208
2225 STRATFORD RD
WEINSTEIN DAVID M & SHAWNA R
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 809063126
24 ELM AVE
PINE A PHILIP
FORT LAUDERDALE , FL 33308
50 S COMPASS DR
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
84
GANT K302 LLC
WICHITA, KS 67207
58 MISSION
TETSUYAMA LLC
OSPREY, FL 34229
147 EXPLORER DR
SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C
CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
7404 BROOKVILLE RD
POWDER HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60611
415 E NORTH WATER # 3006
KAY REV TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
2127 BROADWAY #1
UTE MESA LOT 1
WESTPORT, CT 06880
PO BOX 3211
FELSON KARA L IRREV TRUST
HAYWARD, CA 94541
1290 B ST #212
PROPERTY INVESTORS #1 LLC
MC LEAN, VA 22120
8407 BROOKEWOOD CT
17 UTE PLACE LLC
BENTONVILLE, AR 72712
PO BOX 1860
UTE MESA LOT 2 LLC
WESTPORT, CT 06880
PO BOX 3211
GUNION JOHN F
DAVIS, CA 95616
1004 MARINA CIR
GRANT JODI
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
329 9TH ST NE
BITTEL DANIEL FAMILY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
WILKERSON WILLIAM REV TRUST
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
321 SUNSET DR #3
BLOCK JOEL A REV TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504
647 W BARRY AVE
FRANKLIN JULIE L & MARTIN E
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
500 S POINTE DR #240
SCHARLIN GLORIA REV TRUST
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133
10 EDGEWATER DR #4A
AGER REALTY LLC
GOLDEN BEACH , FL 33160
555 GOLDEN BEACH DR
STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS GEORGIA LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30305
3060 PEACHTREE RD #425
SHIRK JAMES & LINDA TRUST
BLOOMINGTON IL , CO 61702
PO BOX 1549
BECK CYNTHIA
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
728 N BUNKER HILL AVE
STEWART SAMUEL & JACQUELINE
METAIRIE, LA 70005
124 CHARLESTON PK
ROSENBAUM THOMAS F TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
415 S HILL AVE
JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E
HOUSTON, TX 77019
3682 WILLOWICK RD
MCCORMICK MARY E
OWENSBORO, KY 42304
PO BOX 21532
HOCKER DAVID E
OWENSBORO, KY 423015483
620 PARK PLAZA DR
679534 ONTARIO LTD
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4N 3R5,
2 CHEDINGTON PLACE 1A
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
1001 UTE AVE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 UTE AVE
774302 ONTARIO LTD
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4N 3R5,
2 CHEDINGTON PLACE 1A
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
85
FABER KATHERINE T TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
415 S HILL AVE
GANT 103 LLC
BELLA VISTA , AR 72714
PO BOX 5278
P&G LEVIN FAMILY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262
9716 E PRESERVE WY
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G RD #12A
BITTEL STEPHEN H
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
HYMAN GARY
LONDON UK NW8 9TX,
74 EYRE CT
3-21 FINCHLEY RD
JANNA INC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
500 PATTERSON RD
ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
700 UTE AVE
LHG HOLDING LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL
GANT EXCHANGE LLC
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55436
5704 DEVILLE DR
YOUNGS POINT LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
1322 15TH ST
WHITEHURST JOHN S & BILLIE
BALTIMORE, MD 212121023
6504 MONTROSE AVE
SIMON DONNA L REV TRUST
STAMFORD, CT 06903
1294 ROCK RIMMON RD
COATES TOM & LINDA FAM TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
655 MONTGOMERY ST #1700
JACK LP
KITCHENER ONTARIO CANADA N2M2T8,
10 WESTGATE WALK
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
86
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
87
Exhibit E | Public Noticing Affidavit
88
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 25, 2019
Mr. Kevin Rayes
Planner
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Planned Development & Subdivision Amendment
Mr. Rayes:
Please accept this request to amend the 1001
Ute Avenue Subdivision and Planned
Development. Several items have been
identified by City staff as being inconsistent
with the original 2006 PUD approvals. This
application seeks to resolve these open items
and clear the path for the project to receive
final inspections and Certificates of
Occupancy.
The 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision & PUD was
approved by the City in 2006 via Ordinance
24, 2006. A Subdivision Agreement between
the developer and the City was recorded in
2007 (reception no. 537514).
View of 1001 Ute Subdivision from Ute Avenue
The approval preserved a significant open
space parcel going up the side of Aspen
Mountain and allowed development of the
lower portion of the property with two free-
market residences, one affordable residence,
and three tennis courts leased by the Gant.
The lower portion of the parcel was within the
City of Aspen and contained a significant
amount of mine waste rock. The upper portion
of the parcel was in the County and very steep.
The upper portion contained a popular hiking
trail accessing Aspen Mountain from the Ute
Trail area.
Layout of 1001 Ute Subdivision
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
89
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The upper portion of the parcel was subdivided off, remaining under County jurisdiction, and was
transferred to the City of Aspen as an open space parcel. Other than some avalanche mitigation
work and associated plantings, the upper portion of the fathering parcel, now known as Common
Area Lot D, remains undeveloped. The 4.1-acre parcel is owned by the City of Aspen with a
conservation easement to the benefit of AVLT.
Extensive grading and remediation occurred transforming the previous mountain of mine waste
into the landscape seen today.
The first free-market home is complete and occupied. The second free-market home and the
affordable housing unit are under construction with an anticipated completion this summer. The
tennis facility is complete as well as an extensive array of drainage and civil engineering items.
The 1001 Ute properties are owned by Ute Mesa Lot 1 LLC, Ute Mesa Lot 2 LLC, 999 Ute Avenue
LLC, and the 1001 Ute Avenue HOA. Leathem Stearn controls all four entities and has authorized
BendonAdams to submit this application and act on his behalf. The Gant Condominium
Association maintains a leasehold interest in the tennis courts on Lot B and has authorized
BendonAdams to represent its interests in the leased courts as well as its ownership interests in
the tennis courts within the Gant property.
Several items have been identified by City staff as being inconsistent with the approvals and
requiring an amendment. These items have been organized by parcel, below:
Common Area Lot A
This parcel is owned by the HOA and
serves as a common area. The parcel
contains the majority of drainage
improvements for the subdivision and
incorporates a terraced landscape that
accommodated much of the previous
mine waste material.
The preferred method of handling mine
waste rock is to bury it on-site with a
landscape “cap” or hard surface cover
such as asphalt. The least preferred
method is to haul it off-site (to Denver) for processing/disposal. The approvals were specific on
this point with a requirement for all mine waste to be mitigated on-site.
The plat reserves a “blanket easement” on Lot A (all parcels of the subdivision) for the purpose of
“using, installing, constructing, maintaining, improving, repairing, replacing drainage, water and
utility facilities of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to drainage facilities, fire
hydrants and related fire protection devices, sanitary sewer lines, water lines, snowmelt system
lines, irrigation lines, and sprinkler devices, underground electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines,
cable television lines, fiber optic lines, and other communication facilities, water storage and
distribution facilities and vaults or pedestals or for any of the foregoing, together with a perpetual
right of ingress and egress to and from such easements.”
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
90
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The plat also reserved a “blanket drainage easement” on this parcel (all parcels of the subdivision)
for the purpose of “using, installing, improving, maintaining, repairing, and replacing, drainage
and dewatering facilities of any kind or nature, including, but not limited to, catch basins, dry wells,
diversion and storm drainage facilities, together with a perpetual right in ingress an egress to a
form such easements and for the drainage of waters, mud and debris from other lands.”
It is important to note that Lot A serves as an open space parcel for the benefit of the two free-
market residences. It is not a public asset and has no public use or access.
Lot A – Boulder Walls
The various boulder walls serving as retaining
walls and landscape elements have been
called out as items requiring City Council
approval. The original approvals depicted
rock walls retaining the slopes within Lot A.
The map to the right shows various
rock walls and drainage features in the
original application.
The placement and extent of these rock walls
have been modified since the original
approvals but remain generally consistent.
The rock retaining walls are necessary given
the steep slopes on the site. This application
requests City Council allow these rock
retaining walls to stay in their current location.
The map to the right shows various
rock walls and drainage features in
their current configuration.
The picture to the right shows the
landscape walls.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
91
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Lot A – Drainage Features
Documents from the original approvals show
various drainage features, ponds, streams,
and a waterfall. These can be seen in the
above maps. Subsequent building permits
and civil engineering drawings show the pipes
underground that serve the site’s drainage
needs.
The picture to the right shows the
required drainage integrated into the
landscape. This section has a
waterfall.
The drainage elements, ponds, streams, waterfalls, and underground pipes have been flagged
as needing City Council review. The drainage features function as the site’s required drainage
mitigation and improve the property’s aesthetics. These were also reviewed, permitted,
inspected, and approved by the City’s Engineering Department. This application requests these
features be allowed to remain in their current configuration.
Lot A – Stairs
The current condition has sections of
landscape walls and a portion of the access
stair to Lot 2 within the bounds of Lot A. The
approval documents do not show stairs in this
location and the item has been flagged as
requiring City Council review.
We are requesting the approval be amended
to enable Lot A to contain the stairs in their
current position.
The map above shows the portion of stairway
on Lot A.
The person in the picture to the left shows the
approximate southern boundary of Lot A.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
92
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 5
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Lot A – Boulders
City staff also cited two boulders on the
western property line roughly 100 yards up the
side of Aspen Mountain as items requiring City
Council review. Our request is to leave these
boulders in their current location.
To the right is a map showing the
boulders. Below are pictures of the
boulders. The person’s foot is on the
encroaching boulder.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
93
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 6
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Lot A – Air Conditioning Condensors
Lot A contains two air conditioning
condensors serving the homes on Lots 1
and 2. These items do not appear on
documents from the original approval.
The map and picture to the right
shows the location and condition of
the AC units.
This location is ideal in that the units are
partially hidden within the hillside, the
location is significantly removed from
homes in the area, and the location meets
all setback requirements. The units are
upright units that project mechanical noise
upward and are the quietest units
available on the market.
We are requesting the AC units be
acknowledged as an allowed
improvement on Lot A. Additional
screening can be implemented, if needed.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
94
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 7
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Common Area Lot B
Lot B contains three clay tennis courts. The
approvals are very general regarding this parcel
– it serves as a common area parcel containing
the tennis courts. The Gant holds a long-term
lease to use the courts.
Lot B – Site Walls and Maintenance Building
Lot B contains site walls, a patio, and a small building serving the tennis facility. These items appear
on documents within the original application. These items have been flagged as needing City
Council approval.
The map to the right is from the original
application and shows landscape walls
and the maintenance building straddling
the Lot A/B line.
At the time of the approvals, the exact
placement of retaining walls were unknown, but
they were clearly shown in the application.
The tennis maintenance building was also
shown. The drawings describe the features as
follows:
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
95
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 8
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
“stone stairs up to patio level to be along
back wall to storage room…storage area at
tennis court level with stone patio on
top…flagstone viewing patio with storage
room below.”
We believe the placement of these features is
consistent with the approvals. The request is to
leave these items in their current placement and
update the approvals accordingly.
The map to the right shows the current
condition with the landscape walls and
the maintenance building straddling the
Lot A/B line.
The pictures below show the current
condition of the retaining walls and
tennis facility maintenance building.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
96
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 9
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Lot B – Accessible Pathway
The approvals require the tennis courts
have an accessible pathway from Ute
Avenue. This is triggered by the Gant
useage, being a hospitality use not a
residential use.
A walkway exists now that does not meet
ADA rquirements. The grades are such
that a mechanical lift would need to be
installed or a long switch-back developed
into the landscape. In addition, Ute
Avenue does not have a sidewalk and is
not accessible.
Photos to right show the current
walkway to the tennis courts and
the condition along Ute Avenue
The application requests the accessible
requirement for these courts be shifted to the
courts at the Gant. The public use of the Gant
is the trigger for the requirement. The Gant
maintains two courts on their main campus
that are not currently accessible. The
applicant commits to upgrading the access to
these courts to provide an accessible amenity
for owners and guests of the Gant.
Photo to the right shows the current
condition of the Gant courts
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
97
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 10
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Lot B – Wall along Ute Avenue
All but a few feet of the wall along Ute Avenue
is compliant as a retaining wall. This is very
similar to the wall along the north side of Ute
Avenue and the applicant understands this
element to be compliant.
The picture to the right shows the
retaining wall along Ute Avenue.
A small section at the far west end of the wall
has been flagged as needing City Council
review. This section of wall is not retaining
earth and is essentially freestanding. A
freestanding column is also built to highlight
the walkway up to the tennis courts.
The application requests these elements be
allowed to stay in their current configuration.
The overall easthetic is not offensive and the
entryway to the tennis courts provides a nice
transition. Alternatively, dirt could be backfilled
behind the wall to officially make the wall into
a retaining wall.
The picture to the right shows the
current condition of the wall and
column.
The picture below shows the back
side of the wall.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
98
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 11
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Common Area Lot C
Lot C serves as an access parcel for the
subdivision. The approvals are very general
regarding this parcel – it is clearly an access
parcel to serve the development. Various
documents show the planned driveway as well
as utility lines and apparatus and sections of
landscape walls and stairs to the two upper
residences. Portions of a utility bunker are
also shown on the approved plat.
Lot C – Affordable Housing Egress Well.
The affordable housing unit in Lot 3 has an
egress window from its south-facing lower
level. The egress well is much larger than
required providing significant daylight into the
lower level. The egress well is constructed
with a boulder wall that extends on to Lot C.
This application requests the boulder wall be
allowed to stay in its current location.
The applicant can provide an easement from
Lot C to the benefit of Lot 3 if necessary.
Access on the Lot C is clearly necessary for
emergency egress. Alternatively, the egress
well can be made smaller to comply.
Photo to the right shows the boulder
wall and egress well to the affordable
housing unit with the property line
highlighted.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
99
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 12
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Lot C – Utility Vault
Portions of a utility bunker are shown on the approved plat straddling the boundary between Lot
C and Lot A. This utility vault was built in the location shown on the approved plan and provides
the best placement for access by utility providers. It has been designed within the slope to
minimize its presence.
Concrete retaining walls and a partial cover
hold-back the slope and protect the utility
meters. We are requesting the vault be
allowed to stay in its current location and
configuration.
The map to the right is a section of final
subdivision plat showing utility vault
straddling the boundary between Lot C
and Lot A.
Highlighted in the map to the right is
the current location of the utility vault
straddling the boundary between Lot
C and Lot A.
The picture to the right shows the
current condition of the utility vault.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
100
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 13
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Adjacent Properties
Boulders on Ajax Park – Resolved
A short (six-inch high) boulder wall was installed
on the lower portion of Ajax Park. The
encroachment was about 12 inches horizontally
into the park. After discussing the matter with the
Parks Department, these boulders have been
removed. We expect this is a resolved item.
Map the right shows the encroaching boulders
Areas of boulder retaining were installed on the
upper portion of Ajax Park to stabilize the slope
and ensure newly planted trees and vegetation
take hold. After discussing the matter with the
Parks Department, these boulders will remain
and no further action on the applicant’s part is
required. We expect this is a resolved item.
Fence on Property to West – Resolved
Identified as an item needing an amendment was
a fence on the neighboring property. This fence
was not constructed by the applicant and is not
on the applicant’s property. The applicant
considers this to be an issue for others to resolve
although it is not clear if any violation exists. After
a site visit and reviewing the item with staff, we
expect this is a resolved item.
Picture shows the neighboring fence
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
101
1001/1011 Ute Avenue
Page 14
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Flagstones on Property to North – Resolved
Identified as an item needing an amendment was
a flagstone patio and landscape wall on the
neighboring property. These landscape features
were not constructed by the applicant and is not
on the applicant’s property. The applicant
considers this to be an issue for others to resolve
although it does not appear that there is any
violation. After a site visit and reviewing the item
with staff, we expect this is a resolved item.
Picture shows flagstone patio on neighbor’s
property
Attached please find the project approvals and relevant documents required for a complete
application. We look forward to discussing this request with you and the City Council. Please
contact us with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. Review Criteria
2. Land Use Application Form
3. Pre-Application conference summary
4. Agreement to pay form
5. HOA compliance form
6. Vicinity Map
7. Authorization to represent
8. Disclosure of ownership
9. City Council Ordinance No. 24, 2006
10. Subdivision Agreement
11. Survey
12. Subdivision Plat
13. List of owners within 300 ft.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
102
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 1
Planned Development
26.445.110.F. Major Amendment
An amendment found by the Community Development Director to be inconsistent with the Project
Review approval and inconsistent with the Detailed Review approval shall be subject to full
review, pursuant to 26.445.040.B. steps one, two, and three.
Response – The series of proposed amendments are generally consistent with
the approvals. Many of the items identified by staff are either items that were
identified in the original approvals form 2006 or represent non-substantive
modifications.
Please refer to the cover letter for an explanation of each item.
The project contains the same uses and same overall scope and character of
development.
26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept
for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed
in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used
as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the
development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the
ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project
Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as
applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with
applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Response – The property is not subject to a regulatory master plan.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land
unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property,
including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls,
rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes
in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the
health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for
development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in
compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The project has been found in compliance with this standard and has
implemented all required mitigation regarding site suitability. The scope of amendments
do no change the area of land to be affected by development.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
103
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 2
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In
meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such
as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Response – The site plan is not proposed to be amended.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during
the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional
requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following
criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature
of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances
for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be
subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments.
Response – No changes to the project dimensions are proposed.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context
and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter
26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards,
and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Response – No changes to the architecture are proposed
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
104
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 3
improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or
proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The series of proposed amendments do not affect pedestrian, bicycle or
transit facilities.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design
and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen
Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The project is fully permitted and all civil and drainage improvements have
been installed or are in the process of being installed.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade
public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the
sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The project is fully permitted and all public facility upgrades have been
installed or are in the process of being installed.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal
vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct
legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development
retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and
emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited.
Response – The project has perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public
way and no changes to this are proposed.
26.445.070. Detailed Review Standards. Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive
evaluation of the specific aspects of the development, including utility placement, and architectural
materials. In the review of a development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and
Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the
following:
A. Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all
dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses
conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review.
Response – The series of proposed amendments are generally consistent with
the approvals. Many of the items identified by staff are either items that were
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
105
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 4
identified in the original approvals form 2006 or represent non-substantive
modifications.
Please refer to the cover letter for an explanation of each item.
The project contains the same uses and same overall scope and character of
development.
B. Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS
allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments.
Response – The project is fully permitted and the amendments do not require Growth
Management Review
C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the context and
visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal, protection, and
restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space.
2. Buildings and site grading provide simple, at-grade entrances and minimize extensive
grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency,
maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated.
3. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner
that enhances the site.
4. All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any
kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s outdoor
lighting standards.
5. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29
– Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Response – The landscape and placement of buildings have been reviewed and
approved. Modifications to the landscape are described in the cover letter. All
energy efficiency, energy production, and site lighting will comply with City codes.
All site drainage has been installed pursuant to the active permit.
D. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality
construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details
and use of materials respectful of the community’s past without attempting to mimic
history.
2. Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design
standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards,
Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic
Preservation.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
106
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 5
3. Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects.
4. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that
enhances the architecture.
5. All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s
outdoor lighting standards.
Response – No changes to the architecture are proposed.
E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed development
includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate,
undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned
Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care
and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a
prohibition against future development is required.
Response – An undivided interest in common areas has been apportioned to the
appropriate lots. If Lot A or a portion thereof is merged with Lot 2 to accommodate
the air conditioning units, the appropriate documents will be amended.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and
improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle
and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as
required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review
and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to
determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to
determine any required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed
construction documents.
Response – The series of proposed amendments do not affect pedestrian, bicycle
and transit facilities and the project has already met all City mitigation
requirements.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design
and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with
the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City
of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to
determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do
not need to be detailed construction documents.
Response – The project is fully permitted and all civil and drainage improvements have
been installed or are in the process of being installed.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
107
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 6
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade
public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the
sole costs of the developer. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation
timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal
Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management
Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation
concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction
documents.
Response – The project is fully permitted and all civil and drainage improvements have
been installed or are in the process of being installed.
I. Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase
shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent
phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the
construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities,
payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by
residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any
mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated
with the phase.
Response – No further phasing is proposed.
26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review.
A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 Greenline review shall apply to all development located
at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) in the City and all development
within one hundred fifty (150) feet below, as measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline, unless
exempted pursuant to Subsection 26.435.030.B.. Development on land located in the R-15B Zone
District is not subject to the 8040 Greenline review.
Response – It is not clear whether all elements proposed require a full 8040 Greenline
Review. Some items may qualify for an exemption and both sets of criteria have been
addressed.
B. Exemption. The Community Development Director may exempt the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction of an existing 8040 Greenline development if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure
which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%);
and
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be
required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said
Section; and
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not
result in increased erosion and sedimentation.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
108
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 7
4. All exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches the totals specified in
Subsection 26.435.030.B.1, an 8040 Greenline review must be obtained pursuant to
Subsection 26.435.030.C.
Response – The amendment does no add more than 10% to the floor area of the property
or require a tree removal. The project was affected by geologic hazards, but was
designed, approved, inspected according to City standards and the proposed
amendments will not affect drainage or erosion patterns.
C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one
hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel
is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate
the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location
acceptable to the City.
Response – The project was affected by geologic hazards, but was designed,
approved, inspected according to City standards and the proposed amendments
will not affect drainage or erosion patterns.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affects on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Response – The project was affected by geologic hazards, but was designed,
approved, inspected according to City standards and the proposed amendments
will not affect drainage or erosion patterns.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in
the City.
Response – The amendments will not impact air quality.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the
terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Response – No changes to roads or trails are proposed.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation
and natural land features.
Response – All grading work has been accomplished.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response – No changes to the location or clusterness of structures is proposed.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into
the open character of the mountain.
Response – No changes to the height and bulk of structures is proposed.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
109
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 8
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Response – The amendments will not affect water service, which is already
provided.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
Response – The amendments do not change the road layout or the applicant’s
ability to maintain them.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response – Adequate ingress and egress exists for the development and the
changes proposed do not interrupt the access/egress or snow removal.
26.480.090.D. Major Amendment. If the Community Development Director finds that the
amendment request is inconsistent with the original approval or represents a substantive change
to the allowances and limitations of a subdivision, the amendment shall be subject to review as a
new subdivision pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Chapter.
Response – Please refer to the amendment items detailed in the cover letter. No changes
are proposed to the subdivision boundaries. However, if the air conditioning units must
be on a residential parcel, the applicant proposes an adjusted lot boundary between Lot
A and Lot 2. Responses to the Major amendment criteria are provided below.
26.480.070. Major subdivisions. The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Major subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for
Review, the standards and limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review
Standards, and the standards and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below. All
subdivisions not defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall be considered major
subdivisions.
A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual
lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following
standards:
1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 –
General Subdivision Review Standards.
Response – See responses to the General Requirements, below.
2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the
use of the limited amount of land available for development.
Response – No changes to the layout of the subdivision are proposed. If needed,
a boundary adjustment between lots A and 2 to place the air conditioning units on
a residential property will not affect the efficiency of the subdivision.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
110
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 9
3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and
structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
Response – No changes to the layout of the subdivision are proposed. If needed,
a boundary adjustment between lots A and 2 to place the air conditioning units on
a residential property will not affect the historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development
because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding,
mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides,
mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in
excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm
the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as
suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer
are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual
plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details and timing of
implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter
26.490 – Approval Documents.
Response – The project was affected by geologic hazards, but was designed,
approved, inspected according to City standards and the proposed amendments
will not affect drainage or erosion patterns.
5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques
necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of
Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented
within a Development Agreement.
Response – The project was affected by geologic hazards, but was designed,
approved, inspected according to City standards and the proposed amendments
will not affect drainage or erosion patterns.
6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to
serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
Response – All necessary public facilities have been installed, costs borne by the
developer.
7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management
approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including
compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement
development as applicable.
Response – The amendments proposed do not require growth management
allotments.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
111
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 10
8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter
26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance
pursuant to said Chapter.
Response – Not applicable. No additional residential development is proposed.
9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Response – A plat will be provided if determined necessary.
11. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Response – A development agreement will be provided if determined necessary.
B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any partial or
whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than one parcel,
shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards:
1. The proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the
community and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen.
2. The proposed change to the public rights-of-way maintains or improves safe physical and
legal access from a public way to all adjacent properties and shall not restrict the ability
for a property to develop by eliminating or hindering access. Redundant access, such as
a primary street access plus alley access, is preferred.
3. The design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering
Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved
projects for the area (such as a highway access policy, an approved development project,
an infrastructure plan, a trails plan, an improvement district plan, and the like).
4. The proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control
capabilities, access by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections,
drainage infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal
operating needs of the City including snow removal.
5. For all new rights-of-way and physical changes to existing rights-of-way, the applicant
shall design and construct the proposed right-of-way improvements according to the
design and construction standards of the City Engineer. Upon completion, the right-of-way
improvements shall be subject to inspection and acceptance by the City Engineer. The
City may require a performance warranty. The requirements of this criterion shall be
reflected in a Development Agreement.
6. For partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate the
right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a
vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational
connection due to dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development,
or other similar circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the
applicant and the City can be achieved through a “closure” of the right-of-way.
7. A Right-of-Way Dedication/Vacation Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
112
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 11
The plat shall demonstrate how the lands underlying vacated rights-of-way shall accrue to
adjacent parcels in compliance with State Statute.
8. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. This
requirement may be waived if no right-of-way construction is proposed.
Response – Not applicable. No changes to rights-of-way are proposed.
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. All subdivisions shall be required to
conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition to the specific standards
applicable to each type of subdivision:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not
eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property.
All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to
public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates
across access points and driveways are prohibited.
Response – No changes to the layout of the subdivision are proposed. If needed,
a boundary adjustment between lots A and 2 to place the air conditioning units on
a residential property will not affect access to a public way.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to
the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto,
as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to
accommodate significant features of the site may be approved.
Response – No changes to the layout of the subdivision are proposed. If needed,
a boundary adjustment between lots A and 2 to place the air conditioning units on
a residential property will relate to the original townsite to the same degree the
current platting relates to the original townsite.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved
pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district
unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered
concurrently with subdivision review.
Response – No changes to the layout of the subdivision are proposed. If needed,
a boundary adjustment between lots A and 2 to place the air conditioning units on
a residential property will comply with all zoning requirements.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or
increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or
other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel
may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision,
the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to
application for subdivision.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
113
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 12
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a
structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until
recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain
assurance that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the
subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement or
other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound or
secured with a financial surety.
Response – No changes to the uses or conformity status of the structures is
proposed.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
114
1001 Ute Subdivision
2737-182-01-013; 2737-182-01-014; 2737-182-01-015; 2737-182-01-801;
2737-182-01-802; 2737-182-01-803; 2737-182-67-800; 2737-182-01-802
Ute Mesa Lot 1 LLC; Ute Mesa Lot 2 LLC; Ute Mesa Lot 3 LLC; 999 Ute Avenue LLC; 1001 Ute Avenue
HOA; Gant Condominiums
1011 Ute Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611
917.210.3111 leathem@stearn.com
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com
Existing 6-lot subdivision with improvements. Proposed amendments to subdivision and Planned
Development stiplulations
na na 2 existing
1 existing na
12,350
Exhibit 2Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
115
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exhibit 3
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
116
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
117
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
118
Attachment 1- As-Built Survey Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application119
3a i. a t b va A Y Ei z o
n WE IVY --Yg-
55Y'
Y % w PSg i.
3t YB.Y i 8 d
Elm
I
LU
Y
YY GH Q3
a o
J
11/7/ Y a
O -
3 W OHJ
1 s is J a
8 \
a
h
a ° 5gig
LIJ
IL
Y88Ro_
Y8888«
3
Y :b
b
C
E
ya _ •
a e
a
5
a YIS
e.
3a i. a t b va A Y Ei z o
n WE IVY --Yg-
55Y'
Y % w PSg i.
3t YB.Y i 8 d
Elm
I
LU
Y
YY GH Q3
a o
J
11/7/ Y a
O -
3 W OHJ
1 s is J a
8 \
a
h
a ° 5gig
LIJ
IL
Y88Ro_
Y8888«
3
Y :b
b
C
E
ya _ •
a eAttachment 2- Landscaping Plan Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
120
\ \ � � � \ '!, � '!, \ \ '\ ',,,· ·' ·,11,,i.q � \ . \ I �1trt-.aw..i-. ,
ro 111011,0,,� ttr-iet:ae:t , ,. · . '
��w .. �
�1w ........ .,,iD.eii.
�d ....... WA-Ho'9ht:V-\Wh
�t119Grado \ I I \ \
\ . \
I \ I I I
' ; \ _ !>dtlll'fllV�, \ '. •.
I II \ \. \ \ ..
\ \.,.:..�-\ ' . . ·, \ \ \ ' ', . \ \ . ==::0�
\ . �� • .1.-, ..... '. \,' u,.,,�M.�
I \
\ ,..,_n:.,..,w:.� \
' ... , .
.
.... \
\ . . \
\ . . · .. I
.
\ \ ·. I \ . I
\ . •. . I. I \ . \\ ' \·. · ... \'·. \
\�·· ... � ..
\ I ..
\ ' I I
\ ' I
\ I I '
\ I \ \ ;, All Elde1;lns V�t.lol1Wlll"9 P� Whm-evill' POfflbl9. 6IU! Gradlnf Wiil 8e 5meltlwlfon.� Tr4MtTo&� 'NIH&�lnFieltJJn� W!tnA&pei,CltyParkeDo,p�
I '
\ \ \ I
\ ' I \ 1 I ' I , I ��:...�
==�v
��,--· -'-./ ��WA\ Y ,.,......i .... -+-�--L-'1 ��!!IN>·'-'---+--< -..� I \
'�\" �e,....\J \ '�'II \\ \ ' "
I I I I I
\ \\
Eldtt�V�
\ \ \ . I \· I
\ I I I I J " \ ' I I I \ . . \ . \ I - �rope,rtyl� � ") --, \I } i \ '\;' ' . \ . . \ m�:;�
Residence 1
I I I I
.__,._,,911!1,00 --&006.00 i.,,...1'1-.602.1.CO
� v-., -·�
•.--,•'-
1· . \' . "\ ·,' ',
;, _.,;,';;i:-.7,---PrC!f'MtyLin.,_ Plant Uet_
0
0 1• � --
c:, ---,,
0 ii:..c��r_,,.
I ' I
''--
\ \ \ �-.... -.
,. '\ ·. ') � b.
'rof-'� ' j-1 --s;J C =tt . ..; 1,.1; .. c.., ... , , .._ =t=---�--�e.w.o/fo$t:ar..,� -, '-
··~·· ---
.::. �;.; ....... A,r.,J..;·��� 1-1 -·&r.,n,P'-OnTap '\.....__ FI.-........ P'.b.Mth-...f-----+-���� .... ,_
--�W•AbotU.,ofT-Colri �=-��� : I l
I T-C-C.-��•MNftf 12"-r.ii.,Of raw• 12"-C""1:Toeo.rs.2r"°"'""""u,,row• �L-•f2'+¥°♦12'+3e'•12'..,.'•1Z'•iee• -, .,_..W-•2f•70'-2!'•120' f-•®•1!56'�
Reallgned T "'11119 Court +/· 7974
I
�r ..... lNoHNM ,,_.,,.... __ _ f-----+-.,._ONl'-;"°"!IW<llop<I � =-'�=�r;o::�
Drlvi,way
e
'ropm-ty LIM ,�.
' . l!la"'fCoU""""'°'
1...--------r!ll!O -
--..
•.-� I I
I
I
,' /
i,'
l-/ ,,-
Landscape Plan DVersion • 12/14/06 1/16"=1 '·0" Attachment 2- Landscaping Plan Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application121
Attachment 3- Second Amendment to PUD Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
122
Attachment 3- Second Amendment to PUD Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
123
Attachment 3- Second Amendment to PUD Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
124
Attachment 3- Second Amendment to PUD Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
125
Attachment 3- Second Amendment to PUD Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
126
Attachment 3- Second Amendment to PUD Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
127
1,625 Parks
325 1
10,400 32
Exhibit 4Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
128
Exhibit 5Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
129
Exhibit 6
1001 / 1011 Ute Avenue – Vicinity Map
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
130
Exhibit 7
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
131
Exhibit 7.1
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
132
132 W. Main St. Ste. B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352
www.titlecorockies.com
Commitment Ordered By:
Chris Bendon
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-2855 Fax:
email: chris@bendonadams.com
Inquiries should be directed to:
Susan Hass
Title Company of the Rockies
132 W. Main St. Ste. B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352
Commitment Number:0705993-C
Buyer's Name(s):Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested owner identified
at Item 4 below
Seller's Name(s):Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Property:1001 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Lot 1, 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD, Pitkin County, Colorado
TITLE CHARGES
These charges are based on issuance of the policy or policies described in the attached Commitment for Title Insurance, and includes premiums
for the proposed coverage amount(s) and endorsement(s) referred to therein, and may also include additional work and/or third party charges
related thereto.
If applicable, the designation of “Buyer” and “Seller” shown below may be based on traditional settlement practices in Pitkin County, Colorado,
and/or certain terms of any contract, or other information provided with the Application for Title Insurance.
Owner’s Policy Premium:
Loan Policy Premium:
Additional Lender Charge(s):
Additional Other Charge(s):
Tax Certificate:
Total Endorsement Charge(s):
TBD Charge(s):
TOTAL CHARGES:
$250.00
$250.00
Service Beyond Expectation in Colorado for: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin and Summit Counties. (Limited Coverage: Jackson, Lake, Park and Routt Counties)
Locations In: Avon/Beaver Creek, Basalt, Breckenridge, Grand Lake and Winter Park. (Closing Services available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs).
Exhibit 8Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
133
Chicago Title Insurance Company
ALTA Commitment -2006 (6-17-06)
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT - 2006
(6-17-06)
ISSUED BY
T ITLE C OMPANY OF THE R OCKIES
132 W. Main St. Ste. B
Aspen, CO 81611
agent for
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY , a Missouri corporation (“Company”), for a
valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule
A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest
in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and
compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the
Conditions of this Commitment.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the
amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company.
All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six (6) months after
the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs,
provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request.
In Witness Whereof CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate
name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
134
Chicago Title Insurance Company
ALTA Commitment -2006 (6-17-06)
(Reverse side of Cover)
CONDITIONS
The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other1.
security instrument.
If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien,2.
encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage
thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and
shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be
relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon
to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the
proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company
otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse
claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this
Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from
liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed3.
Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy
or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in
undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or
mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed
the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such
liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of
the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of
this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not4.
an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of
action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising
out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this
Commitment.
The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the5.
Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the
Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy
of the arbitration rules at< http://www.alta.org/>.
(Reverse side of Cover)
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
135
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
136
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
as agent for
Chicago Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE A
Reference:Commitment Number: 0705993-C
1.Effective Date: July 02, 2019, 7:00 am Issue Date: July 11, 2019
2.Policy (or Policies) to be issued:
ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06)Policy Amount:Amount to be Determined
Premium:Amount to be Determined
Proposed Insured:Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested
owner identified at Item 4 below
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee Simple.
4.The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in:
Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
5.The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE SCHEDULE A CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Countersigned
The Title Company of the Rockies
By:
Kathy Kortum
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule A
Page 1
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
137
Commitment No: 0705993-C
SCHEDULE A (continued)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Land referred to herein is located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and described as follows:
Lot 1, 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD, according to the Plat thereof filed May 9, 2007, in Plat Book 83
at Page 95, at Reception No. 537513, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule A
Page 2
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
138
Commitment No: 0705993-C
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
Chicago Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE B, PART I
Requirements
All of the following Requirements must be met:
1.The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred
to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the
Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
2.Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
3.Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
4.Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be
insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public
Records.
Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC, a5.
Colorado limited liability company for the use of Alpine Bank, to secure $12,000,000.00, dated
April 9, 2018, and recorded April 20, 2018, at Reception No. 646724.
NOTE: Disburser's Notice by Alpine Bank, recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646855.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646852, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646853, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646854, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC6.
for the use of Aloanco, LLC, to secure $15,000,000.00, dated May 16, 2017, and recorded May
17, 2017, at Reception No. 638427.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part I
Page 3
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
139
Commitment No: 0705993-C
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded January 29, 2018, at Reception No. 644789, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646852, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646853, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Collateral Assignment of Note and Deed of Trust recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception
No. 648434.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded May 10, 2019, at Reception No. 655852 given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC7.
for the use of Aloanco, LLC, to secure $12,050,000.00, dated May 16, 2017, and recorded May
17, 2017, at Reception No. 638428.
NOTE: Subordination of Deed of Trust recorded January 26, 2018, at Reception No. 644776.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded January 29, 2018, at Reception No. 644789, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646852, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646853, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded May 10, 2019, at Reception No. 655852 given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC, a8.
Colorado limited liability company for the use of Stephen D. Tebo d/b/a Tebo Properties, to
secure $900,000.00, dated January 26, 2018 and recorded January 26, 2018, at Reception No.
644777.
NOTE: Modification of Deed of Trust recorded May 10, 2019, at Reception No. 655852.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded January 29, 2018, at Reception No. 644789, given in
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part I - continued
Page 4
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
140
Commitment No: 0705993-C
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646852, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646853, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded May 10, 2019, at Reception No. 655852 given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
Certificate of Dismissal, issued by the Clerk of the Court, in Civil Action No. 2010CV177, in the9.
District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado, entitled First-Citizens Bank & Trust,
Plaintiff(s), vs. Leathem Stearn, Defendant(s). Notice of Lis Pendens recorded April 18, 2018, at
Reception no. 646679 and recorded August 2, 2018, at Reception No. 649260.
NOTE: Subordination recorded April 25, 2018 at Reception No. 646852. Disburser's Notice
recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646855.
NOTE: Disburser's Notice by Alpine Bank, recorded April 25, 2018, at Reception No. 646855.
Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent that all dues and/or10.
assessments levied by the Homeowners Association have been paid through the date of closing.
Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a) that the "real estate11.
transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series
of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have
been fully satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to the
provisions thereof.
Deed from Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company to Purchaser with12.
contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested owner identified at Item 4 below.
NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or
Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No.
1288-CRA 39-14-102.
THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF
THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR
INVOLUNTARY MATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE
SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part I - continued
Page 5
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
141
Commitment No: 0705993-C
IDENTITY OF THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE
COMPANY.
NOTE: THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED UPON THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICABLE PREMIUMS, CHARGES AND FEES SHALL
BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT AND/OR ITS DESIGNEE OR
NOMINEE CLOSES THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY OR OTHERWISE RELIES
UPON THE COMMITMENT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND
SCHEDULES OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part I - continued
Page 6
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
142
Commitment No: 0705993-C
SCHEDULE B, PART II
Exceptions
THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION,
OR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR
LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless
the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company.
Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below:
Any facts, right, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could1.
be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession
thereof.
Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.2.
Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the3.
Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in
the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date of
the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment.
6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing
authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b)
proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such
proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
Right of the Proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same7.
be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent
recorded May 1, 1884, in Book 11 at Page 97, at Reception No. 4536 and recorded August 26,
1949, in Book 175 at Page 299, at Reception No. 96828.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part II
Page 7
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
143
Commitment No: 0705993-C
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions, easements and obligations as contained in Agreement8.
recorded March 22, 2006, at Reception No. 522056 and re-recorded April 12, 2006, at Reception
No. 522889, and Declaration recorded January 12, 2011, at Reception No. 576694.
Easements, rights of way and all other matters as shown on the Plat of 1001 Ute Avenue9.
Subdivision/PUD filed May 9, 2007, in Plat Book 83 at Page 95, at Reception No. 537513.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Subdivision/PUD10.
Agreement for 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision recorded May 9, 2007, at Reception No. 537514;
First Amendment recorded September 10, 2013, at Reception No. 603462 and Second
Amendment recorded March 18, 2014, at Reception No. 608696.
Those covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and restrictions as contained in Declaration11.
of Protective Covenants for 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD recorded May 9, 2007, at
Reception No. 537515 as amended by instrument recorded December 15, 2015, at Reception No.
625611.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in letter for compliance12.
with the Subdivision/PUD Agreement recorded May 10, 2007, at Reception No. 537601.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Resolution of the13.
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded May 16, 2007, at Reception No. 537917.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Cost Sharing and14.
Easement Agreement recorded July 18, 2007, at Reception No. 540056.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Trench, Conduit and15.
Vault Agreement recorded October 24, 2008, at Reception No. 553783.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Holy Cross Energy16.
Contract for Electric Service recorded October 24, 2008, at Reception No. 553788.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions, easements and obligations as contained in Holy Cross17.
Energy Underground Right-of-way Easement recorded October 24, 2008, at Reception No.
553789.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Declaration Of18.
Exclusive Parking Rights recorded March 18, 2014, at Reception No. 608695.
Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations contained in the Stormwater Best Management19.
Practices Operations and Maintenance Agreement recorded October 19, 2017 at Reception No.
642416.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part II - continued
Page 8
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
144
Commitment No: 0705993-C
Irrevocable License Agreement recorded April 25, 2018 at Reception No. 646856.20.
Irrevocable License Agreement recorded April 25, 2018 at Reception No. 646857.21.
Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in 971 Ute Control Area22.
Easement recorded May 10, 2019, at Reception No. 655863.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part II - continued
Page 9
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
145
Commitment No: 0705993-C
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note 1: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII, requires that
"Every Title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording
whenever the Title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting
from the transaction which was closed.” (Gap Protection)
Note 2: Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of this Commitment may be deleted from the Owner's Policy to be
issued hereunder upon compliance with the following conditions:
The Land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a1.
condominium or townhouse unit.
No labor or materials may have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purpose of construction on2.
the Land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 13 months.
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's3.
and materialmen's liens.
Any deviation from conditions A though C above is subject to such additional requirements or Information4.
as the Company may deem necessary, or, at its option, the Company may refuse to delete the exception.
Payment of the premium for said coverage.5.
Note 3: The following disclosures are hereby made pursuant to §10-11-122, C.R.S.:
The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district;(i)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the(ii)
County Treasurer's authorized agent; and
Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the(iii)
County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
Note 4: If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00, the seller shall be required to comply with the
disclosure or withholding provisions of C.R.S. §39-22-604.5 (Non-resident withholding).
Note 5: Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123 Notice is hereby given:
(a)If there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate then there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas,
other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property, and
(b)That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's
permission.
Note 6: Effective September 1, 1997, C.R.S. §30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing
in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of
at least one-half inch the clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform.
Note 7: Our Privacy Policy:
We will not reveal nonpublic personal customer information to any external non-affiliated organization unless we
have been authorized by the customer, or are required by law.
Note 8: Records:
Regulation 3-5-1 Section 7 (N) provides that each title entity shall maintain adequate documentation and records
sufficient to show compliance with this regulation and Title 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes for a period of not
less than seven (7) years, except as otherwise permitted by law.
Note 9: Pursuant Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (F) notice is hereby given that “A title entity shall not earn interest on
fiduciary funds unless disclosure is made to all necessary parties to a transaction that interest is or has been earned.
Said disclosure must offer the opportunity to receive payment of any interest earned on such funds beyond any
administrative fees as may be on file with the division. Said disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, and may be
made at any time up to and including closing.”
Be advised that the closing agent will or could charge an Administrative Fee for processing such an additional
services request and any resulting payee will also be subjected to a W-9 or other required tax documentation for such
Page 10
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
146
purpose(s).
Be further advised that, for many transactions, the imposed Administrative Fee associated with such an additional
service may exceed any such interest earned.
Therefore, you may have the right to some of the interest earned over and above the Administrative Fee, if applicable
(e.g., any money over any administrative fees involved in figuring the amounts earned).
Note 10: Pursuant to Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (G) notice is hereby given that “Until a title entity receives written
instructions pertaining to the holding of fiduciary funds, in a form agreeable to the title entity, it shall comply with
the following:
The title entity shall deposit funds into an escrow, trust, or other fiduciary account and hold them in a1.
fiduciary capacity.
The title entity shall use any funds designated as “earnest money” for the consummation of the transaction2.
as evidenced by the contract to buy and sell real estate applicable to said transaction, except as otherwise
provided in this section. If the transaction does not close, the title entity shall:
Release the earnest money funds as directed by written instructions signed by both the buyer and seller;(a)
or
If acceptable written instructions are not received, uncontested funds shall be held by the title entity for(b)
180 days from the scheduled date of closing, after which the title entity shall return said funds to the
payor.
In the event of any controversy regarding the funds held by the title entity (notwithstanding any termination3.
of the contract), the title entity shall not be required to take any action unless and until such controversy is
resolved. At its option and discretion, the title entity may:
Await any proceeding; or(a)
Interplead all parties and deposit such funds into a court of competent jurisdiction, and recover court(b)
costs and reasonable attorney and legal fees; or
Deliver written notice to the buyer and seller that unless the title entity receives a copy of a summons(c)
and complaint or claim (between buyer and seller), containing the case number of the lawsuit or
lawsuits, within 120 days of the title entity's written notice delivered to the parties, title entity shall
return the funds to the depositing party.”
Page 11
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
147
Commitment No: 0705993-C
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
· Pursuant to Section 38-35-125 of Colorado Revised Statutes and Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2 (Section 5), if the
parties to the subject transaction request us to provide escrow-settlement and disbursement services to facilitate the closing of the
transaction, then all funds submitted for disbursement must be available for immediate withdrawal.
· Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Section 5, Paragraph H, requires that "Every title insurance company shall be
responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title insurance commitment, other than the effective
date of the title insurance commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title
insurance company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owners policy
of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed".
Provided that The Title Company of the Rockies conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the
legal documents from the transaction, exception No. 5 in Schedule B-2 will not appear in the Owner's Title Policy and Lender's Title
Policy when issued.
· Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Paragraph M of Section 5, requires that prospective insured(s) of a single family
residence be notified in writing that the standard exception from coverage for unfiled Mechanics or Materialmans Liens may or may
not be deleted upon the satisfaction of the requirement(s) pertinent to the transaction. These requirements will be addressed upon
receipt of a written request to provide said coverage, or if the Purchase and Sale Agreement/Contract is provided to the Company then
the necessary requirements will be reflected on the commitment.
· Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-3, Paragraph C. 11.f. of Section 5 - requires a title insurance company to make the
following notice to the consumer: “A closing protection letter is available to be issued to lenders, buyers and sellers”
· If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00 the seller shall be required to comply with the Disclosure of
Withholding Provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident Withholding).
· Section 39-14-102 of Colorado Revised Statutes requires that a Real Property Transfer Declaration accompany any conveyance
document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said Declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or
grantee.
· Recording statutes contained in Section 30-10-406(3)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes require that all documents received for
recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right, and bottom margin
of at least one-half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file a document that does not conform to requirements of
this paragraph.
· Section 38-35-109 (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, requires that a notation of the purchasers legal address, (not
necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the deed to be recorded.
· Regulations of County Clerk and Recorder's offices require that all documents submitted for recording must contain a return address
on the front page of every document being recorded.
· Pursuant to Section 10-11-122 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1987 the Company is required to disclose the following information:
Page 12
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
148
Commitment No: 0705993-C
o The subject property may be located in a special taxing district.
o A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or
the County Treasurer's authorized agent.
o Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board
of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder or the County Assessor.
· Pursuant to Section 10-11-123 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, when it is determined that a mineral estate has been
severed from the surface estate, the Company is required to disclose the following information: that there is recorded
evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is
a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in
the property; and that such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface
owner's permission.
Note: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Commitment, if the policy to be issued is other than an
ALTA Owner's Policy (6/17/06), the policy may not contain an arbitration clause, or the terms of the arbitration
clause may be different from those set forth in this Commitment. If the policy does contain an arbitration clause,
and the Amount of Insurance is less than the amount, if any, set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters
shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties.
Page 13
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
149
132 W. Main Street, Suite B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 927-8288
www.titlecorockies.com
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Prepared
for:
BendonAdams
Attn: Chris Bendon
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-2855
Date:July 16, 2019
Order:0705994-C
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:Lot 2, 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD, according to the Plat filed May 9,
2007 in Plat Book 83 at Page 95 as Reception No. 537513.
Property Address:1011 Ute Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:R020460/273718201014
Owner’s Name(s):Ute Mesa Lot 2, LLC , a Colorado limited liability company
TITLE ABSTRACT
WARRANTY DEED recorded December 17, 2009 at Reception No. 565422.
DEED OF TRUST Recorded December 29, 2009 at Reception No. 565664. Modification of Deed of Trust recorded
May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569293. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012 at Reception No.
590355. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636370.
DEED OF TRUST recorded May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569294. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3,
2012 at Reception No. 590356. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636371.
DEED OF TRUST recorded April 8, 2008 at Reception No. 548184. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3,
2012 at Reception No. 590354. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636369.
DEED OF TRUST July 7, 2011 at Reception No. 581086. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2013 at
Reception No. 590357. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636372.
Lis Pendens recorded June 9, 2017 at Reception No. 639037.
UCC recorded December 8, 2015 at Reception No. 625389. UCC Amendment recorded December 18, 2015 at
Reception No. 625730.
UCC recorded December 8, 2015 at Reception No. 625390 and at Reception No. 625391, and at Reception No.
625392.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through July 5, 2019.
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Service Beyond Expectation in Colorado for: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin and Summit Counties. (Limited Coverage: Jackson, Lake, Park and Routt Counties)
Locations In: Avon/Beaver Creek, Basalt, Breckenridge, Grand Lake and Winter Park. (Closing Services available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs).
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
150
132 W. Main Street, Suite B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 927-8288
www.titlecorockies.com
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Prepared
for:
BendonAdams
Attn: Chris Bendon
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-2855
Date:July 16, 2019
Order:0705995-C
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:Lot 3, 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD, according to the Plat filed May 9,
2007 in Plat Book 83 at Page 95 as Reception No. 537513.
Property Address:999 Ute Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:R020461/273718201015
Owner’s Name(s):999 Ute Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
TITLE ABSTRACT
WARRANTY DEED recorded December 17, 2009 at Reception No. 565421.
DEED OF TRUST Recorded December 29, 2009 at Reception No. 565664. Modification of Deed of Trust recorded
May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569293. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012 at Reception No.
590355. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636370.
DEED OF TRUST recorded May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569294. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3,
2012 at Reception No. 590356. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636371.
DEED OF TRUST July 7, 2011 at Reception No. 581086. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2013 at
Reception No. 590357. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636372.
DEED OF TRUST recorded December 23, 2011 at Reception No. 585368.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through July 5, 2019.
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Service Beyond Expectation in Colorado for: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin and Summit Counties. (Limited Coverage: Jackson, Lake, Park and Routt Counties)
Locations In: Avon/Beaver Creek, Basalt, Breckenridge, Grand Lake and Winter Park. (Closing Services available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs).
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
151
132 W. Main Street, Suite B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 927-8288
www.titlecorockies.com
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Prepared
for:
BendonAdams
Attn: Chris Bendon
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-2855
Date:July 16, 2019
Order:0705996-C
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:Common Lot Area A, 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD, according to the Plat
filed May 9, 2007 in Plat Book 83 at Page 95 as Reception No. 537513.
Property Address:1001 Ute Ave, A Common Area, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:R020462/273718201801
Owner’s Name(s):1001 Ute Avenue Homeowners Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation
TITLE ABSTRACT
Warranty Ddeed recorded December 17, 2009 at Reception No. 565424
Deed of Trust recorded December 29, 2009 at Reception No. 565664. Modification of Deed of Trust recorded May
13, 2010 at Reception No. 569293. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012 at Reception No. 590355.
Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636370.
Deed of Trust recorded May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569294. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012
at Reception No. 590356. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636371.
Deed of Trust recorded July 7, 2011 at Reception No. 581086. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2013 at
Reception No. 590357. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636372.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through July 5, 2019.
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Service Beyond Expectation in Colorado for: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin and Summit Counties. (Limited Coverage: Jackson, Lake, Park and Routt Counties)
Locations In: Avon/Beaver Creek, Basalt, Breckenridge, Grand Lake and Winter Park. (Closing Services available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs).
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
152
132 W. Main Street, Suite B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 927-8288
www.titlecorockies.com
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Prepared
for:
BendonAdams
Attn: Chris Bendon
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-2855
Date:July 16, 2019
Order:0705997-C
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:Common Area Lot B, 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD, according to the Plat
filed May 9, 2007 in Plat Book 83 at Page 95 as Reception No. 537513.
Property Address:1001 Ute Ave, B Common Area, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:R020463/273718201802
Owner’s Name(s):1001 Ute Avenue Homeowners Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation
TITLE ABSTRACT
Warranty Ddeed recorded December 17, 2009 at Reception No. 565424
Deed of Trust recorded December 29, 2009 at Reception No. 565664. Modification of Deed of Trust recorded May
13, 2010 at Reception No. 569293. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012 at Reception No. 590355.
Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636370.
Deed of Trust recorded May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569294. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012
at Reception No. 590356. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636371.
Deed of Trust recorded July 7, 2011 at Reception No. 581086. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2013 at
Reception No. 590357. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636372.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through July 5, 2019.
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Service Beyond Expectation in Colorado for: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin and Summit Counties. (Limited Coverage: Jackson, Lake, Park and Routt Counties)
Locations In: Avon/Beaver Creek, Basalt, Breckenridge, Grand Lake and Winter Park. (Closing Services available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs).
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
153
132 W. Main Street, Suite B
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 927-8288
www.titlecorockies.com
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Prepared
for:
BendonAdams
Attn: Chris Bendon
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-2855
Date:July 16, 2019
Order:0705998-C
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:Common Area Lot C, 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD, according to the Plat
filed May 9, 2007 in Plat Book 83 at Page 95 as Reception No. 537513.
Property Address:1001 Ute Avenue, C Common Area, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:R020464/273718201803
Owner’s Name(s):1001 Ute Avenue Homeowners Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation
TITLE ABSTRACT
Warranty Ddeed recorded December 17, 2009 at Reception No. 565424
Deed of Trust recorded December 29, 2009 at Reception No. 565664. Modification of Deed of Trust recorded May
13, 2010 at Reception No. 569293. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012 at Reception No. 590355.
Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636370.
Deed of Trust recorded May 13, 2010 at Reception No. 569294. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2012
at Reception No. 590356. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636371.
Deed of Trust recorded July 7, 2011 at Reception No. 581086. Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded July 3, 2013 at
Reception No. 590357. Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 24, 2017 at Reception No. 636372.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through July 5, 2019.
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Service Beyond Expectation in Colorado for: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin and Summit Counties. (Limited Coverage: Jackson, Lake, Park and Routt Counties)
Locations In: Avon/Beaver Creek, Basalt, Breckenridge, Grand Lake and Winter Park. (Closing Services available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs).
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
154
1111111111111111111111 1 361
J NICE K vos CIUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
ORDINANCE NO 24
SERIES OF 2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS A SUBDIVISION REVIEW CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL FINAL PUD AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR
THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS FOR THE
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVSION CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN
COUNTY COLORADO
Parcel ID 2737 182 00 063
WHEREAS the Community Development Department received an application
from Leathem Steam owner represented by Davis Horn Incorporated requesting approval
of Subdivision Consolidated ConceptualFinal Planned Unit Development 8040 Greenline
Review Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space
Parcels to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two 2 residential properties and four
4 separate common areas City and Townsite of Aspen and
WHEREAS the pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26470 040 B I Detached
Single family and Duplex Dwelling Units the Community Development Director approved
a Growth Management Review for the construction of one single family dwelling unit
conditioned upon approval of the other associated land use actions requested and
WHEREAS pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26445 030B 2 Consolidated
Conceptual and Final Review the Community Development Director consented to allow
for the development application to be reviewed as a consolidated PUD review because of
the anticipated limited scope of issues involved with the review and
WHEREAS pursuant to the applicable sections of the land use code the
Community Development Director has reviewed the requested land use actions and
recommended denial of the growth management review for the preservation of significant
open space parcels and that a maximum floor area of only 3 830 square feet be allowed per
residential lot and
WHEREAS during a duly noticed public hearing on April 4 2006 the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to
April 18 2006 and
WHEREAS during a continued public hearing on April 18 2006 the Planning and
Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to May 2
2006 and
WHEREAS the Applicant amended the development application to include the
development of a Category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate for the second free market
residential unit in the subdivision and
WHEREAS during a continued public hearing on May 2 2006 the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No 16 Series of 2006 by a six to zero 6 0
vote approving with conditions an 8040 Greenline Review a Growth Management Review
Exhibit 9
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
155
11 111 111 1111 11 1 11 11111 1111 III 111 IIII 1 1 1 36
JANICE K VQS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
for the Development of Affordable Housing and recommending that City Council approve
with conditions Subdivision Review Consolidated Conceptual Final PUD and a Growth
Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001
Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two 2 residential
properties a parcel for the development of a Category 4 AH nnit and four 4 separate
common areas City and Townsite of Aspen and
WHEREAS the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the
Community Development Director the applicable referral agencies and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing and
WHEREAS during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10 2006 the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until July 24 2006 and
WHEREAS during a continued public hearing on July 24 2006 the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until August 14 2006 and
WHEREAS during a continued public hearing on August 14 2006 the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision and approved Ordinance No
24 Series of 2006 by a four to zero 4 0 vote approving with conditions the 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision Consolidated ConceptualFinal PUD and Growth Management
Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels and
WHEREAS the City Council fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal with
conditions is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan and
WHEREAS the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health safety and welfare
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN COLORADO THAT
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code
the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions a Subdivision Review
Consolidated ConceptualFinal PUD and a Growth Management Review for the
Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to
divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two 2 single family residential properties a
property for the development of a for sale three bedroom Category 4 affordable housing
unit and four 4 separate common areas subject to the conditions contained herein
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
156
II 111111111I111I I 361
JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
Section 2 Approved Development
Development of two 2 free market single family residential dwelling units and the
development of a for sale three bedroom Category 4 affordable housing unit the relocation
of the existing tennis courts approximately thirty 30 feet to the west of their current location
along with the necessary road improvements to access the residential lots are hereby approved
subject to the terms of this ordinance
Section 3 Dimensional Requirements
The approved dimensional requirements are as follows
Dimensional Approved
Requirement Dimensional
Requirements
Minimum Lot Size Lot 1 24 850 SF
Lot 2 30 060 SF
Common AIea 1 Open
Space 20 860 SF
Common Area 2 Open
Space 24 860 SF
Common AIea 3 Access
Easement 15 290 SF
Common AIea 4 Open
Space 920 SF
Minimum Lot Width 25 Feet for Common
AIea 2 Open Space
Minimum Lot Area 31 655 SF in PUD
Per Dwelling Unit
Minimum Front Per Building Envelope
Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard Per Building Envelope
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard Per Building Envelope
Setback
Maximum Height 25 Feet as measured
from finished grade and
27 Feet to the ridge
Allowable External 5 040 SF per each of the
FAR two 2 single family
residential dwelling
units as calculated based
on the City land use
code methodology in
affect at the time of
building permit
submittal Additionally
1 400 SF is allocated for
the development of a
for sale Category 4
affordable housing unit
Minimum Off Street 2 Spaces per Residential
Parkin Unit
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
157
Section 4 SubdivisionPUD Plat and Alreement
The Applicant shall record a subdivisionIPUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements
of Land Use Code within 180 days of approval The Plat shall contain the property
boundaries easements and the building envelopes
Section 5 8040 Greenline Review
The 8040 Greenline approval granted herein is only for the road serving the single family
residence parcels and the relocation of the tennis courts Prior to applying for building permits
on the two 2 free market residential units or the associated accessory dwelling units within
the subdivisionIPUD an 8040 Greenline Review on the specific residence designs shall be
applied for and approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26435 030 8040 Greenline
Review
Section 6 Residential DesilnStandards
The two 2 single family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required
to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26 410 Residential Design Standards
Section 7 Affordable HousinlMitilation
A for sale three bedroom Category 4 affordable housing unit consisting of a minimum of
1400 square feet of net livable space shall be constructed in combination with providing a
conservation easement on the southern 4 1 acres of the fathering parcel to mitigate for the
free market residential dwelling units to be constructed within the subdivision The affordable
housing unit shall be excluded from the homeowner s association for the subdivision so that it
will not be responsible for maintenance and association fees common to the subdivision The
homeowner s association documents shall not contain any language that prohibits the owners
ofthe affordable housing units from having dogs
Section 8 Conservation Easement
The Applicant shall deed the 41 acres of the fathering parcel to be placed under a
conservation easement to the City of Aspen Subsequently the City of Aspen shall record a
conservation easement to be held by a third party on the 4 1 acres of the fathering parcel to
remain in Pitkin County that will be sterilized in perpetuity against future development in
exchange for one of the two 2 single family development rights within the subdivision The
property shall be deeded to the City prior to submission for an access infrastructure permit on
the common driveway improvements within the subdivisionIPUD The conservation
easement document shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Pitkin County
Community Development Department prior to recordation
Section 9 School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26 630 School Lands Dedication the Applicant shall
pay a fee in lieu ofland dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the
subdivision Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the
subdivision the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the
subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
158
1 111 111 II 1 11 11111 111 III 111 IIII 1 I 361
JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
at the time of building permit submission as set forth m Land Use Code Section
26 630 030 School Lands Dedication Dedication Schedule
Section 10 Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26 610 Park Development Impact Fee the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any
construction within the subdivision that adds new residential lodge bedrooms andor
commercial office square footage The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due
using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26 610 030 Park Development Impact Fee Fee Schedule
Section 11 Soil Subsidence Rock FaIl and Avalanche Hazards
The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified
licensed engineer demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development in
conjunction with the 8040 Greenline Review applications for the individual residences
proposed within the subdivisionIPUD The designs for the single family residences within the
subdivisionIPUD shall comply with the recommendations of the Applicant s Avalanche
Specialist Peter Lev and Applicant s Geologist Nicholas Lampiris by providing an
engineered four 4 foot tall retaining waIl on the south side of the residences
Section 12 Mine Waste
The Applicant shaIl provide a mine waste testing and handling plan to the City prior to
submitting a building permit application on either of the residences that complies with the
following conditions of approval regarding development in an Environmentally Sensitive
area and handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26435 030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code
a Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with a non permeable tarp or other protective barrier
approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of
contaminated material onto or into the surface soil Disturbed soil or material need
not be removed if the City s Environmental Health Department finds that 1 the
excavated material contains less than 1 000 parts per million ppm of total lead or 2
that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site Disturbed soil
and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material
at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility
b Non removal of contaminated material No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be
removed placed stored transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site
without having first obtained any and all necessary State andor Federal transportation
and disposal permits
c Dust suppression All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to
minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
159
e
111111111111111I 111111 I 36F
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
d Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation No vegetables or flowers shall be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds
consisting of not less than twelve 12 inches of soil containing no more than 999
ppm lead
e Landscaping The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic
yard of soil shall require the same measures outlined in sub sections a b c f and g
f Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be
contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate
clean soils existing elsewhere on the property
g Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on site shall be placed under
structures or pavement Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be
covered by a minimum of I foot of clean soil that contains less than 1 000 ppm lead
Section 13 Fire Mitil ation
Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be
installed in each of the single family residences to be constructed within the
subdivisionIPUD The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the
required Fire Sprinkler System The residences to be designed and constructed within the
subdivisionIPUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards Compliance with
the Colorado Defensible Space Standards shall be verified as part of the 8040 Greenline
Review process on the individual residences
Section 14 Drivewav Construction
The driveway shall be constructed to the grades that are proposed in the application and
shall not exceed twelve 12 percent at any point A harrunerhead fire truck turnaround
meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be installed as proposed in the
application The Applicant shall enter into a recorded road maintenance agreement with
the City that is to be reviewed and accepted by the City Fire Marshal prior to the issuance
of an accesslinfrastructure permit to construct the road An access infrastructure permit
shall be applied for and approved by the City Community Development Department prior
to commencing any grading or construction activities related to the installation of the
common driveway to the residential parcels A geotechnical report shall be submitted as
part of the access infrastructure permit application
Section 15 Landscapinl
The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is
proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall A tree removal permit and
tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the City of Aspen Parks
Department prior to commencing construction activities related to the subdivision access
improvements Additionally individual landscaping plans for the residential parcels shall
be submitted and reviewed by the City Parks Department as part of the 8040 Greenline
Review applications for the individual residences The Applicant shall provide a financial
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
160
1111111111111111 111111 1 36F
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
security to ensure the completion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in
the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any
of the residential units within the subdivision
Section 16 Relocation of Tennis Courts
The Applicant shall relocate the existing tennis courts prior to or in conjunction with the
installation of the common driveway to the residential parcels within the subdivisionIPUD
An access infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved prior to the
commencement of construction activities related to relocating the tennis courts The
pathway from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis courts shall be improved to comply with
applicable ADA accessibility requirements A deed restriction shall be recorded on the
Common Area 2 Open Space parcel to contain the tennis courts that preserves the parcel
against future development
Section 17 Trail Easement
The Applicant shall grant a public trail easement to accommodate the existing Ajax Trail if
it is found to be located outside of the existing trail easement in areas Additionally the
Applicant shall grant a permanent public trail easement meeting the approval ofthe City of
Aspen Parks Department along the eastern comer of single family residential Lot I in order
to accommodate a pedestrian trail from the Ajax Trail down to Ajax Park prior to
recordation of the final subdivisionIPUD plat
Section 18 Water Department Requirements
The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards with Title
25 and with the applicable standards of Title 8 Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code of the Aspen Municipal Code as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City
and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units
Section 19 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District s rules and
regulations No clear water connections roof foundation perimeter drains to ACSD lines
shall be allowed The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the
subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate separation
between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway If a
glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed the glycol storage areas shall be
reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation
Section 20 Massinl Controls
The specific designs of the two 2 free market residential dwelling units that are to be
submitted for 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Section 5 of this ordinance shall be
substantially consistent with the revised massing drawings presented to City Council on
August 14 2006 A substantial subdivisionIPUD amendment review would be necessary
to substantially vary from the massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14
2006 The width of the north facing facades of the free market residential units shall be
limited to 120 feet The overall ridge height of the free market single family residential
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
161
W
11111111111111111 I II 1 36f
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
structures shall be limited to twenty seven 27 feet above finished grade and twenty 20
percent of the width of the front fayades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty two
22 feet above finished grade Non reflective materials shall be used in the construction of
the proposed single family residences
Section 21 Vested Rilhts
The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three 3 years from the
date of issuance of a development order
No later than fourteen 14 days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
ofAspen a notice advising the general public ofthe approval of a site specific development
plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title Such notice shall be
substantially in the following form
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24 Article 68 Colorado
Revised Statutes pertaining to the following described property 1001 Ute Avenue
City and Townsite of Aspen by Ordinance No 24 Series of 2006 of the Aspen City
Council
Section 22
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances
Section 23
If any section subsection sentence clause phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall
be deemed a separate distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof
Section 24
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the lOth day of July 2006 in the City
Council Chambers Aspen City Hall Aspen Colorado fifteen 15 days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City ofAspen
INTRODUCED READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of June 2006
Hd YO
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
162
1 1 111 11 11 1111 111 m I IIII I I 36f
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46 00 0 0 00
J
Attest
FINALLY adopted passed and approved this 14th day ofAugust
Attest
Approved as to form
7 7at
c John PWorcester City Attorney
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
163
IIIII IIII IIII VIII III III II e~ e4 ea:zzl
RNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION
Parcel No. 2737-182-00-063
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ®°~ day of May 2007 between UTE MESA, LLC, a
Colorado lirrutedliability company (hereinaft r "Owner") and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City").
WHEREAS, Owner owns the property located at 1001 Ute Avenue which is legally
described on the plat recorded on ,~__, 2007 in Book ~.~ at Page s
Reception No. $~' ~-5 13 of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder (hereinafter "the
Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for Owner,
represented by Davis Hom Incorporated, requesting approval of Subdivision, Consolidated
ConceptuaUFinal PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Growth Management Review for the
Preservation of Significant Open Space Pazcels to divide the Property into two (2) residential
properties and four (4) sepazate common azeas; (amended to three (3) residential properties and
three (3) sepazate common areas);
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 16, Series of
2006 ("Resolution 16"), by a six to zero (6-0) vote, approving with conditions an 8040 Greenline
Review, a Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing, and
recommending that City CouncIl approve with conditions, Subdivision Review, Consolidated
Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant
Open Space pazcels for the Property;
WHEREAS, the City reviewed and considered the development proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, reviewed and considered the recommendations of
the P&Z, the Community Development IJirector, applicable referral agencies and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Aspen City Council (hereinafter "the Council") Ordinance
No. 24, Series of 2006 ("Ordinance 24'x, the Council granted approval with conditions for a
Subdivision Review, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth Management Review for
the Preservation of Significant Open Space Pazcels for the Property (hereinafter "the Project");
and
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for review and approval a Subdivision PUD
plat for the project (hereinafter the "Plat") and the City will review the Plat with regazd to
compliance with matters described herein; and subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen (hereinafter the "Code"), and other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Owner wish to enter into aSubdivision/PUD Agreement for
the Project; and
Exhibit 10
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
164
IRIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 059007 03:221
R 76.00 D 0.00
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such agreement with the City and to
provide assurances to the City; and
WHEREAS, there aze certain errors contained in Ordinance 24 which Owner and the Citydesiretocorrect.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and
the review of the Plat by the City, it is agreed as follows:
1. Description of Protect. A subdivision to divide the Property into two free mazket single-familyresidential properties, a property for the development of a "for sale" three bedroom,
Category4 affordable housing unit, and three (3) sepazate common azeas, subject to conditions.
A separate piece of land in unincorporated Pitkin County will be placed under a conservation
easement and deeded to the City of Aspen as described in pazagraph 3.f. below.
2. Approved Development. Development of two free mazket single family residential
dwelling utrits, and the development of a "for sale" three bedroom Category 4 affordable housing
urrit, the relocation of the existing tennis courts approximately thirty (30) feet to the west of their
current location, along with the necessary road improvements to access the residential lots subject
to the conditions described in Ordinance 24.
3. Development Requireu~nts. Owner shall satisfy the development requirements set forth
below. Discrepancies in the lot sizes between those contained in Ordinance 24 and the
dimensional requirements set forth herein result from minor changes to the lot boundaries that
were reviewed by City Council prior to the adoption of Ordinance 24 but were not reflected in
Ordinance 24. The dimensional requirements provided herein aze consistent with the final
representations reviewed and approved by City Council on August 14, 2006. To the extent of anyconflictbetweentherequirementssetforthbelowandthosecontainedinResolution16or
Ordinance 24, the requirements set forth below shall govern and control.
a. Dimensional Requirements
The approved dimensional requirements aze as follows:
Lot Sizes:
Lot 1: 23,636 SF (+/-)
Lot 2: 28,286 SF (+/-)
Lot 3: 2,912 SF (+/-)
Common Area Lot A: 19,293 SF (+/-)
Corranon Area Lot B: 23,250 SF (+/-)
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
165
537~~ 4
I IIIIII IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 09 5/09D20.0003:221
Common Area Lot C Access Easement:
Common Area Lot D:
Minimum Lot Width:
Minimum Lot Atea Per Dwelling Unit:
Mirimrun Front Yard Setback:
Minimum Side Yard Setback:
Minimum Reaz Yard Setback:
19,160 SF (+/-)
178,922 SF (+/-)
25 Feet for Common Area Lot C
38, 845 SF in PUD
Per Building Envelope
Per Building Envelope
Per Building Envelope
Maximum Height 25 Feet as measured from fuushed grade and 27
Feet to the ridge
Allowable External FAR 5,040 SF per each of the two (2) free market single
family residential dwelling units on Lots 1 and 2 as calculated based on the City land use
code methodology in effect on August 14, 2006 (i.e., the date of Ordinance 24).
Additionally, 1,400 SF is allocated for the development of a "for sale" Category 4
affordable housing unit on Lot 3.
Minimum Off-street Parking: 2 Spaces per Residential Unit.
b. Subdiv(sion/PUD Plat and PUD Agreement
The Owner shall record aSubdivision/PUD Plat that meets the requirements of the Land
Use Code and this Agreement within 180 days of approval. The Plat shall depict the boundaries
of the development pazceis, common space pazceis, open space azeas, easements and the building
envelopes.
8040 Greenline Review
The 8040 Greenline approval granted herein is only for the road serving the single family
residence pazceis and the relocation of the tennis courts. Prior to applying for building permits on the
two free market residential units on Lots 1 and 2, an 8040 Greenline Review on the specific residence
designs shall be applied for and approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040
Greenline Review. 8040 Greenline Review is not required for the affordable housing residence on Lot
3.
d. Residential Design Standards
The three (3) single family residences (2 Free mazket, 1 Affordable housing) to be
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
166
I~II['y'I~I~y' .~.I„III,I IIIII IIII) II II I II I II III II 059020 0 03:221
JPNICE K VOS CPUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
constructed within the subdivision shall be required to meet all City of Aspen Residential Design
Standazds pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standazds, or obtain a
variance therefrom.
Affordable Housing Mitigation
A "for sale" three bedroom Category 4 affordable Housing Unit consisting of a minimum
of 1,400 squaze feet of net livable space shall be constructed on Lot 3 in combination with
providing a gift of land to the City of Aspen for Common Area Lot D and encumbering Common
Area Lot D with a conservation easement to mitigate for the free market residential dwelling units
to be constructed on Lots 1 and 2. A deed restriction on Lot 3 requiring it to be a Category 4
housing unit shall be recorded prior to an application for building permit for either Lot 1 or Lot 2.
The affordable housing unit shall be excluded from paying dues to the homeowner's association
for the subdivision so that it will not be responsible for maintenance and association fees common
to the subdivision. T'he owner of the affordable housing unit shall be permitted to own dogs
subject to the City of Aspen's rules and regulations).
Residents of the affordable housing unit shall meet the minimum occupancy and all other
qualification criteria in the APCHA Guidelines, as amended. The sales price shall not exceed a
maximum price as defined in the APCHA guidelines as amended from time to time. The Owner
shall be able to select a purchaser for the Category 4 unit qualified by the APCHA. Resale of the
unit shall be through the APCHA.
Gift of Land to the City of Aspen/Conservatlon Easement
The Owner shall gift to the City of Aspen Common Area Lot D, which is approximately
4.1 acres and which is located in unincorporated Pitkin County (the "CE Pazcel'. Immediately
after title to the CE Pazcel is corneyed by Owner to the City, the City shall record a conservation
easement on the CE Pazcel, the terms and conditions of which shall be mutually acceptable to the
City and AVLT. The Owner shall have the right to review and comment upon the conservation
easement and any amendments thereto; however, the final language of the conservation easement
shall be detemuned by the City and AVLT. The conservation easement shall ensure that the CE
Pazcel is sterilized in perpetuity against future development; however, recreational and other uses
acceptable to the beneficiazy of the CE Pazcel shall be permitted. The conservation easement shall
be recorded and the property shall be deeded to the City prior to submission for an
access/infrastructure permit on the common driveway improvements within the Property. The
conservation easement document shall be prepazed by the Owner and reviewed by the Pitkin
County Community Development Department prior to recordation.
g. School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Owner shall
pay afee-irrlieu of land dedication in conjunction with arty residential development in the
subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the
subdivision, the Owner shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the subdivision as
calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect at the time of
4
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
167
I IIIIII IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII
0
059095 0 0003:221JRNICE
building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Cale Section 26.620.070, School Lands
Dedication.' Current Land Dedication and Cash in-lieu fees. The City found that the property is
not conducive to locate a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted.
h. Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Lnpact Fee, the Owner
shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any
construction within the subdivision that adds new residential/lodge bedrooms and/or
corranerciaUoffice square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using
the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.090,ParkDevelopmentlmpactFee: CurrentlmpactFees.
i. Soil Subsidence, Rock Fall, and Avalanche Hazards
The Owner shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified,
licensed engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development in
conjunction with the 8040 Greenline Review applications for the individual residences proposed
on Lots 1 and 2 within the subdivision/PUD. The designs for the single-family residences within
the subdivision/PUD shall comply with the recommendations of the Owner's Avalanche
Specialist, Alpentech, and Owner's Geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, by providing an engineered four
4) foot tall retaining wall on the south side of the residences.
All soil retention structures (temporary and permanent) must be designed to exhibit global
stability for the surrounding topography. Additionally, any stmcture proposed needs to determine
internal stability, design performance standads, and monitoring to ensure the design's
performance. These standards apply to the residence structures and all subordinate retaining
structure at or over 4 feet tall.
j. Mine Waste
The Owner shall provide a urine wash testing and handling plan to the City prior to
submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, that complies with the
following conditia~s of approval regarding development in an Environmentally Sensitive azea and
handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.435.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.
1. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protective barrier approved by
the Ernironmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto
or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need not be removed if the City's
Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the excavated material contains less than
1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2) that there exists a satisfactory method of
disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of
the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility.
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
168
I IIII VIII IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 00 5/09 60 0003:221
JRNICE K
2. Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated so>7 or solid waste shall
be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site
without having first obtained arty and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and
disposal pemvts.
3. Dust suppression All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application ofwater or other soil surfactantto minimize the
creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air.
4. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shaIl be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds consisting of not
less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999-ppm lead.
5. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shmbs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic yard of
soil shall require the same measures outlined insub-sections 1,2,3,6 and 7.
6. Arty contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall
be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate clean
soils existing elsewhere on the property.
7. Arty contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under
structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped azeas or engineered fills shall be covered by
a rrurumum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead.
k. Fire Mitigation
Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Mazshal shall be
installed in each of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision/PUD.
The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire
Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the subdivision/PUD
shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standazds. Compliance with the Colorado Defensible
Space Standazds shall be verified as pazt of the 8040 Greenline Review process on the individual
residences.
1. Driveway Construction
The driveway shall be constructed to the grades that aze proposed in the application and
shall not exceed twelve (12) percent at arty poirrt. A hammerhead fire truck turnaround meeting
the requirements of the Fire Mazshal shall be installed as proposed in the application and shown in
the recorded Final Plat for 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD to be recorded contemporaneously
with this Agreement. The Owner shall enter into a recorded driveway maintenance agreement
with the City that is to be reviewed and accepted by the City Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of
an accesslinfrastructure permit to constmct the road. An access/infrastructure permit shall be
applied for and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to commencing
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
169
III II II IIII II I I III I II III ~ 0690950 ~ 03:221
JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
any grading or construction activities related to the installation of the common driveway to the
residential pazcels. A geotechnical report shall be submitted as part of the access/infrastructure
permit application. The approved utility design plan is part of the Final Plat for 1001 Ute Avenue
Subdivision/PUD to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement.
m. Landscaping
The Owner shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is
proposed in the application for screerring of the driveway retaining wall and as depicted on Exhibit
1 attached hereto. A tree removal permit and tree protection plan shall be submitted and
approved by fire City of Aspen Parks Department prior to commencing construction activities
related to the subdivision access improvements. Additionally, individual landscaping plans for the
free-mazket residential parcels shall be submitted and reviewed by the City Pazks Department as
part of the 8040 Greenline Review applications for the individual free-mazket residences;
provided, however, that the individual landscape plans for the free-mazket residences shall be
conceptually consistent with Exhibit 2 attached hereto, so that the use of landscape material to
soften the massing of the free-mazket residences is achieved as represented by Owner to the
Council
The Owner shall provide a financial security (see sub-section (s) below) to ensure the
landscaping as shown on the approved landscaping plan for the driveway retaining wall is
completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on arty of the residential units
within the subdivision. Exhibit 3 attached hereto includes a cost estimate for completion of the
landscaping plan for the driveway retaining wall to be used in determining the financial security in
sub-section (s) below.
n Rebcation of Tennis Courts
The Owner shall relocate the existing tennis courts to Common Area Lot B prior to or in
conjunction with the installation of the common driveway to the residential parcels within the
subdivision/PUD. An access/infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved prior to the
commencement of construction activities related to relocating the tennis courts. There shall be a
walkway (incompliance with ADA access requirements) from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis
courts. A deed restriction shall be recorded on the Common Area Lot B (the pazcel to contain the
tennis courts) that preserves the parcel against future development.
o. Water Department Requiremenrts
The Owners shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25,
and with the applicable standards of Tifie 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code)
of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Owners
shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line
agreement for the residential units. See sub-section (u) below for financial assurance
requirements.
p. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
170
I IIIIII IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 05909/8200 03:22
ITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
The Owners shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No cleaz water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall
be allowed The sarritary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the subdivision shall
be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate sepazation between the water and
sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. If a glycol heating and snowmelt
system is to be installed, the glycol storage azeas shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation.
q. Massing Controls
The specific designs of the two (2) free-mazket residential dwelling units that aze to be
submitted for 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance 24 shall be substantially
consistent with the revised massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14, 2006. A
substantial subdivision/PUD amendment review would be necessary to substantially vary from the
massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14, 2006. The width of the north-facing
facades of the free-mazket residential units shall be limited to 120 feet. The overall ridge height of
the free-mazket, single-family residential structures shall be limited to twenty-seven (27) feet
above finished grade, and twenty (20) percent of the width of the front facades shall be limited to
a ridge height of twenty-two (22) feet above finished grade. Non-reflective materials shall be
used in the construction of the proposed single-family residences.
Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall be vested until August 14, 2009 (i.e., a
period of three (3) years from the August 14, 2006 date of Ordinance 24).
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of
Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and
creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the
following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised
Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1001 Ute Avenue, City and Townsite of
Aspen, by Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City Council.
s. Security for Landscaping.
In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the landscaping
and public improvements described herein, the Owners shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash,
or other guazantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $44,130.00. Said
guazantees will be delivered to the City prior to the issuance to the Owner of the
infi~astmcture/access permit for the Project. The guazantee documents shall give the City the
unconditional right, upon cleaz and unequivocal default by the Owner in its obligation to complete
the Project landscaping to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
171
IIIIIII IIII III III II III II esi0enoe 0a:zzc
JRNICE K VOS LRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
installation for such Project landscaping. As portions of the required landscaping improvements
aze completed, the City Parks Department shall inspect the landscaping improvements, and upon
approval and written acceptance, a reduction in the outstanding amount of the applicable bond,
letter of credit, cash or other guarantees shall be authorized in an amount equal to the agreed
estimated cost for the completed portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten
percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed landscaping
improvements are completed and approved by the City Pazks Department and such amount shall
not be released until two growing seasons following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the Project.
Recordation
Pursuant to Section 27.480.070(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code, once fully executed, this
Agreement and the Plat shall be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
The Plat shall also be submitted in a digital format acceptable to the Community Development
Deparhnent, for incorporation into the City/County GIS system.
4. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the
addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing.
To the Owner: Leathern Steam
37 Feny Lane East
Westport, Connecticut 06880
With Copies to: Glenn Horn
Davis Hom Incorporated
215 South Monatch Street ,Suite 104
Aspen, Co. 81611
Chris LaCroix
Garfield & Hecht, P. C.
601 E. Hyman
Aspen, Co. 81611
To City of Aspen: City Manager
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
172
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Co. 81611
With a Copy to: City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Co. 81611
5. Binding Effect. The provision of this agreement shall run with and conshitute a
burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit
of the Owner's and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns.
6. Amendment. The Agreement may be altered or amended only by written
instrument executed by the parties.
7. Severabiiity. If any of the provisions of this Agreement aze determined to be
invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof.
ATTEST:THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation
Kathryn S. K City Clerk Helen Klanderud, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
john Worcester, City Attomey
OWNER:
tTI'E MESA, L C, a Colorado limited liab-;ilit~ycompany
Leathern S. Stearn, Manager
10
IIII II I II IIII II IIII I II III II I II III a e0 5 04f easzzl
JRNICE K VOS CRUOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 0 0.00
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
173
r^'~
STATE OIL oo,,,FeT~ eur ) 537514IIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII06909/2007f 03522{
JRNICE K VOS CRUOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
COUNTY OF ~ifi~'~~ r.~ )
TheforegoingAgreementwasacknowledgedbeforemethis d3 dayof /%~
2007 by Leathern S. Steam, Manager of Ute Mesa, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Y
h
j
t
K
i- ~30- pia
Notary Public
LIST OF EXHIIiITS
EXHIBIT 1
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DRIVEWAY
EXHIBIT 2
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR FREE-MARKET RESIDENCES
EXHIBIT 3
COST ESTIMATE FOR DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPE PLAN
11
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
174
VY7^~/~6 iAai LRIYA tl/-) Ai lsfP4i WLY L
I[~[~ ^F~°I^J ~Y ~i'r9 V°'19 ~'!d9 91°9 LTt
l~id It~uamawlna3 ~~v+P!tWV adeaspue~
NI 'sa.-.vr~ossd ante ravuoy~ aaa~
I ~
s
S ~ ~
O ~ .. ~
yB r¢i ~ ~ ~
I ~_
r Q ~~^ O D ~3id~ w \ l~"1
hN~^ ~
Lr7
k
i
00'0 0 00'9L a co alr~noo ra[~+itd ~niando Son r ~ocwdr
ZZ~EO L00Z/60/50
5t d~ ZL ;a6ed
t7 4 ALES
Z , \\
m ~ F`_~
Z ~s
z
u ._
z
w
a
Q
r
I
Z
0„
s ~-0
O1
o Wmdi
avI
pJ,~
3
r ~f
I
a-
n
s
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
175
s,
0
an
Il S ~
Z
a
a
F v ^ +
h
U
o H~ ~ ,~\/~r
r ~ ad ~
a°a ~1 ~
J ~ erg", ,`~,
J~. ~~
i.~-- o
i
i
t
l
I ~ ~
I
I 1
I
i
4~i
i
t ~; ,
Ir~~ ~ on f , ,~~~
A. ~z ~ ` ~.
s c.
f, /~ _ _, W~ ~i
i/ % _ _ ~ - - / ~ - /
i, !p-~ 'ri`b' <~ ~iw (r ~ ~/ ~~ - - ,-~ _- - - ~ _ ,
o ~ c ' ~`
z ~ ~ ~ ~ = D Z
J
0~(1 ~ ~ , - J
a aa ~ (~H J a m
ZO 0.. - ,-rte (~~~'~ 0 < 7 ~i ~/JZ~ ~ ~ J ZO ~
o a ^ o~~ ofo~~z
mn ~~ aagoa ~ m aaI~asaJm^O O Z O 0 a 0^~ &} 0 7
00 tt % a a a o a m( ~u~ma a s o0
00' 0 D 00~ 9L b 00 AlNf100 NI~lId ~'lI4fItl0 S0~ N 30INtlC
0 L00Z/60/S0 1111111111111 III 111111 IIII 111111 IIIII 111111 IIIII ~~~~~~ ~
f
a
i
r
I
1
f~
l~
5i !~ ET :abed
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
176
I IIIIII VIII IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII III IIIIII III IIII
0
0590 0 0 0003522E
JRNICE K
GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ^
Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning
1001 Ute Avenue Landscape Cost Estimate
The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate for the installation of the landscape to
screen the tennis court and retaining walls based on approved drawings from 8/14/06.
Item Cost
Irrigation $ 5,000.00
Evergreen Trees - 36 @ 900.00 $ 32,400.00
Deciduous Trees - 8 @ 435.00 $ 3,480.00
t,,, Large Shrub - 13 @ 250.00 $ 3,250.00
Total $ 44.130.00
X~iBiT 3
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
177
Exhibit 11Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application178
Exhibit 12Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application179
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application180
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application181
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application182
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Subdivision: 1001 Ute Avenue on 07/24/2019
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit 13Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
183
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G RD #12A
RICHTER VALERIE A TRUST
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
6214 N 34TH ST
HARTMAN DOYLE & MARGARET
MIDLAND, TX 79702
PO BOX 10426
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
WATCHMAKER LINDA L REV TRUST
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424
4527 BRUCE AVE
NADJAFI MORTEZA & HEIDI
ORLANDO, FL 32803
736 N MAGNOLIA AVE
GESSNER RICHARD W REV TRUST
MASSILLON, OH 44646
1705 11TH ST NE
RICE MARGARET A
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221
13912 FLINT
SEGUIN JEFF W & MADALYN B
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER AVE #412
JJA FAMILY LLC
OWENSBORO, KY 42301
2145 FIELDCREST DR
RODAN FAMILY LIV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
35 UTE PL
TAYLOR SUSAN ANN
ASPEN, CO 81611
970 POWDER LN
AMERENA ROBIN
MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3006,
250 ST KILDA #507 SOUTHBANK
POPE AIDAN RICHARD
NEW YORK, NY 10013
220 CENTRE ST #4
BRYANT NANCY
ASPEN, CO 81611
555 E DURANT AVE STE 5A
LHG HOLDING LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL
SCHIRMER LESLIE M TRUST
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113
4100 E QUINCY AVE
C-L HOLDINGS LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
MEYER WILLIAM J
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
1101 17TH ST NW #1000
SIEGEL LOIS H QPRT
SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143
6358 MANOR LANE
LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY TRUST
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
ST MARYS OF ASPEN LLC
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
1532 S.E. 12 STREET PH1
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PTNSHP LLLP
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G RD #12A
GRAHAM NELL C
BASALT, CO 81621
10 PINE RIDGE RD
VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNE
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
1738 BERKELEY ST
MIKA PATRICK D
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
630 N TEJON ST
2021 INVESTMENTS LLC
JANESVILLE, WI 53545
1000 E MILWAUKEE ST
CRONIN F CARLETON & TOBY ANN TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048
8748 DORRINGTON AVE
MERRILLS DAPHNE
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
217 SCAIFE RD
NUTTER GEORGE E & LYNDSAY
CANADA M4G 3P3,
223 HANNA RD
TORONTO ONTARIO
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
184
VARGAS GERMAN JAVIER
NEW YORK, NY 10028
450 E 83RD ST #18D
SCHARLIN GLORIA REV TRUST
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133
10 EDGEWATER DR #4A
DE GUZMAN KATHLEEN
NEW YORK, NY 10013
220 CENTRE ST #4
BECKER BARRY W IRREV TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89107
2404 RANCHO BELLAIRE CT
BECNEL DANIEL E JR & MARY HOTARD
LAPLACE, LA 70068
425 W AIRLINE HWY #B
NERNEY THOMAS P & CHRISTINE WALKER
WAYNE, PA 19087
1190 DEVON PARK DR
BAYLDON BARBARA W REV TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504
647 W BARRY AVE
BELL MEREDITH W REVOCABLE TRUST
ATLANTA, GA 30309
147 17TH ST NE
ZLN RESIDENTIAL TRUST
ELMWOOD, LA 70123
701 EDWARDS AVE
FRY LLOYD EDWARD
PIQUA, OH 45356
1335 STRATFORD DR
PYRFEKT PROPERTIES LLP
SARASOTA, FL 34231
1424 CEDAR BAY LN
COHN JOHN R & BARBARA O
DALLAS, TX 75225
3533 GREENBRIER DR
CRUM THOMAS F & CATHRYN R
ASPEN, CO 81611
991 UTE AVE
ARNETT DAVID & BETTE
TUCSON, AZ 85718
5333 N CAMINO REAL
1001 UTE AVE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 UTE AVE
SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
8 PARKWAY DR
MCCORMICK ROGER F FAMILY TRUST
OWENSBORO, KY 42304
PO BOX 21532
KONIN FAMILY TRUST
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
1936 LOMA DR
610 S W END RENTALS E201 LLC
NAPERVILLE, IL 60540
608 HENNING CT
ASPEN SKI TIME LLC
CUAJIMALPA MEXICO DF 05120,
BOSQUE DE CIDROS #114 DEP 1301
COL BOSGUE DE LAS LOMAS DELEGACION
GOODSIR SUSAN A
LAKE BLUFF, IL 600441300
1000 CAMPBELL CT
TEN TEN UTE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
19 UTE PL
SANDITEN EDWARD STANLEY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11566
ICIE JACKSON LLC
NEW YORK, NY 100224608
390 PARK AVE FL18
DILLARD WILLIAM T II & MARY A
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-0486
PO BOX 486
OGURI JOINT LIVING TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
1570 ROSE VILLA ST
SCHWARZ REV TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
860 ARDEN RD
KLETTENBERG JULIEN & ANNA LISA KART
DARLING POINT NSW 2027 AUSTRALIA ,
7-95 DARLING POINT RD
FELSON ZACHARY S IRREV TRUST
HAYWARD, CA 94541
1290 B ST #212
SCHRIER DEREK C & CAMERON CECILY H 2000 REV TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121
230 SEA CLIFF AVE
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
185
MEHL HARRIET F REV TRUST
NEW YORK, NY 10019
350 W 57TH ST #17A
SEWELL BEVERLY J TRUST
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
884 QUAIL RUN DR
DEWAAL IAN & JESSICA
ASPEN, CO 81611
747 S GALENA ST #302A
FRYKLUND ROBERT
HOUSTON, TX 77005
2917 DUKE ST
LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP
HENDERSON, NV 89052
2836 PATRIOT PARK PLACE
WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST
ST LOUIS, MO 63105
236 LINDEN AV
HOWELL JOHN D JR & SARA
JONESBORO, AR 72401
809 SOMERSET LN
CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L
DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515
201 39TH ST
RAMSEY STACIE A
MADISON, NJ 07940
39 CANTERBURY RD
SCHARLIN HOWARD
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133
10 EDGEWATER DR #4A
JACOBS HARLAN & DEBRA TRUST
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
SCHALDACH NANCY
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
10259 MONTE MAR DR
UTE PLACE #8 LLC
SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94111
655 MONTGOMERY ST # 1700
SEWELL RALPH B TRUST
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
884 QUAIL RUN DR
SLOANE RICHARD & CAROLYN
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
PO BOX 3149
FELSON JAYME N IRREV TRUST
HAYWARD, CA 94541
1290 B ST #212
HARVEY BRIAN L
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
PO BOX 240011
1135 UTE LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77008
1235 NORTH LOOP WEST # 205
GANT G304 LLC
MEMPHIS, TN 38125
3340 PLAYERS CLUB PKWY # 160
MAX ROSENSTOCK & CO
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
7839 E SORREL WOOD CT
FOSSIER MIKE W REV TRUST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
9 OCEAN VISTA
MOEN DONNE & ELIZABETH FAM TRUST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
8 CABALLEROS RD
BEEM CORPORATION
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
1201 CURRIE AVE
HEATZIG BONNIE & ERIC
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
5304 BOCA MARINA CIR
BITTEL HANNAH FAMILY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
WAGNER GANT PROPERTIES LLC
WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323
3480 MIDDLEBELT RD
GROUP 102 LLC
DUBLIN, OH 43017
6400 RIVERSIDE DR BLDG B
999 UTE AVENUE LLC
WESTPORT, CT 06880
PO BOX 3211
SEIFERT BROTHERS COLORADO TRUST
SHOREVIEW, MN 55126
4459 SNAIL LAKE BLVD
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
186
KRAMER KRISTIN
BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134
26171 WOODLYN DR
KWEI THOMAS & AMY
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142
75 CAMBRIDGE PKWY PH8
JRB RE HOLDINGS LLC
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78231
4114 POND HILL # 203
WEST ROGER G & DONNA A
BATON ROUGE, LA 70808
6650 BURDEN LN
A SUNSHINE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE # 200
LEVINSON BONNIE REV TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
2127 BROADWAY #1
1001 UTE AVE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 UTE AVE
LHG HOLDING LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL
WEKSTEIN TRUST
BOSTON, MA 02199
100 BELVIDERE ST #9A
UTE PLACE TEN LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
228 ST CHARLES AVE #800
WARREN MATTHEW L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507
2022 BASELINE DR
ACR CAPITAL LLC
HARTLAND, WI 53029
N57 W30614 STEVENS RD
NEWTON BARBARA LOUISE
ASPEN, CO 81611
322 W HOPKINS AVE
RONCHETTO LYNN A
NEW YORK, NY 10017
320 E 42ND ST #101
DEPALMA JOHN R
GLENDALE, CA 91206
710 W WILSON AVE
BITTEL ARI FAMILY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
KAUFMAN MICHAEL A & SHERRYL W
E BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816
7 FERNWOOD CT
FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD
OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2P2E7,
30 CARTIER ST
RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS
SEATTLE , WA 98109
1004 NOB HILL AVE N
GANT 203 LLC
BELLA VISTA, AR 72714
PO BOX 5278
FAVROT CAFFREY
METAIRIE, LA 70005
124 CHARLESTON PK
FVA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305
2001 N OCEAN BLVD #1001
SIMON JEROME M
STAMFORD, CT 06903
1294 ROCK RIMMON RD
ICIE JACKSON LLC
NEW YORK, NY 100224608
390 PARK AVE FL18
BESHARAT GERALDINE
ELBERTON, GA 30635
9 WOODLAND RD
MORRIS TRUST
RIVER FOREST, IL 60305
906 FRANKLIN
ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
700 UTE AVE
N & D CRAIR FAM TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 900494828
727 S BURLINGAME AVE
DIAMOND NATHAN & LAUREN S
MIAMI, FL 33156
5465 BANYAN TRAIL
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
187
PANTER FAMILY TRUST
SANTA FE, NM 87506
49 HEARTSTONE DR
WOODWARD TERRY TRUST
OWENSBORO, KY 42303
3662 BRIDGEPOINTE
MACHADO MONICA M
NEW YORK, NY 10028
450 E 83RD ST #18D
ROSS DWAYNE A & DUREE M FAMILY REV TRUST
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33324
10740 PEGASUS ST
323 BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES
PITTSBURGH, PA 15217
5860 SOLWAY ST
MERRILLS DAPHNE TRUST
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
217 SCAIFE RD
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
DAVIS TERRY CONNALLY
SHREVEPORT, LA 71106
1046 ONTARIO
COLORADO R E PARTNERS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60604
111 W JACKSON BLVD 20TH FL
GONZALES FELICE G
SANTA FE, NM 87501
1400C CERRO GORDO RD
MCCOY TRUST
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
623 E 2100 SOUTH
KEENAN DANIEL M TRUST
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401
1716 SEVERN FOREST DR
BRENER DANIEL M & SHARON G
BELLAIR, TX 77401
5202 POCAHONTAS
KONIN FAMILY TRUST
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
1936 LOMA DR
GANT CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 S WEST END ST
BARTOK PETER & COLLEEN
COLUMBIA, MD 65203
321 WEST BURNAM RD
RYAN ASPEN LLC
JANESVILLE, WI 53545
1000 E MILWAUKEE ST
SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE
FLOSSMORE, IL 60422
1225 BRAEBURN
SIMPKINS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE TETLOW
HOUSTON, TX 77019
2921 AVALON PL
GRAHAM MAUREEN & THEODORE L
COLUMBUS, OH 43230
477 E JOHNSTOWN RD
TATEM SUE BINKLEY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12373
ASPEN VIEW LTD
SIDNEY, OH 45365
100 S MAIN AVE #300
BURKE ASPEN LLC
HARTLAND, WI 53029
W308N6183 SHORE ACRES RD
STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS GEORGIA LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30305
3060 PEACHTREE RD #425
HAM PROPERTIES LLC
METAIRIE, LA 70005
300 HECTOR AVE
WERNST INC
BEDFORD, NH 03110
1 HARDY RD #1001
HIRSCH MARY H TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 S WEST END ST #D203
PROSTIC MARJORIE SUE TRUST
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208
2225 STRATFORD RD
WEINSTEIN DAVID M & SHAWNA R
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 809063126
24 ELM AVE
PINE A PHILIP
FORT LAUDERDALE , FL 33308
50 S COMPASS DR
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
188
GANT K302 LLC
WICHITA, KS 67207
58 MISSION
BERZ FAMILY TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
10100 EMPYREAN WY #103
TETSUYAMA LLC
OSPREY, FL 34229
147 EXPLORER DR
SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C
CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
7404 BROOKVILLE RD
POWDER HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60611
415 E NORTH WATER # 3006
CARDALL FAMILY TRUST
SAN DIEGO , CA 92109
2404 LORING ST #129
KAY REV TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
2127 BROADWAY #1
UTE MESA LOT 1
WESTPORT, CT 06880
PO BOX 3211
FELSON KARA L IRREV TRUST
HAYWARD, CA 94541
1290 B ST #212
PROPERTY INVESTORS #1 LLC
MC LEAN, VA 22120
8407 BROOKEWOOD CT
17 UTE PLACE LLC
BENTONVILLE, AR 72712
PO BOX 1860
UTE MESA LOT 2 LLC
WESTPORT, CT 06880
PO BOX 3211
GUNION JOHN F
DAVIS, CA 95616
1004 MARINA CIR
GRANT JODI
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
329 9TH ST NE
BITTEL DANIEL FAMILY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
WILKERSON WILLIAM REV TRUST
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
321 SUNSET DR #3
BLOCK JOEL A REV TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504
647 W BARRY AVE
FRANKLIN JULIE L & MARTIN E
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
500 S POINTE DR #240
SCHARLIN GLORIA REV TRUST
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133
10 EDGEWATER DR #4A
AGER REALTY LLC
GOLDEN BEACH , FL 33160
555 GOLDEN BEACH DR
STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS GEORGIA LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30305
3060 PEACHTREE RD #425
SHIRK JAMES & LINDA TRUST
BLOOMINGTON IL , CO 61702
PO BOX 1549
BECK CYNTHIA
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
728 N BUNKER HILL AVE
STEWART SAMUEL & JACQUELINE
METAIRIE, LA 70005
124 CHARLESTON PK
ROSENBAUM THOMAS F TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
415 S HILL AVE
JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E
HOUSTON, TX 77019
3682 WILLOWICK RD
MCCORMICK MARY E
OWENSBORO, KY 42304
PO BOX 21532
HOCKER DAVID E
OWENSBORO, KY 423015483
620 PARK PLAZA DR
679534 ONTARIO LTD
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4N 3R5,
2 CHEDINGTON PLACE 1A
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
189
1001 UTE AVE HOA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 UTE AVE
774302 ONTARIO LTD
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4N 3R5,
2 CHEDINGTON PLACE 1A
FABER KATHERINE T TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91106
415 S HILL AVE
GANT 103 LLC
BELLA VISTA , AR 72714
PO BOX 5278
P&G LEVIN FAMILY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262
9716 E PRESERVE WY
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G RD #12A
BITTEL STEPHEN H
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
801 ART GODFREY RD #600
HYMAN GARY
LONDON UK NW8 9TX,
74 EYRE CT
3-21 FINCHLEY RD
JANNA INC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
500 PATTERSON RD
LHG HOLDING LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL
PARKER WILLIAM A JR
ATLANTA, GA 30302
PO BOX 4655 MC252
GANT EXCHANGE LLC
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55436
5704 DEVILLE DR
YOUNGS POINT LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
1322 15TH ST
WHITEHURST JOHN S & BILLIE
BALTIMORE, MD 212121023
6504 MONTROSE AVE
PITKIN COUNTY
ASPEN, CO 81611
530 E MAIN ST #301
SIMON DONNA L REV TRUST
STAMFORD, CT 06903
1294 ROCK RIMMON RD
COATES TOM & LINDA FAM TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
655 MONTGOMERY ST #1700
JACK LP
KITCHENER ONTARIO CANADA N2M2T8,
10 WESTGATE WALK
USDA FOREST SERVICE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
ASPEN-SOPRIS RANGER DISTRICT
620 MAIN ST
Exhibit F | 1011 Ute Application
190
RESOLUTION A
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. _______
(SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS
999, 1001, 1011 UTE AVENUE, PLUS COMMON AREA PARCELS A, B & C,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, A, B, C; 1001 UTE SUBDIVISION/PUD;
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED MAY 9, 2007, IN PLAT BOOK 83 AT
PAGE 95 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from
Leathem Stearn, Manager; Ute Mesa Lot 1 LLC., Ute Mesa Lot 2 LLC., 999 Ute Avenue LLC.,
PO Box 3211, Westport CT, 06880 for a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040
Greenline Review, and a Major Subdivision for the following development activities that have
occurred without previous City approval:
Memorialize existing air conditioning units & a portion of a staircase on Common Area
Lot A;
Maintain existing tennis court pathway on Common Area Lot B & provide off-site ADA
compliance at the Gant property; and
Memorialize existing window well (associated with the dwelling of Lot 3) on Common
Area Lot C.
Upon review of the application, property, and previous approvals, additional development has
occurred on the properties and is required to be addressed:
Non-compliant grading and fencing on Lot 3 & Common Area Lot B; and,
First floor elevation and grading discrepancy on Lot 1 and Lot 2 relating to the free market
residences.
Upon review of the application, property, and previous approvals, the following existing
development is found to be approved and/or previously approved:
Utility improvements on Common Area Lot A;
Tennis court/patio improvements on Common Area Lot B; and,
Swales and berming on Lot A (open space) for drainage purposes.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff deemed the application
complete on August 5th, 2019 and reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable
review standards; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the Land Use Code, the Community
Development Director finds that certain improvements do not comply with the applicable Land
Use Code standards, are inconsistent with the previous approvals, and therefore, makes the
following recommendations:
191
RESOLUTION A
Page 2 of 3
Common Area Lot A:
Remove the A/C Units and stairwell from Common Area Lot A. Relocation of
the A/C units to an alternative location on the properties requires further City
review.
Common Area Lot B:
Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot to comply with the original PUD
approvals. A 3-ft. tall wall may be erected following review and approval from
Community Development staff;
Provide on-site ADA accessibility from Ute Ave. to the tennis courts;
Lot 3:
Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot as much as possible to comply with
original PD approvals. A 3-ft. tall aesthetic wall may be erected following review
and approval from Community Development staff; and,
WHEREAS,upon review ofpreviousdulyissued building permits and previous approvals
for the properties, the Community Development Director makes the following recommendation:
Lot 1 & Lot 2:
Amend PD/Subdivision approvals to memorialize the existing first floor elevation
of the single-family dwellings on Lots 1 & 2. As depicted on the improvement
survey in the application for the properties, the first-floor elevation for the
residences on Lots 1 & 2 is 8,012’; and,
Lot 3:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020., Exceptions for Building Code
Compliance,the existing window well on Lot 3 may remain in its current
configuration; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the requestunder the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on October 1, 2019; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution ______, Series
of 2019, by a ____ to _____ (_____ - ______) vote, recommending approval for a Major
Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision.
192
RESOLUTION A
Page 3 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1:
The Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”) makes the following recommendations to
City Council:
Approve the request for a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040 Greenline Review
& Major Subdivision, to memorialize all subject improvements within the 1001 Ute PUD, with
the following conditions:
The Applicant is required to apply for and receive building permits or the A/C units
on Common area Lot A prior to Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 1.
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on October 1, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
_________________________________________________________
Jim True, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
193
RESOLUTION B
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. _______
(SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS
999, 1001, 1011 UTE AVENUE, PLUS COMMON AREA PARCELS A, B & C,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, A, B, C; 1001 UTE SUBDIVISION/PUD;
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED MAY 9, 2007, IN PLAT BOOK 83 AT
PAGE 95 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from
Leathem Stearn, Manager; Ute Mesa Lot 1 LLC., Ute Mesa Lot 2 LLC., 999 Ute Avenue LLC.,
PO Box 3211, Westport CT, 06880 for a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040
Greenline Review, and a Major Subdivision for the following development activities that have
occurred without previous City approval:
Memorialize existing air conditioning units & a portion of a staircase on Common Area
Lot A;
Maintain existing tennis court pathway on Common Area Lot B & provide off-site ADA
compliance at the Gant property; and
Memorialize existing window well (associated with the dwelling of Lot 3) on Common
Area Lot C;
Upon review of the application, property, and previous approvals, additional development has
occurred on the properties and is required to be addressed:
Non-compliant grading and fencing on Lot 3 & Common Area Lot B;
First floor elevation and grading discrepancy on Lot 1 and Lot 2 relating to the free market
residences;
Upon review of the application, property, and previous approvals, the following existing
development is found to be approved and/or previously approved:
Utility improvements on Common Area Lot A;
Tennis court/patio improvements on Common Area Lot B; and,
Swales and berming on Lot A (open space) for drainage purposes.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff deemed the application
complete on August 5th, 2019 and reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable
review standards; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the Land Use Code, the Community
Development Director finds that certain improvements do not comply with the applicable Land
Use Code standards, are inconsistent with the previous approvals, and therefore, makes the
following recommendations:
194
RESOLUTION B
Page 2 of 4
Common Area Lot A:
Remove the A/C Units and stairwell from Common Area Lot A. Relocation of
the A/C units to an alternative location on the properties requires further City
review.
Common Area Lot B:
Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot to comply with the original PUD
approvals. A 3-ft. tall wall may be erected following review and approval from
Community Development staff;
Provide on-site ADA accessibility from Ute Ave. to the tennis courts;
Lot 3:
Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot as much as possible to comply with
original PD approvals. A 3-ft. tall aesthetic wall may be erected following review
and approval from Community Development staff; and,
WHEREAS,upon review ofpreviousdulyissued building permits and previous approvals
for the properties, the Community Development Director makes the following recommendation:
Lot 1 & Lot 2:
Amend PD/Subdivision approvals to memorialize the existing first floor elevation
of the single-family dwellings on Lots 1 & 2. As depicted on the improvement
survey in the application for the properties, the first-floor elevation for the
residences on Lots 1 & 2 is 8,012’; and,
Lot 3:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020., Exceptions for Building Code
Compliance,the existing window well on Lot 3 may remain in its current
configuration; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the requestunder the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on October 1, 2019; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution ______, Series
of 2019, by a ____ to _____ (_____ - ______) vote, recommending approval for a Major
Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision.
195
RESOLUTION B
Page 3 of 4
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1:
The Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”) makes the following recommendations to
City Council:
Common Area Lot A:
Remove the A/C Units and stairwell from Common Area Lot A. Relocation of the
A/C units to an alternative location on the properties requires further City review;
Common Area Lot B:
Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot to comply with the original PUD
approvals. A 3-ft. tall wall may be erected following review and approval from
Community Development staff;
Provide on-site ADA accessibility from Ute Ave. to the tennis courts;
Lot 3:
Remove the retaining wall and regrade the lot as much as possible to comply with
original PD approvals. A 3-ft. tall aesthetic wall may be erected following review
and approval from Community Development staff;
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020., Exceptions for Building Code
Compliance,the existing window well on Lot 3 may remain in its current
configuration; and,
Lot 1 & Lot 2:
Amend PD/Subdivision approvals to memorialize the existing first floor elevation
of the single-family dwellings on Lots 1 & 2. As depicted on the improvement
survey in the application for the properties the first-floor elevation for the
residences on Lots 1 & 2 is 8,012’; and,
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
196
RESOLUTION B
Page 4 of 4
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on October 1, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
_________________________________________________________
Jim True, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
197