HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20170626
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
June 26, 2017
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Annual HPC Awards
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution 96-2017 Aspen Ice Garden Electrical Upgrades Change Order #001
b) Resolution #97, Series of 2017 - Replacement of Police Department radar trailers
with messaging signs
c) Resolution #98, Series of 2017 - Public Safety Radio equipment replacement
d) Minutes - May 8, 22 and June 12, 2017
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #20, Series of 2017 - Harassing Dog Code Amendment
b) Ordinance #19, Series 2017, 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Amendment to Ordinance
#29, Series of 2009
c) Ordinance #18, Series of 2017. Lots 12 and 12A of Callahan Subdivision; Minor
Subdivision - Lot Split, Planned Development
Amendment, and Removal of an ADU
IX. Public Hearings
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting July 10, 2017
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
· Tone and Tenor Matter
P1
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Evan Pletcher, Project Engineer
THRU: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: June 16th, 2017
MEETING DATE: June 26th, 2017
RE: Aspen Ice Garden– Resolution #96 of 2017 – Change Order #001
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council review and approval of a change order to the contract
between Lassiter Electric and The City of Aspen in the amount of $19,970.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On May 22nd, 2017 Council approved Resolution #89, a
contract with Lassiter Electric for $225,213.52, to perform upgrades to the electrical systems of
the Red Brick Gymnasium and Aspen Ice Garden. Staff included in the project budget a 30%
contingency, for unforeseen issues, and permit fees, bringing the total budget request to
$288,600.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Ice Garden was built in 1965 and much of the electrical system
(service, panelboards, wiring, devices, etc.) are original to the building. It has been identified
that the utility transformer serving the building is inadequate to meet the current and future needs
of the building. Lassiter Electric has devised a solution to this issue, and also plans to replace
many of the electrical panels throughout the facility, which will bring many necessary life-safety
aspects of the system up to current code requirements. Specific to this project will be the
requirement to provide sufficient 480 Volt 3-Phase power to run all motors in the refrigeration
plant, to provide high efficiency inverter duty motors capable of running the existing Vilter
compressors at maximum design load, and the rewiring of all plant motors to run on 480 Volt 3-
phase (current supply power is 208 Volt 3-phase).
The Red Brick Gym was constructed in the 1950’s. There have been several renovations since
construction, but much of the electrical system is original to the building. The electrical panels
do not comply with current codes and are safety concerns. In addition, the Red Brick Gym and
Offices are part of a CO-OP operating the Red Brick Arts & Recreation Center. Many services
are shared throughout the building. This project looks to upgrade the electrical panels in the
Gymnasium and Center for the Arts to current code.
On May 22nd, 2017 City Council approved Resolution #89 to perform electrical upgrades to the
Aspen Ice Garden, but requested that staff investigate the requirements to convert all mechanical
systems to electric. Staff determined that upgrading the service to 1600A would allow for an all-
electric mechanical system in the future. This change order request reflects the additional cost for
the service increase.
DISCUSSION: The attached change order execution and approval allows the contractor to
purchase the equipment necessary to increase the electrical service to the building and allow for
future conversion of all mechanical systems to electric.
P3
VI.a
Page 2 of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL / COMMUNITY IMPACTS: CoA staff has worked jointly with Aspen
Ice Garden and Red Brick staff to develop a work schedule that minimizes impacts to the tenants
and operation of each facility as the electrical upgrades are completed. The developed schedule
will involve upgrades in the Aspen Ice Garden while the ice is out this spring/summer, and will
not interfere with any planned summer events. The work at the Red Brick Gymnasium will take
place evenings and weekends while the building is not in use.
FINANCIAL / BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff included in the original request for this project
budget a 30% contingency, or $63,386.48, which can cover the cost of this change. Remaining
contingency after execution of Change Order #001 will be $43,416.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Resolution #96 be approved and executed
for a change order to the construction contract between Lassiter Electric and The City of Aspen.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P4
VI.a
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Exhibit I – Electrical Upgrades to the Aspen Ice Garden and Red Brick Change Order -
#001.
P5
VI.a
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION ___96___
(Series of 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND LASSITER ELECTRIC, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR TO APPROVE ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a change order - between the
City of Aspen and Lassiter Electric, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
“Exhibit “I”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the change order to the
contract between the City of Aspen and LASSITER ELECTRIC - a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Mayor to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the 26th day of June, 2017.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held on the 26th day of June, 2017.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P6
VI.a
EMAIL: LASSITERELECTRIC@GMAIL.COM
CUSTOMER:DATE :06/01/17
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ATTN: EVAN PLETCHER
evan.pletcher@cityofaspen.com
SCENARIO:
REASON:
SOLUTION:
WE HEREBY PROPOSE TO PROVIDE LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR THE FOLLOWING
INSTALLATION LOCATED AT: 233 W HYMAN, ASPEN ICE GARDEN
QTY Item
$0.00 $0.00
RFC:
LABOR $3,000.00
MATERIAL; MISCELLANEOUS $2,800.00
MATERIAL; GEAR $13,730.00
PERMIT ALLOWANCE $440.00
TAX ON MATERIALS - EXEMPT $0.00
TOTAL LABOR & MATERIALS $19,970.00
HOURS PER
EACH ITEM
ADDITIONAL ADDER FOR 1600A; 480V SERVICE VS 800A; 480V SERVICE
THIS WILL PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL LOADS IN THE FUTURE
THIS WILL ALSO SUFFICE THE POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UPGRADE AS REQUIRED
BY R&H MECHANICAL
RFC# 001
MISC
MATERIAL
$75 PER
HOUR
LABOR
RATE
Lassiter Electric,
Inc.
Page 1 of 2
P7
VI.a
FIXTURES: FIXTURES SUPPLIED BY OWNER AND INSTALLED BY ELECTRICIAN MUST BE UL APPROVED. IF
NOT UL APPROVED, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL CHARGES TO HAVE MADE SO. FIXTURES MUST BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO HANG PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL CHARGES.
BOXES: ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR ALL BOXES ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO START OF JOB. IF THESE ARE
UNAVAILABLE AT START, THERE MAY BE AN EXTRA FEE APPLIED TO INSTALL BOXES OR DEMO AFTER ROUGH IN.
PAYMENTS: PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF INVOICE DATE. OVERDUE PAYMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO 1.5%
MONTHLY INTEREST. CUSTOMER EXPRESSLY AGREES TO PAY CONTRACTOR'S REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES
FOR COLLECTION.
LABOR: PRICE IS BASED ON WORK BEING PERFORMED DURING NORMAL LASSITER ELECTRIC, INC.
HOURS OF OPERATION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCELERATION OF A FIXED SCHEDULE OR OVERTIME.
ANY ACCELERATED SCHEDULE WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH G.C. PRIOR TO START OF NEW SCHEDULE.
TAXES: ANY CHANGE IN TAX RATES DURING THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN USAGE OF THE
CURRENT TAX RATE (FOR BILLING PURPOSES) AS OPPOSED TO THE TAX RATE ON THIS PROPOSAL.
THE CITY OF ASPEN HASS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REQUEST FOR CHANGE TO BE PERFORMED AT:
WE AGREE TO ACCEPT THIS REQUEST FOR CHANGE AND ABIDE BY THE TERMS STATED THEREIN.
ACCEPTED BY:
PRINT NAME TITLE
SIGNATURE DATE
INSTALLATION OF OWNER-SUPPLIED FIXTURES AFTER FINAL INSPECTION WILL BE BILLED AS A CHANGE
AT CHANGE ORDER RATES.
CHANGES: EXTRA WORK (I.E. CHANGE ORDERS) MUST HAVE THE CORRESPONDING LASSITER ELECTRIC,
INC. REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED AGENT PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK.
ANY TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS CHANGES TO BE MADE WILL BE MADE WITH WRITTEN CHANGE ORDER AT
THE RATE OF $75.00 PER HOUR PER MAN.
ASPEN ICE GARDEN & RED BRICK BUILDING
Page 2 of 2
P8
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Linn
THRU: Steve Barwick
DATE OF MEMO: June 9, 2017
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2017
RE: Resolution #87, Series of 2017 - Replacement of department radar trailers with
multi-function messaging signs
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
We are requesting council approve the purchase of replacements for two radar display trailers
(“Your Speed Is” trailers) with multi-function messaging trailers.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The purchases were approved by council in the capital plan for
2016 and 2017.
BACKGROUND: The current three trailers were purchased in approximately 2005. Two have
been damaged by accidents and serious vandalism. One is completely non-functioning. We
were budgeted to replace one in 2016, but we deferred that purchase until this year. The third
is scheduled for replacement in 2018.
DISCUSSION: With multiple events throughout Aspen, traffic loads can create challenges for
local infrastructure and city staff. The proposed multifunction trailers can deliver specific
messages to traffic, from relaying detour information to parking information or other public
safety messaging.
The prior generation trailers provided only radar feedback to slow traffic. The new trailers will
include that function, but also include traffic counting, speed averages, and other analytical
features.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The purchase, shipping, and all related expenses are included in
the quote, which will be purchased through a cooperative bid agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Proper messaging delivered to the motoring public can reduce
traffic congestion, potentially providing a small reduction in emissions.
P9
VI.b
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the purchase.
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P10
VI.b
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION #97
(Series of 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ALL TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Radar Trailer, between the City of Aspen and All Traffic Solutions Inc., a true and
accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for
a Radar Trailer, between the City of Aspen and All Traffic Solutions Inc., a copy
of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the
City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2017.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, June 26, 2017.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P11
VI.b
Page 1 of 5
P12
VI.b
Page 2 of 5
P13
VI.b
Page 3 of 5
P14
VI.b
Page 4 of 5
P15
VI.b
Page 5 of 5
P16
VI.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Linn
THRU: Steve Barwick
DATE OF MEMO: June 19, 2017
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2017
RE: Resolution #98, Series of 2017 - Public Safety Radio equipment replacement
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
We are requesting council approve the purchase of radios to allow multiple city departments to
continue to use the Pitkin County radio system.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has previously approved AMP authority for the Pitkin
County radio system upgrade, and had approved AMP budget authority for the replacement of
the handheld radios in 2018. This was moved up to 2017 to meet the radio system upgrade
timeline.
BACKGROUND: Pitkin County engaged in a multi-year effort to upgrade the public safety radio
system from VHF to a state-of-the-art digital trunking (DTR) system. This new system will go live
in Aspen in July. DTR has been listed as a national priority for police agency interoperability in
the post-9-11-2001 era. Pitkin County negotiated a very favorable deal with the manufacturer,
Motorola, through the buying power of all the combined public safety agencies in the upper
Roaring Fork Valley.
DISCUSSION:
The old radio system is being replaced by Pitkin County. The police department and other city
departments using radios are slated to “go live” on the new system in July.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The purchase, shipping, and all related expenses are included in
the quote, which will be purchased through a cooperative bid agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the purchase.
P17
VI.c
PROPOSED MOTION: I move for the approval of resolution 98, Public Safety Radio equipment
replacement.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P18
VI.c
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION #98
(Series of 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PITKIN COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
public safety radio equipment, between the City of Aspen Pitkin County, a true and
accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the purchase of
public safety radio equipment, a copy of the contract routing sheets is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to
execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2017.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, June 26, 2017.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P19
VI.c
Page 1 of 4
___________________________
Stephen Barwick,City Manager
P20
VI.c
Page 2 of 4
P21
VI.c
Page 3 of 4
P22
VI.c
Page 4 of 4
P23
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #86, Series of 2017 – Approval of Contract between City of Aspen and Ossberger Hydro
USA Inc ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Resolution #76, Series of 2017 – Parks Fleet Electric Vehicle Contract .............................................. 3
Resolution #87, Series of 2017 – Approval of a Contract with Reliant Heating & Air Conditioning
Services LLC for a Boiler Replacement at Marolt Ranch ............................................................................ 3
Minutes – March 27 and April 3, 2017 ................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #88, Series of 2017 – Change order for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Implementation Contract with CherryRoad Technologies ........................................................................... 3
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2017 ............................................. –Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
3
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2017 – Tobacco 21 Initiative – Raising the Legal Age to Purchase
Tobacco Products and Creating a Local Tobacco Sales License .................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2017 – ACI Supplemental Budget ........................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2017 – APCHA Supplemental Budget ..................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2017 – Spring Supplemental Budget ........................................................ 5
ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2017 – 104 S. Galena Street and 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary’s Catholic
Church – Growth Management and Vested Rights....................................................................................... 6
P24
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Daily and
Mullins present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Mayor Skadron introduced and welcomed Sara Ott, the new assistant city manager. She comes to us from
Washington Township Ohio where she was the township administrator. She has a master’s in public
administration from Kansas University. Her husband and two elementary school age children came here
with her.
Shirley Ritter and the Kids First Team introduced the children from the Early Learning Center who were
welcomed by the Council. Councilwoman Mullins read the Month of the Young Child Proclamation.
Shirley talked about the upcoming activities including the parade which will be the 27th one. The Mayor
will be leading off the parade.
Arbor Day Proclamation. Councilman Daily read the proclamation proclaiming May 13th as Arbor Day in
Aspen. Ben Carlson, forester, said the Arbor Day celebration will be May 13 from 10 am to noon in
Paepcke park.
Mayor Skadron read the Municipal Clerk Week Proclamation celebrating May 8th through 13 as Clerk
Week.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Emzy Veazy III commented on a variety of topics.
2. Toni Kronberg thanked Art and Ann for serving the last four years. She asked to have Ordinance
14 pulled. She stated she filed a request in district court for judicial review for the city office
building. She stated she filed a referendum petition with the Clerk today. She asked Council to
bring it to a vote. Jim True, city attorney, stated he does not represent Ms. Kronberg he
represents City Council. He disagrees with some of the things she raises. He did say that a
district court judge may be necessary to change his opinion.
3. Laura Armstrong, climate program associate, said there is an electric vehicle sales event now
through June throughout the roaring fork valley. With these discounts there is 12 to 24 thousand
dollars off an electric vehicle. To learn more visit garfieldcleanenergy.org.
4. Ward Hauenstein said there is electronic recycling at Community Bank this Saturday.
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS
Councilman Frisch thanked Linda for running a great glitch free election. He gave a hats off to the Mayor
for remaining on the high road during the election. To Ann for clearing the hurdle, it will be great to
work with you again. To Art, it was disappointing you came up short. I hope thoughtful governance
becomes a mantra of city hall. Hats off to Skippy and Sue for running as well. Best of luck to Ward and
Torre for the runoff.
Councilwoman Mullins gave congratulations to the Mayor. She thanked Linda for running a very good
election process. She welcomed Sara. She said she is most pleased for being back here another four
years. She said she will miss Art. She thanked her supporters. For those who did not support her, she
looks forward to speaking with them and talking about their concerns and interests.
Councilman Daily thanked the community for the last four years. He truly enjoyed it. It is an honor.
P25
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
3
Mayor Skadron thanked all the candidates for jumping in. It is hard to run for public office. Democracy
is alive and healthy in Aspen. The date of the runoff is June 6th. Ms. Manning said ballots are schedule to
go in the mail on the 18th. Early voting will start in the clerk’s office on Monday the 22nd and go
everyday until election day from 8 in the morning until 5 in the afternoon. We will have Saturday voting
on June 3rd from 9 to 2 in the clerk’s office. On election day, voting will be in here like it was for the
regular election from 7am to 7pm. If you are going to be away from your home and not receiving mail
but still in the United States, you can request an absentee ballot be mailed to you. The form is on the
website, cityofaspen.com. Return the form to us and we will mail a ballot to whatever address you
request. If you will be outside of the United States, you can request a ballot be emailed to you via a
special absentee PDF ballot. For an absentee or special absentee ballot, we need to receive the request
form prior to the Friday before the election, June 2nd. Email elections@cityofaspen.com for more
information.
CONSENT CALENDAR
· Resolution #86, Series of 2017 – Approval of Contract between City of Aspen and Ossberger
Hydro USA Inc
· Resolution #76, Series of 2017 – Parks Fleet Electric Vehicle Contract
· Resolution #87, Series of 2017 – Approval of a Contract with Reliant Heating & Air
Conditioning Services LLC for a Boiler Replacement at Marolt Ranch
· Minutes – March 27 and April 3, 2017
· Resolution #88, Series of 2017 – Change order for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Implementation Contract with CherryRoad Technologies
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2017 –Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Lee Ledesma, utilities, told the Council these recommendations are part of Aspen’s integrated water
supply system. The ordinance recommends the top recommendations from the plan that was adopted in
2015. In August when stream flow starts to diminish but we still have a high amount of irrigation use
taking place in the community. We are recommending a 12 month pilot phase where the documentation
is required but we would forgo the water budget requirement as well as the requirement with post
installation requirements. Another change is adding the Colorado state university extension fire wise
plant list requiring fire wise plants in moderate and high fire zones. The parameters surrounding exterior
shut off valves would be first if it was declared a drought. Second is if 50 percent of an accounts use is in
the fourth tier it may trigger the valves potential use. The grey water program will have more evaluation
during the pilot phase. 7.5 gallons equates to 14 percent savings. We created three examples of how a
landscape install meets the 7.5 gallon budget. The first example is 7,000 sq ft of irrigated space. Turf
takes up 1,700, moderate 1,900 and low is 3,300. This meets the water irrigation budget. Turf in front,
low water plantings on either side of the drive with a circular area of turf in the back bordered by
moderate. The next example has 3,600 of turf, 1,300 of low water and ,2800 of very low water use. The
street front has two turf are in front boarded by low water plants. There is a large turn area in the back
with moderate and low water use. The last example has 1,000 of turf, 3,700 of moderate and 677 of low
and 1,400 of high. There is a small turf area in front, low along the window, very low along drive. The
backyard has raised beds considered high, and a modest area consistent of moderate. All three would
meet the water budget. We are planning to come back for a check-in in the fall. Prior to full
implementation in the spring we will finalize the standards.
Councilwoman Mullins said the examples are good. Ms. Ledesma said there is quite a bit of variety.
Councilwoman Mullins said what you put together is a very good ordinance. What is the significance of
P26
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
4
50 percent usage in tier four. Ms. Ledesma said we tried to come up with a percentage that when looking
at current account use gives us two to ten percent of accounts hit during the year. Councilwoman Mullins
asked what customers would trigger that. Ms. Ledesma said they would have to use over 140,000 gallons
a month to hit that. Councilwoman Mullins asked who will monitor the objectives. Ms. Ledesma said the
plan portion parks will take the lead. As far as checking on what is happening with the accounts, that will
be the responsibility of the utility agency. We are the first water provider on the west slope looking at
adopting a landscape ordinance.
Councilman Daily said he very much supports this concept. It is a great first step forward.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the overall plan. Normally the assumption is the more green
the better in Aspen. Now we are pushing less green and more desert scape. He is concerned that he sees
more contrived and less natural happening. The trial period is great and he wants to make sure we
balance out the community values and don’t have un natural landscape in a very natural setting. Are there
other ways to chase up our bigger water goals. He is concerned with the esthetic.
Mayor Skadron said this promotes water conservation and prevents waste. When you picked your goal to
decrease water demand by 14 percent did you factor in 40 percent of customers are outside city limits.
Ms. Ledesma replied yes. We are a City of Aspen utility so it is a utility goal. It is the community water
supply we are looking to protect. Mayor Skadron asked is the pilot long enough. Ms. Ledesma said we
are coming back in April and can recommend extending it. Parks may feel they need more time. Right
now it is a minimum of 12 months.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #16, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilmember
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 16
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN – UTILITIES 1,2,3- TO ADD A
NEW CHAPTER 25.360 ENTITLED: WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2017 – Tobacco 21 Initiative – Raising the Legal Age to Purchase
Tobacco Products and Creating a Local Tobacco Sales License
C.J. Oliver, environmental health, stated this would raise the legal age to purchase tobacco products in the
City of Aspen from age 18 to 21. It would also create a local tobacco sales license. It would start January
1, 2018. Dr. Kimberly Levin, Pitkin County board of health is here tonight to answer question. There
have been some adjustments form the work session to the ordinance language mainly around the use of
undercover agents.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of this. He wants to make a plug that to be most effective we
need to get involved in a city tax. Colorado has one of the lowest taxes. Price is one of the biggest
reasons to take up smoking.
Councilwoman Mullins said she spoke to CJ earlier. The 3rd paragraph needs to be clarified.
Councilman Daily said he has two boys between the ages of 18 and 21 and he very much supports this.
Mayor Skadron said the goal is to reduce tobacco use and save lives.
P27
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
5
Dr. Bill Mitchell said when he first move here aspen was one of the first cities to ban smoking in
restaurants. Our youth need help. This is one more time to step up and help them. There are 120 cities
that have adopted this program. 90 percent of life long smokers started before the age of 18.
Councilman Daily moved to read Ordinance #17, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 17
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN – HEALTH AND QUALITY OF
ENVIRONMENT – TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 13.25 ENTITLED: LICENSING OF TOBACCO
RETAILERS.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2017 – ACI Supplemental Budget
Pete Strecker, finance, stated 4.25 million dollars roll forward to finish off the construction project. This
expense has an associated revenue to pay for the cost of the construction.
Mayor Skadron asked about the state of completion. Mr. Wheeler replied July 1st.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Daily.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2017 – APCHA Supplemental Budget
Mr. Strecker told the Council there is 125,000 in the request comprised of four items. 58,000 is for a new
enforcement position, 30,000 to assist for a database design and cleanup, 20,000 for landuse review work
for the tax credit program and 17,000 for work station carry forward.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the schedule for the database. Cindy Christensen, housing, replied
they hope to have an interim database by the end of July. We are hoping to put out another RFP by the
end of June with a simplified ask.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 2017; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes, Daily, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to reconsider Ordinance #15, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of
2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes;
Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2017 – Spring Supplemental Budget
Mr. Strecker said the total budget is 38 million mostly to roll forward unspent capital authority for
ongoing projects. 829,000 for new requests mostly related to the Red Brick roof repair, 539,000.
140,000 for the long term water plan. Comdev and police also have a few smaller requests. Adjustments
P28
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
6
since last reading include a reduction of 121,000 in capital carry forward related to the police department.
There is also money included to readopt the departmental savings.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment
1. Toni Kronberg said there is money for Galena Plaza and asked what it is for. Jack Wheeler,
asset, said it is money for the plaza project that was started two years ago and these are punch list
items that have not been closed out.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll
call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2017 – 104 S. Galena Street and 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary’s
Catholic Church – Growth Management and Vested Rights
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council that HPC reviewed a proposal for an addition
with the purpose of creating a social hall. Council was provided with call up notice. Council remanded
the approval back to HPC to reconsider the above grade portion of the social hall. The application needs
a few more approvals before they can move to building permit. After this meeting the applicant will
return to HPC for landscape and materials. Dealing with growth management, this qualifies as an
essential public facility. We have dealt with those on a case by case situation. For this project they are
adding just under 9,000 sq ft. If this were a new restaurant downtown that would require mitigation for
around 15 new employees. The boards did not feel that was relevant for this space. They have 3.5
employees that are on staff now. The space won’t be used 24 hours a day. HPC and APCHA felt it
would not be appropriate to require the same level of mitigation that it would for a restaurant or retail
space. The tool that has been suggested by APCHA is an audit two years after completion. The second
item is extension of vested rights. The project atomically receives three years but the applicant is asking
for 10 partially due to the cost and fund raising. We currently have a building permit in for an interior
remodel. Staff does support the request. We looked at if there are any code amendments on the horizon
that may effect this project and don’t foresee any.
Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson Associates, and Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe Architect, representing the
applicant reviewed the approvals. The church is a very active parish. The subgrade addition will
accommodate the current and future needs without increasing employees. The vesting extension will give
time to raise a substantial amount of money for the addition. Father Hilton is the only full time employee.
There is a deed restricted housing unit in Hunter Creek. APCHA and HPC have recommend the audit and
the church fully supports it.
Councilman Daily said he appreciates the modest scale of the above grade addition.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if we have had any audits completed. Ms. Simon said the audits that have
been completed have not resulted in the need for additional mitigation. Councilwoman Mullins said it is
a valid method.
Councilman Frisch said the architectural solutions have been great. He thinks at some point we should
have some type of bucket for essential public facilities. We should stick to a five year vesting and if good
faith they can come back. 10 years is a lot. He will support what the rest of council does but will suggest
we stick to five years. The mitigation rate for essential public facilities he supports an audit. Would be
nice to take the onus off of APCHA and put it on the applicants.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
P29
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 08, 2017
7
Councilman Daily said he would not be uncomfortable with five years. It would put some healthy
pressure to complete.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is supportive of the growth management audit. She is not supportive of
the vesting. She has always pushed for the three year vesting period particularly if the land use code has
continued to evolve.
Mayor Skadron said he would support a five year vesting period. Councilwoman Mullins said she would
support five. Mayor Skadron said what is on the table is five year vesting and a growth management
audit after two years.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2017 amending Section 2 to five years
vesting; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes;
Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilmember Frisch moved to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P30
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Lassiter Electric Contract for Electrical Upgrades in the Aspen Ice Garden and Red Brick Venter for
the Arts .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Resolution #91, Series of 2017 – Short Range Transit Plan – Professional Services Agreement ........ 4
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2017 ............................................. –Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
4
RESOLUTION #90, SERIES OF 2017 – Lift One Lodge Extension of Vested Rights ............................... 4
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2017 – Mountain View Planes ................................................................. 6
P31
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Daily and
Myrin present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Black diamond award. Steve Barwick, city manager introduced Janine Guerrero from the Housing
Department. Recently there was a major renovation to the Aspen Country Inn involving the common and
residential units and the temporary relocation of the residents. This was very worrisome to us. Janine
was the liaison to the construction team and residents. She knocked it out of the ball park. We expanded
the roll to make it as smooth as possible. She acted as the conduit for complete communication with the
residents. We received no major complaints from the residents.
Swear in new police officer. Kirk Wheatley, police department, introduced Lauren Sumner. Lauren
stated she is originally from Fort Collins and the former manager of Hickory House. Mayor Skadron
swore in Lauren.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Heidi Zuckerman, director of Aspen Art Museum, told the Council the art museum was awarded
the Institute of Museum and Library Services National Medal Award. They are 1 of 30 museum
and libraries named as finalists and 1 of 10 winners of the national medals. It was given the
award due to its service to the community. Supported by Senator Bennet and community
members. Ongoing efforts to provide services to schools and rural communities, services to
seniors, at risk youths and adults. Multiple community days are scheduled with various partners.
The award highlights their efforts to make it a true community resource.
2. Emzy Veazy III commented on a variety of topics.
3. Mike Maple thanked Aspen for trash day. It is one of his favorite services from the city. He
appreciates the food tax refund. It was established in 1970 when the sales tax was 1% and most
cities exempted food from the sales tax. It started off at 7 dollars and grew to 21 in 1972. In
1998 it jumped up to 50. 20 years later it is still 50. 50 in 1998 was a poor demonstration of
what citizens paid for food tax and it is much worse now. Look at the spirit of it and as you
increase fees with inflation the food tax refund should be as well.
The chirping crosswalk is pretty annoying but the city response was impressive and I appreciate
you taking on that challenge. There are other problems with Main Street other than the chirping
indicators. Main Street from the round a bout into Aspen is in horrible shape. Pretty sure CDOT
is responsible for it. Some may be tied to our love of trees. Grand Ave bridge detour will be an
absolute disaster and he encouraged council to participate in those discussions. We can keep
independence pass open. Encourage CDOT to keep the pass open as long as possible. The
extension of vested rights for lift one lodge is a red herring. Wait for the results of the lift study.
4. Ryland French spoke about the electric vehicle ride and drive event on June 9th from 12-3 in the
Community banks parking lot. Test drive multiple vehicles and learn about tax credits.
5. Toni Kronberg said the Memorial Day celebration will be in Connor park. She passed out a
handout about the lawsuit to review city office approval. She asked council to remand the
decision back to council to follow the civic master plan. On Monday, she turned in a referendum
petition to bring the same question to a vote. She will submit an initiative petition tomorrow to
make Galena plaza a specially designated space and keep Galena Plaza a view plane and make it
a truly open space.
P32
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
3
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS
Councilman Myrin said regarding the food tax he mentioned at the January 9th meeting for a process to
increase that. He would be interested in looking at that. Thanks to staff and council for working on
quieting the beepers on Main Street. It would be nice to continue to work on making those more quiet.
On the dams, he is not supportive on perusing the can and will message. It is an expense we don’t need to
persue. We learned about the golf course inground storage and it might be a possibility if we need
storage. Encourage what the space actually is.
Councilman Frisch said 50 dollars then is 75 now. Normal cities don’t have it because a vast majority of
the tax is paid by the residents. We can explore it a little bit. If the idea is to offset the total we can look
at it. We need to be careful. Hats off to Trish and the team for acting quickly on the chirping. There are
better solutions longer term for safety for residents and guests with vision issues for chirping only when
needed. Hats off to Steve for stimulating the compact of mayors and to Ashley and her team.
Councilman Daily agree with Mike and his thoughts on the food tax increase.
Mayor Skadron said on the Grand Avenue bridge, starting August 14th, the bridge will be closing for 95
days. Peak travel times will be mostly impacted. We are doing everything we can at this end of the
valley to see what we can do to get people to avoid those peak travel times.
Big congrats to Sunday Abarca, senior at high school for 2 state records in track. He broke the state
record, the one he set last year.
Big thank you to Ashely Perl and the EH team for pulling off the compact of Colorado communities. We
created something from nothing.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Mr. Barwick said the food tax refund is on the 2018 budget topics to discuss
On the cancelation of the Hallam Street and Castle Creek bridge project. We received no bids for that
project. At this point the plans are to put the two projects together and rebid for 2018. The temporary
changes to the bridge were wildly popular. We could talk about this at a future work session.
Councilman Frisch said last year was a temporary extension with a fence. This year is just bollards. In an
ideal world, I would love to see a temporary solution but 90,000 dollars for a few months it a lot of
money. Mr. Barwick replied yes. Trish Aragon, engineering, said the earliest an engineer could get in
there would be mid summer. Councilman Myrin said he is ok waiting a year. It’s been that way a long
time.
BOARD REPORTS
Mayor Skadron said RFTA looked at the IGA with Garfield county and the Access Control Plan. These
are the guidelines that define where the trail can be accessed. There is pressure to liberalize the
agreement and I oppose that. He is proposing some new language to ensure the corridor is protected.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso #89 – electrical upgrades to Ice Garden
Councilman Myrin asked if this will enable a future change to electric. Jeff Pendarvis said they were
approached by the recreation department who identified upgrades to ice garden and red brick. These are
just deficiencies. There are upgrades in 2019 and that will address those. Councilman Myrin said this
seems like it is changing the services to the building. Mr. Pendarvis replied that is correct. The problem
is the current equipment causes constant problem to the existing equipment that interrupts services.
Reso #91 – Short Range Transit Plan
P33
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
4
Councilman Myrin said he is concern about an outcome that would replace a fixed route with the
downtowner if we haven’t figured out the barrier for tips for locals who use it multiple times a day. There
is resistance from some people.
· Lassiter Electric Contract for Electrical Upgrades in the Aspen Ice Garden and Red Brick Venter
for the Arts
· Resolution #91, Series of 2017 – Short Range Transit Plan – Professional Services Agreement
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor,
motion carried.
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2017 –Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Lee Ledesma, water, stated there will be a minimum 12 month pilot program. Parks will be lead on
implementation on reviewing documentation and doing site visits.
Councilman Myrin asked for more about the pilot. Ms. Ledesma said everything in the standards will be
required. Compliance will be required. Not required are meeting the water budget of 7.5 gallons per sq
ft. Post installation issues would not effect a certificate of occupancy being issued. If parks need more
time the pilot could be extended. Councilman Myrin said this is a lot of information for a citizen to figure
out and a need to hire a professional to figure out. Ms. Ledesma said we met with 20 to 25 private sector
landscape installers and designers and for the most part they are doing this already. The one request we
got was to come up with a spreadsheet to calculate the water budget. I have done that already. The other
suggestion was a checklist. Those would be in place before this starts.
Councilman Daily said he seconds the idea of proceeding with the 12 month pilot program. It is a smart
approach.
Councilman Frisch said he is for it. He raised concerns we don’t turn in to suburban Scottsdale. He
wants to make sure we don’t have to hire a Ben Carlson to figure it out. The overall goal is right on.
Mayor Skadron said the promotion of efficiency is right on.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll
call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #90, SERIES OF 2017 – Lift One Lodge Extension of Vested Rights
Councilman Daily recused himself.
Jessica Garrow, community development, stated Lift 1 was approved in 4 lots. The property is comprised
of a timeshare, affordable housing and two parks with the historic lift 1. If there is a decision to relocate
the lift there would need to be amendments to the design and approvals as well as changes to the
construction documents and updates to the approval documents. Currently the vesting goes through
November 28, 2018. The applicant is requesting an extension for three years. Staff supports involvement
with a one year extension. If amendments are warranted another extension can be discussed at that time.
We included a condition in the ordinance that any general regulations related to life safety continue to
apply. There are a number of review criteria council may consider including compliance with the
conditions of the original approval as well as the standards related to progress of pursuing the project.
They are moving forward with the project. Staff supports the one year. Exhibit D is an administrative
matter. There are four lots, two are owned by the city, Willoughby park and lift 1. They have consent by
P34
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
5
the city. Exhibit E is a letter from lift 1 condo. There is one requested change to the Resolution to
correct a reference to Ord 41.
Councilman Myrin said the logic is the duration of the time to work on moving people from one place to
another. How long do we expect that to take. Ms. Garrow said there is a meeting tomorrow with the
consultant. We are not sure when to expect the final report. We are confident some type of extension
will be needed. Councilman Myrin asked will it take one year or six months. Ms. Garrow said if changes
are needed it will take more than one year. Councilman Myrin said if Gorsuch was approved this would
not be a moving target. Ms. Garrow said it depends on what version of Gorsuch.
Councilman Frisch said it still feels like we are working backwards a little bit. I still want to keep all the
options open. He thinks this applicant has been acting in good faith this entire time. He is supportive of
one year. He appreciates they came in this far in advance. If they need more time they can come in
again. I think there is a better option out there.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said the purpose of this is to allow the lodge to park the building
permit while they pursue a lift alternative with their neighbors. It will give time to work on a solution to
the lift, preparing a new land use application and submitting permit plans. We are asking for certainty we
will have that time available.
Michael Brown, owner, said this is step one of achieving the larger community goal of getting the lift
further down the slope. It is a complex issue we are ready to tackle. It requires more time then less.
Mayor Skadron said the value to your property increases if the lift comes lower. Is that true if it comes
across your property. Mr. Brown said as long as you are above the lift it doesn’t matter.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Mariska Laskey, South Point Condo, said she is concerned about livability. Their building is
currently encompassed in dust. Less time is better but she also wants to have the best
development. She is not opposed but be cognizant of the impacts. She wants to be kept in the
loop.
2. Tom Todd, attorney for Norway Island, Gorsuch Haus, said they support the recommendation for
a one year extension of vested rights. We play a key role and look forward to working with the
partners to locate the lift further down the hill. We recognize vested rights need to be extended in
order to explore relocating the lift.
3. Toni Kronberg thanked council for listening to the community to explore bringing the lift further
down the mountain.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Ms. Garrow said the change to the resolution should also change to condition 2, P&Z reso should be
2016.
Mr. Brown said he would appreciate any consideration to any timing on the length of time. To forgo that
opportunity is incredibly costly. They want to give this the fair shake it deserves. Every day the lodge
doesn’t get built and the opportunity for the lift to move down the hill is a good day for the community.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #90, Series of 2017 with one year vesting extension and
correction to scrivener’s errors; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried.
P35
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
6
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2017 – Mountain View Planes
Ms. Garrow stated this is the last item from the AACP LUC process. This was continued from the April
24th Council meeting. This ordinance will expand the Wagner park view plane. All the other view
planes will be maintained. It will expand the applicability of view planes on periphery lots. It adds the
mail box exemption where the current code triggers a view plane review. It creates view pane review
standards as well as defines minimal impact and strengthens the applicability. The ordinance also creates
the fore, mid and background standards. These were based off the site visit in the fall.
Foreground criteria applies if a development proposal infringes on a view plane.
No view plane shall be infringed and no exemptions apply. This is a P&Z review. There is a 15 foot
maximum height allowance. All buildings must meet the minimal impact. Ceiling heights for interior
remodels is 9’6” and tied to existing growth management language. There is a three foot exemption for
slopped lots. All variations are subject to Referendum 1. The 15 foot height allowance is the lowest
height practicable. It is still 13 feet lower than the underlying zone district. It is based on basic
construction requirements. P&Z or HPC must conduct a review to ensure these guidelines are being met.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as written. It strikes a balance of ensuring a strong
protection of the view planes and works well with the other land use ordinances.
Councilman Daily said he appreciates all the work staff has put in on this. It strikes the balance with the
folks that are impacted by this. It is a measured new regulation. This is a fair and balanced approach for
the community and effected landowners. He appreciates the work put in to this.
Councilman Frisch said it is mostly on track.
Councilman Myrin had some questions on the foreground. How high is Jimmy’s and Grey Lady. Ms.
Garrow replied the new version is 13.6. Councilman Myrin said the picture of Cooper St, there is retail in
13.5. He is leaning more towards the few buildings with 13 foot. Ms. Garrow said it is what is needed
for an all inclusive building based on a lot of work with architects and the building department. P&Z
would be using the minimum impact standards. It would be part of the conversation. That is an almost
unachievable height. Councilman Frisch said we are trying to get to a reasonable interior height. Bert is
saying 13 worked on paper. Staff is saying you need 15.5 to execute. Philip Supino, community
development, said we are not saying you need that. Up to 15 with the minimal impacts gives an attractive
minimal building that doesn’t infringe on the view plane. 15 is not by right by any means. There are
design based standards as well as considerations of the view plane, lot topography and adjacent structures.
Councilman Myrin said the ordinance page 3, if it can’t be seen with the naked eye and is blocked by
vegetation, it can be taller. Mr. Supino said there is no reference to vegetation in the ordinance. Alan
Richman, consultant, said the earlier versions was 15 is the allowed height. This version says P&Z says
it may or may not be. The criteria is it may not alter the view. If it does it ends right there. Councilman
Myrin said in the definition section #4 talks about vegetation. Mr. Supino said that is an example that
may or may not present a problem. Councilman Myrin suggested removing the word vegetation.
Ordinance page 5 – height measured from finished grade, is that different from elsewhere. Ms. Garrow
said typically it is finished. This makes the most sense given the exemptions. Councilman Myrin said on
page 6 explain foreground location greater than 50 percent of the lot line. Ms. Garrow said it is related to
setback features. If they are under the view plane there is a setback requirement. Councilman Myrin said
on foreground setback, would the effect be to push mechanical to the side you see. Mr. Supino said in
this example the effect would be to push the mechanical into the view plane. It would force you to design
to the lowest height possible. The roofs are frozen in time. There could be no additional mechanical on
the roof than there is there today. Councilman Myrin said on page 6 shall not be visible from the
reference point and street level. Ms. Garrow said it is from the point of the view pane. Councilman
Myrin said page 7, 1 A, site topography tightens exceptions. He suggested strike other constraints. Ms.
Garrow is fine with that.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
P36
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
7
1. Chris Bendon stated the ordinance is ready to go. He is representing four property owners. Two
are hamstrung in the current conditions. The regulations have been well vetted. It is a good
balance of protecting the views and reasonable use of the properties. It is a rational way to
provide for small changes. It is a rational additional that encourages remodel over
redevelopment. 15 feet is the shortest you can get to still produce a reasonable building with a
practicable set of uses. It strikes an appropriate balance. It is at the place where this is an
adoptable ordinance.
2. Gideon Kaufmann said to adopt the ordinance as it is proposed.
3. Toni Kronberg asked about Section A – jurisdiction and how it applies to section G – jurisdiction.
Ms. Garrow said the standards are outlined and we feel the references are correct and don’t need
additional ones. Mr. True said it is redundant.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Myrin said striking the vegetation on page 3 and other constraints on page 7 were both about
foreground issues. Owners built things that were smaller and what we are doing today is upzoning and
filling in the space and possibility filling in the space in front of the Wheeler. Those concern me. It is
adding development where there was no development before.
Councilman Frisch said if the Aspen Grove building goes through a remodel it can’t be any bigger. Ms.
Garrow said from a height standpoint it can’t get an taller. Councilman Frisch said if it gets torn down
and rebuilt it would be shorter. Ms. Garrow replied it would have to be. Councilman Frisch said 95
percent of this is slam dunk great work. I don’t want to lose sight of that. I think the fore ground is well
though out. 9.5 feet is not too tall. The reality is if we are to agree at 9.5. I’m not sure what Bert is
looking for to make it better. It is a huge improvement on community view planes.
Councilman Daily said he agrees with what has just been said. This has been a long process and a
significant improvement over existing legislation. It encourages improvement of existing over
redevelopment. He supports what we got.
Mayor Skadron said one concern is trying to write an all inclusive instruction manual. The big ideas get
lost in the minutia. He will support this as well for the reasons stated. It creates a set of criteria that never
before existed resulting in a balance between reasonable building while protecting public view. This is a
response of the unintended consequences of Referendum 1. Which was ultimately a great disservice to
the community.
Mr. Bendon said Bert had 2 suggestions. He is fine with the vegetation. The second change refers to site
topography or other constraints. He said he thinks you want P&Z to look at other constraints that are real
constrains. He gave the example of a significant tree, access point or a real constraint. Gideon’s
property. There may be constraints that are real constraints that a board might need to have flexibility
around. Councilman Myrin said this gets back to what Adam said about a building fitting under a 15 foot
bridge. His fear is lot line to lot line development. He would pass this tonight if it did not have the
foreground in it.
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Ordinance #43, Series of 2017 with amendment to omit vegetation
and other constraints; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes;
Myrin, no; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Executive session
Jim True request Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S 24.6.402.04 b, e, a conference with
attorney regarding pending litigation, Castle and Maroon Creek diligence case, Marie Antionette
Kronberg case v City of Aspen, and determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
P37
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 22, 2017
8
negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and the potential purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer,
or sale of any real, personal or other property interest.
Councilman Myrin moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session at 9:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman
Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 9:16 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P38
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #92, Series of 2017 – Development Inspection Services Change Order ............................ 4
Resolution #93, Series of 2017 – Contract Amendment – The Downtowner ....................................... 4
Resolution #94, Series of 2017 – Burlingame Pump House Construction Contract _ PNCI
Construction Inc. ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Resolution #95, Series of 2017 – West Main Street Mobility Plan ...................................................... 4
Board Appointments ............................................................................................................................. 4
Minutes – April 24, 2017 ...................................................................................................................... 4
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2017 – Local Tobacco Sales License and Minimum Purchase Age
Requirement .................................................................................................................................................. 4
SWEAR IN MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ........................................................................ 6
CITIZENS COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 6
P39
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Frisch,
Daily and Myrin present.
Mayor Skadron Ask Jeff Woods to say a few words about Austin and his new position. Jeff Woods,
parks, said there have been some big transitions in parks. Two long time leaders have resigned. We are
lucky that there have been some great candidates. Tom has been with parks for 35 years. Internally, we
had Austin Weiss, head of open space and trails for 17 years. We are excited to have him on the team.
The community knows him. Austin Weiss said he is thrilled and honored to have the opportunity to lead
the department and carry on the work.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Tom Coggins spoke about the downtowner contract amendment. There are three different layouts
for the boundaries in the contract and different layouts in the app.
2. Skippy Mesirow and Mike Reese from the Next Gen Board gave congrats to Ward and thanked
Art for his service. Skippy said it was an honor to take part in the electoral process. Next Gen
has worked on increasing the electoral process but did not take part in that this year. 1,800 people
voted in the runoff. It should be our obligation to increase participation. We need to change the
voting date. Our lowest occupancy date is during the voting season. We will be reaching out to
talk about changing the voting date. Reach us at aspennextgen.net.
3. Toni Kronberg thanked Art for the last four years.
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS
Councilman Daily said this has been a marvelous opportunity. You can’t get a more blessed opportunity.
He has enjoyed all of it the good, bad and ugly. He felt supported at all times by members of the
community. The community interaction and sensitivity is quite unique. It has been a wonderful
opportunity. Ward will do a nice job coming in. God bless all here.
Councilman Frisch said you are sincere and thoughtful as anyone who has ever sat up here at this table.
Councilman Myrin said last Friday the canary initiative had an electric vehicle drive event. Look at the
Chevy Bolt. There are a variety of discounts available out there. APD had a BBQ last Friday. Jim and
Lindsay Smith, neighbors baked deserts and brought them to the city. He will miss having Art’s
thoughtful presence at the table. He also added a lot of depth to the discussion.
Councilwoman Mullins said she was honored to have been reelected. Congratulants to Ward and Steve.
She has appreciated Art’s thoughtfulness. She has family here tonight and she thanked them for coming.
She was lucky enough two weeks ago to go to Washington DC and met with senators and staff for the
Mountain PAC. It was fascinating. Contact your representatives and keep pushing agenda items that are
important.
Mayor Skadron said if those who serve in these seats have half the thoughtfulness and compassion of Art
we will be well served. He was asked to make a presentation in Nova Scotia, they are legalizing
marijuana. I got a call to go, so I did.
P40
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Steve Barwick said CDOT will be doing repairs on June 26 and 27 through town. There will be lane
closures on the inbound lanes. Michelle Holder will talk about the next citizen’s academy. Ms. Holder
stated the next session will be 11 classes August through December. They are looking for around 20
participants. Visit cityofaspen.com/citizensacademy for more information.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilwoman Mullins said ACRA gave a presentation on school readiness and achievement and the
airport. Starting June 1st the Red Brick will be bringing on two full time employees. Summer enrollment
is very high. RFTA approved low no grants to fund at least 8 electric busses. They approved we cycle
funding for 3 to 5 years and gave a transportation update. Ruedi is still working on the zero mussels and
the importance to keep them under control. They may come back to the city for more money. Ruedi may
also be looking for a new director.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso 92 – development inspection change order
Councilwoman Mullins said this is for 155,000 dollars, is this how most communities do it. Tyler
Christoff, utilities, replied it varies. We felt like this was the most scalable option for us. Councilwoman
Mullins asked how many hours, is that a max. Mr. Christoff said this is only our second year doing this.
We felt like it is a good benchmark. Councilwoman Mullins said it is to our benefit. Mr. Christoff said it
is to the quality of our utilities and right of way to stay ahead of this.
Reso 94 – Burlingame pump house
Councilman Myrin said we are currently using tap water to irrigate and are switching to well. If we
switch can we change back. Kevin Dunnett, parks, said we are designed primarily for well but it is
compatible. There is no reason why it can’t change back. Councilman Myrin said he will approve this.
Mr. Christoff said most of the infrastructure is potable and there is a reuse system coming on in the future.
It is designed to use any of the three.
Reso 95 – west main mobility plan.
PJ Murry, engineering, said earlier in the spring Aspen Housing Partners presented some alternatives and
the community expressed some concerns. Mayor Skadron asked for some comment as to what is
happening on the Castle Creek Bridge. Trish Aragon, engineering, said the orange barricades is not
associated with the living lab. It is associated with the water tap. We did bid out Hallam Street this year
and received no bidders. We are going to package out Hallam and Castle and bid it out in the next month.
There won’t be a living lab this year. It costs around 100,000 dollars to do that.
Reso 93 - downtowner contract
John Krueger, transportation, said at the last work session there were four of you and council was split on
the expansion of service to the music tent for September to April. The packet includes a resolution that
does not include it and one that does.
Tom Coggins made some comments that the expanded services does not help the taxi services.
Peter Grenny said it is the same level of service but costing 45 percent more due to increased operating
costs. Other shared mobility providers have those too. The Downtower is great but stifling small
businesses and preventing a level playing field. Mr. Krueger said it is going from a tip based system to
one where drivers are paid on an hourly rate. Councilman Myrin said we are speeding up the process to
RFP to let others compete for this. He would like to see an RFP go out replacing low performing transit
routes with this, what are they. Mr. Kruger replied it is part of the transit study. We will bring that back
to council. Mainly seasonal routes like Galena Street and the cross town shuttle. Councilman Myrin said
those are the highest cost per passenger. Thanks to the downtowner for adding the question for each ride.
P41
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
4
Mayor Skadron said the question is whether to expand the service areas. Councilman Myrin said if one of
the potential goals is to replace the shuttles I think we should try running the downtowner where the
shuttles go. Councilwoman Mullins said I think we should leave it as it is and see how the different types
of services compliment each other.
Councilman Frisch said we need clarity if the downtowner people think the app is wrong. They may have
a different idea of what the service area is. Going from a tip to a salary, increasing the hourly wage. Are
they going to do anything physically on the shuttle to let people know that tips are not encouraged. Mr.
Krueger said the change won’t occur until the end of the initial contract in September. Tipping will still
continue through the summer. Councilman Frisch said I still think we should keep the service where it is
currently. One of the fundamental reasons we started it is it is a compliment not a competition. I want to
support all the mobility options on the table. I would like to stick to the original intent of the geography.
Mayor Skadron said I agreed with Bert at the work session. This is about innovative technology and a
tool to tackle congestion and being socially equitable. There is a degree of being environmentally
sustainable. Part of our attempt to rethink our mobility and make us more efficient. We are
implementing an option that makes it easier for people to access. He will vote to expand that.
Councilman Daily said it is pretty easy for me. Mobility planning is an important one that will
dramatically affect the traffic in Aspen in the next five years. I know there are competitors out there who
say this is in my face and not fair. We need to do what we can for traffic and this is a tried and tested
experiment. He Would hope these competitors would find a way like this. Where are we in evaluating
further expansion of the service area. Mr. Krueger replied we are not there yet. Until we get through the
transit study we are not looking at any. Councilman Daily said he is glad you are evaluating a potential
opportunity.
Mayor Skadron reviewed the board appointment for the Board of Adjustment, LLA and Open Space and
Trails.
· Resolution #92, Series of 2017 – Development Inspection Services Change Order
· Resolution #93, Series of 2017 – Contract Amendment – The Downtowner
· Resolution #94, Series of 2017 – Burlingame Pump House Construction Contract _ PNCI
Construction Inc.
· Resolution #95, Series of 2017 – West Main Street Mobility Plan
· Board Appointments
· Minutes – April 24, 2017
Councilman Myrin said he would vote for alternative A, the expanded service area for the Downtowner.
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Resolutions #92, 94 and 95; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Resolution #93, Series of 2017; Alternative A seconded by
Councilman Daily. All in favor except Councilmembers Mullins and Frisch. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2017 – Local Tobacco Sales License and Minimum Purchase Age
Requirement
CJ Oliver, environmental health, said the ordinance raises the legal age to purchase tobacco products from
18 to 21 in Aspen. It will create a local tobacco sales license. Cigarettes have been included in that
license. Aspen would forego 75,000 dollars annually in sales tax revenue. We removed all language to
undercover enforcement.
P42
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
5
Kimberly Levin, Colorado board of health, told the council smoking is one of the biggest health risks.
5,100 people die in Colorado a year from smoking. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers started before the
age of 18. Teens purchase cigarettes from their peers. Raising the minimum age cuts off that supply.
Councilman Myrin asked is this just the City of Aspen. Ms. Levin replied it is just Aspen. Councilman
Myrin asked is the county working on this. Ms. Levin replied they are. Councilman Myrin said for a
consumer, the work around would be to purchase at the AABC.
Councilwoman Mullins said the board of health is combined so Kim is representing the city as well as the
county.
Councilman Daily said I have two boys under the age of 21 and anything we can do to keep tobacco out
of their hands, I’m totally in favor of. This is all about the health of our youngsters. This is one of the
biggest dangers in our community.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Jordanna Sabella said she supports the ordinance. Tobacco is the number one preventable cause
of death. Raising the age decreases total youth use. She hopes we can go forth with this policy.
2. Letter from Karen Kennenman – one in five high school seniors uses tobacco products. Tobacco
remains the leading causes of death. Raising the age to 21 has been shown to reduce high school
smoking by 50 percent.
3. Tom Dunlop, former COA EH director. In 1985 the city passed the first no smoking ordinance.
From that point Aspen became a model for clean air. He urged council to pass the ordinance.
4. Mandy Evanough, tobacco control operator for Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield counties. Fully
support and applaud Aspens efforts. Retail licensing ensures retailers are operating legally and
responsibly.
5. Dr. Mary Harris, Aspen Medical Care. She cares about the kids who are victims.
6. Karen Zohar, teacher at Aspen High School. She has a 17 year old daughter who is a smoker.
Anything we can do to keep cigarettes out of kids hands is great.
7. Tharyn Mulberry, Aspen High School principal, said Kids receive cigarettes from proxy buyers.
We need to take a stand as a community.
8. Phyllis Bronson said she couldn’t agree more. This is a great first step. Kids need to be educated
more about all the cancers.
9. Cliff Weiss said he lost a brother to lung cancer. Aspen is a city of health and outdoors. He is all
for passing this ordinance. He would like to see a ban altogether, outdoors and everywhere.
Cigarettes should not be a part of this community.
10. Kelly Keffin said virtually no one starts smoking after the age of 26.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said she was a smoker for 30 years, but is one of the 7 percent who has been able
to quit. She support anything to discourage the use of tobacco.
Councilman Frisch said this is a no brainer for all the reasons stated before. For us to have a two part
solution to this is to investigating some sort of city sales tax in tobacco products. The price of a pack of
cigarettes is a huge deterrent rather than the age. It not only sends a message but a deterrent.
Mayor Skadron said our leadership and this law contributes to lowering smoking rates in children. He
will support this.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Daily.
Roll call vote. Councilman Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
P43
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
6
SWEAR IN MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor Skadron said we will have a mini transition of power. He will call for an adjournment. He will
employ the rarely used gavel. We will then move to swear in the mayor and new city council members.
At 6:40 p.m. Councilman Daily moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Frisch, Myrin, Hauenstein and
Mullins present.
CITIZENS COMMENTS
1. David Harris gave congrats to the Mayor and Ann and welcome Ward.
2. Toni Kronberg gave congrats and welcome. Thanks for the crosswalks on Mill Street. Traffic
will be an issue this summer. She spoke about the Referendum collected during the offseason.
Council will be talking about her court case at the executive session tonight. The city has not
been served yet. She heard Linda has rejected the petition because we missed the deadline by one
day. Jim True, city attorney, said he had a conversation with Ms. Kronberg today. Tara Nelson
and I went and did a site visit with her to get an understanding with her concerns. She is either
uninformed or intentionally misinforming people. The only conclusion I can come to is she is
either misrepresenting the facts or is misinformed. This can be determined either through
litigation. We will move forward on this. All I can tell you is what she told me.
3. Torre gave congrats on returning to council. Best of luck to Steve and congrats to Ward.
Campaigning is not about me but the town I love. Unbelievable job to the city clerks office
Linda, Nicole and Cindy. You set a very high bar. COA is an amazing leader on the
environment. He would like to see designed space for recycling and waste. Affordable housing
is the most pressing issue in our town. There is still work to be done supporting our current
resident partners. There is still work to be done at Burlingame and Centennial. Good work is
being done at APCHA. Business – look at shared use for empty spaces. Transportation – still
things to do to alleviate congestion. Smart growth – building applications. Community Building
– engage citizenry and the vote. Caring for aspen - 2019 renewal of healthy community fund.
Firm believer if you want change you have to fight and work for it.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilman Hauenstein invited community feedback at his city email, ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com
or his cell phone, 618-2116. It has been a grueling five months for this process. He thanked the citizens
of Aspen for hiring him. The decisions on this side of the table effect the entire town for years to come.
He has a flexible mind and is willing to change decisions. He will strive to be patient, listen and
courageous in making decisions.
Councilman Frisch welcome Ward and congrats to Steve and Ann. He appreciates what Torre said. As
far as the election thing it is shame on us for not getting as many people to vote as possible. In a
transitory resort town it is a little unfair. He would like to invest some money with the county to clean up
the voter roles.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is great that Torre came in and gave us his list. We are all out there trying
to get more voters. This was a tough election. There were personal attacks. It was very one sided. She
is very honored to be back at the table. The biggest learning experience was going door to door.
P44
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 12, 2017
7
Councilman Myrin said there was a conversation using the golf course and cozy point for dam storage.
Please send it. The turn from Hallam to N Aspen and it is not clear for the bike lane.
Mayor Skadron wants to thank all those who stepped up to get involved. He encouraged anyone
interested to step up and get involved. I started on the planning and zoning commission.
Mr. True recommend Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 26.402 a, b and e purchase,
acquisition, lease, of real property. discuss pending litigation, Castle and Maroon Creek diligence and
Marie Antoinette and North Mill Street Investors and potential litigation from Marie Antoinette as well as
conference with attorney.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried. At 9:10 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session;
seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hauenstein moved to
adjourn the meeting; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P45
VI.d
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Aspen Police Department Community Response Officers Ginna Gordon and
Audrey Radlinski
THRU: Assistant Chief Bill Linn
DATE OF MEMO: May 9, 2017
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2017
RE: Ordinance #20, Series of 2017 - Modifications to the Dogs Section 6.08 of the City of
Aspen Municipal Code to include a section prohibiting Harassing Dog behavior – First Reading
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Community Response Officers request the approval of Ordinance 20, which would add a new
Subsection to 6.08 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code to include a Harassing Dog violation. A
citation for a harassing dog violation would have an escalating fine structure of a $50 fine for a
first offense and a $100 fine for a second offense. A third offense will require a mandatory court
appearance in municipal court.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A
BACKGROUND:
Aspen Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 currently prohibits the keeping of a “vicious
dog,” defined as a “dog that unprovokedly bites or attacks human beings or other animals either on
public or private property or in a vicious or terrorizing manner approaches any person in apparent
attitude of attack upon the streets, sidewalks or any public ground or place.” Last year, the Aspen
Police Department received 24 animal bite calls for service, but only 5 of those calls warranted a
citation for “Keeping of a Vicious Dog” in the responding officer’s opinion. Under the current
code, officers are limited to two options when dealing with a potentially dangerous/harassing
dog. The first option available is for the responding officer to issue a citation for “Keeping of a
Vicious Dog;” a mandatory court summons which is appropriate for our more severe offenses.
Currently the other option is to issue a “Keeping of a Vicious Dog” warning. This has its
applications, but often fails to hold the dog owner accountable for the animal’s troublesome
behavior. For many situations that we encounter, these options are not viable solutions or
P46
VIII.a
Page 2 of 3
applicable to the situation at hand. The police department is requesting a more moderate citation
that would apply to most calls we receive and reserve the “Keeping of a Vicious Dog” for our
more severe cases.
DISCUSSION:
The majority of dog bites reported to our department are not vicious in nature. For example, two
dogs in a scuffle over a toy, a playful pup jumping onto a stranger and causing injury, a tethered
dog lunging at a passerby, or a Blue Heeler nipping at the heels of a runner. Many of these
require some level of accountability. A simple warning may not do justice for the victim, but a
“Keeping of a Vicious Dog” citation would be too harsh of a penalty for the circumstances.
Public Safety needs a more moderate option.
Pitkin County Code currently has an ordinance termed “Harassing Dogs, ” in addition to a
vicious dog ordinance, Staff believes it would greatly benefit our community if we adopt an
ordinance similar to Pitkin County’s. Section 6.08.120 - Keeping of a Vicious Dog would remain
untouched, and a new section for Harassing Dog would be implemented to Chapter 6.08 of
Municipal Code. A huge encouragement for this direction is that a similar Pitkin County
ordinance has been successfully implemented throughout Pitkin County and would be easily
accepted by the public.
This resource is necessary for public safety officers to appropriately enforce and correct
problematic behavior. For example, a harassing dog ordinance, would have applied to 75% of the
Aspen Police Department’s Animal Bite calls in 2016. In that same year, only 20% of the total
animal bites calls met the criteria to be cited for “Keeping of a Vicious Dog.” That means that we
are lacking the legal tool to address 75% of difficult dog behavior that is encountered.
The proposed ordinance is attached.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
This citation would have an escalating fine structure
· First Offense $50 fine
· Second Offense $100 fine
· Third Offense is a mandatory court appearance with a negotiable fine.
If the Aspen Police Department had cited half of the calls for service last year that would have fit
this violation, the resulting fines would have totaled $500. Projected over 10 years, this easily
could result in $5,000 in revenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
This ordinance will protect wildlife preventing harassment from menacing dogs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P47
VIII.a
Page 3 of 3
A new section for Harassing Dog would be implemented to Chapter 6.08 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.
PROPOSED MOTION:
I move to approve a new Ordinance to Section 6.08 of the City Municipal Code for Harassing
Dog
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Ordinance #20, Series 2017
P48
VIII.a
ORDINANCE NO. 20
(Series 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN – ANIMALS
AND FOWL - TO ADD A NEW SECTION 6.08.190 ENTITLED: KEEPING A HARASSING
DOG PROHIBITED.
WHEREAS, Aspen Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 currently prohibits the keeping of a
“vicious dog,” which is defined as a “dog that unprovokedly bites or attacks human beings or
other animals either on public or private property or in a vicious or terrorizing manner
approaches any person in apparent attitude of attack upon the streets, sidewalks or any public
ground or place,” and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Police Department received numerous animal bite call for service
every year, but only a small number of those cases meeting the definition of “vicious dog.” The
majority of cases still involve a dog that is potentially dangerous and warrants some law
enforcement action or penalty for the dog owner; and,
WHEREAS, under the current code, the only options available to officers when dealing
with a dangerous or harassing dog is to issue the dog owner summons to municipal court or issue
the dog owner a warning. There are cases, however, that warrant an “intermediate” sanction; and,
WHEREAS, the adoption of a section to the Municipal Code prohibiting harassing dogs
that would allow for a penalty assessment for the first two offenses as opposed to a mandatory
court appearance is necessary for Law Enforcement to appropriately enforce and correct
problematic dog behavior within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Title 6 – Animals and Fowl - of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 6.08.190 – Keeping a Harassing Dog
Prohibited, which section shall read as follows:
6.08.190 Keeping a Harassing Dog Prohibited.
No person shall own, keep, possess, or harbor a harassing dog within the City. For the
purposes of this section, a harassing dog is hereby defined and declared to be any dog that
exhibits an apparent attitude of attack, approaches in a menacing fashion, chases a person or
another animal, or has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe
that the dog may inflict injury upon any person or animal. No owner or keeper of a dog shall
permit the dog to harass any other animal or person. A dog shall be deemed harassing, whether
P49
VIII.a
2
or not the offending dog inflicts injury. A person charged with a first or second violation of this
section shall have the option of paying a handling, processing and administrative assessment
therefor to a designated City agent, the City of Aspen animal safety officer or his or her
authorized agents, in lieu of further proceedings in court to defend such charge as described in
Section 1.04.080. If such person elects to appear in court, he shall be proceeded against as
otherwise provided by law for the violations charged and shall be subject to the penalties
provided for in Section 1.04.080, if found guilty of such charges. The penalty assessments for a
violator of this section shall be as follows:
First Offense: $50 fine
Second Offense: $100 fine
Third Offense: mandatory court appearance with potential penalties pursuant to
Section 1.04.080.
Section 2: Litigation
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 conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: Severability
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.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the ____ day of May, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P50
VIII.a
3
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2017.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P51
VIII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Amendment to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009
First Reading of Ordinance #19, Series 2017
DATE: June 26, 2017
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Vaughan Capital Partners,
L.P.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mitch Haas, Haas Land
Planning
LOCATION:
211 W. Hopkins, Lots F and
G, Block 53, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado,
PID #2735-124-63-003.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6, Medium Density
Residential. The property is a
6,000 square foot lot and
contains a single family home.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue is a Pan Abode
kit structure, built by the applicant as a vacation home in 1956. The
City of Aspen first identified Pan Abode buildings like this one as
potentially having historic significance as part of historic preservation
studies conducted in 2000. For more than a decade after that, the City
debated and initiated a few versions of the current AspenModern
program. In 2009, at a time when the City required a “demolition
delay” and negotiation period before a property of interest could be
demolished, this owner approached Council and negotiated the terms
outlined in Ordinance #29, Series of 2009. The City committed to a
demolition permit that is valid until 2020 (about 10 times the normal
period) to reduce the pressure on the homeowner to remove the
building. Before demolition, the owner must give the City 90 days
notice to allow a chance to advocate for preservation options. The
owners have no current plans to remove the house. With the permit
set to expire in the next couple of years, the owners have requested a
permit extension and/or other amendments to the ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of
amendments to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009.
Figure 1: Photo of
211 W. Hopkins
Avenue
P52
VIII.b
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the 2009 ordinance that approved an extended
demolition permit for this property. City Council is the sole review authority.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There are no criteria in the Municipal Code regarding this amendment. Only Council can pass or
amend an Ordinance, and the amendment must be considered at a public hearing.
In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of
2007, that prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting
all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years prior, unless it was determined that no
potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect
Aspen’s significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as
well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to
discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished
to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30
years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark
designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace
Ordinance #30.
Ordinance #48 created a more specific list of post-World War II potential historic resources,
including 211 W. Hopkins Avenue. After the passage of Ordinance #48, the owners of 211 W.
Hopkins had the following options for alterations to their property:
P53
VIII.b
A. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under
Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review
(depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90
day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate
preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to
landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested.
In March of 2009, the owners of 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, submitted an application for a
demolition permit and requested negotiation with Council. The discussion took approximately a
year to be resolved (partly due to scheduling conflicts), but resulted in a number of agreements.
The property owner had no immediate plans to demolish the existing house and wanted
assurance that they would not have to choose between demolition or an involuntary historic
designation for several years. The City wanted to preserve the opportunity to incentivize a
voluntary designation or attempt preservation options, such as an off-site relocation, given that
211 W. Hopkins is one of the best remaining examples of a Pan Abode home. Pan Abodes have
a particular significance to Aspen’s post-war development boom since their quick assembly and
affordable price suited the short building season and demand for new construction in that era.
The granting of a demolition permit that would be valid for 10 years was unprecedented.
Because it was unknown at that time how the on-going discussions of regulations for post-war
historic properties would unfold, the agreement with the property owner allowed for the City to
initiate an involuntary designation if demolition didn’t occur before the permit expired. The
permit expiration date is now three years away. The property is owned by several family
members who still have no near term plans to demolish and do not want to be forced into that
position. Staff is in favor of making amendments to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009. Although
the AspenModern program adopted in 2011 made designation of properties like this one
voluntary, this property owner initiated agreements at a time when the City had more options to
insist on preservation and staff believes that most of the terms of Ordinance #29, Series of 2009
should be retained. The property owner’s request is to extend the demolition permit and strike
the option for Council to initiate involuntary designation.
The terms of Ordinance #29, Series of 2009 are listed below. Edits recommended by staff are
shown with redlines:
1. Council hereby authorizes Permit #0013.2009.ARBK for the demolition of the house, to
be processed for issuance by the City of Aspen Building Department. The permit shall be
available for issuance for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this Ordinance.
Howard A. Vaughan, Jr, of Vaughan Capital Partners L.P., commits to not demolishing
the house for a three year period from the effective date of this Ordinance. The
agreement to not demolish for three years only remains valid as long as Mr. Vaughan is
alive.
1. The City of Aspen Building Department accepted a permit to demolish the home at 211
E. Hopkins Avenue and committed to issuing that permit (Permit 0013.2009.ARBK) at
such time that the property owner requests, up until May 17, 2020. Through this
Ordinance, Ordinace #19, Series of 2017, City Council directs the City of Aspen Building
Department to extend that expiration date an additional ten (10) years, to May 17, 2030,
with the condition that before the property owner may receive the permit, they will be
P54
VIII.b
required to supplement the permit application with any life-safety, construction
management or other information that is standard practice for demolition permits at the
date the applicant contacts the City.
2. Prior to issuance of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the owner shall provide written
notification to the Community Development Director, by certified mail. Receipt of the
letter shall commence a new ninety (90) day negotiation period. Within the ninety day
negotiation period the following shall occur:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark
through Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415 provisions for AspenModern
designations. The applicant will be asked to consider other alternatives to acting on
the remodel or demolition permits, and to identify incentives that would deter the
demolition. Based on the conversation with the owner, the Community Development
Director may waive the requirements of b and c, below.
b. The applicant will be asked to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission
during a public meeting to discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the
appropriateness of any incentives that the applicant requests. HPC shall make a
recommendation to City Council, whether the applicant participates in the meeting or
not.
c. The applicant will be asked to meet with City Council during a public meeting to
discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the appropriateness of any
incentives that the applicant requests. City Council may negotiate directly with the
property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director or
other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. The City Council may
choose to provide this direction in Executive Session pursuant to State Statute. As
part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the
property be designated as a Historic Landmark pursuant to the standards and
limitation of the Municipal Code. Council may grant incentives by adopting an
Ordinance at a public hearing. Council may also direct HPC to grant incentives that
are within their own purview. City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to
terminate negotiations at any time. Upon the passage of 90 days, or any mutually
agreed upon extension thereof, or upon Council’s termination of the negotiation, if
the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement,
Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be issued.
3. Upon issuance, Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be valid for a period consistent with the
Building Code in effect at the time of issuance.
4. It is expected that the owner will cooperate in good faith with any efforts to relocate the
building in lieu of demolition.
5. Upon expiration of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the City is authorized to commence the
landmark designation process for the subject property. (Note: Staff values this option as
a safety net for preserving the building and is not suggesting Council strike this term.)
P55
VIII.b
6. Upon landmark designation of the subject property pursuant to Section 1, Number 5
above, the property shall be eligible for the landmark benefits and incentives, Section
26.420 of the Aspen Land Use Code, in place at the time of recordation of this
Ordinance, attached as Exhibit A.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the request to amend Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, be approved on First
Reading as described above and stated in the attached Ordinance #19, Series of 2017.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2017 on First Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #__, Series of 2017
Exhibit A: City Council Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit B: Application
P56
VIII.b
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #19
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #29 (SERIES
OF 2009) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
PARCEL #2735-124-63-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Vaughan Capital Partners, L.P., represented by Haas Land Planning, requesting approval
of an amendment to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, affecting their property at 211 W.
Hopkins Avenue. Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, placed conditions on any future
proposal to demolish the structure on the subject site; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant requested Council amend the terms of the Ordinance with
regard to the expiration date of a demolition permit issued as 0013.2009.ARBK, and
reconsider the City Council’s ability to initiate historic designation of the property if
demolition does not take place before the permit expires; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application and
recommended approval of amendments to the Ordinance; 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, Sections 1, is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
Section 1.1:
1. The City of Aspen Building Department accepted a permit to demolish the home at
211 E. Hopkins Avenue and committed to issuing that permit (Permit
0013.2009.ARBK) at such time that the property owner requests, up until May 17,
2020. Through this Ordinance, Ordinace #19, Series of 2017, City Council directs
the City of Aspen Building Department to extend that expiration date an additional
ten (10) years, to May 17, 2030, with the condition that before the property owner
may receive the permit, they will be required to supplement the permit application
with any life-safety, construction management or other information that is standard
practice for demolition permits at the date the applicant contacts the City.
Section 1.2.a:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property
owner to discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and
other benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as
a Historic Landmark through Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415
P57
VIII.b
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Page 2 of 3
provisions for AspenModern designations. The applicant will be asked to
consider other alternatives to acting on the remodel or demolition permits, and
to identify incentives that would deter the demolition. Based on the
conversation with the owner, the Community Development Director may
waive the requirements of b and c, below.
Section 1.6: Deleted in its entirety.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
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 conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
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.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of July, 2017, at a meeting
of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice
of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2017.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P58
VIII.b
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Page 3 of 3
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this __________________.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P59
VIII.b
ORDINANCE #29
Series of 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
TERMINATING ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 NEGOTIATIONS FOR
LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G,
BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WITH CONDITIONS
PARCEL ID: 2735.124.63.003
WHEREAS, Vaughan Capital Partners L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, whose address is
11414 Maple Avenue, Hebron, Illinois, 60034, represented by attorney John Kelly of Oates,
Knezevich, Gardenswartz & Kelly, P.C., has applied for a building permit to demolish the house
located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado. Under the provisions of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, Vaughan Capital Partners L.P.
subsequently consented to a ninety day review and negotiation of potential historic significance
of the subject house. The negotiation period was extended thrice, with the owner's consent; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code states that "the Community
Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public
meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the Potential Historic
Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic
Preservation Commission;" and
WHEREAS, the property owner was notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting;
and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, performed an analysis of the building and found that the criteria for
landmark designation are met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 11, 2009, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found that the subject property is the best example of the
Pan Abode style in Aspen, and approved a motion to recommend Council pursue negotiations for
landmark designation by a vote of 4-0.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that negotiation for landmark designation may be appropriate,
but are premature without any development plans or proposal from the applicant for incentives that
would deter demolition or alteration; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance to terminate negotiation with conditions
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
211 W. Hopkins Avenue
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Page 1 of 4
P60
VIII.b
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Neeotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Aspen City Council hereby grants the following:
1. Council hereby authorizes Permit #0013.2009.ARBK for the demolition of the house, to
be processed for issuance by the City of Aspen Building Department. The permit shall be
available for issuance for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this Ordinance.
Howard A. Vaughan, Jr, of Vaughan Capital Partners L.P., commits to not demolishing
the house for a three year period from the effective date of this Ordinance. The
agreement to not demolish for three years only remains valid as long as Mr. Vaughan is
alive.
2. Prior to issuance of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the owner shall provide written
notification to the Community Development Director, by certified mail. Receipt of the
letter shall commence a new ninety (90) day negotiation period. Within the ninety day
negotiation period the following shall occur:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
The applicant will be asked to consider other alternatives to acting on the remodel or
demolition permits, and to identify incentives that would deter the demolition. Based
on the conversation with the owner, the Community Development Director may
waive the requirements of b and c, below.
b. The applicant will be asked to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission
during a public meeting to discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the
appropriateness of any incentives that the applicant requests. HPC shall make a
recommendation to City Council, whether the applicant participates in the meeting or
not.
c. The applicant will be asked to meet with City Council during a public meeting to
discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the appropriateness of any
incentives that the applicant requests. City Council may negotiate directly with the
property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director or
other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. The City Council may
choose to provide this direction in Executive Session pursuant to State Statute. As
part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the
property be designated as a Historic Landmazk pursuant to the standards and
limitation of the Municipal Code. Council may grant incentives by adopting an
Ordinance at a public hearing. Council may also direct HPC to grant incentives that
211 W. Hopkins Avenue
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Page 2 of 4
P61
VIII.b
are within their own purview. City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to
terminate negotiations at any time. Upon the passage of 90 days, or any mutually
agreed upon extension thereof, or upon Council's termination of the negotiation, if the
City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement,
Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be issued.
3. Upon issuance, Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be valid for a period consistent with the
Building Code in effect at the time of issuance.
4. It is expected that the owner will cooperate in good faith with any efforts to relocate the
building in lieu of demolition.
5. Upon expiration of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the City is authorized to commence the
landmark designation process for the subject property.
6. Upon landmark designation of the subject property pursuant to Section 1, Number 5
above, the property shall be eligible for the landmark benefits and incentives, Section
26.420 of the Aspen Land Use Code, in place at the time of recordation of this Ordinance,
attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2: Severability
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 3: Existine Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8`h of March, 2010 continued to the 22"d of
March, and finally the ]0`h of May, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
Colorado, fifreen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, mailed to property owners within three
hundred (300) feet and posted on the property.
211 W. Hopkins Avenue
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Page 3 of 4
P62
VIII.b
P63
VIII.b
Exhibit A
Chapter 26.420
BENEFITS FOR PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES
Sections:
Sec. 26.420.010. Purpose and intent.
Sec. 26.420.020. Benefits.
Sec. 26.420.010. Purpose and intent.
A. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are
an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable
community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an
innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
B. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been
legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and
maintaining their property.
C. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically
vital and cherished by many. ,• ~
D. The purpose of this Chapter is to set forth in one location all of the benefits that are potentially
available to owners of properties listed on Aspen's inventory of historic landmark sites and structures.
E. All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be
eligible for the following benefits. Applications for the award of the benefits may be obtained from
the Community Development Department and specific policies and procedures for each benefit will
be established by the Historic Preservation Commission. (Ord. No. 2-2002 § 1 (part), 2002)
Sec. 26.420.020. Benefits.
A. Financial benefits.
1. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section
26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, "Demolition by Neglect," or to fund other rehabilitation work
which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be
eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one-time
loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer-of--title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever
comes first.
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 4
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400, Page 59
P64
VIII.b
Exhibit A
2. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a
property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in
exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that
future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided
in Subsection 26.415.120F, of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation
easement.
3. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management
plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City-
owned designated properties.
4. Transferable development rights. Per Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a
separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different and
nonhistoric property within the City.
B. Developmental benefits.
1. Dimensional variances. The following variances may be approved if it is shown that they are
part of a proposed development which has no negative impact on the character-defining
features of the designated property or historic district:
a. Side, rear and front yard setbacks;
b. Minimum required distance between buildings;
c. Maximum floor area may be exceeded up to five hundred (500) square feet;
d. Variance to exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five percent (5%);
e. Parking waivers and waivers of cash-in-lieu fees are permitted on sites unable to contain
the required number of on-site parking spaces required by underlying zoning;
The open space dimensional requirement may be varied when a historic commercial
building is relocated on its site, resulting in an inability to meet the standard.
Refer to Subsections 26.415.120.B., C and E for further information.
2. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on
a smaller sized lot than is required for a nondesignated property in the following Zone
Districts: R-6, R-15, R-I SA, RMF and O. Refer to Chapter 26.710 for further information.
3. Historic landmark lot split. When a designated parcel is at leas[ six thousand (6,000) square
feet in size, subdivision into two (2) parcels, neither of which is smaller than three thousand
3,000) square feet in size, for the purpose of creating up to three (3) residential dwelling units
may be allowed in the following Zone Districts: R-6, R-I5, R-15A, RMF and O. Refer to
Subsection 26.415.120.A for further information.
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 4
City of Aspen Land Use Cade
Part 400, Page 60
P65
VIII.b
Exhibit A
4. Waiver of fees. Waiver of park dedication fees may be granted for development on properties
listed on the Aspen inventory of historic sites and structures.
5. Conditional uses. Certain land uses may be permitted in a given Zone District only for
designated properties. Refer [o Chapter 26.710 for further information.
6. Exemption from the growth management quota system.
a. Change-in-use with no expansion of net leasable square footage requires no affordable
housing impact mitigation.
b. Expansions of designated properties shall only be required to mitigate growth impacts
when net leasable and floor area is increased.
c. When a development is required to mitigate for affordable housing, the amount of housing
that must be provided on site or through acash-in-lieu payment may be reduced by one
percent (1%) for every one percent (1%) the project is under the maximum allowed floor
area.
d. Designated properties shall be exempt from competition for growth management quota
system allocations.
e. Accessory dwelling units or cash in lieu fees shall not be required on properties where a
Historic Landmark Lot Split" is approved after March 31, 2002.
Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information.
C. Technical assistance.
Tax credit applications. City Planning staff shall assist property owners in participating in
State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of
application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining certification. A
twenty percent (20%) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally
designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20%) Federal Income Tax
Credit which is available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
2. Community-initiated development. The City will consider opportunities to be involved in
public-privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion or infill projects that
demonstrate good historic preservation practices.
3. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its
application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the
International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner
that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure.
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 4
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400, Page 61
P66
VIII.b
P67
VIII.b
Staff Summary of Exhibit A:
With Standard Landmark Incentives (May 2010 Land Use Code)
Zoning R-6
Existing lot size 6,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot size 3,000 sq ft./ dwelling
Maximum number of residential
2 residential units: either 2 detached or 1 duplexunits
3240 sq. ft. (the current R-6 FAR maximum) + potential 500 sq. fr.
Maximum FAR FAR Bonus granted by HPC
Eligible to sever and sell TDRs in increments of 250 sq. ft. to reduce
Transferrable Development Rights maximum FAR with Council approval.
HPC may grant setback variances in order to preserve historic
Setback Requirements resource
AH mitigation requirement waived on a landmark lot that has a
Affordable Housing Mitigation historic resource on it.
Parking HPC may grant a waiver of parking requirement.
Transportation Demand
Fee waived for additions to historic landmarks
Management Fees
Parks Fees Fee waived for additions to historic landmarks
More flexibility to remove trees at the rear and possibly one tree at
the front of the property to preserve the historic home and make room
Existing Trees for an addition. Removal of trees requires Parks Department
approval.
P68
VIII.b
P69
VIII.b
P70
VIII.b
P71VIII.b
P72VIII.b
P73VIII.b
P74VIII.b
P75VIII.b
P76VIII.b
P77VIII.b
P78VIII.b
P79VIII.b
P80VIII.b
P81VIII.b
P82VIII.b
P83VIII.b
P84VIII.b
P85VIII.b
P86VIII.b
P87VIII.b
P88VIII.b
P89VIII.b
P90VIII.b
P91VIII.b
P92VIII.b
P93VIII.b
P94VIII.b
P95VIII.b
P96VIII.b
P97VIII.b
P98VIII.b
P99VIII.b
P100VIII.b
P101VIII.b
P102VIII.b
P103VIII.b
P104VIII.b
P105VIII.b
P106VIII.b
TO: Mayor Skadron
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner
THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A
Subdivision (Lot Split), Minor Amendment to a Planned
Development, Removal of an
1st Reading of Ordinance No
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2017
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Barbara and Aaron Fleck
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning
LOCATION:
1449 and 1452 Crystal Lake Road
Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan
Subdivision/Planned Development
CURRENT ZONING & USE
A single family residence and detached guesthou
that contains an accessory dwe
and 12A have been considered a single lot under
the Callahan Subdivision Agreement and a
subsequent Planned Development A
The underlying zoning is R-15.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting approval
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split, 2) a Minor
Amendment to a Planned Development Project
Review, and 3) the removal
dwelling unit, with the purpose of subdividing Lots
12 and 12A into two, separate lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve
the ordinance on first reading.
MEMORANDUM
Skadron and City Council
Ben Anderson, Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A – Reviews for Minor
Subdivision (Lot Split), Minor Amendment to a Planned
Development, Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
Reading of Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 2017)
June 26, 2017
Haas Land Planning
1449 and 1452 Crystal Lake Road
Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan
Subdivision/Planned Development
detached guesthouse
accessory dwelling unit. Lots 12
considered a single lot under
the Callahan Subdivision Agreement and a
Planned Development Amendment.
approval for: 1) a
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split, 2) a Minor
Amendment to a Planned Development Project
of an accessory
with the purpose of subdividing Lots
12 and 12A into two, separate lots.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve
Figure 1. Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan
Subdivision/Planned Development.
the location of 1449 Crystal Lake Rd., a single
family residence. Lot 12A is the location of
1452 Crystal Lake Rd., a guesthouse and an
accessory dwelling unit.
Reviews for Minor
Subdivision (Lot Split), Minor Amendment to a Planned
–
Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan
Subdivision/Planned Development. Lot 12 is
the location of 1449 Crystal Lake Rd., a single
family residence. Lot 12A is the location of
1452 Crystal Lake Rd., a guesthouse and an
P107
VIII.c
Page 2 of 6
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The applicant has requested the following land use approvals from the City Council:
· Minor Subdivision – Lot Split for the purpose of creating one additional development parcel
pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority and
decision shall be by ordinance).
· Minor Amendment to a Planned Development – Project Review for the development of a site
specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the
final review authority).
· Amendment of an ADU Development Order – Removing an ADU for the physical removal
and mitigation of a voluntary accessory dwelling unit, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.520.090(4). (This review is typically administrative, but due to the nature of the
Application, City Council is the final review authority in this combined review).
BACKGROUND:
Lots 12 and 12A were established in 1976 with the creation of the Callahan Subdivision and
Planned (Unit) Development. Fredric and Fabienne Benedict and Robert Goldsamt were the
subdividers of the property and the Benedicts retained ownership of Lots 11, 12 and 12A.
Eventually the Benedicts built a guesthouse on Lot 12A, and their family house on an adjacent
property outside of the Callahan Subdivision. Lot 12 was left undeveloped. The current owners
of 12 and 12A are Barbara and Aaron Fleck. They purchased the property in the late 1990’s and
developed Lot 12 with a new single family residence that was completed in 2003 (Building
Permit Issued 9/2000). The Flecks retained the guesthouse on 12A, and in Resolution No. 48,
Series of 2001 (Exhibit F), Planning and Zoning Commission approved the establishment of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit to correct an unauthorized bandit unit and to provide the affordable
housing mitigation for the new house on Lot 12.
While Lots 12 and 12A are drawn and labeled on the subdivision Plat (Exhibit C) as distinct lots,
Section 1, Paragraph G of the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement from May
of 1976 (Exhibit D) includes this language:
“Lots 12 and 12-A are collectively designated as a single-family lot. Lot
12-A is the guesthouse for Lot 12.”
When ownership of the property was shifting from the Benedicts to the Flecks in the late 1990s,
Community Development staff was asked to determine the nature of the two lots in regards to
this language. Staff was consistent in determining that Lots 12 and 12A were a single lot. The lot
was sold to the Fleck’s as a single lot. In September of 2000, Community Development
administratively approved an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development (Exhibit E)
that provided clarity to the status of the lots. Among several specific amendments approved was
the following:
“Lots 12 and 12A must always be sold together as one lot and can never be sold
separately.”
P108
VIII.c
Page 3 of 6
Additionally, the Insubstantial PD Amendment established allowed Floor Area for the combined
parcel. The existing guesthouse on 12A was measured and confirmed at 2,550 square feet and
the balance allowed on the parcel (under the 2000 Code) was allocated to the new home that
would be built on Lot 12 (6,731 square feet).
The development on Lot 12 and 12A remains the same today as it was with the completion of the
Fleck’s residence on Lot 12 in 2003.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is seeking a lot split of the 12 and 12A lot. The proposed lots would be identical
to Lots 12 and 12A as identified and delineated in the 1976 Plat for the Callahan Subdivision.
Under the proposal, the two new lots would be subject to the dimensional requirements of the R-
15 Zone District. In the case of Lot 12, no additional development beyond the existing Floor
Area would be allowed as the house is legally non-conforming due to Code changes to floor area
calculations since the house was built. Under the proposed R-15 zoning, Lot 12A would allow
more than 2,200 square feet of additional development beyond what is existing and currently
approved for the guesthouse.
Table 1: Lot(s)/Structures Dimensions
Gross Lot Area Net Lot Area Existing Floor Area
(based on 2017 Code)
Allowed Floor Area –
per PD Amendment
(2002)
Allowed Floor
Area per
R-15 zone
Lot 12 63,703 55,8591 6,9893 6,7313 6,716
Lot 12A 28,616 19,2701 2,550 2,550 4,752
Combined
Lots (current
condition)
92,319 75,1291 9,539 9,2812 9,2732
(two detached
dwellings)
Potential additional
development per
R-15 underlying
zoning
2,202
on the
12A parcel
Notes: 1) Net Lot Area reductions are primarily due to slope
2) The differences between allowed floor area under the PD amendment and the current
R-15 are a result of slightly different survey results in deduction of sloped areas from Net Lot Area.
3) The difference between existing and allowed Floor Area for Lot 12 is a result of Code changes in the
calculation of Floor Area.
4) All numbers are expressed as square feet.
In order to facilitate the proposed Lot Split, two other reviews are necessary. First, because of the
language in the original Planned Development (Exhibit D) and the subsequent Amendment
(Exhibit E), a Minor Amendment to the PD is necessary to describe Lots 12 and 12A as distinct
lots and to give specific approval to the proposal to use R-15 dimensions in establishing
allowable Floor Area. Second, the ADU that was approved to mitigate for the new construction
on Lot 12 is currently located on Lot 12A. Based on discussion with staff, the Applicant has
requested to include a Review for the removal of the ADU (per the process outlined by Code) as
the mechanism to remedy this situation.
P109
VIII.c
Page 4 of 6
In the end, if these reviews are approved for the proposal in the application, Lots 12 and 12A
would be distinct lots, subject to R-15 dimensional requirements, and would be allowed in the
future to be conveyed separately. Lot 12A would see the greatest potential change with 2,202 of
additional allowed Floor Area if the property were redeveloped.
LAND USE REVIEWS – STAFF DISCUSSION:
Minor Subdivision – Lot Split (26.480)
All proposed subdivisions must comply with the General subdivision review standards as
described in 26.480.40:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat
C. Zoning Conformance
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities
Staff finds that the proposed lots meet these criteria. Both have access to Crystal Lake Road.
The lots align to the Plat for the Callahan Subdivision. The divided lots are conforming to the
underlying R-15 Zone District and the PD. One issue that did raise discussion was the Floor
Area of the home on Lot 12. As Table 1 on the previous page illustrates, the calculated Floor
Area is approximately 258 square feet larger under current calculations than was approved by an
earlier PD Amendment (and the building permit). Staff has determined that the difference results
from changes to the Floor Area calculation method since the home was approved. This legal
non-conformity is not increased by the proposed Lot Split.
Staff does not take lightly the language in the Subdivision Agreement from 1976 and the Planned
Development Amendment from 2000 identifying 12 and 12A as a single lot. It is unclear exactly
the motivation that caused the inclusion of this language when the subdivision was created in
1976. Additionally the term “guesthouse” which was given importance in establishing the
connection between the lots, did not and does not exist as a definition in the Aspen Land Use
Code. None the less, the language was included and then affirmed by the future PD Amendment.
Beyond meeting the above standards, staff finds good reason to recommend the proposed Lot
Split. Most importantly, the lots were originally drawn and labeled as distinct lots. Today,
unless an observer were looking at the property on the Aspen GIS viewer, or reading the
Subdivision Agreement, there is no cue to suggest that this is a single lot with a main home and a
guest home. There is no visual connection between the structures. They are separated from each
other by Crystal Lake Road and a significant linear distance. In short, these two homes appear as
if they are located on separate lots without relationship to each other.
Minor Amendment to a Planned Development (PD) – Project Review (26.445.110)
If City Council is supportive of a Lot Split, a Minor Amendment to Planned Development –
Project Review is required to confirm a change to the status of the lots from what was originally
described in the Subdivision/PD Agreement from 1976 and the PD Amendment from 2000. Most
importantly, this would remove language identifying Lots 12 and 12A as a single lot.
Another significant issue to be addressed in this specific review, is the Applicant’s request to
have the subdivided lots’ allowed Floor Area to be determined by the underlying R-15 Zone
P110
VIII.c
Page 5 of 6
District, rather than the specific numbers defined in the 2000 PD Amendment. As discussed
previously in the Project Summary, if this were approved, the development on Lot 12 could not
get any larger as it is already legally non-conforming in regards to Floor Area. However, future
redevelopment on the subdivided Lot 12A could add approximately 2,200 square feet of
additional Floor Area from what was established by the 2000 PD Amendment.
This property is part of a Planned Development, and additionally subject to the subsequent PD
Amendment. While staff is supportive of the proposed Lot Split, staff is recommending that the
Minor PD Amendment resulting from this review limit the allowed Floor Area for the subdivided
Lots 12 and 12A to what was previously included in the 2000 PD Amendment. This would allow
Floor Area for Lot 12 of 6,731 square feet and for Lot 12A of 2,550 square feet. Staff finds that
this outcome would retain the intensity and scale of development that has been historically
established on the property.
The complete language for the proposed Minor PD Amendment can be found in Section 2 of the
Draft Ordinance.
Amendment of an ADU or Carriage House Development Order (26.520.090)
Because the Accessory Dwelling Unit within the “guesthouse” on Lot 12A was used to provide
affordable housing mitigation for the construction of the existing house on Lot 12, a lot split
would complicate the situation related to the ADU. The unit was approved as a “voluntary” unit
– meaning that if it was to be rented, the tenant was required to be APCHA qualified. The ADU
was approved in lieu of the housing mitigation fee calculated with the building permit for the
house on Lot 12.
Section 26.520.090.C provides a process for propert y owners with previously established
voluntary ADU’s (that were created to provide AH mitigation) to remove the ADU. The
approval of this process is typically handled administratively and requires three actions:
1) The applicant provides affordable housing mitigation for .38 FTE, at a Category 2 rate.
The mitigation can be provided with an AH credit or by payment of a fee in lieu
2) The applicant completes physical changes to remove the ADU – typically, this is the
removal of kitchen features and the creation of an interior connection to the primary unit.
3) A release of deed restriction that is acceptable to the City Attorney and filed with the
Pitkin County Recorder.
While staff can find no evidence that the ADU on this property was ever deed restricted, it was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the physical changes were completed as
specified by the approval. Staff finds that the removal of the ADU is the clearest path in
resolving the housing mitigation issue, if the Lot Split is approved.
Completion of the removal of the ADU would be a condition of the recording of a Plat that
finalizes the Lot Split process.
Please see Exhibit B, Review Criteria and Staff Findings for a more detailed analysis of the land
use reviews.
P111
VIII.c
Page 6 of 6
LETTERS FROM THIRD PARTIES:
Community Development has received two letters from third parties:
First, Lots 12 and 12A are members of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space association HOA. The
letter from the HOA offers general support for the proposed subdivision. However, if the
subdivision is approved, Only Lot 12 would remain part of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space
Association HOA. This letter is included as Exhibit H.
Secondly, The Gerson Family who own the adjacent property to the east (located in Pitkin
County) submitted a letter through a representative. In summary, the Gerson’s can support the
proposed Lot Split if subject to three conditions:
1) All new or replacement development on Lots 12 and 12A must remain within the
building envelopes established in the Final Plat for Callahan Subdivision, as the
envelopes were acknowledged by the City and the owners in the late 1990s.
2) There is no change to the floor area permitted to either lot.
3) The Open Space Parcel associated with Lot 12A must be preserved as open space and
not used for any other purpose.
This letter and attached materials are included as Exhibit I.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The Community Development Department received referral comments from the City of Aspen
Engineering Department. There were no concerns expressed regarding the potential Lot Split.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ordinance be approved upon first reading
and a public hearing date be scheduled for August 14, 2017.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the Review for a Removal of an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Project Review, and Minor
Subdivision – Lot Split Review; for Lots 12 and 12A in the Callahan Subdivision/Planned
Development on first reading and set the public hearing date of August 14, 2017.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Complete Application
Exhibit B – Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Plat, Callahan Subdivision
Exhibit D – Subdivision/PD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision
Exhibit E – Insubstantial PD Amendment, 2000
Exhibit F – ADU Approval, Resolution 48, Series of 2001
Exhibit G – Proposed Lot Configuration
Exhibit H – Letter from Stillwater Ranch HOA
Exhibit I – Letter from The Gerson Family, adjacent property owners
P112
VIII.c
City Council
Ordinance No. 18, Series 2017
Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO. 18
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING REVIEWS FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION – LOT SPLIT, A MINOR
AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-PROJECT REVIEW AND THE
REMOVAL OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR 1449 AND 1452 CRYSTAL
LAKE ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED LOT 12 AND LOT 12A, CALLAHAN
SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN PLAT
BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7, AND AMENDED FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16, AND PARCEL B,
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL PLATTED AND DESCRIBED AS “OPEN SPACE FOR LOT
12A” ON THE FINAL PLAT OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MAY 19,
1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-181-32-012
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Barbara and Aaron Fleck, 1449 Crystal Lake Rd., Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Mitch Haas
of Haas Land Planning, LLC, for the following land use review approvals:
· Minor Subdivision – Lot Split (26.480.060)
· Minor Amendment to a Planned Development – Project Review (26.445)
· Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (26.520.090.C); and,
WHEREAS, the application proposes:
· A subdivision/lot split of Lot 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision
· A Planned Development Amendment to allow a change to language in
both the Callahan Subdivision/Planned Development Agreement and a
subsequent Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
· The removal of a voluntary Accessory Dwelling Unit on Lot 12A; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes that the subdivided lots, if approved, become
subject to the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-15 Zone District, including
allowable floor area; and,
WHEREAS, The Community Development Director has reviewed the land use
application and has provided recommendation to City Council to approve 1) the proposed Lot
Split, 2) the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and 3) an Amendment to a Planned
Development, but that the allowable Floor Area for the proposed lots be limited to that already
proscribed by an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development approved in 2000; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480, the City Council may approve a Minor
Subdivision - Lot Split during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the
general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and
recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and,
P113
VIII.c
City Council
Ordinance No. 18, Series 2017
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Minor
Amendment to a Planned Development - Project Review, during a duly noticed public hearing
after considering, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community
Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.520, the City Council may approve Removal of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit as part of a combined review, during a duly noticed public hearing
after considering comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community
Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; 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 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 August 14, 2017, the City Council
approved Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2017, by a ____ to ____ (__ –__) vote, approving Minor
Subdivision, A Minor Amendment to a Planned Development, and the Removal of an Accessory
Dwelling Unit; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards; 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 AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Minor Subdivision Lot Split
This Ordinance approves the Minor Subdivision – Lot Split for Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan
Subdivision. The boundaries of the separate lots are depicted in the Monumented Land
Improvement Survey included as Exhibit A. An Amended Plat that depicts the new lot
boundaries and identifies Lots 12 and 12A as distinct lots shall be submitted for review by The
City of Aspen’s Community Development and Engineering Departments within 180 days of the
approval of this Ordinance and shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Recorder. The
Amended Plat shall conform to the criteria established by the Engineering Design Standards.
Section 2: Minor Amendment to a Planned Development - Project Review
The following language is to amend the Callahan Subdivision Agreement, Section 1, Paragraph
G and the conditions found in a subsequent Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development,
approved September 1, 2000 (Reception #447163):
1. As a result of the Lot Split approved in Section 1 of this Ordinance, Lots 12 and 12A
of the Callahan Subdivision are considered as two separate lots, and may be redeveloped,
and/or conveyed as separate lots.
P114
VIII.c
City Council
Ordinance No. 18, Series 2017
Page 3 of 6
2. Development on Lot 12 shall contain no more than 6,731 square feet of Floor Area and
development on lot 12A shall contain no more the 2,550 square feet of Floor Area.
3. Future redevelopment of either Lot 12 or Lot 12A shall be constrained to the areas
labeled “limit of proposed building site” identified on the Plat for the Callahan
Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 16, and confirmed for Lot 12 in an
Amendment to Stream Margin Review approved May 26, 1999 (Reception # 441526).
4) The portion of Lot 12A that is labeled on the Plat as “Open Space for Lot 12A” shall
remain as open space and no further development shall be allowed in this area.
Section 3: Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
The approval of the Removal of the Accessory Dwelling Unit requires both the extinguishment
of a .38 FTE, Category 2, Affordable Housing Credit or equivalent fee-in-lieu, and a Certificate
of Occupancy for the physical changes required to remove the ADU, prior to the review and
recordation of the Amended Plat depicting the Lot Split.
Section 4: Severability
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 5: Existing Litigation
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 conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Representations Preserved
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 7: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 14th day of August, 2017, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
P115
VIII.c
City Council
Ordinance No. 18, Series 2017
Page 4 of 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2017.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2017.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Monumented Land Improvement Survey
P116
VIII.c
City Council
Ordinance No. 18, Series 2017
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit A – Page 1 (Lot 12A)
P117
VIII.c
City Council
Ordinance No. 18, Series 2017
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit A – Page 2 (Lot 12)
P118
VIII.c
P119VIII.c
P120VIII.c
P121VIII.c
P122VIII.c
P123VIII.c
P124VIII.c
P125VIII.c
P126VIII.c
P127VIII.c
P128VIII.c
P129VIII.c
P130VIII.c
P131VIII.c
P132VIII.c
P133VIII.c
P134VIII.c
P135VIII.c
P136VIII.c
P137VIII.c
P138VIII.c
P139VIII.c
P140VIII.c
P141VIII.c
P142VIII.c
P143VIII.c
P144VIII.c
P145VIII.c
P146VIII.c
P147VIII.c
P148VIII.c
P149VIII.c
P150VIII.c
P151VIII.c
P152VIII.c
P153VIII.c
P154VIII.c
P155VIII.c
P156VIII.c
P157VIII.c
P158VIII.c
P159VIII.c
P160VIII.c
P161VIII.c
P162VIII.c
P163VIII.c
P164VIII.c
P165VIII.c
P166VIII.c
P167VIII.c
P168VIII.c
P169VIII.c
P170VIII.c
P171VIII.c
P172VIII.c
P173VIII.c
P174VIII.c
P175VIII.c
P176VIII.c
P177VIII.c
P178VIII.c
P179VIII.c
P180VIII.c
P181VIII.c
P182VIII.c
P183VIII.c
P184VIII.c
P185VIII.c
P186VIII.c
P187VIII.c
P188VIII.c
P189VIII.c
P190VIII.c
P191VIII.c
P192VIII.c
P193VIII.c
P194VIII.c
P195VIII.c
P196VIII.c
P197VIII.c
P198VIII.c
P199VIII.c
P200VIII.c
P201VIII.c
P202VIII.c
Exhibit B
Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Minor Subdivision – Lot Split (26.480)
26.480.060. Minor subdivisions.
The following types of subdivision may be approved by the City Council, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, and the standards and limitations of each type of
subdivision, described below:
A. Lot Split. The subdivision of a lot for the purpose of creating one additional development
parcel shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, pursuant to
Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, according to the following standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General Subdivision
Review Standards.
Staff Finding: The four standards in 26.480.040 below are met. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
2. No more than two lots are created by the lot split. No more than one lot split shall occur on
any one fathering parcel.
Staff Finding: The proposal would create two lots. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. No subdivision
agreement need be prepared or entered into between the applicant and the City unless the
Community Development Director determines such an agreement is necessary.
Staff Finding: A condition of approval will be the review and recording of a Plat depicting the
Lot Split. There is no new subdivision agreement necessary as one already exists for the
Callahan Subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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 Finding: Both proposed lots would retain existing, direct access to Crystal Lake Road, a
privately owned road that is dedicated for public use. Both Lots 12 and 12A will still be subject to
an easement providing access to an adjacent lot in Stillwater Ranch. No gates exist on the property,
and no new gates are proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P203
VIII.c
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 Finding: The Callahan subdivision is outside of and was not subject to the platting of the
Original Townsite. The lots proposed by the lot split, however, are consistent with the platting of
the Callahan Subdivision (1976). Lots 12 and 12A were connected by language in the plat and
subdivision agreement and a subsequent Amendment to the PD (2000), but were drawn and labeled
as distinct lots separated by Crystal Lake Road. The proposed lot split utilizes previously
established boundaries between the lots as this basis for the new property lines. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
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 Finding: The proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of the R-15 Zone District.
Both lots remain subject to the Callahan Subdivision/PD Agreement and aspects of the underlying
zoning. Staff finds this criterion to be met
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.
Staff Finding: The home on Lot 12 is currently a legally, non-conforming structure in regards to
Floor Area. The subdivision will not increase this non-conformity or create any other non-
conforming uses, structures, or parcels. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Minor Amendment to a Planned Development - Project Review (26.445)
D. Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations
of a Project Review approval or which otherwise represents an insubstantial change but which does
not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved
with conditions or denied by the City Council, pursuant to 26.445.040.B.2 – Step Two. An
applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
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
P204
VIII.c
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 Finding: Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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 Finding: Due to steep slopes on both lots and the proximity to the Roaring Fork River in the
case of Lot 12, building envelopes are established on the original Plat for the Callahan Subdivision.
The envelope for Lot 12 wqs confirm by a Stream Margin Review in 1998.
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.
Staff Findings (on 1 and 2): Due to steep slopes on both lots and the proximity to the Roaring
Fork River in the case of Lot 12, building envelopes were established on the original Plat for
the Callahan Subdivision. The envelope for Lot 12 wqs confirmed by a Stream Margin Review
in the late 1990s prior to the development of the lot with a residence. Staff finds these criteria
to be met.
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 Finding: Crystal Lake Road is not a public street, however it does provide for effective
emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P205
VIII.c
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.
Staff Finding: No variations are proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Finding: The staff memo provides a description of the questions surrounding dimensions
of existing development and potential for future redevelopment. Staff is recommending that the
allowable Floor Area for both lots remain subject to the Insubstantial PD Amendment approved
in 2000. The applicant is requesting that both proposed parcels be subject instead to the R-15
underlying zoning. This would allow more than 2200 square feet of additional Floor Area on
Lot 12A than is existing. Other than this issue, there are no other questions regarding
dimensions. Staff finds these criteria to be met.
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.
Staff Finding: The issue of compatibility was important to staff in making the recommendation
to limit the lots to existing allowable Floor Area. Otherwise, the potential lot split is compatible
with the identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns.
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.
Staff Finding: Both lots have sufficient, existing parking for residential use. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
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 Finding: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
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.
P206
VIII.c
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 Finding: There are no prosed changes to design. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
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 Finding: The proposed Lot Split will have no impact to pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities.
Staff finds this criterion to be 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 Finding: There are no proposed changes to the physical site that would have impacts to the
Engineering Design Standards or the URMP. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
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 Finding: The proposed lot split will not create an additional impacts to Public Infrastructure
or Facilities. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
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 Finding: The proposed, subdivided Lots 12 and 12A will retain direct access to Crystal Lake
Road – a private road that is open to the public. Both lots provide easement to an adjacent property.
There is no proposed change to the easements. No gates are proposed. Staff finds the criterion to
be met.
P207
VIII.c
Removing an ADU (26.520.090.C)
A. Removing an ADU/Carriage House. An amendment application that proposes to physically
remove an ADU or Carriage House from a property and vacate the deed restriction may be approved
by the Community Development Director if all of the following criteria are met. To remove or
decommission a Mandatory Occupancy ADU, the requirements of 26.520.090.B must first be met
prior to complying with this subsection.
For an ADU or Carriage House developed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 35 Series 2015:
1. The applicant shall provide affordable housing mitigation for .38 full-time equivalents
(FTEs). Mitigation shall be provided at a Category 2 rate prior to issuance of any permit
required to accomplish the decommissioning or removal of the unit. This may be provided
through extinguishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (See Chapter 26.540
– Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit) or by providing a fee-in-lieu payment
according to the rates specified in the current Aspen/Piktin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended from time to time. (Commentary – The .38 figure reflects a typical
ADU being a studio or one-bedroom unit housing 1.5 FTEs with an approximate 25%
occupancy. 1.5 x .25 = .375, rounded to .38.)
2. The physical changes necessary to remove the ADU/Carriage House have been
accomplished and issued a final inspection by the Chief Building Official. (Building permits
are required.) Once this has been accomplished, a release of deed restriction, acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be completed and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Staff Findings: The removal of the voluntary ADU on Lot 12A by satisfying these two
requirements, will be a condition of the recordation of the Plat finalizing the proposed Lot
Split. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P208
VIII.c
P209
VIII.c
P210
VIII.c
P211
VIII.c
P212
VIII.c
REcorded At 2:35 PM ni9, 1976R.~c.ePt~~n'ri()' .t,?"890 Julie Hane'REco~
i'J../;):f'h~-'
aooKa12 fAGEII0'
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
d
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ -day
1976, by and between T~ CITY OF ASPEN,
of~~
c:?"
COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City"), and _BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes
collecti vely called "the owner"), and ROBERT S. GOLDSAl'1T or
the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometimes called "the
subdivider").
WIT N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of
the owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution,
and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a tract
of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. IDS,
Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado,
designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat"); and
WHEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area
in the City zoned RR and R-15; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
properties by reason of the proposed development and improve-
ment of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the owner
and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements
in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for
P213
VIII.c
1'"''''"\
600K312 PAcEtll
recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare: and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-l6(c) of the
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance
that the ,matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution
and acceptance of the Plat for rec@rdation by the City, it is
agreed as follows:
1. All references to lot numbers hereinafter set forth
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ("Plat").
A. Fee simple title to Lots No. 13 and 13-A will
be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium
owners, subject to existing easements and road and
utility easements contemplated by the Plat and
additional utility easements as may be required. Lots
No. 13 and 13-A will be used for condominium units.
B. Lot No. 13-:8 shall be conveyed in fee simple
to a corporation to be organized by the purchaser of
such property from the owner or by such purchaser's
assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as
Holding Corporation". The Holding Corporation shall grant
to all condominium and homesite owners a non-exclusive
easement for the recreational use of Lot l3-B so long as
such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or
commercial use by P.U"D. amendment or other appropriate
governmental approval and shall grant such easements
as are necessary for the roads and utilities reflected
on the Plat.
C. Lot No. 14 will be owned in fee simple title
by the Holding Corporation or another corporation con-
trolled by or under common control with the Holding
2-
P214
VIII.c
eooK312 PAGE1.12
Corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict
residence situated on this lot will be converted to
a clubhouse. The owners of condominium and homesites will
be granted an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage
by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing.
D. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed in fee
simple title to the HOlding C9rporationor a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or its or their assignees. Lot l4-A will
contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and
recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot
15 will contain recreational facilities.
E. Lots No. I through 10 shall be conveyed in
fee simple title to the purchasers of these ten home-
sites. Lot No" 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy
by two families; the other lots are for single-family
homes.
F. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family
lot.
G. Lots 12 and12-A are collectively designated asa
single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for
Lot 12.
H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of Aspen.
I. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the
rights of way on which such roads are to be constructed
shall be owned by the Holding Corporation or a corporation
controlled by or under common cOntrol with the Holding
3-
P215
VIII.c
r..
BOOK 312 PA~E113
Corporation or its or their assignees, and such corpor-
ation shall grant an irrevocable non-exclusive license
to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for
their use. The owner shall retain a hon-exclusive
cost-free easement on Crystal Lake Road for access, ,
ingress, and egress to and from Lots 11, 12 and l2-A.
Ownership of those lots is being retained by the owner"
J. Easements for utility improvements and rights
of way shall be granted to the Public Utilities as
shown on the Plat.
K. Maintenance of the property and structures in-
cluded within the Plat shall be the responsibility of
the owners of the fee simple title to such property
and improvements; provided, however, when hereunder
any easement is granted with respect to any such land
or improvement, the .cost of maintenance shall be borne
by all grantees of such easements.
L. The City shall provide up to a maximum of 0.65 cfs.
of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter
set forth in Paragraph 8(e) (1) for the maintenance of a
water level not lower than the lowest water level in
Crystal Lake as shown on Page 3 of the Plat. The Holding
Corporation or a corporation controlled by or under common
control with the Holding Corporation or its or their assignees,
shall make provision for supplying such water to, Crystal Lake
in order to insure its use for recreational activity.
2. Subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph,
the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construc-
tion of all common improvements which include construction of
roads, utilities, drainage improvements, landscaping, moving
and paving if required by subdivider (the recreational
trail), as described in the agreement between Pitkin County
and Benedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through
the subdivision as shown on the Plat and supplemental
engineering plans. Al~o included shall be street l~ghting
4-
P216
VIII.c
I--.,
BOOK312 PAcE!11
sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads and traffic signs to
comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve-
ments shall commence in the spring of the year in which construction
on Lots 13, 13A or 15 is to commence hereunder, or any homesites
are sold, whichever event occurs sooner, and shall be constructed
with due diligence thereafter until completed. In order to
secure the performance of the construction and installation of
the improvements herein agreed to by the subdivider and the
City, and to guarantee one hundred (100%) percent of the current
estimated cost of the improvements agreed by the City Engineer to
be $ 271,000.00 ,the subdivider shall guarantee through a
conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment
from a financially responsible lender (irrevocable until the
construction is completed) that funds of the estimated costs of
construction are held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the construction and installation of improvements hereinabove
described. In the event, however, that any portion of the improve-
ments have not been installed according to the conditions contained
herein, then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining
work and improvements completed by such means and in such manner,
by contract with or without public letting, or otherwise, as it may
deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the City out
of the funds held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the City's costs incurred in completing said work and improve-
ments; provided, however, in no event shall the lender be
obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate estimated
sum for these improvements, less those amounts previously paid
and approved by the City,by reason of default of the subdivider
in the performance of the terms, conditions, and covenants con-
tained in this paragraph 2. However, the City waives no right
to claim full compliance with the improvements required in ex-
cess of the estimated costs. From time to time as work to be
performed and improvements to be constructed herein progress,
the subdivider may request that the office of City Engineer
inspect such work and improvements as are completed and may
submit to City the costs of such completed work and improvements.
5-
P217
VIII.c
800K 312 rAGE 115
When the City Engineer is satis~ied that such work and improve-
ments as are required by the subdivider to be completed in ~act,
have been completed in accordance with the terms hereof, the
City Engineer will submit to the lender its statement that it
has no objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much
of the above-specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs
of work performed and improvements. installed pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement, except that ten (10%) percent of the
estimated cost shall be withheld by the lender until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer. Subdivider shall prepare and be responsible for the
preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and construction
drawings for all improvements included in Paragraph 2 above. These
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer
and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any construction
by the Subdivider. SUbdivider shall 'also be responsible for pro-
viding all necessary engineering and/or surveying services in con~
junction with the construction of said improvements. The City
Engineering Department shall be notified prior to the cOmmencement
of construction so that the work may be inspected during construction.
3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this re,ference.)
4. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside Ditch
for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a rubberized material to,
prevent seepage onto Lots 8 and 9. If the SUbdivider finds that
use of the rubberized material is not feasible "a feasible alternative
lining shall be used, provided the subdivider shall use best efforts
to find an alternative to concrete lining.
5. The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors
and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to
enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities
6-
P218
VIII.c
1""\
BOOK312 PACE116
of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles
are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or deal-
ing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall pro-
vide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue
within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. The prohibition
contained in this paragraph shall not apply to the parking lot
which presently exists on Lot 16 nor to any expansion thereof.
6. The subdivider agrees to relocate at subdivider's
expense a portion of the recreational trail which will be moved
toa location approximately as shown on the plat. Such relocation
shall be done as follows: By June 15 of the year in which
construction is to commence on Lots 13, l3A or 15, subdivider
shall cause such trail to be roughed in place. The easement
to that trail shall be granted to the City and shall be restricted
to the following uses: pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling, and
cross-country skiing. No motor vehicle of any kind shall ever
be allowed to use the trail, excepting only such vehicles as are
absolutely necessary at the initial construction and subsequent
maintenance and repair of the trail.
7. The subdivider agrees not to pave any of the roads in
the subdivision until at least six months after all utilities are
in place.
8. It is acknowledged by the owner that certain land areas
included within or adjacent to the subdivided land have
previously been used for agricultural uses or as meadow lands and
have been irrigated by waters owned by the owner and carried in the
Nellie Bird Ditch. The City of Aspen has established a policy of
acquisition of those water rights beneficially used by annexed and
subdivided lands at the time of annexation and subdivision approval,
when the proposed development will be serviced by the City owned
water utility:
a. So as to avoid the establishment of competitive
water utilities.
b. To insure that all water used for domestic
purposes meets minimum sanitary and health standards.
7-
P219
VIII.c
1"".
BOOK312 PAGE 117
c. To prevent the abandonment of water rights by
discontinuation of their beneficial use.
d. To provide for the acquisition of more senior
rights to guarantee water service to Aspen area users
in time of low supply.
e. To reduce the costs of condemnation for acqui-
sition of water rights in the future. Therefore, it is
agreed as a condition of subdivision approval.
1. That upon recording of the final plat of the
Callahan Subdivision the owner will convey to the City
of Aspen, without further consideration, 0.65 cfs. of
the Nellie Bird Ditch, Priority 3136 (Source: Roaring
Fork River; adjudicated August 25,1936), which cor-
responds to the ratio of the subdivided lands to all
lands irrigated by this water right. In the event
use of part of such water granted to the City shall
become necessary to retain the lowest level of Crystal
Lake (as described in Paragraph IL of this Agreement)
the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of
the water right necessary to maintain the lowest water
level; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
construed to require the City to supply ditches; rights
of way, pumps, or othe~ facilities necessary to' ~rahsfer
water to Crystal Lake.
2. That owner hereby grants to the City of
Aspen a right of first refusal on the balance of the
water right described in subparagraph (1) in the event
such water right is offered for sale independently of
a sale of the lands irrigated by said right. To the
extent permitted by law this right of first refusal
shall be deemed a covenant running with said irrigated
lands, and bind the owner, his heirs, assigns and
8-
P220
VIII.c
1"""'.
600K3121'AGf:j18
successors in interest.
3. That t.he owner does further agree to negotiate
in good faith with the City of Aspen for the grant to
the City (or its nominee) for a nominal fee of a
revocable license to make beneficial use (as allowed
by law) of part or all of the water right described
in subparagraph (1) retained by owner, without jeop-
ardizing owner's interest in said decreed water
right.
8.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority
right on Hunter Creek, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No.
90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, 1899; headgate trans-
ferred to Huston Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575,
records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Reocrder) hereinafter called
Hunter Creek water right, the acquisition of which is also of in-
terest to the City of Aspen. Owner agrees, as a further condition
of this subdivision approval and with reference to said right:
a. That Owner hereby grants to the City of Aspen a ;:ight
of first refusal on the Hunter Creek water right in the event
such right is offered for sale independently of a sale
of the lands irrigated by said water right; and to the
extent allowed by law, this right of first refusal shall
be deemed a covenant on the lands so irrigated, and bind
the owner, his heirs, assigns, and successors in interest.
b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith
for the acquisition'of this right to facili,tate, the con-
struction of a package filter plant on Hunter Creek. Ne-
gotiations will be deemed to be proceeding in good faith
when the City seeks such right only for construction of
said package plant and owner attempts to achieve only
i) domestic water service for potential homesites on
his lands above Hunter Creek and below the Red Mountain Road
9-
P221
VIII.c
BOOK312 PAGEj19
on the Red Mountain side), (ii) provision for the future
irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston
Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider-
ation on the sale of the water right which is equivalent
to its fair market value, with proper credit and allowance
being given for the fair market value of any exchanges,
concessions, promises, undertakings or other consideration
received pursuant to (i) ,and (ii).
9. In satisfaction of the degication fee required to be
paid to the City under Section 20-18 of the City of Aspen Muni-
cipal Code for the purposes set forth therein, the subdivider
agrees that upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan
Subdivision, that he shall make a cash payment to the City in
the amount of $90;000.00.
10. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred
to the contrary, the owner and the subdivider, in developin~ the
property contained. within the Plat and the improvements as herein
described, shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations,
standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and
bodies havin~ jurisdiction.
11. The City agrees that since the townhouse-condominiums
as designed do not exceed two and one-half stories in height, and
the total height of each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope
be created around each unit module allowing a maximum of two and
one-half feet above elevation shown on the PUD building plans to
accommodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of
this Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between
buildings, between buildings and tops of carports, as well as the
best utilization of existing terrain within the development zone.
Prior to application for the building permit, the pennit applicant will submit
a ground survey, showing final building layout and floor elevations,
noting any variations in the contour.
10-
P222
VIII.c
l''''
BOOK312 PAGE120
12. Subdivider agrees to pay the City in addition to its
dedication fee the sum of $250.00 which represents the agreed
upon costs for the City to tap into the sewer line in 'Ute
Children's Park. The $250.00 shall be due and payable upon the
granting of the easement across Ute Children's Park and Ute
Cemetery for sewer lines by the City.
13. SUbdivider agrees to provide at his expense shuttle
bus services consisting of van-type vehicles for the recreation
facilities and the clubhouse of the. Callahan Subdivision upon
the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The expenses of
the acquisition, maintenance and operation of such vehicles shall
be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by
the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or
any other available means which shall be adequate.
The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a
number sufficient to serve the need therefor based upon year around
operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation
facilities and downtown Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles
shall not numberless than one. The term of tbis service shall
be until the earlier of the following occurs:
1. Such van service shall no longer be needed; or
2. Until the transportation services provided by
this Agreement are fulfilled by other public or private
means.
3. Until the expiration of five years from the
date hereof.
14. Upon execution of this Agreement by ,the parties hereto
and provided all other conditions as herein contained have been
met by the owner and the subdivider, the City agrees to execute
the Plat of the Callahan Subdivision and accept the same for
recordation in the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado,
upon payment of the recordation fees and costs to the City by
11-
P223
VIII.c
BOOK312 PAGE121
subdivider.
15. Failure of the subdivider to pay dedication fee
or to provide the requisite guaranty for roads and utilities
and other improvements prescribed hereunder, shall carry only
the sanction of prohibition of recording the subdivision plat
and final development plan herein. If the foregoing sanction
is imposed by the City upon the sUbdivider, it shall release
the owner of all obligations under Paragraphs 8 and 8.2 hereof..
16. The subdivider agrees to furnish City with an as-built
survey description for sewer, water and 'trail easements.
17. The subdivider agrees to allow the City to install a
water line in Ute Avenue at the time subdivider constructs his
eight-inch line greater in size than that eight-inch line, provided,
however, that the City shall pay for the extra cost above the cost
of installing an eight-inch line.
18. The stages for the development of the subdivision
improvements shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
19. At such time as and to the extent Goldsamt has assigned
any of his rights hereunder or under any agreement with owner and
such.assignee has assumed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall
have no further obligation for such assumed obligation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their
x/' ';~,
h, ' .
h(~~~ ~~~eals the day .and year first above written.
il-~~"'\ ................" ~,'\
r~t':j.~Z,~'i}l~,S.;.': ..{;;\.
Il', .il:'l'''''''C;:
T1 L . ~ '.")Y.""1":'~ .. " "
h.~,'/f'!?"."c;,"!,l, i ' 0- ,.<.;::,',
X~%~';0~i:1~,~;;~",~~:,:;,\::,:""'f/f_<.;5;;':';'", , .
j",,, ,,.. ',.. -) j ,j ~. \
l;;~Jf<,'~'''.'': .,~';>,~.', ,~0,,~
q". "'Cit . "1'J ~,i, tr!\- '.\'
t'~':~.dl~:IJI;11 'JlI\\ .\\~. /'
I.'~O ',' '\,
fI'\- ~:l.. ' C..t"'\
u......l'/' '~.
C ".,fiJ."
Ii'~".,'< ~}.
f' .....,.~ '1-( "'~~"rJ J...: . . ~. t.
1/f (,,; .r-v ~",.(, . C'l" ,
I!' .'~< .(' .;;''''''i 'f:,..... :.___ ~l
1) .0 . V .'..'1." ..,':j \! ( ,; ;;. l
Ii/; wJ'" .. --- ......,e.;;........... 1'-
J'-'''':';.'; :."ti".
f! ~ '".;> ;-
rn""" ~"
I. v...", .-..:!e..
r
I"f "''''...>
Ol...... ."'f
Oeo;:,,"-oo
B
BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, Owner
a-?-~~~
Frcaric ~. Bon9diot
c;;t/~ - pres~nt. .
a- - ~ -/..-?
4~~C.~::B~~:~~ei--? .
i;;;;IJe< /
y-
Robert Goldsamt, Subdivider
P224
VIII.c
B~OK312 PAGEl22
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The~for oing instrument was ack .nowledge~befOre me this
day of, .' , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor of
the City of Asp , Colorado municipal corp~ration.
i
C"",'
l'iitness, my hand and official seal.
e r-.. '1 r; If :\:FMy commission expires: ~,,::
f~~~j;~'t,:~~c.,{
tt":r..,.!
I>Sion.eX..Pires January' 24, 1978 COd d~ ... '. / 12 r jji/ r" .
i:i~ h'"' <::$+ " . rf..fb/0l~
J" '<:;")( ...,>' . 'otary
p'\\;>'wr' J Public
l:~;~r:D~:i':/; : '
4h. DI,}',.J .
r!~~j~';'{/' ~,~/_:. " V}:~~'
Y
STATE"OF COLORADO
ri;-:
cf'
l1i !1;}tUJ!Me- ;;;.r 1/lt.8--lfe.JIJelJ'J
The foregoing instrument was~ow.l~dged before me ~his
day of ~Lr' , 1976, byh~..::&'..:_ A. DeJllOd.ie;t,Pnd
ien~ of Benedict'Lanq7& Cattle Company, a Colorado, corporation.
County of Pitk'in
ss.
Witness my hand and official seal.
i' My commission expires:
y>;~&nllJiS~OO expires January 24, 1978
I ,.','< ,.",
l~J.~~/Z~~~.:<.;' ' ,
ii", r> \J \) , ".' '.', '
0fli~:;:'i:;} ,
l !~.'
Notary
Public
STATE OF COLORADO' )
ss.i- /'1.;}J ;>!o~t ~J lJioI'lJe;y- i~J.)c{l- p. ~/!r
acknowledged before me this
Fredric A. Benedict and
County of Pitkin
1 " T~OregOing instrument wa
L.:::L-day of ., rJl..1" . ' , 1976, b
Fabienne Benedi. .
Witness my hand and official
My commission 'expires:
seal.
M~~
Notary
Public
YAc;oraO'li~SiOn expires January 24. 1978
0,..' ,:"J/
v .'~ ;;',"'-::)_:~t
2 ~~.
h.'
13-
P225
VIII.c
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss,
County of Pitkin )
eooK312 . PACE 123
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this J~ day of ApriJ!"l"4:"976, by AndrG'" V~ Hecht, ALLorney-
in Pact for Robert S. Goldsamt.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
14-
1,.>i1,.~Hll1f1!fl,J,
0""\.0.... 40''-",
t"~
My Commlsslonexpires NQV. 14, 1I71t.1:,~.,..',;. ~ .'.,.,~h_\
11'<' ">< ",., ,g~i',l.r'" v'~ lG.f'CI ". f.,f}~,
i :_:" .~~': i1 ~
9.11 -h bf)~' ..'.'....~. ~ '.\.{cvin~i,::.'Jv~ .', .'. . . J . ~,
r Nota y Puo '" .;:.,.......;;,{~i'
ttl ,!,~ .~. a '-" ...,\'"f,,!(,t"~ti;lH~'$.
P226
VIII.c
Rl;:corded At 4:02 PM r..9, 1976 Reception no18391""\ Ju1ie.\~ne REcorder
i;/'":,;",,,
t~":-t,
BOOK3:l2 PAGE158
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT,
7(
made this '.~ day of April.
1976, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter referred
to as the party of the first part), such party being the owner
of the properties commonly known as Ute Cemetery (Lot Q, Ho~g
Subdivision), and Ute Park (hereinafter collectively referred
to as "the Ute property"), and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY.
FREDRIC A. BENEDICT andFABIENNE BENEDICT, owners of the prop-
erty described in Exhibit A attached hereto. and ROBERT S.
GOLDSAMT, subdivider of that property (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the party of the second part) :
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner in
fee simple title of the Ute property, free from all liens and
encumbrances, which property is adjacent to the land described
in Exhibit A hereto; and
WHEREAS, the party of the second part desires to obtain
from the party of the first part an easement as hereinafter
described; and
WHEREAS. the party of the second part intends to con-
struct a sewer line across the property described in Exhibit B
hereto, and upon completion to assign the rights to such ease-
ment to the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is willing to grant
such easement to the party of the second part in consideration
of the performance of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth, the party of the first part agrees to
grant to the party of the second part, for the benefit ,of the
property described in Exhibit A, a non-exclusive easement to
install, repair, maintain, alter, and operate sewer lines in,
into, upon, over, across, and under a strip of land (the "strip")
P227
VIII.c
1""'>\
300K312 I'AGEj 59
not to exceed twenty feet in width along the Ute Cemetery and
Ute Park as described in Exhibit B attached hereto together
with the appurtenant rights as to the strip hereinafter set
forth. The easement includes the following:
al The right to grade the strip of land and to
extend the cuts and fills for such grading into and on the
land along and outside the strip to such extent as the party
of the second part may find reasonably necessary, subject to
approval by the City Director of Parks and Recreation;
bl The right of ingress and egress from the strip
over and across the adjoining land of the party of the first
part by such routes as shall occasion the least practical
damage and inconvenience to the Ute property.
Party of the second part shall indemnify the party of
the first part against any loss or damage which shall be caused
by the exercise of the rights of ingress and egress or by the
wrongful and negligent act or omission of their agents or
employees in connection with this easement in the course of
their employment.
The party of the first part shall identify those trees
which must remain undisturbed, and the party of the second
part agrees, wherever possible, to not disturb those trees.
The party of the first part shall have the right to remove all
other trees which lie within the easement at any time after
the party of the second part states their intention to commence
construction, and the party of the second part shall give the
party of the first part at least ten day's notice before com-
mencing such construction by delivering a copy of such notice
to the City Engineer for the City of Aspen and Director of
Parks and Recreation for the City of Aspen.
The party of the second part agrees to complete all
construction through the property described in Exhibit B by
2-
P228
VIII.c
BOOK312 PAcr160
June 1 of the year in which the subject sewer lines are
installed, and the party of the second part agrees to provide
sewer lines to the property described in Exhibit A hereto.
The party of the second part agrees to restore the
bike path to its existing condition if and where it is damaged
during construction on this easement.
For so long as the easement shall be used, the rights
granted shall be a burden and benefit to the respective
properties herein described.
This Agreement and the easement arising under it shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties of the
first part and second part so long as they retain any fee
simple interest in the land described in Exhibit A, and upon
the successors and assigns of the party of the second part
to the extent of their interest in the property described in
Exhibit A. This easement may be freely assigned to include
but not limited to Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District.
f-~t.L CA' - I"
0,. ,.;o,~ .........'}> I, Standley,
J, ...,,-, ~""t 'K .. /,
0 _
v : ('f -:";( ~ 7: ~ Q ~
u.'".-.I"\"":'i~ BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY
I ~". .-~'
t, ~~'" ..~* .....;: .---::>~
1"&R);';":~' B~a.;::::..~o~
R".l'J....~~~,-.,;,.,.,.."lt,.,.~~ " FrcdricrA. D~~dict, President
74 . a :t' r..n;-; JEC.C,,:c,~> n '
C~
AL,~a~,&.~
7"" 2/f!~
r-:~;?~""",~".b
qc:::;;;?a-?~L"- --'./.-?/~--7---~
bienne Benedict
d"":
d/lf;;:;r
Robert S. Goldsamt
in P::tct! Flv4
3-
P229
VIII.c
r--,..
oOK312 p^c1t161
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1'
The foregoing instrument was aCknowledged before me
day of~O--l./.. ' 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor
the Cit~. of Aspen, ar Colorado municipal corporation.
this
of
Wi:l;ness my hand and official seal.
c-ommission expires:
1~~~~bJ!;~ / ",. ires January 24, 1978
r-
1'\ PUB
i~~~;:::,.?:~~~!~
P""STATE"'O~!iCb:GORADO )
County of Pitkin l ss. ~
f\-'" IY\A<ldA-Io\.JQ.. ~ U,,:::r~,\:le,,'1
The~going instrument was ~nOW1edged before me this
day of .##L~ ,1976, by F-redrie A. D~ncdi~~, Presi-
dent of Bep~~ict La~ & Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation.
ii~i~~
n~
x~i~e~~
ficial seal.
p~~i6iv'~x.,"""';;~' ua24 lc> _ _ .
i'.". ~ -;; ~-<:.~;t ry, 1978 . Ui!thJ ~( ~
n \ Pu 0 \ \'\.t Notary
iil/'; Public
I" <f' "~~",;;"""Or: ,,'
F~~,T{;:;t~.,.:
STATE 'OF COLORADO
y(~
Notary
Public
County of Pitkin
ss.2
f'\A-~\Ot\e.. ~~ TT'I 1ll\:'l\-e'6--IY\- ~i'
O~
instrument wa acknowledged before me this
1976, by Fredric A. Benedict and
Tl;1e ,foregoing
q day of '-111 ~ _
Fabienne Benedict. 0
iWitness my hand and official
r''':i.:';fS:"",\",:""t"i".,~y;icommission expires:
jYfi'ACtJ" expires January 24, 1978
c'1i'.,.,",.....,
i,k-,,,
v", "":~
i' '"v,' -r An,'l,;'i.:.t.:"\ f) \ (.\ l;;:~1.,., <"
f ,: ~~~..
J'\ Pu 8 \..\;.
t' .," +''''::
7) ", '''',',:;y;.". '';;'
i{)
seal.
Notary
Public
4-
P230
VIII.c
r--..1"'"'"\
aDOK 312 rACE 162
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoi~~~instrument was acknowledged before me
this 15 day of ~, 1976, by '''\6;('0'' Y. I^-~hL, ;>'L:"v~..';'.l' 1;.('1,)(,
i~-~--~" Robert S. Goldsamt.
t:::
i::i::
n:
X:::e:~
fiCial seal. .,.};;,;:'::~:~" ~:~;:,~H~f,\
My CommissIon expires NOll 14 1'~~:if/~;;'-'''" .,~~.. ,
i;?z:,t;;:~~
i:;';'.r,'; ,C,_>/'',-
1 "'l '~l ';:;:,
P;,:' <,~
V' . :'-.'00- J I I (, I)'~\ ,-
f! O'<(f'J;e jp (1.Mc.(~;.'p',,~,{ ;~W.~(;.,"-
1:'-o:.
C~1.>,; ::'. .'
N t P b ">',"'- '"" ",t'lliI'.
o ary u 1,' ',; '. -I \;>".,, , " .f''',
i:";!~~;~;';:~~';"
5-
P231
VIII.c
ii,
800K 312 PAGE 163
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPERTY DE,=CRIPTION
A PARCEL OF lJ>.ND ~rT()A"~ IN THE: EA::>1 J.2. OF SECTION lB. I: 10:'"
RB4W. OF THE. 1O-rH. P.M., PifKo!N CO,->N'TY, CO..oRACo. ~'D ?~CEL I~
MO;;1.E FUU.-Y ,DE5C.R16E.D AS FOLLOVV~ "
i3E[;INNINS AT CORNER e> OF I1-IE RIVE.f<51.?C: Pt_AC.E.R, M.S. 3~DSAM.;
j'r'ENCE. NOi'm-! Z42..at,. FEEl; TI,-lENCE Nee"5;"<<;'-E. 14eJ.71 FEE.T; .
TH!:..NCE EAST 2..54 FEET; THENCE ,N 15"1'3>'OO'E. 1:,7.22 FEET ~ TI<<:.Na:.
NW';CiOO"W 13z.. 58 FEE.T; THENC.E WE!::>T 125.00 F'EeT TO A PoINT ON
LINE B-::;) OF SooID F<\VERSIDE PLA:.E.R; THENCE: NDKTH 'Z..Z'7.77 FEET
ALONr.. SAID L\NE.8-9 TOAro:...rrOIJTHE: ~R1-YuNE.OFRI~I~~"':!>lCN
O"D€D \1\ 'B~T6J!.l-'>' ; THeoN(:=. N e~' ?Z' 14'C S~l.",1 F~ A\L!"o.1~ ~\D EX! eN5:CN $ So:..~Et>.i..Y.
e.::x;NDARY OF 5"JD F't1~1DE. SVOi?i\'610N; OHE)\CE:. SOU1 H ?>'7.0lS FE.e-T'
OHE.,'\lC.E. Nre"51' iO"E \"Z.s.~7 ,FEET ; 'TI-\ENC~ N 5\"?>Z'S7 'E 15z..e~ FEET'
THENCE N 00' S'7'49"W Z9.~:, FEET; THENCE N SI'%'OO"E 1102..;.0 FEET
TO t>. POINT ON THE. VVE:S-rEKLV Ri6HT 0;:: WAY UNE. OF Hl(:,H\,,;o..y NO. e,z...
7}-ENCE. S2i'=o'OO"E ,,~....~ FEET ALONG> S"JD RI6Mr OF WAY; 'HENCE.
2.7."Z?/OO'E 75.604 FEET ALONG> SAID RIGI-lT OF VYAV; "THeNC.E. ~40''Y->'E
21 FEET PoLDNG ~\D RIc;.K'i OF' WAY; THENCE. :;:'S.~'",9":zA-e. ace FEET
Al.DNG SAID IZ\G.-IT OF WAY; ll-iENCE 107.~:. FeET ALONG "1l-lE. ARt:.- OF
A cuRVE Toi1-iE L~FT l--\A-VING> A RADIUS OF 5770.00 FE.ET, 'T"e. C;.oRD
OF WI-IlC-H BEOARS 5>zs,'07':;.1"E. 107.es FE.ET; THENCE. S:55cOG; 5-4'E-
D.oe FEEl ALONG. SAID RIGHT OF WAY; THENce: ~2e: ~7'OO"E fb7,Bf;>
FEE.T AU'i'6 SA-lt:> RIGI-rrOFVY:<>.Y; 1\-lEN::.E.. :;'\':;.~e FE.E.T ALONe:. .riE
M'<CoFACJ.J~VE.. 'TO -r1-\E. LEFT HAVING A'RI>DIVS OF' GCi~.OO FO::=-:T,
THe;. CHORD OF W'HIC.H 6~ 544":;'Z'00"E. 310.<0.4 FEE.T; THENC.E:
S5~'Z7'OO"E:. 104.10 F'EE.T ALONb SAID RI("HT OF \/YAY; THE.NCE.
NB9'4G'00"W L?U>.O;, FE.E.T ; ,HENCE "3:>00' IA'OO"W 2::>1.75 FEE.T'
THENCE. S"'7"::>f'04"E' 20-::'7.70 FEET'; THENCE. SOo-I4'OO"V'I/ 140.00
FEEX; T1-iENCE. N89'4GiCO"Vv' 270.00 FEET; -n-:.ENC-E N OO'IA'CO"E.
Z30.~ FEET TO CCRN"'-R I OF SAID RIVERSlOE. PLAC:E.R ; -r..-lE.NCE.
N8g."Ob'204''W (C.!:;,.43 FE=.I ALONG LINE g.-I of ~ID F<IVE..R-
3:>\02: P'LACI:O.R; TKe.NC.<=.. "::>0.9'Z5'ZI"VV 417.ZZ. t"E.€:1'; TH=N::.E.
Ne,4"OO'OO"VV 1.00.00 F;:;.E., ; ,HENCE N4e>'OO'OO"VV 3:;0.00 FEET;
THENC.E. Nbe,cOO'oo"w /20.00 FE-E.7; Tl-lENCE. N38.'I'ZS"E 1'?S.05-
FC:::E.T TO .HE pO It-IT OF e.O::GIr--N1NGo, CONTAIN''''''' Z4.~~_~E.S
Moi<:.E OR LE.==E:>.
P232
VIII.c
t".
l>lrnrBJ:'1' .' B~'-~
1"",t""""\. , BOOK 312PA~E164EASEMENT
A SEWER EASEMENT SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 AND
IN THE NE 1/4 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TrniNSHIP 10 SOUTH,
RANGE 84 l-ffiST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 'SAID EASEMENT LIES
WITHIN LOT 6, HOAG SUBDIVISION AND IS 20 FEET
IN WIDTH LYING 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED C~NTERLINES:
EASEMEN'T NO. 1
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 6 WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE RIVERSIDE
PLACER, M.S. 3905 AM., BEARS S 89012'07ft E 228.49~,FEET;
THENCE N 56043' 00" W 54A7 FEET; , '
THENCE N 77024' 00" W 71. 25 FEET TO A POINT' ON THE
SOUTH'l-ffiSTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6, THE END OF SArD
EASEI1ENT. .
EASEMENT NO. 2
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH'l-ffiSTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 6 WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE RIVERSIDE
PLACER, M.S. 3905 AM., BEARS S 75059'10ftE 459.20 FEET;
THENCE N 50010'00", W 160.16 FEET;
THENCE N 70030'00" W 110.90 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6, THE END OF
SAID EASEMENT.
EASEMENT
A SEWER EASEl1ENT SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF
THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
SAID EASEMENT IS 2.0 FEET IN 'WIDT:Ei LYING 10 FEET
ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE:
BEGINNING AT A JOINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF UTE
PARK WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER,
M.S. 3905 AM., BEARS N 38011'25" E 123.1.7 FEET;
THENCE N 56043'00. W 151.36 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE 1,'ESTERLY LINE OF UTE PARK, THE END OF SAID
EASEMENT.
P233
VIII.c
t"'.. -'_"""""~
R corded At 3:58 PM May __, 1976
e
1839("'
Julie Bane RE~qrder
BOOK312 PAGf152
REception no
EASEMENT GRANT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that FREDRIC A.
BENEDICT, FABIENNE BENEDICT, and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE
COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, collectively referred to
herein as "Grantors", P. O. Box 40, Aspen, Colorado 81611,
for $10.00 and other valuable consideration to them in
hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby
grant to the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, referred
to herein as "Grantee", 130 South Galena Street, Aspen,
Colorado 81611, a perpetual non-exclusive easement and
right of way over, upon and across the following described
strip of land situated in the NW one-fourth, SE one-fourth,
Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 w., 6th P.M., Pitkin County,
Colorado, to wit:
The Easterly 30 feet of Lot 21,
Riverside Subdivision
The grant includes the right on the part of Grantee,
its agents, servants, employees and contractors, to pass and
repass over the said right of way, in vehicles and otherwise,
for the purposes of water lines and the maintenance, and repair
thereof.
This easement shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee
and its successor municipal corporations but it shall not be
assigned or transferred by the Grantee, in whole or in part,
to any third party or parties without the prior written consent
of the Grantors or their heirs, personal representatives,
successors and assigns.
P234
VIII.c
BOOK 312 PAGE 153
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this
Easement Grant on the /~ day of A~~, 1976.
P4 ~-
h.-/J
fv-J;:li ~
0: The foregoing instrum nt was acknowledged before me
1. ,:1."J}4."..this~ day of~.t!.d':'l, l.276, by Fredric A. Benedict and
y ~""'""'"""" ~ FJibienne 'Benedict .J?j., f YfI~j:>V ... ~ ';.
f ~'\..\>" .
1:':' '\ ;
Witness my hand and official seal.
0:
U'0\~~~zl My Commission eXPires:~t0v J- /971
0""" ~,,'"
I",' 'n"" C "
Ai:'ll:'IiJJ!. ~'l,
1_' .
eO':'," .....,
n',' .' . a.t'iti. ':'~;:.
c,_,..;.',... ._'.S :OJ':';'~<,'::': '.,.;;,
i~k~, ~\~:r~'..:\t;);~~j!,;12' .... ~ },"'t;:::,
I .; '{Sea.Lofl"'" .,. -',;}'ri> ~>~'.".':'~'.~;.'~
1_-( -'::.tx1:~~:-Iii'<'-';;- "p. ,",';I. . - :;!'~"';'
1Ar-'o~\,.,....' , . .... ."
S'~l'~.;:e.~ ,C:'OLORADO
1'-.;-.;..:':.....: ,"',:
a~
6bc;;;;;;;?'~ ~4~a~~ /.>2'2/-~' .~edric A. B€nedict ~ ~~
o ~ e-r::2... dc?d ".-..v
L:?-.-:?~A2 4.~.p ~/-~_ ~
i'ab'ieiin~ BeneClict ~;;::5~
BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY
B~~~~-<<-
prcdric 1{. R~p~~~ct, President
2:V~ _
ss.
County of Pitkin
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Pitkin
1.he for~.'!J:? instrument w~...ac~oy;')..Jl~d..9'~<;l before me
thJ.s /9-day of' , 1976, by J!ln.dl1.c 'zr?~criocrict as ~
President of Benedict Land & Cattle Company,' a Colorado ~~
corporation.
t,\ :?l "
1 L
I. -.I' ~,,", -....,.~.. ~
I"I\, Ii) '. ~t',\ \ lj\, ~
J... r :0T ,-' ~
I:) I ,\"1\,~ .~:.'"
UP .,.t.:;:::"
1 .'........ ~,,"'"
k' Orv
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires t:>?~ 1; If 7 r
Notary Public,
2-
P235
VIII.c
0>
eIIl'i
O'M 0
oM~ 0
4-1 ~ ,'C 0
4-1 rtJ r-l .
Olli "" N
I .... ""
4-Il'i 4-1 4-1
OM
O'OOr-l 0' 0'
jell 0 00 00
00
1 O::l 0.. 0 0
r-l r-l "'r-l 0 0
OM "" Lf\0~ M 0
o .0 Lf\ '" ~ l'i 0 ~ ~
r-l . ""M 0 r- \0
M-ro Lf\ ""
4-1 4-1 4-1
0' 0' 0'
H 00 III 00
ell \0
0 00 <l; '" 0 0 0
l; ::l::l ""... \0 0 0 0
r-l0 r-lr-l . "" "" 0
Eo< tJ.c: """" N ~ ~ ~
H es '" '" N
Pl
H
l; . .
4-1 4-1
iii 0' 0'
E-t 00 00
H 00
III ell '<I' Lf\ 0 0
l'iOO <l; '" r-l "" \0
3:::l MM Lf\ .-l 0 Lf\
o .0 r-lr-l 0 ~ ~ ~
E-t.c: """" \0 \0 N <Xl M
N ...
l;
I
N
r-l .
4-1 ~.
I .c: . 0
0> ~ 0' r-l
l N 00 ""
0 .-l
0 ""
c: a:lr-l 0 0
I Lf\ 0 ..:i
r-IOMl" ~ ~ ..; <l; ..;
r-lr-lr-lr-l . Lf\ N "- "- "-
0 r-l r-l r-l Z ~Z Z
0
ell ell 0
0> 0>'0
OM rtJ rtJ""
l'i ~ ~ ::l
l ell ell 0
0 r-l I> I>
l'i 'M . 0 0.... . .
S "" 0 0 .... ....
r-l rtJ 4-1 . 4-1 4-1
ell 5 4-1 ell . 00 ."" 00
0 S . '00> '00 .0> .""
S ell X 0 0' ~ l'i ~ O'l'i O'l::
rtJ OM r-l ell 0 00 O>'M 0>00 m'M 00 ell
0.. l'i 0> r-l ~ '0 OM '0 S
ell 'M l'i g. '0 Q) .r-l . l'i .r-l . Q)
0> S 'M Q) 0> X,'M X l'i XOM XtJl
0 rtJ tJl 'lj .0 rtJ o ::l OQ) O::l o rtJ
ell ~ ~.o ~""r-l ~.o "'.0
ell 0.. 0.. 0 0.. 0..
0 0 0 0 0 I> 0..4-1 0..4-1 0 0..4-1 0..4-1
i ..; Z Z Z <l; ";0 <l;00.. ";0 <l;O
P236
VIII.c
I""
1'"\ .o:t!l
8.0: ~
O~
8() 800K312 PAGE125tIl .... ",.0:
I) .o "'"
J.l '" '"
u
0: o-l "'"
N
l-l<l-l <l-l <l-l
0'0' 0' 0'
tIl tIl tIl tIl
tIl "'"0 0 0
o-l NO CO 10
III NO <D "'"
0 .oN 10 ""
8 o-lo-l CO N
011
ol
I) ~
U'.-i
i~
l-lJ.l
l-llll
o Pol
z
0 ~
I
H
Q:l
ES J.l
0
0: <l-l
8
0: (I) (I)
t:l ol ol
III Ill+>
l-l J.l J.l ~
8 0 (I) (1)(1)
H >~ >=
tI) . Os: 0(1)
0 UO Utll
l-l ~ ~ III
s .~ . (I)
0 '0 '0
0' J.l (I) J.l tIl J.lo-l
0: tIl I OlU ol+> Ol'.-i
J.l III (I) III
8 .ljlQ).q...j . (I) . J.l
HN l< s:l'O J.l l< J.l l<+>
Q:l O'.-i s:l ::s o+> 0
H(I) J.l~ ::s tIl J.l tIl J.l (I)
ol PlJ.l PI PI~
Ill PI III PI<l-l PI..-i
11< .0: PI .0:0 .0:..0
P237
VIII.c
r,
BOOK312 rACE 126
EXHIBIT "B"
DEVELoppmNT SCHEDULE - CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
A. Condominiums. Subdivider will commence the construction
of condominium units contained on the Plat in the 1976 or 1977
construction season, with the completion of such units contemplated
in 1977 or 1978.
B. Clubhouse situated on Lot 14. Construction of any improve-
ments to the existing structure and any alterations thereto shall
be completed by December 31, 1979.
C. Recreational facilities contained on Lot 15. The facilities
situated on this Lot shall be constructed by December 31, 1979.
D. Roads and Utilities. Subdivider will commence construction
of all roads and utilities provided for on the Plat prior to commencing
the construction of any other facilities or sale of any single
family or duplex lots provided for on the Plat.
E. Subdivider shall have the right to construct, by staging,
any portion of any of the facilities provided for on the Plat at any
time he decides within the development schedule heretofore set forth
for such facilities.
F. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any im-
provements until all roads and utilities servicing those improve-
ments shall have been completed. Construction of utilities
and roads to all lots except lots 15 and 16, must be completed
before a certificate of occupancy will issue for any improve-
ments thereon. The certificate of occupancy for the improve-
ments on Lot 15 shall in no way be tied to the certificate of
occupancy for any other improvements. Further, subdivider shall
complete all landscaping shown on the Plat by December 31, 1978.
G. Subdivider will be deemed to have complied with the
previsions of. the Plat for improvements on Lot 15, if such improvements
P238
VIII.c
BOOK 312. PAcd27
do not exceed the footprint or vertical elevations contained on
such Plat for such improvements.
H. The only sanction for failure to construct any portion of
any of the improvements on the Plat within the times provided for
their construction hereunder shall be withdrawal of approval by the
City for those improvements not so constructed and shall in no way
affect the validity of the approval for those improvements constructed
within the times provided for hereunder, or in any way give rise to
any claim by the City of Aspen or by' any party claiming under or
through the City of Aspen against subdivider for the cons,truction
of any such improvement or for damages for failure to construct any
of them.
I. To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of
this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement,
the provisions of this Exhibit B shall prevail.
2-
P239
VIII.c
I'"
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Exhibit is intended to advise the City of
Aspen ("City") that the First National Bank in Aspen ("Bank")
has established its irrevocable credit Number in the
City's favor for account of Robert S. Goldsamt ("Goldsamt")
available to the aggregate sum of $271,000.00 by drafts
drawn at sight on the Bank.
The terms of the draft are as follows and as such
will be duly honored:
Robert S. Goldsamt, as subdivider under the Subdivision
and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Sub-
division ("Agreement") (a copy of that Agreement is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) has promised
the City that he shall guarantee one hundred percent (100%)
of the current estimated cost of all common improvements within
the Callahan Subdivision agreed by the parties to be $271,000.00.
The commitment shall be irrevocable until the
construction of the improvements has been completed under the
terms of the Agreement or until $271,000.00 has been paid out
for the common improvements under the letter of credit or
otherwise, whichever occurs first. Provided, however, that
as the construction of the improvements progresses the amount
of the commitment shall be reduced in proportion to the
completion. Provided further that this letter of credit
may be revoked upon Goldsamt providing an alternative form
of security meeting the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the
Callahan Subdivision.
If Goldsamt requests, the City Engineer shall
promptly compute the percentage of improvements completed to
the date of the request and notify the Bank thereof authorizing
P240
VIII.c
it to reduce the commitment in that amount, except that ten
percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld by the
Bank until all proposed improvements are completed and approved
by the City Engineer or until such ten percent (10%) represents
the only funds subject to the letter of credit, and if at
either of such times $271,000.00 has been paid out for the
common improvements or they have been completed, the letter
of credit shall lapse.
If this Application for Commercial Letter of Credit
is signed by one individual, the terms "we," "our," "us,"
shall be read throughout as "I," "my," "me," as the case may
be. If signed by two or more parties, it shall be the joint
and several agreement of such parties.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the Applicant,
the legal representatives, successors and assigns of the
Applicant, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable
by you, your successors, transferees and assigns. If this
Agreement should be terminated or revoked by operation of law
as to the Applicant, the Applicant will indemnify and save
you harmless from any loss which may be suffered or incurred
by you in acting hereunder prior to the receipt by you, or
your successors, transferees or assigns of notice in writing
of such termination or revocation. Furthermore, this Agreement
shall be deemed to. be made under and shall be governed by
the laws of the State of Colorado in all respects, including
matters of construction, validity and performance, and none
of its terms or provisions may be waived, altered, modified
or amended except in writing duly signed for and on your
behalf .
2-
P241
VIII.c
First
I.~' ,
y.I' National
tk...' Bank
y
en ~
POST OFFICE BOX 3318/ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611/ (303) 925-1450
IRREVOCABLE COMMERCIAL LETTER OF CREDIT
TO: City of Aspen
Municipal Corp.
No. 185
Date:May 19, 1976
Expiry:November 19, 1977
Gentlemen:
We hereby authorize you to draw on THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ASPEN
for account of ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT up to an aggregate amount of
271,000.00 available by your drafts at sight at the First
National Bank in Aspen per Exhibit A, Special Instructions
attached), and per Exhibit B, Conditions.
c-" C-~'- ,,,c,,..
Starodoj ~ P;eside ,. "-"~"^-""'-
k:'-....., -- ........"'......
P242
VIII.c
r-,
First
1;, " (
National
Bank
C ""_n__,_":_.~~' .........y
en ~
POST OFFICE BOX 3318 / ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 / (303) 925-1450
IRREVOCABLE COMMERCIAL LETTER OF CREDIT
TO: City of Aspen
Municipal Corp.
No. 185
Date:May 19, 1976
Expiry:November 19, 1977
Gentlemen:
We hereby authorize you to draw on THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ASPEN
for account of ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT up to an aggregate amount of
271,000.00 available by your drafts at sight at the First
National Bank in Aspen per Exhibit A, Special Instructions
attached), and per Exhibit B, Conditions.
Starodoj: presid~ . -.",...,.
P243
VIII.c
F '\
i" '\
May 19, 1976
Thomas S. Starodoj, President
First National Sank in Aspen
Post Office.Sox 3318
Aspen, CO 81611 EXHIBIT B
Dear 'rom:
REi!: CoIllIitercial'Letter of Credit No. 185, Conditions
and
the
1. This ~etter, ~ogether with the foilowi~g docume~ts
instruments, shall comprise the terms and conditions of
above-referenced Letter of Credit:
1) Application for Cqmmercial ~.tter of Credit
dated April 27, 1976.
2)
185 with
Irrevoc~le . Commer,cial Letter ofC~edit No., .
xhibit A, S~ecial Instructions. "
3),. promililsory Note, with Exhibit A, in face
amount of $271,000.00 made by ~obert S. Goldsamt..
4)" D~ed. t;lf ~;us:t, with Exhibit A~' securing the
J?rolllissory Note referenced in (3) above.
5)
Callahan
Subdivision and Planned
Subdivi$ion~ .
Unit Agreement for the
G)'Authorization to Pay Proce,eds of Note.
2. , . ,Peliverecr. to you herewith is a check in the sum, of
677.50 on behalf l?f Robert S. Goldsamt ("Goldsa~t") repre-
senting payment of a fee in the amount of 1/4 of one percent
of the face amount of the letter ofcredit~ the,acceptance of
whiphwillobligate the.First National Sank in Aspen ("Bank")
to issue the above-referenced Letter of Credit. '
3. ~ldsamt repre~ents to the satik that the Letter C:;f
Credit is for the limi:tedpurpose of securing the performance
of the subdivider under the Subdivision and Planned Unit De-
velopmen:t Agreement for the, Callahan. SubdivIsion and that
Goldsamt shall not tre<;!.t the Letter o'f Credit as interim '
financing: nor draw" upon' it to finance any of the improvements
contemplated under the aforementioned Subdivision Agreement.
4~ Prio~to the.e~piration of. Eii'~ty (60) days from
the date h~reof, Goldsamt shall either replace this Letter
of Credit with a similar obligation which shall be satisfac~
tory to the City of Aspen and which shall also provide for
the full and complete release of the Bank from any furt~er
obligation under this Letter of Credit or pay to the Bank an
additional sum equal. to 1 and 3/4 percent of the face amount
of $271,000.00. It is understood that, in the eVent Goldsamt
fails to replace this, Lettsr,of Credit, he shall be obligated
to paY the aforementioned additional sum within the time provided.
P244
VIII.c
Thomas S. Starodoj
page 2
May 19, 1976
5. Upon submission, of an MAl appraisal, the Bank agr~,es
that it will grant partial releases with respect to the property
securing this Letter of Credit. The extent of the partial re-
leases will be limited, to thirty percent (30%) of the appraised
value of the entire property, provided the ,Bank shall have com- ,f
plete discretion as to what part of the property it will agree
to release; and, ,further, the Bank,shall also have complete
discretion to reject for any reason all or any part of the
ap.praisal, ,whereupon the Bank shall be under no obligation to
grant any partial releases hereunder.
6.' Golds~mt represents that there will be i~sued to
the Bank a, title insurance policy, premium paid, as per Stewart
Title Guara~ty Company commitment No.CC23429 of April'19,
1976.' The. failure of Goldsamt to cause the issuance and de-
livery of the aforementioned title policy to the Bank within
ten (10) days from the date hereof shall be an event of de-
fault under the Letter of Credit, lothereupon the Bank may ter-
minate the same. '
Approved:
First Nati~n~l Bank in Aspen
By~tar~~~-
P245
VIII.c
t~~~I, (;"IOtOdo" (.'-'.
C:vision bf Plonning/5?4 So~i~1 ServitC5' tlldv.l ",,,wer.130203
NpTICE OF INTENTiO Af'Pl.Y Fon FEDERAL AID
I ~
St:
7&"~CO-/: )"3:t2!rARD
rYeE "
10-11 Af'I'Llt:M-lT PRO.lEe r TI ru: 12.71
01 Aspen Club
f~P,7LIi.:ANT AGENCY' ]-4S
COUNTY 61.1!) I ZIP C(,lOE 76-ao
D;~~;~
6 r!;:;; 1
liM'6 12.71
PROJECT LOCATION. CITY12~45
I PROJECT lOCATION. COUNTY 46a79
P'itkin
12
City of Aspen
FEDERAL FUNDS MATCHING FUNDS
GFfANT 12..19 I' OTHER 20-27 STATE 28..35 lOCAL 36~3
0- p,800,OOO ~O- -0-
lYPE OF orHER FEOERAL FUNDS \2-4S 90% guaranty to
provided bvFmW>'~B & I Div,ision
FEDERAL PROGRAM rl T1..E 12..71
Business & Industrial Developement
FEOEr:tAt.. AGENCY NAME 12-45
United States Dept. of Aqriculture
OTHER
FUNDS 44-51
TOTAL
FUNDS 52.60
1,000,000 3,800,000
13 bel TYPE OF or,,:" NON-FEDERAL FUNDS 46-70
OWners Equity
14
Loans Program # 10.422
I FEDERAL Sl..;="~GENC,Y 46-79
Farmers Home Adm. Bus. & Ind. Di,.
15
TYpe OF APPLICANT: lcheckthe SIt'igle IT\()Sl applIcable boll./
INTER.
STATE STATE COUNlY
012 . 0.3 0,4
lYPE OF,A.CTlON: (checl( as many poltes as applv)
CllY
D,s
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
0,6
specl':'~
UNIT
0,7
COMMUNITY
ACTION
018
SPONSORED
ORGANIZATION
0,9
OTl-;E:R
Zl,o
16
NEW CONTINUATION SUPPLEMENT INCREASE
GRANT, .'~ .....GRAN=t' .._..... ... GRANT DURATION
kJ2\ On 023 024
is STATE PLAN IS PROJECT UNDER
REQUIRED? A95,JURISDICTION?
May
HAS FEOErIAl.. FUNDING
AGENCY SEEN, NOTIFIED?
1st
INCREASE DECREASE
DOLLARS COLLARS
027 0,8
IF STATE AND/OR' lOCAl. MONEY
1$ REQUIRED. IS ITi'
ALREADY IN KINO FUTURE
APPROPRIATEO MATCHINC APPROPRIATION
D3S 036 037
ESTIMATED ENDING DATE
I.
DAY 46:47 YEAR 48-49
30th 2006
Wn..f- PMOQ:j...\M NECES. WILL FUTUFlE STATE FUNOINGAEQUIREMENTSSITATEHli=lING N:.'.'~
ICURRENT, UNANTicl" STATEEM?LOYEES?
IAPPROPRIATIONPATED' YES NO INCREASE
n a
OECREASE
fK)S2 053 DS4 ~s; OS. 057
ESTIMATED PER CENT CHANGE OF MATCHING MONEY
oeCREASE
OUR~TION.' . c.t\Nce:"'!....AilON
0,; 02;
eNVIRON~.tENT AL.
IMPACT?
YES
029
NO YES NO
k]JO 03, k]32
ESTIMATED STARTING DATE
DAY '40..41 YEAR 42.43
YES
033
NO
kJ34
MONTH 38.39 MONTH 44-45
1976 April
PROGRAM FUNOtNG
YES
kJ50
NO
Os.
CONSTANT
OS6
n/a '" OF MATCH
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR
LOCAL
12..14
STATE
lS..11
FEOE~AL
8-20
SECOND FISCAL YEAR
21.23 2~..::S 21..29
17
THIRD FISCAL YEAR
30-3'3Jo.3& ,__-"---'''-'' ..t3..J8
7' ..... ~_.. : ", ." <=' [)
H.1~: :...:'........i.;a..L.1,.lCH.'.t.........._--strn"'t llLlAR M"'rCH
t"',!t t...1 -; ..... -;-0-;':"0;:'- "66:73
L:.&.u :--,
ti"'"~:"'l;:'J OF
l I'...I,.""..J
INDIRECT .'ROGUA:I.;, cosrs
3$.046
OVERH(AlYPROc-.RAM COSTS I~. l~.. ';I~.O
41.54 (AS1) !t5~57
FORM NO.
D4.EeO..NSf= 1172..1
DO? 73-1
j:.:T:';~'~'-i
P246
VIII.c
COUNTY
T
3UU
CllRN
IFF
1 COUNTY
R
6'(
LAKE
SULPHUR SPRINGS
ING,
IN COllNTY
EN
l COUIlTY
3<
r COUIlTY
N
lEEK
BOAT SI'RINGS
A-
COUNTY
RIVER
ENRIOGE
THORNE
0
4<
C\
LA"l-
ncc.;::)!-J ><11
NORTHW(');
OCORAOO COUNe,c OF GOVERNMENTS ."-'"1'1.........
HoUday Cen!cr 9uilding'" Suite:?OO
p. (l. BOX 737
FRISCO, COLORADO 30443
393) 468"5445
COMMENT SHEET
Date:
Northwest Colorado' Council of Governments
P.O. Box 737
Frisco. Co. 80443
Name: Stacey Standley
Title: Mayor
Agency:City of Aspen
SUBJECT: Project'Summary Notification Review
TO:
FROM:
o
o
o
Applicant:Robert S. Goldsamt dba Aspen Club
Proje~t: ' Aspen Club
State Application Identifier: 76-01-13-01
This agency does not have an interest in the
above projel?t.
This agency has further interest in and/or
questions concerning the above project and
wishes to confer with the applicant.
ft\.,\;--...........
s~"
This agency is interested in the above application
and wishes to make the following comments:
Favorable comment
Negative ,comment '
No comment
t:,' .....
I
i
P247
VIII.c
t''''\ItFlELD ~ HECl IT
ATIOB.N5.YS,.1..:" LAW
POST OFFICEz'::<: 8lJ7
ASPEl'l,COLOR.'':v 8\6.11
R'( .'\,,- 0CoJ-.~l}t.. _
lA 1.0 GAR FInO
jR.ql V.llEOIT
N.1.. LAWRENCE
January 6, 1976
JM.113 1976
t... ...: .Jf
f-L.....:..ui'iG
TE1.EPHONE
PO)) nS.19J4
I
Mi _. Richard Brown
Regional Council of Governments
Division of Planning
State of Colorado
524 Social Services Building
Denver, Colorado, 80203
oo;ep16 -0/-/3-01
I
I
Dear Mr. Bro~m:
I am submitting a notice of
aid on'hehalf of my client,
Aspen Club.
intent to apply for federal
Ro=~rt s. Goldsamt, dha The
ln support .of Answers 31 ai1G' 32 I wEl briefly -discuss. ' -
the scope of the proposed development and its environmental
impact. First, you should note that the Government of the
City of Aspen has preliminarily approved the development
and has thereby found nO subst~~tial adverse environmental
affects from this project, nor are there any irrevocable
or irretrievable commitments 0= resources.
I
I
I
fTheprojectisintendedasar~al' small business and it
is not contemplated that its development will have a sig~
nificant impact outside the As:~nt Pitkin County community.
Therefore, we have asserted that the project is not under
A-95 jurisdiction, and that the environmental impact is
minimal. '
Sincerely,
r ~..
An.drew v: Hecht
AVH: lh
Encl.
cc:Northwest Colorado
of Governments
Mr. Reg Burton
Counci:
i<~';.r~.~-:- ..,v"
j
I
P248
VIII.c
4
r
1.. .,..,
1~,.___ ...r.....I..-,_...-:...__..~-.._--"'--
l'/
p .....J
O:t I
g :j ~WO (;
oem ~~ It'" M~ tew.,J ~.J ~
Y ~".. ~ ~'
U~ ::l:joti ~ cr. C'I x::5.nti .". .;.. ~ g :~ .....{)<i:~ '{6'~~ ~t-\U,
I~ ... \.'':;' ~':
t.~O ,:)-=0>4)",~ OOG :':CIJ '\
a,-: ,;... -~ I (,.l:)U'V":;l...."'S?O:?1"1 (..11:0.1):(. <::>~
r ~ "'......\0.1...
13>->.:.:..:"": .~wa::uJwlX)c=t
J';~ ~. ...:-".; J ~ :r;:o <l:O~C::;;;:-1 ... ...J<tuo:.:'<'
c.... .')" 0"" ..I_I"J-"::;Wtr< ~?:c.tL--C::G..111I~~ . ~., ",' _ _.~"...
IU 1-"'-1 u..J .....-0 1.1.10.1.<
X~W<=>-2t-<-~>~<_w~~
G..~Y' -' I%l:!:.....t- ~c=....c:: I-'':~oo ....1
i(/j~ . .:,.... .:
0: ;!:?". :.~;.-~~~.....o:;.:ru;...u >....
i.....:.......",
r=:Vi.J~:~~t::;mt:'
CI..t:-=;:I;:)..Jcc;=',,)~:..'>Ol.l.'.-;;oo:.>-=
4'C\- <<:uvvvw........;tX~=-=:.:;r:a.c..a.c:.~.i---.....
1,,,,,1/'. .......................r.,.....-c.:......::..... ei;;8~~9c;
I ..,;..,-;,.;>
oo;v;"y........-c;;.._:::I..; Oi
l.'. ,:...~'=I..:... I
r,.:,.:.,:.:....:,,: '. 'i"'~~. ~t)~.Y~ ,.,/. J.!J'~"':':.
l' '''''. .
i "i:>.~I;;:~'P~ ,.,.', ,'\,:'
r .... .... '1'\1 .0:..- ..........r"...,. .~
c ~. 'G~'i:r. pgnQ 'l" ""':" ';'. /,,:..:i?~ . ........ !' ""'~:>,, ..... 'f(~ ~"."_' ~~"\.~_h'~:~~~_'
r-- ~\ ,'.'-I :.... ." .~'.o: .-...,. ~ ~ ~l \ ~..... "''\.'-"'::7 ~!---'" .r-r-:...;'-. . CJ).
q:~. r .'r'~""i'\.';'~~~"""';=' -'- ,T::',,;:~~ .~,:...~i:.:.._. .....A. .:'i.-:-:"':~ / /..
w.~;} ... \_. ~"'<'> ~ t.~.\.:..~ ".
f. ,..: . ~';...':.;.;.t..~~.., \......:.",..:.! '::.':~"~l'''~';~':'~ . " tJ~,~.,'=f % ~ -~
4~t~" ,f:}:';:1~;::__,
lf1 itt~!{'r[i;~t~i:../~.i:::,{;:~..[i?~~.>.f~~:'::~'~~\ ")' '\ ~. ~,L~~ ~~.~:.:~r;:~~~:S:
l.'-'"" /$ '" -. .:...e:' - ;-" ,
I.-:~. '-' ',:_"'
r "t-" -;;~ ~ ~..'~~~~ V ' , ~..f . ,.",..,.,t.;,,,,~.
f @ ~~}~~~~!~E:'::' .:;-:~:: t(~~~:,:~....j=--:~~ ~:;~{::~~:;~t~ _.~/~ <~ :-~~"'.:: '~~.,~$ :.~~:..~..~:;.;~I;~
t.:.<.::;:~~t~;~" ..:>;!,~S~.:~,:L~:"..~~.,~ \ ~4.~~~ ~ ,,:- .'. ~"., ":;~:...:.,;~'.?'.~
f-......>~c...<Cu .'".I..:~..:_.~...,,:.~_..~-""-\4.,.c._~.~ ~,
I~""": ..-...
i','''''''3.,- ~~~....,.:'.L...~:or--:.~2:.~ ..:.,~~.~:,.,~:,:-. >:11, 10~ ";: ~\.......-.=--- .... . .:- ". ~:;t." ::.'~~-
c::::.....~oz;::l. , ,,_...., .,'," !i~'~r"' \ ... -1,...... 'I' ,o,l~'
f . ....
t... t,~t:~~(;.t~~~.~.~:~i~:::}: :'.~~~~ 11~:...~..~{t.:~Ir.' .fi~~. ~ i~ \~~fr... :.,:~ ~ : ,~~",:::~::'~;~~~f~}:
J~~~;.::;:;:~q ~V:.:~.: :::~", !I:'~;:." ...'"'..;li~~~",,~~ ~ 0i~J;" <<,u,,~,~,i'" '" ,..~:iWf:.:: 'G/~ -r- _ \ \.,'i..... :~O . . .1...;L:.:....':~~..':
J.~;l;.~.:::-:~.c. _...,' ..~<i.,.. ..... b'\-:~\~'" ..'~ $.....\ 'C\ I s?R\Nd _~ "
I~__".' .:...... ....,'..':
0,_
I.'~';... . ~.::~~.~.::~t:.;':::.t.:;.~:~:~.~:~:~~}~;~:r':~"~~J;~'~;:" ~~ ~\J:~~~~;;-r::
8:;- ...\~.~:.;:.,~'. .~:~.:..:,:...~~~./;r;~l~:
p.. ,..,......" "'-"','. ,. -;,.'1' .."\~. 0; ...\ ",,~~1"E.~._ _ . ..' : ..... . ........ .. "'-'..~ .
1'... .,.......:..,~ _. '" w... ,t 1.!' ~ : ':' <:.:.-..~....'" ~:"'~... ." 'I.... . "i--~:'f:""--....~ '"':..,.....-.....,.,.. ,. 'I "<~~..:. ~..., ~n.. \ ..'::"3--'t"I- ,.... .l... ~.. I" ,-..
o..:"''':'r'. . '., ....
I::..... ~ ~~5G~ - .....~..; < ..... '~';'\ .; ,-w,.~~........: _ .:~'
if ..... ,,~C.ol_
h \ 1S;:,I':-;::'.~ '. " (\":\:oJ.'"
l".,<<.:f" :"".' ""'" -/"""."
r'..
l:i:'\ '; .,c,~ -; ,\ ._~~~ ...."
1::-: ..~-~tJ.. .. ~ ,. ~~~.\.""-~~ -:::;-~ "
5~ ~~._.:i':::~:".h"':".: .. :~~. lll..~
c:~~~~~.~
C~:~v.~ ~',~ \\~. (
j' ..'.... ,./
i.~~::
1~'..2:.;-....,~.. ; e . :'.~~~ -\__.) .,;;'~5 :;;~::! 't:l ,..'
Z~'.' ..,::"
v,:..,._.
1. ...~;:::\ os ,,.<;7"-'- ~ ~c:>~~ 1= ..,.:.......~ :,.,."'..,,.,~.',',~..,....,..~,c:.,'...,'...,'
o~a:...' ....;. ....... -. .'i 1 . -.l ';.\~'l: ~ -.:W%. ~~. . .Woo:-:. - ..l.:..:....~.,:..._:. ." ~ ';.'!'....~.8'-. \ c.:..-:o......;o;:~......~ ,,:t
0"c::S, .".......:"'...~'.~.:;- ~.~:.... :,.1> " ....: \.,,'l..t\~ .. '--::'\ q ~"",,,,,'::""':':"- .. _ . t ."'1.... . .. I". ~
1').\1'< ~ \ =, '"'S~";"-~ , . ._...~n~\.~ ". \.. . ':'.'~ ....:.~,.:.;~.;.:.~Ui'l' '. .~~^'().7 ...~':to'--t::'I\. . r ,; ~ ...-
l"'\" ~\,,~ ~~ . - '7" . ~~">'ht '.::,".",.,<,:,':;..1l:\ -'"'1<": "..~.. ~. w....'" .' .
l \ ~~~.. :::l.s:,..... '
0'" ...
l'
J.,/ .~.:y, \ \ ,.. \T~..~ <',... ,,;;" ,."::~,:~.~....
OI'&>'J"- ..', . ' ~/... .. ''1 'Y " <;<:.1.:'::''1- ... ::=::.~>-.. . s": 6:.-.-.::::!'c.nJ...;.1.......~
S ;'t....'$;':). ~
w -~~. ': ..'1~ '-~"':;:..J ..:. \'l:--~~;"- i.' ~ (') . ......... .
sY...:' ':l -. ,'," ,~~. - . . .
I':_' '.. ....'. ~ " ' L~'''',~,-,,,,--,, e..~~\. :~..;;:'" ....?"'''\, ....:1: 1,' ~ "';:'-.",~'
1 i ~'\t' ~'" ~ "i~:$?~~~...~ ~ ~~~.~4' '~:"
g)-:~
1 ~r ~ . :::~.~:~~:.
J "} -, - '\ :~, l~;;'" r ~ '.,:... :;::"r-
ot.'--';.' .,..'" '0.: ""~".~ ....., ....-..\.!-;'~>- .';;;'&' -.5':' '':-.,.)J' \~} ....... ..::'.~".
y. :::...~-'~: ~ ...~ ~~0~\~ ~ ~~ >:. .~'. ~....:. -..... ~~<
t ........,p,,1 -~:'.'_ \:.:.~ ,.,,~ ~ '.
f'" ...;.l~ ,.~"'..~' ') -:;,..,.,'....' C' -~:\".'" . "',," ~,.,. . -,-
n"" ,. ,.: .-. .,~ -~ ,.' \. -,-, l .. '_, ~__ . '.S\III;..........'..~":'iOJ '" .....\........=.-.....:-' . ~"'. _ '.....
j~"": ,",', ~ ' . ,",'.. 4 ~ ; ,". .' ,,' 0-
A"',-O~.,.,':"...., ,~' C,., \ ,. .. ......"..-
7..,?"';. ..::';,". -"":>"'~';:',:' '.
0 .' \,'!:S~:~ ~.;
o.\ . .......~ .;r"" :. f:~;~~-
t. :.
j ~.~~~\~.'~~
j,:/~~ ..;;,H<.;
I ,\ ~ ~,' "" ':".... ..'
S"'~ .... .
ili" .~::7"'" ....,..:~;:JV~\<,.~.
n' . :.~~, '/
j\J ..... .. -'" .
t...... '"\..., \ .. , '
t Q ..........-r ~..,.. -. .... \ \'.. '...
t ''''' ...,..... .,4:' ., '\ .; '.;. I'.:
1>. ~ (,.,':,..-.1. \. . \ : . , . .;.
Z J E . 'J.~' '-'\ \ ' , .
c:J r ;t 1:2 . ~-1\00 G ,i." . , i " '..
l.... 'v ..~~.~, /' \\"" .".. ':..
I:? ~' ...~" "" J'j t . . ..'
I:) : JJ~'4t!\.~\"S..~ ~ / ; ......
j~rl~!; ~::/-:.".' t>~..;:-.rll;('r<f,. ( ; ~\ ..::.~';.
3~~ ~ ~ :::~'l ~f~. ~'i.,';~
J.,~'
1/ . , ~ ... . . ,...:':....:.....
1)0 E: .I:O.,/'. ~l ~,._ ~ .~ &. . ", ,.\-~_.,:~':~
d
it .
4
l:/' P' :':
j ~j ~aH
Ii ..:..;.7/
l'--:f.
0'/
i; y~"~'"
8
j
0'
s
lo.:>(j
i. .:0.-
1.<.:.-
f
I. ;';::l
i",;"':
I)~
P249
VIII.c
Notice is hereby giVell~atfhel>.SP~~;lannillg and Zoning' Commission
shall, hold apubliche:ng on December ;2, 1975, ''-'5:00 p.m. ,City
un~~~ <;::;;~:;::;:;;;;;
V;:;;;
O~;;;~;;~;~~
l;~i~a~:~
w~
U~;ViaiO'
6 A parcel of Land situated in the east 1/2 of .
y. ", ....,. S t'18'f )' 10 ]ec Ion , OIYl1S IIp sout 1, Range84 west
the 6th principal meridian, Pitkin County" .
sf.... ,... '.' Colorado. Said parco! being more f. UllY.. d. eSCl'ibed:
Wy . ';, as follows: '., ,.' '. . ......... " .
ncginning at corner 9 -of the Riverside Placer
MS 3905 AM.;
Thence north 242.86 feet along line 8~9 of said
Riverside Placer;
Thence N 89053'46" E 149.71 feet;
Thence cast 2.54 feet;
Thence N15 0 13' 00" E 137.22 .feet;
Thellce N 28030'00" IV 132.58 feet;
Thence "est 125.00 feet to a point on line 8-9
of said Riverside Placer; ,
Thence north 225.77 feet along line
Riverside Placer to the SW corner of the
Addition; ~~
Thence N 89.5!;! I 14" E 531. 61 feet along the
Southerly boundary line of,said 'Riverside Addition;
Thence south 35.06,fee1' along said south line;
Thence N 89. 51'10" E 86.86 fe'et along said
Southerly line; ,
Thence north 35'.04 feet along said southerly line;
Thence N 89052'14" E 86.35 feet along said
Southerly line;
Thence N 51032'57" E 96.40 feet along said southerly
line;
Thence N 00.55'49" W 29.93 feet along said southerly
line;
Thence N 51056' 00" E 162.30 feet along said
Southerly line to a point on the westerly right-of-way
line of Highway No. 82;
Inenee S 21030'00" E 69.69'feet along said right-of-,
8-9 of said
Riverside
Thence S 89059'24" J3 8.'00 along said right-of-
Way;
Inence along sa'id right-of-Ivay 107,95' feet along
the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of '
5770.00 feet, the chord of IoIhich bears S 28.07'51" E
107.95 feet;
Thence S, 35006'54" E 96,08 feet along said right-
of-Hay;
Thence '5 29.37' 00" E, 67,88 feet along said right-
Of-loIa)'; .'
Thence along said right-of-way 319.97- feet along
the arc of a curve "to 'the 1e.ft havJnfr (~'7.,.dius of 603.00
0
feet; '. '
Thence S 59027' 00" E 104.10 feet along the southi"esterly
edge of said right-of~"'ay;
Thence N 89.46'00" W 256.03
Thence S 00.11)' 00" II' 231.75
Thence S 67.:;,1'04" Ii 237.70
Thence S 00014'00" 1i 140.00
Thence N 89"46'00" 1i 270.00
Thence N 00.14'00" E 230.00
Riverside Placer;
l1lCnce N 89"08' 24" \./ 615.1)3 feet along line 9~J. of said
Riverside Placer;
Thence S ()9"29'2J" II' I)J 7.22 feet;'
Thenco N /),1"00' 00" II' 200.00 feet;
Theneo N 49"00'(10" II' 3:;0.00 feet;
Thene" N (,8 "00' 00" Ii 120.00 feet;
Thence N 38"11'2[;" Ii J[.8.05 feet to 'the Point or Beginning,
cont'ni.nil1g:?5 .00. ~lC1'''(~~i Illore or lc\:~;;.
t.
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet;
feet to,corner 'No. 1 of said,
P250
VIII.c
2. 'The Rezoning to Rural Residential (RR) of Parcell
recently annexed to the City of Aspen and shown on Exhibit
B and more particularly known as:
f'Ar<.ceL NO; I
A "!RAer O'f LAND 0<TLJATEO I~ THIS NW 1/4 eE V4 Of' -::>~11ONle, TtCb,
It B4 W u, lli PM, F'ITI'QN COUN1'(, caoRACO, -::AlO 11<PGT l~ MORE: FUl.LY
DCX<<JBt:O I'b FOLLOwe, :
eE6INNN0 AT CORNER. NO,0 ofiHE RlVER61DE Pl.ACER. (wV;>. :>S05)/
l1-l~ 58",,'06',Z4u C 546,4"1 FEX--rAL.oN0UNE <;)-1 OF b<\ID
RlVE-RSIDE PLAcER. (!;jl')T'N(;l a(-{-CUUNW lANe:.)
1HENCE. ~ CJC:)'Z9' ZI" W .<117. Z:Z. F~ET,'
l1-lENCc. ~ B.<1'OO' CX)"W ZOO.CXJ FfET;
lHENCE N .<1':7.00'CQ" W 3S>O.CO nET;
1He./,JCE. N u,S"CO'c:o" W \?.O DO FEET;
THeNce: N3Bc,I'Z'5" E l'5o.()~:5FEET TOH-lE. ~!HTOFBE61N~,J/N0
WH1A!NIN0 4.11~ Acr<T.:? /v'\Of<-E. OR L..t~6?,
3. The rezoning to R-15( Resi.dential of P13,rcel 2 recently
annexed to'the city of Aspen a,nd shown on Exhibit B 13,Ild
more particularly known as:
PARCE.L NO.'2-
A TR.AcT OF 't.-'\ND 61i1JAT>"--D 'IN THE ~E '/4 NE"V4 AND IN /HE NE}.:4
6E:. ~ OF ?EC.TION 113/1100:>/, R &~ W u, TH F.'M. PITKIN COUNTY,CDLO~
ID 1T<'Acr 1'0 MORE: FULLY DE'OCRIBF-D A'O R?LLOW6 : '
BChlNNIN0 Ar coRJ..JER NO. I OF Tl-jE RlvERSlDE ftAC.ER_ (M.~. 3905).-
n../E't..JCe H 00' 14' CO" E 5CO..<:\7 ALONG> LINE. I -'-;2. OF ~IP
R!ve:.R-::'IDE. PLACER. (E)(1?11N0 CJW-couNn' UNE.)rO A rolNT ON 'THE bO.JTHWE6T~'(
EO:?E.. or THE. COl.ORAW ?1Anc HICMWAY NO. B'4. {Z''''HT .Of .IYAY f
THEONCE- 30~.08 FeeT AL.oJoJ6 THE. />-fer.., OF' A CURvE -m n-lI:' LEF(
HAVINS A '~IU6 OF 60.00 Ff:ETAND WHO'OE. CHORJ':> BCAR:5 644'455,7"E
O5.71 peer, ':?AlP ~ eQN0 lHE.. ~TH\'VC:'.::5Tl::R.L,( ecc?E. OF ~D RIE*-1T'
OF~WA:(i
1He:NC.e ? 5":>'U' 00' E'. 104.10 FeE:f ALON01T-<E 6Ot.JTHWE6TERl...'(
eDSE. cr ~D RjSHT -Gf' - WAY, .
rr,~E:. N EI3 9 /jG>' CO' W 2.6(;,. O?> FE'.E-T / ' '
11-~ENCE Scoo\.4'CO" W 2.31.76 FEElf
C'-NGE. :::, (P7' '31' ~ "E.237. 70 feeT"
1'HENGE: So 00' {.4' 00' W 140.00 FEET i
1-lE'.NCE. N 6"!>'-40' CO' W 2.70.00 FEET / '
lJ.-tENCE:. NCO"I4'CO'e 2.'30.ooFEP_T ~THE POiNT Of"BEGINNIN6
UJNTAlNlN0 2..2Z3 ACRE':;) MOREOF?-L.e.f.:>6.
P251
VIII.c
f";"
y
4. The rezoning from R-15 to RR of Parcel, 3 shown on Exhibit
B and more particularly described as:
n. ~
i..-._~. ..-............___ ,.",
November 12", 1975
pa.rcel No.3.
Parcel for. Rezoriing
75-161 Benedict
I'.
DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED' IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 AND ..
IN THE,SW 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 18; TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,
RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
ii.'; .
SAID PARCEL -IS PART OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER,.
M.S. 3905 A.M., AND IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED ASP-OLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. 9 OF SAID RIVERSIDE PLACER,
A RED Sili~DSTONE IN PLACE;
THENCE NORTH 242.86 FEET.ALONG LINE 8-9 OF SAID
RIVERSIDE PLACER;
THENCE N 89P53'46" E.149.71 FEET;
THENCE EAST 2.54 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
BANK OF TFill ROARING FORK RIVER;
THENCE N 15013'00" E 137.22 FEET;
THENCE N 28030'00" W 132.58 FEET;'
THENCE WEST 44.82 FEET;
THENCE N 25~45'OO" E 27.46 FEET;
THENCE 177; 04 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A.RADIUS OF 162.00 FEET;
THENCE 35.58 FEET ALONG TEE ARC OF ], REVERSE CURVE
TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF' 88.00 FEET;
THENCE 191.08 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE
TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 112.00 FEET;
THENCE 47.19 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE
TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 63. 00 FEET;
THENCE 129.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CO~~OUND
CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 113.00 FEET
TIm CHORD OF HHICH BE1\RS S 77024'59" E127.75 FEET;
THENCE S 04052'00" E 200.00 FEET;
THENCE S 46000'00" W 185.52 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE'
OF THE ROARING F.ORK RIVER;
TlIENC;E S 59012'00" E 104.03 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE;
THENCE S 52005'29" E 183.36 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE
TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 9.-1 OF SAID RIVERSIDE
PLACER; ,
THENCE N 89008'24" W 692.87 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 9-1
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.363 ACRES.
MORE OR LESS.
0;;
0''
i>;' ":,>
V :.;{'
Plans are on file for each request in the Office of the City/County
Planner and may be examined by any interested persons during no~mal
business hours which are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday.
s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
P4blished in the Aspen Times November 12, 1975.
P252
VIII.c
v:::.-r.-' L
A.':)Pf:r..\ Gk-NE
CEME.TEky ,
I
rTf..
8.8.'~..,..
I
PROP05t:D ZONING CH.Al",J&E.5
1.' RR-
E R - 1.5
3 RR.
1'"1.
e
NOV. II; 1575 Exhibit G"E"
P253
VIII.c
P
I
T
B:
I
N
c
o
t1
N
T
Y
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING . P. O. BOX 9098 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE, (303) 925.6612
MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRIAN GOODHEIM-HOUSING
RE: CALLAHAN EMPLOYEE HOUSING RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the employee housing options available and proposed
by the developer, and after consultation with the planning department,
I would like to 'recommend that the developer-applicant be required to
construct employee housing on five acres which it controls at the end
of Ute avenue.
The total amount of housing buildable on this site is, of course,
constrained by its sensitive location on Ute Avenue, its elevation in
excess of 8050', and the large percentage of steep terrain on the site's
Southern side. I would defer a density determination to the planning
office's judgement because of these constraints. It is obvious that
the housing which this site can support will not even come close to
meeting even the direct housing impact of the proposed development, but
any housing is better than none at all.
Naturally, a method of restricting, the resale and insuring that the
premises will continue to be rented to bona fide employees at reason-
able rates must be devised.
P254
VIII.c
1"'.t""\
MEMO
TO: CITY COUNCIL ,~~
FROM: DAVE ELLIS, CITY ENGINEER.~
DATE: February 19,1976
RE: CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT, AGREEMENT AND
SEWER EASEMENT
FINAL PLAT
At this time only two additional
must be added to the ~inal plat.
the fire marshall have agreed on
fire access lanes
The applicant and
this matter.
AGREEMENT
The agreement is satisfactory and complete except for
the dollar amount for the escrow. The applicant has
agreed to the items which will be included in the
escrow and his engineers are preparing an estimate.
The preliminary estimate was $193,000 and the engi-
neering department foresees no problem in agreeing
upon a final figure. The provision for extension of
the Nellie Bird ditch through Lots 15 & 16 to Ute Park
has.;beeIl',deleted because it was our opinion that the
ultimate costs could not be justified for the small
quantity of water. More satisfactory means of utilizing
the water are available.
SEWER EASEMENT
The alignment for the easement through Ute Park and
Ute Cemetery generally follows the route of the existing
bike path and is acceptable to the engineering department
as is the written agreement.
The engineering department recommends that council
authorize the mayor to execute the plat, agreement and
the sewer easement subject to the above comments.
cc: Sandy Stuller
Hal Clark
P255
VIII.c
1""\
HE~10RANDurr\
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (He)
RE; Callahan Subdivision - Final Subdivision Plat and F;nal
De'ielopmentPlan
DATE: February 19, 1976
This is a request for Final Subdivision Plat and Final Development Plan
approval of the Callahan SUbdivision which is continued from your
February 9. 1976 meeting. A site inspection has ,been set for 4:00 P.M.
Dave Ellis. Bill Kane and Hal Clark toured the site on February 18, 1976
together with Paul Kudic and Fritz Benedict for the purpose of examining
the physi ca 1 layout of the indoor tennis court facility.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. Upon visual inspection of the site we feel that the
building has been well integrated with the natural
contours of the land which significantly conceals
the vast bulk of the structure. We are impressed with
careful siting effort. We do still feel that the
addition of the third indoor court further impacts
the winter use of the facility. , This is in addition
to the impacts previously considered by Council at
the conceptual and preliminary approval stages. ,
Possibly thirty (30) or forty (40) additional persons
accommodated per day by the facility. The aesthic
impact of the building structure has been mitigated to
a large extent by careful siting. Criticism of the
size of the structure on aesthic grounds is largely
a value judgement for individual council members.
2. At our request. Article 13,concerning transportation
assurances)has been added to the subdivision improvement
agreement. We recommend retaining sub-section 3 which
sets a five year 1 imit on these ser.vi ces. '
3. We have asked for additional landscaping details for
the area to the west of the indoor court which is in
close proximity to Ute Avenue. These have not as yet
been provided.
4. The subdivision improv~mentperformance bond amount is
not yet included in the agreement. This is due to the
fact that the size,of the building is not resolved which
would affect certain fire access considerations. Also.
Council has not approved the alignment of the sewer
easement through Ute Park (which effects costs of
improvements).
5. Section 11 allows the developer to vary the vertical
envelopes of the buildings to accomodate possible on
site elevation variations. We have discussed this
with the project surveyor and agree with the difficulty
of actual contour measurementswhi ch necess Hates thi s
variation section.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the Callahan Final Subdivision
Plat and Final Development Plan as filed with the condition of two (2)
indoor courts in the recreation facility.
P256
VIII.c
ASPEN CLUB
BUILDING INVENTORY
PROPOSED
MECH.
39,499 S.F.
728 S.F.
39,499
38,446
S.F. excluding 728 mechanical - Total Building
S.F. Total allowable
1,053 S.F. Given up from Proposed Club House Building
Submitted by:
APPROVED BY:
3//
C-'.,~~ ~.
Andrew V. Hecht for the applicant
I!!!~fff/;7
Planning Director
City of Aspen
P257
VIII.c
0',I,...,
GARFIELD & HECHT
A'I"'1'OitN'EYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 E. 'HYMAN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
BROOKE A. PETERSON
SUITIIl 201
TELEPHONE
303) 9:tS-1938
April 13/ 1977
Mr. William Kane
Planning Director
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill:
This is an application for amendment to the final develop-
ment plan for the Callahan Subdivision. The amendment
involves a change only in the size of the recreation
building but concurrently reduces the size of the clubhouse
in an identical amount.
The total allowable square footage for the recreation
building in the first phase is 38,446 square feet. The
proposed recreation building under this amendment would be
39,499 square feet, excluding ,728 feet of space utilized for
mechanical equipment (1,053 additional square feet in the
recreation building - excluding mechanical). However, such
proposed expansion still lies within the building envelope
permitted for the recreation building. In order to avoid
increasing the commercial square footage, the applicant will
reduce the proposed clubhouse building (Benedict resident)
by the identical square footage by which the recreation
building is expanded. Thus, the net effect of this
amendment is simply to trade square footage and in no way
does it increase the aggregate commercial space permitted
under the final development plan for the Callahan Subdivision.
The applicant requests that you approve the above changes
without additional public hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
c-- .~~
S.:-"'.,-, "(.-' c:;;.-;;r/
Andrew V. Hecht for the
Applicant, Robert S. Goldsamt
P258
VIII.c
t.......
DELANEY & BALCOMB
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DRAWER 790
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
ROBERT DEI..ANEY
Ke::NNETH BALCOMB
OHN A. THUI..SON
EDWARD MUI..HAl.l.,..lR.
ROBERT C. CUTTER
SCOTT M. BAI..COMB
BIB COLORADO AVENUE
TI::I-EPHONE 945.6$46
AREA CODE 303
May 13, 1976
Mr. Harold Clark, Jr.
Land Use Administrator
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Salvation Ditch/Riverside Ditch/Callahan Sub-
division
Dear Hal,'
I have received copies of the preliminary plat of the
Callahan Subdivision from Eldorado Engineering and have
noted thereon the location of the two ditch structures in
question. It appears that the preliminary plats do not
contain information (at least that I have been able to
find) as to the specific right of way width for both ditches.
I thought this was a possible source of future conflict
that might well be avoided by timely objection at the present
time. I really don't think the ditch company's rights will
be jeopardized in any respect, however it would be a shame
if they had to bear future expenses of litigation in order
to establish the actual width of the right of way when it
could be done without litigation at this point.
Please give me your comments and thoughts in this
regard and if you can, fill me in on the status of the
Callahan Subdivision at the present time.
Very truly yours,
DELANEY AND~ALCOMB
dziV!By
Scott Balcomb
SB:pc
cc: Jim Snyder
P259
VIII.c
May 19, 1976
Scott Balcomb
Delaney & Balcomb
818 Colorado Ave.
Glenwood Springs, Colo. 816011
Dear Scott:
Pursuant to your letter of May 13, 1976, I have checked the Final
Plat of Callahan Subdivision and find the following:
1. Both Salvation and Riverside Ditches are located on
the plat with legal descriptions of each also de-
tailed on the plat.
2. A buIlding setback of ten feet from centerline is shown
for Riverside Ditch.
3. A twenty foot easement is shown for the Salvation Ditch.
4. The City Engineer bas advised that a condition allowing
mechanized vehicles on the easement was not provided
on the plat as 'he felt the easement width allowed such
access.
The Final Plat has been approved by the City Council, but not
recorded as yet by the developers. The City Zoning Code requires
final plats to be recorded within 90 days of Countil approval. I
understand th~y have only. . five (5) days from today to record the
final plat. -t<~eR&&. flftl-.,i: ~--I'i ~7", ! JK.,
I hope this information answers your questions.
Very truly yours,
daJ-
Harold Clark, Jr.
Land Use Administrator
HC/bl.<
P.S. Rubey Estates is proceeding with the County at Detailed Sub-
division Stage. We have referred a copy of this to you for corrment.
We are already aware that no easement is shown nor building setback.
This is a Planned Unit Development and building sites will be located
on the plat.
P260
VIII.c
C@
Mountain Bell .
Grand Junction, Colorado
March 22, 1976
Tri-Co Management
P.O. Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Callahan Subdivision.
Dear Sirs:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat of "Callahan Subdivision"
for the adequacy of utility easements and dedication of the ,
same. In paragraphs 4 and 5 in the dedication, please eliminate
restriction of easement granted to The City of Aspen only for
public utility purposes. Easements must be dedicated to the,
public utilities and not to the City of Aspen. We would appreciate
the additions be reflected on the final plat as we cannot acceptthededicationasshown.
May we suggest the following phraseology be used for the
dedication use of easements within said subdivision.
A perpetual easement for the installation and maintenance
of utilities and drainage facilities, including, but not
limited to, electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines,
is reserved and dedicated over and through the PRIVATE ,
ROADS ~T[) STREETS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION; together with
an UTILITY EASEMENT being Ten (10) feet in width along side
and rear lot lines as shown on plat, and Twenty (20) feet in
width along the exterior boundary line, together with the right
to trim interfering trees and brush. Together with the perpetual
right of ingress and egress for installation, maintenance
and replacement of such lines. Said easements and rights
shall be utilized in a reasonable and prudent manner."
We believe all preliminary"as well as final plats should
show the dedication, or reference to the particular
Protective Covenants" which will run with the property.
Also, all "private roads" should be dedicated to the
utilities for the installation, operation and maintenance
of gas, lights, power and telephone lines. No easements
should be reserved to the property owners, cities or
counties exclusively.
P261
VIII.c
r
J1
@'a
Grand Junction, Colorado
March 22, 1976
Page 2
The above request is in accordance withC. R. S. 106-2-34
3) (d) (viii) and the Colorado Land Use Commission's .
Model ~ubdivision Regulations dated December, 1971,
Paragraph 5-2, Item 1ftG-7.
Thank you for your cooperation on this plat.
Very truly yours,
1(#rc{/ ~d
J. C. Kilmer SR/WA
Right-of-Way Agent
P.O. Box 2688
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
JCK:kw
cc:
Fabienne and Fredric Benedict-Owner
Paul Kutik and Robert Goldsamt-Subdividers
Pitkin County Commissioners
Planning Commission
P262
VIII.c
c "
tt-::t
Su
CIT PEN
box v
HEr10RANDUM
TO:CITY COUNCIL
FROM:p..v-HICK MAHONEY
DATE:FEBRUARY 23, 1976
RE:FmHA LOAN APPLICATION ASPEN CLUB (CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION)
I have a trained sense as to the financing that the Callahan
Subdivision group is attempting. Historically the second home
market has been impacted by fuel shortages, economic downturns,
or other shocks such as a periodic money crunch. As a result,
the second home market is a very risky venture. The Callahan
Subdivision can be categorized as both primary residents and
second home residents. It is my opinion, however, that the re-
gional financing agencies have genera,lly treated Aspen as a
resort community, and most building funds, therefore, are treated
as somewhat riSky. Even though Aspen has been immune in the past
from fuel shortages and economic downturns, resort communities are
treated as a group when any large financial institution reviews
a loan application.
I think, therefore, that the Callahan group is looking to the
Federal Government to reduce the riSk inherent in resort
communities through this FmHA loan. To those that are concerned
about using public funds in the private sector, I believe there
is a minimum of this as the loan guarantee does not require
public funding -- tax support. It has, however, an interesting
ramification whereby the loaning agency's portfOlio liquidity
is increased by the guarantee. Thus, this should increase the
total supply of money given any Federal Reserve base. III times
of unemployment, this would have a social benefit as it would
increase total economic activity.
The question still reduces to the impact that the subdivision
will have on t.hecommunity. However, I would say that this
particular method of financing should not be a relevant issue
for Council. If the Council decides positively for the Callahan
in terms of subdivision, it would appear to me incongruent not
to at least take a neutral position on their financing request.
PSM/pm
P263
VIII.c
f-
I' '\
i6,.d-~
THE ASP E N C L U B
D 0 W N TOW N BUS S RUT T L E
Scheduled to commence mid-February with the opening of
the food and bar facility, The following schedule will
be adhered to seven days a week:
Pick-Up Pick-Up Pick-Up Drop Off Pick-Up
Public Parking Mall/Ryman Little Nell Aspen Club Aspen Club
Lot &; Galena
11: 30 a,m, 11: 35 a.m. 11 :40 a.m. 11 :50 a,m. 12:20 p,m.
12:30 p.rn, 12:35 p,m. 12:40 p,m, 12:50 p.m. 1:20 p.m.
1:30 p.m, 1:35 p.m, 1 :40 p,m. 1:50 p.m, 4:20 p,m.
4:30 p.m, 4:35 p,m, 4:40 p.m. 4:50 p.m. 5:20 p.m.
5:30 p,m. 5:35 p.m. 5:40 p.m, 5:50 p,m. 6:20 p,rn,
6:30 p.m. 6:35 p.m, 6:40 p,m. 6:50 p.m, 7:20 p.m.
7:30 p.m, 7:35 p,m. 7:40 p.m, 7:50 p,m, 8:20 P.lli.
8:30 p,m. 8:35 p,m. 8:40 p.m, 8:50 p.m, 9:30 p,m,
9:30 p,m. 9:35 p.rn, 9:40 p.m, 9:50 p,m,
P264
VIII.c
I'"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Callahan Subdivision - Final Subdivision Plat and Final
Development Plan
DATE: February 19, 1976
This is a request for Final Subdivision Plat and Final Development Plan
approval of the Callahan Subdivision which is continued from your
February 9, 1976 meeting. A site inspection has been set for 4:00 P.M.
Dave Ellis, Bill Kane and Hal Clark toured the site on February 18, 1976
together with Paul Kudic and Fritz Benedict for the purpose of examining
the physical layout of the indoor tennis court facility.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1.Upon visual inspection of the site we feel that the
building has been well integrated with the natural
contours of the land which significantly conceals
the vast bulk of the structure. We are impressed with
careful siting effort. We do still feel that the
addition of the third indoor court further impacts
the winter use of the facility. This is in addition
to the impacts previously considered by Council at
the conceptual and preliminary approval stages.
Possibly thirty (30) or forty '(40) additional persons
accommodated per day by the facility. The aesthic
impact of the building structure has been mitigated to
a large extent by careful siting. Criticism of the
size of the structure on aesthicgrounds is largely
a value judgement for individual council members.
At our request, Article 13 concerning transportation
assurances)has been added to the subdivision improvement
agreement. We recommend retaining sub-section 3 which
sets a five year limit on these services,
2.
We have asked for additional landscaping details for
the area to the west of the indoor court which is in
close proximity to Ute Avenue, These have not as yet
been provided.
The subdivision improvement performance bond amount is
not yet included in the agreement. This is due to the
fact that the size of the building is not resolved which
would affect certain fire access considerations. Also,
Council has not approved the alignment of the sewer
easement through Ute Park (which effects costs of
improvements) .
5. Section 11 allows the developer to vary the vertical
envelopes of the buildings to accomodate possible on
site elevation variations. We have discussed this
with the project surveyor and agree with the difficulty
of actual contour measurements which necessitates this
variation section.
3.
4.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the Callahan Final Subdivision
Plat and Final Development Plan as filed with the condition of two (2)
indoor courts in the recreation facility.
P265
VIII.c
6
4-ery~ "
CIT' Y' <,'"-,, Cl PENUiJfi ~") -f
aspen,cohJ;1[-ado,imm box v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 13, 1976
TO: Members of City Council
FRo~ndra M. Stuller
RE: FmHA Loan Application
Aspen Club (Callahan Subdivision)
At the last meeting you requested a summary of the
1980 Regulations handed out as a supplement to the Aspen
Club FmHA application, which had been circulated to you
as part of a NWCCOG A-95 review.
Section 1980 is a guaranteed loan program, and
the B & I program (Business and Industry) has as its
stated purpose:
to improve, develop or finance business,
industry, and employment and improve the
economic and environmental climate in rural
communities including pollution abatement
and control...It is not intended that the
guaranty authority be used for marginal or
substandard loans or to "bailout" lenders
having such loans.
For purposes of the act, "rural areas" are those areas in the
vicinity of a city with a population of 50,000 or less. The loan
guaranty is an obligation supported by the full faith and credit
of the U.S. The program uSeS local lenders to be responsible
for the servicing and (if necessary) the liquidation of the
loan. The loan guaranty may not exceed 90% of the principal
and accrued interest on the indebtedness. Inability to obtain
credit elsewhere is not a prerequisite for a guaranteed loan
under this program. The barroweris required to pay a non-
refundable fee equal to 1% of. the principal loan amount, and the
interest rate is subject to negot.iationbetweenthe borrower
9 %
f d.,,,.,.,,, /1..0'0
1~60
P266
VIII.c
f~
Members of City council
February 13, 1976
Page 2-
and lender (but must be a legal interest rate). The first
payment may be postroned until after the project is complet-
ed (up to three years after the loan is made) and the pay-
out period cannot exceed 30 years.
Any application may trigger the need to file an EIS,
and the need for the EIS is determined by the PmHA state
director (he will take into consideration A-95 comments in
making this determination). The regulati.ons require that a
minimum of 10% equity will be required on the applicant's
balance sheet at the time of loan closing. FmHA may require
an applicant to supply the agency with a feasibility report
and are ordinarily required for projects valued at over
1,000,000). '
The regulations provide tl1at in assigning priorities
to applications made for guaranteed loans, FmHA shall consider
state development strategies and A-95 comments and recommenda-
tions. In addition, the state director must assign priorities
in accordance with the following:
1. Those projects which will save existing jobs;
2. Those projects which will enlarge, extend,
or otherwise improve existing business and industries;
3. Those projects which will create the high-
est number of permanent employment opportunities; and
4. Those projects which will contribute to the
overall economic stability of the rural areas but
generate little or no permanent employment opportuni-
ties beyond the entrepreneur himself.
A.pparently A-95 review is not required for loans for
smaller or local enterprises with no significant economic or
environomental impact; the ambiguity in these criteria is,
apparently, what has. led to the difference in opinion as to
whether this particular project should have been submitted to
the COG clearinghouse. However, the County Supervisor and
District Director must analyze (I) community attitude toward
the project, (2) whether the project is likely to result in the
need for additional community facilities (schools, water, sewer,
health care services) and, if so, the community's plan for provid-
ing them, (3) the availability of any required additional labor
force and training plans for such force, and (4) an economic
forecast of the effect on the community if the project should
fail; all of which information could probably be accumulated
only by an A-95 review process.
P267
VIII.c
Members of City Council
February 13, 1976
Page 3-
The regulations provide various remedies in the
event of default including liquidation, protective advances,
granting of additional loans, transfer and assumption of the
debt.
Apparently, the effects of the proposal on the local
job market, and land uSe and facilities impacts is the type
of information solicited by reason of this A-95 review
and the type of comment FmHA hopes to garner by this pro-
cedure.
SS/pk
P268
VIII.c
1"""\r""'\.
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTOJU~:B'J'. AT LA.W
POST OFFICE BOX 828'7
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
TELEPBONlf
30S) 92:5.1936
February 9, 1976
Sandra Stuller, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sandy:
If we are fortunate enough to receive approval
from the Council tonight, could language similar to this
be included in the approval to allow for the variations
that may be caused by the inability now to know what the
best relationship of the buildings to the terrain would be.
Very truly yours,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH:lh
Encl.
cc:Dave Ellis /'
Hal Clark/'
P269
VIII.c
BENEDICT ASSOCIATE~CORPORATED r-\ruary 3'- 1976
CALLAHAi'l - TOWNHOUSES
PROJECT NO. 75-21
BUILDING ENVELOPE DESCRIPTION
The Entry Level floor elevations and Top of Joist elevations shown
on Sheet No, 1 of 6 "Roof Height Plan", revised date 2/3/76, were
determined by the topographic map prepared by aerial photography by
Merrick and Company. As shown, all buildings are well under the City
Height Requirement; however, the ground survey for the road through
the Townhouse Site has determined that there may be an error of plus
or minus, five feet, in the contours shown on the aerial topo.
The City Engineer and City Land Use Administrator have agreed that
since the buildings as designed do not exceed two and one-half stories
in height, and the total height of each unit is constant, that a
vertical envelope be created around each unit module allowing a maximum
of five feet variation in height, to accommodate possible grade elevation
variations, TIle intent of this agreement is to provide the best
possible relationship bet\;een buildings, bet\;een buildings and tops of
carports, as well as the best utilization of existing terrain within
the development zone.
Prior to application for the building permit, the Owners will submit
a ground survey, showing final building layout and floor elevations,
noting any variations in the contour.
RAF:gg
P270
VIII.c
r
I
a<t-~,--"
IIOLLAND & HAHT
ATTO'RNEVS AT LAW
TELEPHONE 292-9200
AREA COOE303
500 E:OU1TABLE: BUILDING
730 SEVENTEENTH STREE'
OENVER,COLORADO 80202
CABr..,E ADORESS
HOLHART, DENVER
PLEASE ,REPLY TO:MOUNTAIN PLAZA.eUILDING
P. O. eOXl126, ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA COOE 303
February 9, 1976
SandraM. Stuller, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Callahan Subdivision
Dear Sandy:
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Subdivision
and Planned Unit Development Agreement which I received
with my copy of Andy Hecht's February 3 letter addressed
to you.
Interlined on this draft are the modifications
requested. by the Benedicts. These have been reviewed
with Mr. Hecht and are acceptable to him. I would
like to have these requests submitted .to City Council
at the same time Dave Ellis' conditions are presented.
I hope that this rather informal method of indicating
our revision requests does not offend anyone; it does
make the changes pretty easy to follow.
Yours very
JTM;mm
Encls.
cc: Andrew V. Hecht, Esq.
Mrs. Pat Maddalone
o,.",~"....,
P271
VIII.c
0 lJ1 -.J N I-'
N co -.J 0\ N 0\ >i
0
0 \0 W \0 \0 '0 rt
0 0\ 0 -.J CO III III
0 0 0 0 I-' I-t I-'
0 tll
1JI . tll 1JI 1JI In
a .a .a .a ,-'1JI
HI' HI HI HI
rt rt rt rt
N :to'
N 0
I-t .
0 m
X) (Jl
I-'
P272
VIII.c
0::- '0::- 'tltrl
0 ....'0 III '0 1lI:><
0 '0 '1'0 .o:r:
11> '1 tn '1 tn t:" "" '1 (1)H
0 rtO t: :3 ....0 tll
rtX '1 X '1 0.:3:< to>H
t1. (1) . Ht(b\Q. >i
III (1) III '1
0 rtlO 010 I III ::-
1-''1 tn '1 (1) '1 ,Q
0. 0. 0 .
1) . ~. t:
III :0 :3 HI
tn 0 00 0. rt'
1) 0 :l;;0 . tn
S < -< H
1)(1) (1) 0 >i
s '1 ,'1 HI trl
rt'1lI III
10 10 g1) 1ll
i
HI ::-
0
11 ~
tll
c:
I~
t"
i
H
0\
to>
to>
CD
Q
HI
rt'
N
0
CD
a
HI
t
b'>i
g~
1Il::S
11> I
III
TO
0....
t::J:
1Il~
lI> I
0
Sllll>
00
I-'-
I-'-
rt'
1:10
III HI
11 HI
1-'-
0
s lI>
lQ
2t
to> 0) I-' I-' >i
w Ul to>O'l 0
rt'
O'l 01\,;)' III
U1 0) ON I-'
0 0 0.... III
tn tn tn III
a ,Q .a.a
HI HI HI HI
rt' rt' rtrt
N
I-' :J>I
0
D \D 11
1)
III
i .
q .,...,
P273
VIII.c
t""'\
MENO
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FRON: DAVE ELLIS C\V'"
CITY ENGINEER~
DATE: February 5, 1976
RE: CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Plat. and Agreement
Subdivision Agreement
The engineering department has t.he fOllowing comments
regarding the Subdivision Agreement:
1) Paragraph la and Ib must be rewritten to distin-
quish between Lots 13, l3A and the common open space.
2) Paragraph Ig should clarify that Lot 12 is a single
family lot and Lot 12A is a guest house for Lot 12.
3) In paragraph Ii there should not be any overlap
between private road right-of-way and platted lots.
4) In paragraph Ij the easements should beta the public
and not reserved to the holding corporation.
5) Paragraph lL the maximum amount of waterpro~ided
shall be 0.65cfs.
6) Items included in the escrow estimate for improvernents
shall include in addition to roads & utilities,
drainage improvements, landscaping, bike paths and
irrigation di,tch crossings, as shown on the plat and
engineering plans as well as necessary street and
traffic signs. Engineering apd inspection will also
be included.
7) The subdivider's estimate of $193,000. for improvements
has not been verified at this point and is subject
to change.
8) The reference to the County trail agreement should be
omi tted in paragraph 6. 'rhe city will accept the
trail on its usual conditions and any enforcement
of the county agreement will be responsibility of
the subdivider.
9) The subdivider shall line the Riverside Ditch for its
full length across Lots 8 and 9.
10) Paragraph 5 should except the existing parking spaces
on Lot 16.
11) The qualification for the ditch easement in paragraph
7 should be "before the paving of the outdoor tennis
courts begins".
12) Exhibit A should read 19 parcels instead of 16 and
there is an error in the acreage of .002 acres.
P274
VIII.c
Page 2 CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
Final Plat & Agreement
Memo to City Council 2/5/76
Other conditions which need to be added to the agreement
are 1) furnishing of as built survey descriptions for
sewer, water, and trail easements; 2) a provision for
the city to oversize the water line in Ute Ave. by
paying for the extra cost beyond an 8"line; 3) a more
specific schedule for completion of subdivision improve-
ments; and 4) provision for the subdivider to provide
engineering inspection and certification of the
improvem(~nts .
FINAL PLAT
The statement of subdivision and dedication has been
omitted from the plat and submitted separately; the lan-
guage needs revision but the general conditions have all
been agreed to by the subdivider previously. The plat
itself is in good condition and we have only a few com-
ments pertaining to it. 1) On Sheet 1 the Riverside Ditch
Easement should be 15 feet in width rather than 12 feet;
2) utility easements for existing water lines should be
20 feet rather than 10 feet; 3) The sewer easement through
Ute Park and Ute Cemetery will be shown on Sheet 2 pending
approval by the oity; 3) Drainage improvements and ditch
crossings should be shown on Sheet 3. ~t this time the
Fire Marshal is out of town and has not had a chance to
comnlent on compliance with his recommendations for fire
protection and emergency acc~ss.
The engineering departmen't would recommend approval of
the final plat and subdivision/PUD agreement subject to
all the above conditions. In addition to the above the
approval should be subject to the developers Obtaining
the fOllowing easements outside the platted subdivision:
1) The 24' utility, emergency access, and service
easement on the south side of the subdivision.
2) The sewer easements through Ute Cemetery and Ute Park.
3) The 20' sewer easement through the Van Horn Property
to the north, of the subdivision.
4) The 20' utility easement through Lot 21 of Riverside
Subdivision, and
5) Satisfactory solution to the isolated parcel of land
between Callahan and Riverside Subdivisions.
cc: Sandy Stuller
Andy Hecht
Hal Clark
Il (v<{sl-.5lk 4 jLt-# t; j....yj.........e ,
P275
VIII.c
1""\
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATrORJe'SY. AT L.A.,..
POST OFFICE BOX 8237
ASPEN, COLORADO 81811
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT February 3, 1976 Tzx.EPJlONB
808) 923.1936
Ms. Sandra Stuller
City Attorney
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Callahan Subdivision
Dear Sandy:
Enclosed is a copy of the Subdivision and Planned Unit
Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision which we
are submitting subject to your approval for the council
meeting on February 9th.
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/nwt
Enclosure
cc:Hal Clark
Dave Ellis
Jim Moran
P276
VIII.c
r.
G;\RFIELD & HECHT
A'n'OJmsy.i.T L4w
POST OFFICE ,BOX 828'7
ASP_EN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECIlT January 28, ~976 0'"'
C80S) 92~.1936
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Sandra Stuller
City Attorney
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sandy:
I am e~closing with this letter a proposed subdivision
and planned unit development agreement for the Callahan Sub-
division. You will notice that no paragraph is included about
the water in Hunter Creek and Nellie Bird. On this, I am
waiting for Jim Moran to submit what the City and he agree
upon as a resolution of that issue.
Naturally, if you have any changes or additions, feel
free to have at it.
Sincere~y,
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/nwt
Enclosure
cc: Jim Moran, Esq.
s~~h
j1
fA..)
P277
VIII.c
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
THIS AG~EMENT, made this day of 1976,
by and between THE CITY OF ~SPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter some-
times called "City"), and .BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT, FABIENNE BENEDICT, PAUL KUTIK and ROBERT
GOLDSAMT (hereinafter sometimes collectively called "the
subdivider").
WI T N E SSE TH :
WHEREAS, the subdivider has submitted to the City for
approval, execution, and recordation, the final plat and develop-
ment plan of a tract of land situated in the East one-half of
Section 18, T.IOS, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
Aspen, Colorado, designated as Callahan SUbdivision; and
WHEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area
in the City zoned RR and R-15; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the proposed
development and the improvement of the land therein, and the burdens
to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring properties by
reason of the proposed development and improv~ment of land in-
cluded in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and accept
for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the subdivider to
the matters hereinafter described, and subject to all the re-
quirements, terms, and conditions of the City of Aspen Subdivision
RegUlations now in effect and other laws, rules and regulations;
and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements
in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for
recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-9 of the
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance
P278
VIII.c
that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREfORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenant~ herein contained, and the approval, execution
and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City.. it is
agreed as follows:
1. All references to lot numbers hereinafter set forth
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ("Plat").
a. fee simple title to Lot No. 13 will be con-
veyed in undivided interests to the condominium owners,
together with that portion of Lot l3-A which is bounded
on the South by Crystal Lake Road and on the North by a
line running ten feet north of the Northerly building
line of Condominium Buildings A and B, subject to
existing easements and road and utility easements
contemplated by the Plat, all as more fully to be
defined by a metes and bounds description which des-
cription shall govern in the event of any discrepancy
between such description and this provision. Lot No.
l3will be used for condominium units as will the
portion of Lot No. l3-A described herein.
b. The remainder of Lot No. 13-A shall be con-
veyed in fee simple to a corporation to be organized by
the purchaser of such property from its existing owner.
Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as "Holding
Corporation". The Holding Corporation shall grant to
all condominium and homesite owners a non-exclusive
irrevocable license for the recreational use of Crystal
Lake situated on Lot No. 13-A and shall grant such
easements as are necessary for the roads and utilities
reflected on the Plat. The remainder of Lot No. 13-A
referred to in this paragraph shall be used for re-
creational purposes.
2-
P279
VIII.c
Yt'..t--1 II..
i ~ \ q \
r-,
c. ~ot No. 14 will be owned in fee simple title by
the Holding Corporation or another corporation controlled
by or under common control with the Holding.Corporation
or its or their assignees. The Benedict residence
situated on this Lot will be converted to a clubhouse.
The owners of condominium and home sites ,will be granted
an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage by
foot only throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing.
d. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed in fee
simple title to the Holding Corporation or a corporation
contrplled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or its or their assignees. Lot 14-A will
contain.parking facilities for use or the clubhouse and
recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot
15 will contain recreational facilities.
e. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed in fee
simple title to the purchasers of these ten homesites,
each of which is contiguous with the boundaries. of
such lots. Lot No~ 10 is designated as a duplex for
occupancy by two families, the other lots are for single
family homes.
f. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family lot.
g. Lots 12 and 12-A are designated as single-family
lots with a guesthouse.
h. Lot No. 16 is designated a.san existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of' Aspen.
i. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the
rights .of way on which such roads are to be constructed
shall be owned by the Holding Corporation ora corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holaing
3-
P280
VIII.c
Corporation Or it.s or their assignees, and such corpor-
ation shall grant an irrevocable non-exclusive license
to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for
their use. To the extent such road rights of way lie
within any of the Lots heretofore described, the pro.
visions of this paragraph shall govern the ownership
of the fee simple title to the road rights of way.
j. Easements for utility improvements and rights
of way on which they are to be constructed, as re-
flected on the Plat, shall be reserved by the Holding
Corporation or a corporation controlled,by or under
common control with the Holding Corporation or its or
their assignees.
k. Maintenance of the property and structures in-
cluded within the Plat shall be the responsibility of
the owners of the fee simple title to such property
and improvements; provided, however"when hereunder
any license is granted with respect to any such Land
or improvement, the cost of maintenance shall be borne
by all licensees.
1. To the extent adequate water is provided by
the City of Aspe~ through the Nellie Bird Ditch, for
the maintenance of a water level not lower than the
lowest water level as shown on Page 3 of the Plat, the
Holding Corporation or a corporation controlled by or
under common control with the Holding corporation or
its or their assignees, shall make provision for sup-
plying such water to Crystal.Lake in order to insure
its use for recreational activity.
2. Subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph,
the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construction
of all common improvements which include construction of roads,
utilities through the subdivision as shown on the Plat, of
street lighting sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads.
4-
P281
VIII.c
In order to secure the performance of the construction and in-
stallation of the improvements herein agreed to by the sub-
divider and the City, the subdivider shall guarantee through
a conventional lender, or by cash held in escrow by the City,
that funds in the amount of the estimated costs of construction
agreed to be $193,000, are held by it for the account of the
subdivider for the construction and installation of improvements
herein described. In the event, however, that any portion of
the improvements have not been installed according to the con-
ditions contained herein, then, and in that event, the City may
have such remaining work and improvements completed in such means
and in such manner, by contract with or without public letting,
or otherwise, as it may deem advisable, and the lender agrees to
reimburse the City out of the funds held by it for the account
of the subdiv~der for the City's costs incurred in completing
said work and improvements, provided, however, in no event shall
the lender be obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate
estimated sum for these improvements, less those amounts previo~sly
paid and approved by the City by reason of default of the sub-
divider in the performance of the terms, conditions, and covenants
herein contained. From time to time as work to be performed and
improvements to be constructed herein progress, the subdivider
may request that the City inspect such work and improvements as
are completed and may submit to City the costs of such completed
work and improvements. .when the City is satisfied that such work
and improvements as are required by the subdivider to be completed
in fact, have been completed in accordance with the terms hereof,
the City will submit to the lender its. statement that it has no
objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much of the above
specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs of work per-
formed and :improvements installed pursu.ant, to the terms of this
Agreement.
5-
P282
VIII.c
I,
3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference).
4. 'l'he subdivider agrees to line Riverside Ditch at the
point at which it seeps on to Lot #9 with a rubberized material
0.f f~asibl~ The subdivider shall use best efforts to find an
alternative to concrete lining.
I
5. The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors
and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to
enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities
of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles
are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or
dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successors or assigns shall provide
for any parkin~ spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any
portion of the Callahan Subdivision.
6. The subdivider agrees to relocate and the City agrees to
ave at subdivider's expense a portion of the multi-purposerec-
reational trail which will be moved to a location approximately
as shown on the Plat for the construction of the condominium
townhouses of the Callahan Subdivision. Such relocation shall
be done in two stages: By June 15, 1976, subdivider shall cause
at its expense such trail to be roughed in place at the time the
remainder of the trail dedicated by the subdivider hereunder is
paved the City shall pave the relocated portion thereof at
subdivider's expense. That trail shall be dedicated to the City
and shall ,be used in accordance with a certain agreement between
the County and Benedict Land & Cattle Company, Fredric Benedict,
and Fabienne Benedict dated September 23, 1975, and recorded in
Book 303, Page 452, the records. of the Clerk and Recorder of
Pitkin County.
7. The subdivider agrees to grant a l5-foot ditch easement
on the south side of the Roaring Fork River running from. the
6-
P283
VIII.c
r-o..r-..
easterly boundary of the, subdivision to its westerly boundary, ,
provided, however,. that the easement shall be placed so as not
to interfere with any of the improvements of the Callahan Sub-
t"
division, including but not limited to outdoor tennis courts,
and that if the City decides to place underground culverts to
carry water from the Nellie Bird Ditch, such construction shall
be completed before the tennis courts are installed and before
construction of the recreation building begins or so as not to
interfere with such construction. Finally, before carrying
water through the Nellie Bird Ditch, the City agrees to take
all necessary precautions as suggested by a certified ~ ~
to avoid seepage of the water into the residence and barn of
William Stevenson and Eleanor Stevenson adjacent to the Callahn
Sbudivision. The City will maintain such improvements as a
condition to receiving grant of water rights to Nellie Bird
Ditch.. The subdivider agrees not to pave any of the roads in
the's~ision until at least six months after all utilities
are in place.
8. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred
to the contrary, the subdivider, in developing the property con-
tained within the Plat and the improvements as herein described
shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations, stan-
dards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and
bodies having jurisdiction.
9. Upon execution of this agreement by the parties hereto
and provided all other conditions as herein contained have been
met by the subdivider, the City agrees to execute the Plat of
the Callahan Subdivision and accept the same for recordation in
the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of,
the recordation fees and costs to the City by Subdivider.
P284
VIII.c
t"". ,,-..,
tII 0)
Q) '"
I-< .
0 l'l
l'l
4-<
fJl . . . .
i tI' tI' tI' tI'
Q) fJl fJl fJl fJl
tII 0
I-< '"' 0 0 0 0
III III 0) t"- O \0 0
P- '" '" M '" 0
0 . . . . .
Eo< \0 l'l \0 t"- O) l'l
f l'l t"- ..., '"
P285
VIII.c
H1<1
0:0 ,-,
e...o:
of;:}e..U
flI '" r--..c
Q) IS> ""
14 en en
U .
c ,.oj ""
N
0' 0' 0' 0'
flI flI flI flI
flI "" 0 0 0
oj N 0 co 10
III NO '" ""
0 lDN 10 M
e.. .-l ,.oj CO N
0>
Q) I':
U..-/
14
Ill
Oll<
oj
U 0
Q) III
I><
0'
flI
I Q) 0
QflI 0
l::l 0
oj 0 ,
U.c: N
oj
0'
flI
flI
Q) ""
I:: flI N
J ::l N
o 0 ,
e...c: '"
oj
IH
H'
Q:I
14
0
0: ....
e..
0: Q) Q)
1:1 0> 0>
III Ill+>
1<1 .... 14 14 I':
e.. 0 Q) Q) (].I
H >~ >E
CIl . 03: o (].I
jJ 't:l 00 o flI
I': ~ III
l .~ . (].I
0 't:l 't:l
0' 14 Q) kfll 14.-l
c . flI I O>U tJ'+> tJ'..-/
14 III Q) III
tJ'l.'Q)4-I . Q) -10-1
t:: 't:l k ><14 >:+>
0''-/ t:: ::l o+> 0
HQ) k..l<: ::l flI k flI 14 Q)
I: P414 0. 0...1<:
Ill 0. III 0..... , P4'.-/
1<1P< ..c' 0. ..cO .o:.Q
P286
VIII.c
ASPEN/PITK
130 so
aspen,
Jf .
I \ "" :
I',
ing Department
street
81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Callahan Subdivision - Final P.U.D. Plan; Conditional Use
of a Recreational Facility in the Rural Residential (RR)
Zone; and Stream Margin review
DATE: January 15, 1976
This is a public hearing to consider the above listed items regarding
the Callahan Subdivision. Due to a meeting with the applicant resched~
uled after the agenda packet deadline, the comments of the City
Engineer will be presented at your meeting. The annexation of the
property has been completed.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. Stream Margin Review - the buildings are located above the
100 year designated floodplain, and as such do not materially
affect the Roaring Fork River. As such, we recommend stream
margin review approval.
2. Conditional Use - As previously agreed upon, we recommend
conditional use approval of the recreational facilities in
the RR zone, conditioned upon a specific listing of such uses
to be a part of this approval.
3. Final Development Plan - We are in the process as of this
writing, of meeting with the applicant to resolve certain
of the below-listed concerns:
a. Comments of the City Engineer
b. The clubhouse has been expanded. We wish to know what
additional uses this will accomodate.
c. The lake is a recreational amenity for the Planned Unit
Development. The subdivider shall provide guarantees
that an adequate water supply exists to provide for the
lake (currently fed by seepage from the Salvation Ditch).
P287
VIII.c
P288
VIII.c
P289
VIII.c
P290
VIII.c
P291
VIII.c
P292
VIII.c
P293
VIII.c
P294
VIII.c
P295
VIII.c
P296
VIII.c
P297
VIII.c
P298
VIII.c
P299
VIII.c
P300
VIII.c
P301
VIII.c
P302
VIII.c
P303
VIII.c
P304
VIII.c
P305
VIII.c
P306
VIII.c
P307
VIII.c
P308
VIII.c
P309
VIII.c
P310
VIII.c
P311
VIII.c
P312
VIII.c
P313
VIII.c
P314
VIII.c
P315
VIII.c
P316
VIII.c
P317
VIII.c
P318
VIII.c
P319
VIII.c
P320
VIII.c
P321
VIII.c
P322
VIII.c
P323
VIII.c
P324
VIII.c
P325
VIII.c
P326
VIII.c
P327
VIII.c
P328
VIII.c
P329
VIII.c
P330
VIII.c
P331
VIII.c
P332
VIII.c
P333
VIII.c
P334
VIII.c
P335
VIII.c
P336
VIII.c
P337
VIII.c
P338
VIII.c
P339
VIII.c
P340
VIII.c
P341
VIII.c
P342
VIII.c
P343
VIII.c
P344
VIII.c
P345
VIII.c
P346
VIII.c
P347
VIII.c
P348
VIII.c
P349
VIII.c
P350
VIII.c
P351
VIII.c
P352
VIII.c
P353
VIII.c
P354
VIII.c
P355
VIII.c
P356
VIII.c
P357
VIII.c
P358
VIII.c
P359
VIII.c
P360
VIII.c
P361
VIII.c
P362
VIII.c
P363
VIII.c
P364
VIII.c
P365
VIII.c
P366
VIII.c
P367
VIII.c
P368
VIII.c
P369
VIII.c
P370
VIII.c
P371
VIII.c
P372
VIII.c
P373
VIII.c
P374
VIII.c
P375
VIII.c
P376
VIII.c
P377
VIII.c
P378
VIII.c
P379
VIII.c
P380
VIII.c
P381
VIII.c
P382
VIII.c
P383
VIII.c
P384
VIII.c
P385
VIII.c
P386
VIII.c
P387
VIII.c
P388
VIII.c
P389
VIII.c
P390
VIII.c
P391
VIII.c
P392
VIII.c
P393
VIII.c
P394
VIII.c
P395
VIII.c
P396
VIII.c
P397
VIII.c
P398
VIII.c
P399
VIII.c
P400
VIII.c
P401
VIII.c
P402
VIII.c
P403
VIII.c
P404
VIII.c
P405
VIII.c
P406
VIII.c
P407
VIII.c
P408
VIII.c
P409
VIII.c
P410
VIII.c
P411
VIII.c
P412
VIII.c
P413
VIII.c
P414
VIII.c
P415
VIII.c
P416
VIII.c
P417
VIII.c
P418
VIII.c
P419
VIII.c
P420VIII.c
P421VIII.c
Cheryl Velasquez
970.544.4612
velasquez@wcrlegal.com
May 12, 2017
VIA EMAIL: bgenshaft@genshaftcramer.com
Benjamin S. Genshaft, Esq.
Genshaft Cramer LLP
420 East Main Street, Suite 200
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) and Minor PD Amendment Request for 1449 / 1452 Crystal
Lake Road, Lot 12 / 12A, Callahan Subdivision (the “Lots”); PID # 2737-181-32-017)
Dear Ben:
As you know, this firm represents the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association (the “Association”). The
Executive Board (the “Board”) of the Association has reviewed the land use application dated February 2,
2017 (the “Application”) prepared by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Genshaft Cramer LLP on behalf of
the property owners, Barbara Fleck and Aaron Fleck, each as to an undivided fifty percent (50%) interest
in the Lots.
The Application seeks to obtain a minor subdivision/lot split and obtain a minor amendment to a PD
Project Review approval (collectively, the “Lot Split”) for the Lots which are located at 1449 and 1452
Crystal Lake Road and legally described as Lots 12 and 12A, Callahan Subdivision, according to the Plat
thereof recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and Amended Plat thereof recorded August 17,
1997 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16 (the “Property”).
Currently, Lot 12 (but not Lot 12A)of the Property is included within the Stillwater Ranch
Subdivision/PUD (the “Stillwater Subdivision”).
The Board is generally in support of the Lot Split, subject to final review of the final plat and related
documents required for the Lot Split, and further subject to requirement that only Lot 12 (and not Lot
12A) will continue to be included in the Stillwater Subdivision following the Lot Split. However, matters
of floor area, design and the like are not regulated by the Association’s Covenants with respect to the
Lots, and are beyond the scope of the Association’s purview.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Cheryl A. Velasquez
for
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
JOHNSON &VELASQUEZ LLP
{A0104077/2}
CAV/bjd
cc: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning (via email)
P422
VIII.c
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
Get Adobe Reader Now! P423VIII.c