HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19881213Continued Meeting. Asp~r~ Citv Council December 13, 1988
Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 1:18 p.m. with
Councilmembers Isaac, Tuite and Gassman present.
1010 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION
Gideon Kaufman told Council the owner of lot 9, Mr. DeBose, has
not been notified and is not represented at this meeting.
Kaufman said his client's presence is not a waiver of his rights
under the PUD agreement or the Code. Kaufman said he is co n-
cerned that his client has not been made aware of what the
allegations are.
Mayor Stirling said citizens brought to Council's attention
certain alleged deviations from the original conceptually
approved planned unit development and the final plat. Mayor
Stirling said the specific examples relate to setback and
height . Council remanded thi s to the planning office and to the
attorney's office, and continued this issue so that the owners
and developers could be apprised. Paul Taddune, special counsel,
told Council there is a provision in the PUD agreement which
provides "that in the event the City Council determines that the
owner is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of
this agreement" and the PUD agreement outlines the rights and
obligations of the owner, "the City Council shall notify the
owner in writing specifying the alleged non-compliance and asking
that the owner remedy the remedy the alleged non-compliance".
Taddune pointed out there is a procedure set forth for a hearing.
Taddune said this meeting should be a fact finding as staff needs
time to look into this further.
Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council this subdivision was
approved in June 1987. The subdivision started construction last
winter. Horn reminded Council this was a land lot subdivision;
therefore, in the review process, the developer was not required
to show specific plans of what each house would look like. Horn
said staff was concerned about the way the subdivision was
proceeding, especially when excavation began on the ridge of the
property. During the review process, staff was very concerned
about development along the ridge and recommended that the ridge
not be disturbed. This recommendation was not adopted by P & Z
or Council but the impacts of development on the ridge were to be
mitigated. Horn said staff was also concerned about impacts of
the subdivision on Calderwood and the adjacent neighborhoods.
Horn said the neighbors played a role in the review process.
There were negotiations between the developer and Calderwood
residents and an agreement was reached. The neighbors felt
comfortable with the development based on the representations
made during the process. The neighbors did not object during
final reviews of this project.
1
~~ Continued Meeting Aspen City Council December 13, 1988
Horn told Council when excavation took place on the ridge, staff
went to the site and asked the excavator to hold up while staff
looked at the plans. Horn said staff concluded at that time that
it was consistent with the PUD agreement and final plat approved
by the city. Horn told Council about a month later, P & Z raised
an issue about development of the ridge and that the excavation
was not consistent with the review process. P & Z schedule a
site visit, looked at the ridge line, looked at representations
made. P & Z concluded they did not want to pursue action in this
development. The issue did not focus on lot 9 or the impacts on
the Calderwood subdivision. Horn told Council P & Z had recom-
mended that representations made during the process become a
condition of the PUD agreement.
Horn said he does not doubt that the activities taking place at
1010 Ute are consistent with the PUD and final plat documents.
Horn said the issue is if the PUD agreement was consistent with
representations that were made during the review process. Horn
said the drawings that were presented were conceptual drawings of
what buildings might look like on site. Horn said there is a
legal issue as to how binding conceptual drawings are. Council
should look at the drawings to see if they show there has been
some misrepresentation.
Georgeanne Hayes said the adjacent property owners would like to
find out what went wrong in the process. Ms. Hayes said Calder-
wood subdivision residents were shocked and overwhelmed by the
impacts the buildings had on them. Ms. Hayes said she is
q uestioning how much weight the original conceptual drawings
should have on a project. Ms. Hayes said conceptual drawings are
where people get their mind set on what the project is going to
look like. Ms. Hayes told Council she was the renderer on this
project . Ms . Hayes said 3 of the drawings she has were f or the
public record. Ms. Hayes presented some of the conceptual
drawings to Council. Ms. Hayes said perhaps there should be
something in the city's rules which require a developer to come
back to P & Z and change the renderings if the plans change.
Horn told Council P & Z wanted to see renderings of what the
development on the ridge would look 1 ike . It was a condition
that the applicant come back at the preliminary stage with
renderings for the ridge line. This was when the language was
written regarding the height restrictions f or lots 13, 14, and
15, that they not exceed the .ridge line by more t hen 12 feet.
Gideon Kaufman said there was a perspective shown to P & Z . Ms.
Hayes' drawing was not shown to P & Z . Kaufman said Council
should not make decisions on a perspective that was not shown to
P & Z. Mayor Stirli ng said the second rendering was not shown to
P & Z.
2
Cont-inued Meeting Ashen City Council December 13, 1988
Ms. Hayes showed a representation based on the preliminary PUD
subdivision submittal, sheet 10-A, dated March 4, 1987. Ms.
Hayes said the neighbors were given these drawings to show their
house, the fence, the relationships of lots 9 and 10. These
drawings were in the PUD submittal to P & Z. Ms Hayes said to
the neighbors they represented a concept of what the developer
was going to do. The developer asked the property owners to
support the development on the strength of these drawings. Ms.
Hayes claimed the buildings that were ultimately built are very
different from the conceptual drawings. Ms. Hayes said the
neighbors feel they have been used by the process. Ms. Hayes
said the buildings are 8 feet taller, 7 feet closer than they
were lead to believe. Ms. Hayes showed a painting that is f or
public view in the model at 1010 Ute.
Kaufman said a developer goes through a process, and the reason
things do not look the same from start to finish is because of
this process. Kaufman said the process is set up for change and
for the city to make improvements. Kaufman said through this
process lots were relocated. Kaufman reminded Council the first
plan was for the trail not to go on the side of Calderwood. The
applicants wanted the trail on the other side. The trail change
was dictated by P & Z and Council and not be the developer.
Kaufman said the first drawing was done at the time of conceptual
GMP to get the feel of the property. It was never represented
that these buildings were going to be built. Kaufman said the
second drawing was never shown to the public. Kaufman said the
houses on the ridge have all abided by the height shown by the
developer on the plans. Kaufman said the final drawing was a
drawing for sale purposes, not for presentation to Council.
Kaufman said there is a difference between conceptual process and
conceptual drawings and trying to hold a developer fine tuned to
those drawings. Kaufman said there was no misrepresentation made
by the developer .
Dick Fallin, architect for the project, showed the documents that
were approved by the city. Fallin showed the site plan, indicat-
ing Ute Avenue, tennis courts, the lots, the ponds, the road, and
surrounding areas. Fallin said this drawing was used as a base
drawing for grading plans, landscaping plans, and to prepare
sales plans. Fallin showed a drawing illustrating the building
envelope of each lot. The building envelopes remained consistent
throughout the approval process except for lot 9 which was adjust
because of trail decisions. Fallin showed a landscape plan
showing the extent of the landscaping around the common areas.
Fallin said the houses are being completed by the individual
owners.
Fallin said one of the major issues in the approval process was
how high the buildings should rise above the existing grade line
3
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council December 13, 1988
of the ridge. Fallin said normally one can build to the midpoint
of a roof slope perpendicular to an existing grade 25 feet with a
maximum of 5 feet above the midpoint. Fallin said lots 13, 14,
and 15 were impacted by the ridge line and through the PUD
approvals, the maximum height on those 3 lots was limited to 12
f eet above the existing grade.
Fallin said the applicants analyzed their site for the trail
location. Fallin said 1010 Ute is in close proximity to the Gant
and to Calderwood and, the developer felt to bring the trail
within the site would unnecessarily congest the traffic in that
area. The applicants proposed the trail run along the edge of
the river, which was city property. The developer was willing to
construct the trail. The trail committee decided they would
rather see the trail go through the project . Fallin r eminded
Council the applicants presented 4 trail options, two of them
showing cross sections along the trail. Fallin said the cross
section drawing Ms. Hayes presented was used to show the trail
options and to illustrate some of the difficulties in construct-
ing these trails, how the trail, landscaping and f encing would be
treated. Fallin said the Calderwood residents wrote letters to
the city stating they support the original trail option along the
river because it offered more privacy to their subdivision.
Fallin said drawing #1 was used in the GMP process to illustrate
where the project was and where the entry point would be. Fallin
said drawing #2 was never shown to the city; it was an in-house
study. Fallin said two-story houses were talked about in the
process. There was a limitation put on the lots on the ridge;
the caretaker unit was limited to one story. Fallin said drawing
#4 was only used as a sales document. Fallin said he does not
feel the drawings were misrepresentations.
Molly Campbell, the Gant, told Council they participated in the
process and found the developer to be receptive to their thoughts
and ideas. Ms. Campbell said she feels the representations made
were correct. Lee Pardee, 1010 property owner, told Council the
developer and architectural review committee in this subdivision
have been very stringent. Pardee said there will be significant
1 andscaping .
Councilman Isaac said the issue is if the developer followed the
constraints of the building standard and met all the criteria
laid out in the PUD agreement. Councilman Isaac said Council
does not have enough information to red tag the buildings. City
Manager Bob Anderson said each lot does have a building permit.
Anderson said he believes the buildings are being built within
the PUD standards. Horn agreed the building permits are consis-
tent with the PUD document and final plat. Councilman Tuite said
he is concerned about the representations made throughout the
4
Continued Meetincr Asuen Citv Council December- _13 1988
process. Councilman Tuite said he cannot tell if the building on
lot 9 is exceeding the representations that were made.
Councilman Isaac moved to direct staff to recheck the PUD
agreement, minutes, and building plans to see if they meet
everything that was laid out and report back December 19;
seconded by Councilman Tuite.
Taddune reminded Council the emphasis was on land subdivision not
an architectural project. Taddune suggested in the future
Council could pre-approve the architecture when they approve the
subdivision.
All in favor, motion carried.
Kaufman said if the building envelopes shown on the f final
drawings and approved by the city are where these houses were put
and people received building permit and built their house, there
is not a legal basis to discuss this any further. Anderson said
he interpreted the motion to have staff verify that everything is
legal. Councilman Tuite said he is also interested in the
process and a review of the process and how things changed in the
process.
Council adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Kathryn S 'Koch, City Clerk
5