HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Meadows Trustee.A8496=121-12- A84-96
0,4 Trustee SPA Dev. Final DEv.
S
Aspen/Pitidn Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
r City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041
Deposit
-63855-042
Flat Fee
-63860-043
HPC
-63885-268
Public Right-of-Way
-638754)46
Zoning & Sign Permit
-MR01 I
Use Tax
10000-67100-383
Park Dedication
" 15000- i3050-480
AH Commercial
15000-63065-482
AH Residential
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-03.3 Deposit
-63805-034 Flat Fee
-63820-037 Zoning
-63825-038 Board of Adjustment
Referral Fees:
- 00113-63810-035
County Engineer
00115-63340-163
City Engineer
' 62023-63340-190
Housing
00125-633400-05
Environmental Health
00113-6381."36
County Clerk
00 113-63812-2 12
Wildlife Officer
Sales:
00113-6383"39 County Code
69000-145 Copy Fees
Other
Name: I l�e �hLY1 ! Lind LL.
Address:
Phone: ----
1O5b
Total 11,55
Date: I I _ (,,, Check:
Project:
Case No: 'P�-
No. of Copies
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: LANGLEY SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION, AMENDMENT
TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
LANDMARK DESIGNATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 22, 1994, at a special meeting to begin at 4:30
pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the Second
Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Bob & Darnell
Langley requesting approval for subdivision, rezoning to Affordable
Housing (AH), Special Review for parking and open space, GMQS
Exemption for affordable housing, and Landmark Designation. The
property is located at 939 East Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37,
East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5101.
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 4, 1994
City of Aspen Account.
u,..X,D L a-11 L 10/311C, y
MEMORANDUM
To: Julie Ann Woods, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
ta
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer GJ-r-
Date: February 12, 1997
Re: Trustee Townhomes At -the -Aspen Meadows Plat Amendment
I have reviewed the above referenced application, and I have the following comments:
1. Missing plat content requirements are as follows:
a. The zone district must be indicated.
b. If a title policy more recent than the 02/01/95 policy has been performed, it must be
referenced in the surveyor's certificate in order to ensure that the most current information
on easements has been shown. Otherwise, a title company letter must be referenced that
updates the earlier commitment for current easements of record to be shown on the plat.
c. Names of all adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots.
d. Include the legal description of the lot, both beneath the title and in the owner's
certificate. State the total acreage to nearest 0.001 acre.
e. State the basis of bearings.
f. Add title and City Council certificates.
2. Additional plat content comments:
a. Plat note 2 should read "horizontal" in lieu of "vertical."
1
0 qo
b. Add a note that references previous platting, explaining the changes by the amendment,
and stating that in all other regards, the original plats remains in full force and effect.
3. Utility Easements - Plate note 3 states "Front deck on Unit 2 extends upon water easement."
The plat drawing does not show this although the original plat did show it.
The current, proposed plat amendment shows patios on Units 2 and 3 extending into a sewer
easement. This is not permissible unless approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
An approval certificate must be provided for the Sanitation District stating that the encroachment
into the easement is acceptable. Or the sewer easement can be re-established away from the decks.
The proposed building footprint of Unit 1 is shown extending into an electric easement. This
is not permissible unless approved by Holy Cross Electric Association. An approval certificate
must be provided for HCEA stating that the encroachment into the easement is acceptable. Or the
electric easement can be re-established away from the building envelope.
13MI TI]
2
• RHONDA . BAZIL P.C.
J ,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: (970) 925-7171 FACSIMILE: (970) 925-9199
February 5, 1997
Mr. Chuck Roth
Engineering Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Trustee Townhomes
Dear Chuck:
I am enclosing the First Amendment to the Condominium Plat of
the Trustee Townhomes. This Plat contains three major changes from
the previous plat:
1. There is a new easement for the sewer line on the west
side of the property;
2. The limited common elements designated as proposed
garages have been removed; and
3. The boundaries of Units 1, 10 and 11 have been moved.
As I mentioned on the telephone, I would like to run these
changes by you before I send the packet out to the owners for their
signatures. Please let me know if you have any questions or
revisions to this proposed amended plat.
I am also enclosing a recorded copy of the Utility Easement
that you sent to me.
Sincerely,
RHONDA J. BAZIL, P.C.
By.
Rhonda J. i
rj b/hs
enc.
CC: Mr. Don Schuster
RESOLUTION NO.75—
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE AISPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES,
UNITS 1, 10, AND 11, SPA AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be
approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 at a public
hearing on December 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendment is
not inconsistent with the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Agreement and recommends that
City Council approve the amendment with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed amendment to the Aspen
•
CJ
Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 on December 16; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that the amendment is not inconsistent with the
Aspen Meadows Final SPA Agreement and recommends approval with conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
The SPA amendment is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by City
Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the last
extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new units.
l 3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the Aspen
Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
I
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
-5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16 day of
1996, by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
a'�� it <'5
John ennett, Mayor
0
0
I, Kathryn Koch, 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%2'--��/� 1996
Kathryn S. och, City Clerk
0
0
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. _L
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE ASPEN MEADOWS
TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES, UNITS 1, 10, AND 11, SPA AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be
approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and was not required to return to the conceptual review stage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 at a public
hearing on December 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendment is
not inconsistent with the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Agreement and recommends that
City Council approve the amendment with conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT IT HEREBY
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOME
SPA AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by City
Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the last
extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the Aspen
Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this /�Jay of Xta 7M1
1996, by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Sara Garton, Chair
I, Jackie Lothian, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy o9 that resolution adopted by e Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held /
1996. _
J
J ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
1•-3e
0 30 60
LEGEND AND NOTES
FIRST AMENDMENT
26295
O FOUND REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP WITH LS s AS DESCRIBED
❑ UTILITY BOX
SURVEY CONTROL
F FIRE HYDRANT
Mh MANHOLE
e o FENCE -
WATER VALVE
G.C.E. GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT
® ELECTRICAL BOX
0 LIGHT
AREA TABLE
UNIT 1 6440 S.F.•/-
UNIT 10 3637 S.F.-/-
UNIT 11 3507 S.F.-/-
ELECTRIC EASEMENT THROUGH UNIT 1 TO BE RELOCATED
SEWER EASEMENT
TO THE
NO. 4 REBAR
CONDOMINIUM PLAT OF THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES
b 6,9 °S
� 4 OO'w
I zp^�hr \,
N QB• 1 iS \
s' �.`1 �\
AT -THE -ASPEN MEADOWS, A CONDOM I NUM
CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT -
THE -ASPEN MEADOWS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., A COLORADO NON-
PROFIT CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF UNITS 1 THROUGH 11
OF THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT -THE -ASPEN MEADOWS, SITUATED IN THE
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO HAS BY THESE PRESENTS
AMENDED THE PLAT PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE OWNERS
CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION AND
CONDOMINIUM PLAT FOR THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT-TI4E-ASPEN MEADOWS
RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. OF THE RECORDS OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT -THE -ASPEN MEADOWS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., A COLORADO NON-PROFIT CORPORATON
BY: _ BY:
DAVID T. MCLAUGHLINr PRESIDENT JOHN SARPA, SECRETARY
STATE OF COLORADO )
) as.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING CERT FICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS
DAY OF 1997 BY DAVID T. MCLAUGHLIN,
PRESIDENT OF THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT -THE -ASPEN MEADOWS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A COLORADO NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO )
) 95
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING CERT'FICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS
DAY OF __ 1997 BY JOHN SARPA, SECRETARY OF
THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT -THE ASPEIN MEADOWS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., A COLORADO NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
NOTARY PUBLIC
A twenty (20) foot ride sanitary sewer ne easement being
located within Lot 5 of the Aspen Meadows Final S.P.A.
ro
I�
I'
z
w
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plot, being a subdivision
3
�
UNIT 8
�; i =
r
located in the North Half of Section '2 and the South Half of
\ BUILDING
j
Z y
(
JOHN HOWORTH DO HEREBY CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS. THAT I AM A
Section 1, Township 10 Southc Rangge 85 est of the Sixth
w
CbLORADO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
ate of Colorado, and
Principal Meridian, County of Pitof
I
STATE OF COLORADO: THAT THIS PLAT IS TRUE CORRECT AND COMPLETE AS
being ten (10) feet on each side of the folloWiTi described
t e
o
4Yr
B
,Ano �
I
I(I
LAID OUT, PLATTED AND SHOWN HEREON THAT PHIS PLAT WAS MADE BY ME
centerline, with sidelines extending and shortening os necessary
o
1*
x�
� �
�
FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE REAL PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON AND
to intersect with lo* lines'
o
d I I
F
3
CORRECTLY SHOWS THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE UNITS SHOWN
ryti
CARPORT
I
HEREON: AND THAT THIS PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMFNTS OF A LAND SURVEY
26295
PLAT AS SET FORTH IS CRS 38-51-102 AND OF A PLAT SET FORTH IN CRS
Beg InnI at a point along the northerly line of said
_
^,
I
I
I
38-33.3 3-209. SURVEY PRECISION IS GREATER THAT 1:10,000.
Lot 5, from Thence the northerly most corner thereof
_
`
I
u l
bears N d her 00 W 55.91 feet dish al bearing$
contained herein relative
I
/
i I
1
DATED JANUARY, 1997
to said subdivision PPtat:
Thence S. 12°31.'17' W. 61.82 feet: Thence S. 10°59'03'
t+�KwnLL—
I
UNIT 7
B°I`DIN°
`
BY: _
W. 149.98 feet: 'hence S. 03.08 52- E. 185.70 feet:
`
o
o
PLAT
NOTES
JOHN HOWORTH, PLS 25947
Thence S. 33026'07" E. 152.00 feet to the paint of
erminus, specifically excluding from this easement the
t
I I
I
!
CITY ENGINEERS APPROVAL
existing patios .ocated on Units 2 and 3 of the Trustee
PAT
I
EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE DESCRIBED HEREON SEE PITKIN COUNTY
y1/O1/95
Townhomes at the Aspen Meadows.
,
•
'T�
CARPORT
o:
II
TITLE INC. CASE N0. PCY-9383C4 DATED OFOR OTHER
MATTERS PERTAINING TO
THIS CONDOMINIUM MAP WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN DEPARTMENT OF
ENGINEERING THIS
G.C.E
4v'T6
,
THIS PROPERTY.
_ DAY OF _., 1997.
—
2.
THIS CONDOMINIUM HAS VERTICAL BOUNDARIES ONLY.
— _--
CITY ENGINEER
I I
I
o
3.
FRONT DECK ON UNIT 2 EXTENDS UPON WATER EASEMENT.
n'
UN 1 T 6
I
o
\
4.
ALL UTILITY SERVICE LINES AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
�o
I �Ie
p,\
BUILDING /
lt��-
G.C.E.
Z
5.
GENERAL COMMON ELEMENTS.
THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF EACH UNIT IS CONTIGUOUS
WITH THE EXISTING NORTHERLY WALL OF THE BUILDING PRESENTLY
THIS CONDOMINIUM MAP WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO THIS _ DAY OF 199?
PATIO
2594
LOCATED WITHtN EACH SUCH UNIT.
-----
I
[[:—
—
DIRECTOR
it
MIT`
RPORT
Z
6.
DESIGNATED AREAS OF EXPANSION/UNITS 1,10 AND 11 ARE
DEFINED IN THE CONDOMINIJM DECLARATION DEVELOPMENT
THEREOF IS CONTROLED BY THE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENTS
CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
NUMBER 75 SERIES OF
THERETO, CITY OF ASPEN RESOMEADOWS
LTIONSPECIALLY
1
I I
�.
a
1996, AND THE APPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECEPTION NUMBER
THIS CONDOMINIUM MAP WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND
RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, AT OCLOCK M. THIS
Rn- ____
o
5
UBUILDING
\
r
340938.
DAY OF , 1997, AND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK Af PAGE
`
_. -____ _
AS RECEPTION NUMBER
£
N
�\ �. ��
�.
b I
I
�
, A \
CLERK AND RECORDER
VICINTY MAP
NOTICE: ACCORDING TD COL ORADO aw TOV MJST COMIBiCE ANY Lli
ACTION BASED` UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PUT WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT IM NO EWENT MY NI'/ ACTIOA
BASED UP p1 ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE CONEJK.'E'D MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FRO" THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION Ii_ HEREON. THE
CERTIFICATION IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH TWE SEAI OF TWE
SURVEYOR
26295
\\
P, U"I10
\ G.C.E. \ _'
\ \ \
s �
A
\\ MANHOLE I
\ RELOCATE(
26295
RED CAP LLEGIBLE
HORIZONTAL CONTROL
�c \
ti�cFss \
GR�tiT \
O,fO
410 ll _ \
S�
5295
SEWER EASEMENT
•
T"PICAL STRUCTURE
DIMENSIONS /- 0.1'
PREPARED BY
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS,, INC.
210 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816
DATE JOB
SHEET 1 OF 1 2197 25192C
0 ID Vill
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development ment Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Resolution #dra_, Series of 1996, Aspen Meadows Trustee
Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment
DATE: December 16, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows SPA was approved by City Council on May 28, 1991.
It included remodeling and expansion of the eight existing Trustee Townhouses, and
construction of three new units. Subsequently, the Institute concluded that the proposed
construction, which was to step down the hillside above Castle Creek, is not feasible for
their organization and therefore has not been built to date. A new scenario has been
selected and conceptually approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (minutes
attached) under which the existing historic townhouses Bayer units will be remodeled
slightly, but not significantly expanded. The three new units are to be built to the FAR
which was approved in the SPA Agreement and will now be detached from the original
units to avoid overscaling them. Detaching the new units from the existing units requires a
change in the approved building envelope and therefore requires an amendment to the
SPA Agreement.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this application on
December 10 and recommended approval of the applicant's request.
Vested rights for this development have been extended several times since 1991 and are
currently set to expire on December 19, 1996.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Doug MacPherson, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood.
LOCATION: Aspen Meadows, Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee Townhouses
1
• a
ZONING: RMF/SPA
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The Community Development Director
has determined that this application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to
the SPA. Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be approved
pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the
proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage.
The review standards of Section 26.80.040(B) are as follows:
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA). In the review
of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development
plan, the commission and city council shall consider the following.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The proposal does not affect approved land use or density. Detaching the
three new units from the existing townhomes preserves their architectural integrity and
preserves vegetation which buffers them from the new construction.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Response: The proposal does not increase demands on public facilities or roads
because there is no increase in density.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The applicant represents that the characteristics of the new building
envelopes, in terms of slope, ground stability and environmental hazards, are the same
as the previously approved envelopes.
2
0 0
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserved significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant's proposal to detach the new units from the existing units is a
result of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Because the new
units are physically larger than the existing, and because of a desire to visually distinguish
the new construction from the Bayer units which are considered historic resources, the
Commission found that a physical separation of the buildings was compatible with the
surrounding context. This results in the preservation of several large trees which are
directly next to the existing end units, and provides some privacy for the owners of both
the new and old units. Relocating the building envelopes for units 1, 10, and 11 does not
impact the trail easement established in the SPA Agreement.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposal is not in conflict with any elements of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional expenditures for public
facilities.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Response: The requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b) are met by this proposal.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that Council approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units
1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions, as stated in
Resolution # 15, Series of 1996:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval
3
by City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of
Section 26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # 76, Series of
1996, Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA
Amendment.
Attachments:
A. Historic Preservation Commission minutes of August 28 and October 23,
1996
B. Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement, Trustee Townhouses
C. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution # 7 , Series of 1996
4
0
Novcmber 5, 1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 26.80.050.(E)(2)
E. Amendment to final development plan
2, All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
5na1 development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section '26.52.030. are as follows.-
Applicant- Mr, Douglas J. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534 E. HymanAve. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-7000
Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant,
2. Legal Description. Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3. The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
A Site Improvement Survey is attached for your review.
6. A written description of the proposed development is attached.
7. The Review Standards for anSPA is attached for your review.
6. Written Description of the Proposed Development
Backaround
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks. The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer townhouses Units —2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units 1, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south and of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the north of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet di$erent floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their rental
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor. Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft. for the entire Lot 5, Units 1 through 11. This amendment does not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. ( See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SPA- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the existing townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses.
. J b
Amendment Proposal to the approved SPA
as follows:
1. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
2. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units 1, 10 and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the HPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings
located as far as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated yet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lot 5-
SPA- With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted ui new
building envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. The proposed building envelopes for units 1, 10 and
I 1 are shown on the attached drawings.
A. Unit I Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of Unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast corner of the existing building envelope and 26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B. Unit 10 and I 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of Unit 9, with a
distance of 40 feet from the northeast corner of the existing building envelope and 25 feet
from the northwest corner of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, floor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the HPC. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
7. Review Standards
I. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SPA. The
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture; landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot 5, the development does not'
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SP.4, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows for buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilities
and roads as the original approved development.
I Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot 5 area as was the original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes. The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users of the projects and the
public at large.
The proposed development preserves many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition; the relocation of the new townhouses, preserves the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, the relocation further establishes
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at the Aspen Institute_ The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocation of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, preserves a mature growth of
trees growing directly next to Unit 9 as well as a significant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. There are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA.
4. Whether the development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
funds,
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
8. Whether there are sufficient GNIQS allotments fro the proposed development.
There are no new units created by this SPA, amendment proposal.
•
•
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b. A precise plan of the proposed development......
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and accessways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows_ A copy is available through the City of aspen Community
Development Department.
c. A Statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel Iand, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26, 80.040(B).
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later than 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Permit procedure. This statement is for Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development .
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SPA
will remain the same.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review boards.
�� .'��.t� ,'}J`,` �n�;H I ii� ryr � ' ''.' e � y,%',� '�,G'. t ',. .fir• � r �
.,•��,�:�t��.�.�',li►���y2"lt+..'Y1LIt��►'.[i:i4;',e4��. iA ,,�, t. �'-�': e1�.•.. �. i��c � G' /t':�tFJfT..•�1l{.. ,,
tt-34017z7 Q1/:'I/9'' 1 17 fit:'c:- 1,400.00 )3K 667 PO 761
Siiv.a 1)avi: F'i!1 in t;nt_v C16,rtr. I)ar_ q:,i},�
1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations The
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 6 are noted.
a)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.):
6,000
b)
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. ft.
c)
Minimum lot width:
60 feet
d)
Minimum front yarn:
i) Principal buildin;:
10 feet
ii) Accessory building:
15 feet
mS1J�. A variation from minimum RMF
Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 6.)
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 feet
f)
Minimum rear yard:
i) Principal building:
10 feet
ii) Accessory building:
15 feet
g)
Maximum height:
25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the center portion of the tennis
townhomes has been granted by the City for up to three feet as shown on
the Plat.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35
( leg. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
27
1
NOV-06-96 WED a4 : 55 �'M
• '�' lf�r ' �, :.v .. f5� u i �n:k.;'�� �� '.!�•�. .L uN.'.!�'Af�7.' i`i,�%l;y�,,lk�� �tLI ;r��:4 r'h r?�7�i��� j � ..
667 i''j T b2
t' i I A
. r • (':, � I ,. 1: I c:'r t f?u- '!. • r:,.•,
i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1
j) Internal FAR:
no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom
2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requircmcnt
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condom iniumization approval for the seven tennis townhome units on Lot 6 as
approved by this SPA plan.
The six month minimum Iease requirement for condominium units as con[aincd
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and 'hereby is
waived as to [lie seven condominium units on Lot 6.
3. Site imnrovcmcn($
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
tine improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance witil standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-iiuilt location of each easement.
(b) Uindsmpc ImPJSL'Qcrits• Savanah shall abide by and substanlially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of t;le
Plat in Book _,kg, at Page �5- , er seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, !lower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule wills
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agrecd-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
please of improvemcnt5. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupam-.y may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of suds unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. All
28
V
Meeting was called to order by 1 st Vice-chairman Roger Moyer with Susan
Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman
present. Jake Vickery was seated at 5:10 p.m. Melanie Roschko and Sven
Alstrom were excused.
MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of July 10th as amended
and the minutes of July 24th; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion
carried.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy stated that 820 E. Cooper was red tagged.
Amy also stated that the Hotel Jerome is requesting air conditions for a few
days in their rooms to accommodate a group of clients requests.
Roger stated that Aspen is an tourist town and possibly health issues are a
concern. He als"tated that it could be -an air exchange system and more
research needs done.
Amy stated unless there is some justification she recommends against air
conditioners and the use of fans would be more appropriate.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH
Gretchen Greenwood, architect presented the affidavit of posting to
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer.
David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice meets the requirements of
the City of Aspen and the HPC has jurisdiction to proceed.
Amy stated that an approval was given in 1991 to modify the units and add
three new units. At that time all the units were going to be brought to 2500
sq. ft. Since that time the plan has changed and the existing units are going
to be modified as is without much additional square footage. The new units
were expected to be built basically to match.
1 \i �x',k ' ��- ,wit
N HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28, 1.996
She also stated that the applicant would like to now change the new units.
They are proposing the same square footage but the building has a different
character. Originally there were to be detached car ports and the three new .
units have garages which is very different. There is not the solid and void
character in the new units. There ought to be some type of one story
element on the street facade. The HPC also needs landscape information.
Staff recommends tabling.
Gretchen Greenwood is the architect and Doug MacPherson is the
developer. There is one site at the south and two sites at the north end of
the existing town homes. The Aspen Meadows restaurant is at the South
end. In 1991 the units were designed for 2700 sqft. including a ten foot
addition on the back and a below grade space. The car port was to be
eliminated and garages were approved to be built. Although garages do not
exist they have to ability to build them at anytime because they are
approved plans.
-She -stated that the proposed plans for units 11-I0, & 11 axe similar in size in
terms of FAR, they are 2700 sqft. but closer to 3400 sqft. in terms of what is
below grade in terms of mechanical laundry room which are below grade
quite extensively. The intent was to not replicate the designs of the existing
units. There is a one story element at the street which is a garage and the
door recesses back six feet with wing walls on either side and cut outs to de-
emphasize the garage and pick up other elements of different units. The
existing Bayer units are 1 1/2 story down a steep site. The intent is to re-
create that with the two story element 30 feet back from the face of the
building. The height of the existing building is 21 feet above the existing
grade at the street and the proposed buildings. are 26 feet. The buildings sit
in the approved foot print of 1991. The buildings are separated from the
existing town homes about five feet. There will be shingles and clad
windows on the building.
Suzannah asked about the FAR and does it reduce the availability of square
footage for the other units. i
Doug MacPherson stated that the Institute owns two other units and David
McLaughlin owns one and he has assigned that square footage to these three
units. None of the other home owners would loose square footage.
2
Amy stated that they were approved for all the units to have the same square
footage.
Gretchen stated that the SPA amendment allowed the units to vary in the
FAR due to the way each unit sits with the grade. Our attempt is to create a
different development because there are so many Bayer houses and they
stand on their own.
Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing.
Bob Maynard resides in unit #2 owned by the Aspen Skiing Co. which was
involved with the redo of the Aspen Meadows from the beginning. He
stated that the square footage is larger than the existing units and in the
existing units not one person has tried to do the expansion that was
approved in 1991. You can't do it economically. He stated for the last
thing to do in the institute is to bring in a foreign design different than what
was there before. - - - - --
Harris Sherman stated that he owns unit 91 and he walked the area. As a
,general matter he agrees with Bob about the character of the Meadows. The
existing eight units are low density and they all step down from the south to
the north end. There is a feeling of openness that goes with the units. He
stated that the car ports create space between the units and for those units
that have windows on the north side you can see Castle Creek and the
hillside coming down. Herbert Bayer made an impressive design. He stated
now on the north side there will be a two story wall beside his unit and he is
greatly effected by it literally being five or ten feet from his house. He
stated that he is looking into a wall of the new unit and detracts from his
unit and the overall ambiance of the Meadows. It is partly a problem of size
and how the units are located. There is adjacent land that the institute owns
and the units could be moved 40 feet to the north and vegetation planted.
He stated that he did not know what could be done with the south side of the
project. He stated that these are serious design issues andiimpacts. The
Aspen Institute owns the land and is selling it to Mr.; MacPherson and Mr.
Sherman does not want to complicate the plans of the institute. They have
the right to sell the land and get as much money as they can within the
context of what is being preserved. All of the existing eight units are
3
between 1600 and 1700 square feet. On the west side there is permission
to add space under the first floor living room and technically you could not
do unless you excavated underground in order to create a basement area.
No one at present intends to do that. The proposed units start at 2700 sq. ft.
up to 3200 sq. ft. which is almost a doubling of the square footage. That
will change the character as it is twice the size. If the units could be
separated visually from the other units this maybe acceptable. Moving it 40
feet may not be acceptable depending on how the buildings are positioned.
Bob Maynard stated that there is a waiting list for the existing units and to
say that larger units are needed to meet the market demand is inappropriate.
Doug MacPherson stated that there maybe some demand for the existing
units but we are taking at a lower price given the price that he is going to
pay the institute for the vacant sites. Financially a bigger unit is needed
given the difficulty of the site and because of the price the institute wants
for the land. The prices for the existing units is $500,000.
The biggest unit is 3600 sqft. with some of it below grade. The institute had
expressed interest in having this kind of unit. David McLaughlin gave us
the transfer of square footage to this unit because the institute felt the need
for larger units.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the Institute stated that they support the
proposed projects. He spoke on behalf of five of the eleven units. In 1991
when HPC had the debate whether the units should mirror the existing there
was a split on the HPC at that time. He presented a letter from the institute
in support of the project.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Donnelley stated that he is the monitor and acted on the project in 1991.
HPC's responsibility then and now is to the existing styling of the
architecture created by Herbert Bayer and. Fritz Benedict. He stated HPC
cannot comment on the FAR because the applicant does have the right to
build to what they are allowed. They are also building within the foot print
that was approved in 1991. He stated that there are three major problems:
1) Hipped roofs are explicitly anathetical to that design.
0
2) The roof pitch is too steep. What was approved in 1991 the S. elevation
acknowledge the very shallow pitch of the other units and that is consistent
with the Bauhaus aesthetics, no hipped roofs appeared in this design.
3) The vertical fenestration or bands of fenestration always emphasized
horizontality.
Susan stated that the HPC needs to stay with the Herbert Bayer plan. She
also stated her concern is that on the north there is one house and the south
has two which looks awkward. It is unbalanced and she also indicated that
the new houses should be spaced appropriately, i.e. 40 feet separation on the
south.
Mark stated that his concern is the proximity of the two units to the existing
units. He also stated that roof pitches need addressed and he agrees with
Donnelley.
Suzannah agreed with Donnelley also. A cue should be taken from the
_ older buildings in -the -way the massing was done and the way they split- - - from side to side with the sloped roof and flat roof. That is important to the
rhythm of the project. They do not respect one another the way the original
design does as the eaves drop down. # 10 should be sifted to the outside and
well as 411. The new buildings need to be significantly separated and the
amount should be determined.
Roger stated that he was here in 1991 and concurs with Donnelley. He also
agrees with the separation of units at both ends.
Gretchen stated that they want the units divorced from the original units and
it would be better project if they could be stepped down. Right now we are
allowed a five foot setback and they are 21 feet from the side so there is
room to move. 40 feet might put them over the property line on the road.
Doug MacPherson stated that he met with Sherman and his concern was
separation and he would ruove them as far to the north as possibly. He
stated that he could get some separation on Bob Maynard's unit on the
south but the restaurant is close and it is a steep site. He will get a topo
done this week.
5
Roger asked about the garages.
Doug stated that the present homeowners did not want to peruse it.
Gretchen stated that if you site visited the area the turning radius would be
very difficult to do.
Bob Maynard stated that the units are large but that is his personal concern.
It is deviation from what is there historically that concerns him.
MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for units 1, 10 & I 1 of the
Aspen Meadows town homes be tabled suggesting restudy of specific areas:
1) Reduction or elimination of hipped roofs.
2) Reduction of the pitch of the main roofs.
3) Restudy offenestration to be more consistent with the prevailing
aesthetics.
-- 4) Investigation of possible further separation of the proposed new work
from the existing town homes; second by Roger.
DISCUSSION
Suzannah stated that she would like massing included in the motion.
She stated -that you have a tall volume and a longer low volume going along
and in the proposed elevations there is one single large volume and the
hipped roof doesn't effect that.
Amended motion:
5) Restudy of massing in general to reflect a better articulation of
heights as expressed in the existing town houses.
second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion.
Suzannah also stated that she has concerns with the garages.
Roger stated thalt he does not find the garages objectionable and they
differentiate between Bayer and new. He also likes the idea of the winged
walls and recessed doors. In this particular case it is not on the street.
0
Donnelley stated that there is a precedence as the entrance to the units is on
the side where you park your car.
Gretchen stated that the entry is 26 feet back from the face of the garage.
They tried to get a relationship between the depth of the entry without cars
similar to the existing town homes.
Donnelley stated that the 1991 approvals did not approve garages within the
units. He also stated that he would rather see car ports than garages. He
would rather see a more appropriate reflection of the shallow pitched roofs.
Jake stated that the issue of the car port should be considered with the
general issue of massing.
MOTION: Suzannah moved to table the application until Sept. 25, 1996,
second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried.
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented the EIS in its
most recent form. The impact statement was handed out to the Board. Stan
also presented a draft resolution to the Board on part of the Elected, Officials
that would be a unified response. The response accepts the modified direct
alignment which goes through the Marolt Open Space. In CDOT's
suggestion of the supplementary draft a highway would be constructed as
the first phase which would contain two general traffic lanes and two
dedicated bus lanes. This draft is asking CDOT for two lanes of highway
and a transit envelope. The concern of a four lane has impacts on Marolt
Open space which is too great. The proposed cut and cover of 400 feet
would mitigate for the open space of the new road. There would be a
continuous flow of open space from upper Marolt Thomas to the golf
course. Cemetery lane would be brought in on the Castle Creek Bridge and
intersect with Main Street.
Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC did not support the cut and cover
and she supplied comments to council. Numerous issues need to be taken
into account.
7
ASPEN HISTAIC PRESERVATION COMMION OCT. 23, 1996
Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the
windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the
existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space.
Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area.
Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the
glazing was not taken to ground level.
Susan agreed with Donnellev and it looks chalet like.
Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground.
Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with
the beams.
Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was
inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc- it would be difficult to
maintain.
Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European
building and either window elevation is acceptable.
Sven asked what the material would be on the windows.
Stefan stated wood.
MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram #2 that was
presented at the meeting for the window modification; second by Susan.
Motion carried 3-2.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL
Roger stated that this is conceptual continued from Aug. ?8th.
Amy Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous
forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three
k,
ASPEN HIST IC PRESERVATION COMM ION OCT 23, 1996
new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the
property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not
feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the
existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR
they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units
will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger
than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five
conditions outlined in the memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the
new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC
talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in
scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the
new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have
really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new
design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The
existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and
altered.
Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have
an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The
applicant is concerned with their due diligence period.
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into
the record.
Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of
HPC'c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen
Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug
MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the
hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review
them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that
he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the
hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to
receive and review the new plans.
Amy stated that the second letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter
concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested
the postponement of HPC's Oct. 23rd consideration of the new plans for the
three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the
2
ASPEN HIST C PRESERVATION COMMAION OCT. 23, 1996
proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern
regarding the size and location of such units because of their corresponding
impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town
houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six
weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in
advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which
occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to
review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly
request the following:
Postponement of this matter at Wednesday's meeting.
That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the
next meeting.
That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff.
Roger asked if the public had comments relative to this proposal, for or
against.
David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is
representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town.
David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps
strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before
this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part of
this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this
commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the
neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go
through the process in a reasonably amount of time to look at those and
consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is
an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short
term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that
the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be
distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall
sense of that unique area.
Cindy Vinesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute
stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the
Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and
have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate
7
ASPEN HIST C PRESERVATION CONIMWON OCT. 23, 1996
most of the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the
original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be
detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute
intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes
but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of
funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also
on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with
Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that
were out standing.
Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug
MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to
provide them to the interested party.
Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of
Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he
assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is
in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can
represent the unit that he represents.
Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant of the unit
which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain
Partners.
Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but isn't a
full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his
concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to
him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a
separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to
him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would
be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new
diagram. He told him over the phone that he moved the units as far as they
can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot
t setback off that northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit 91
from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One of Harris's concern were
the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan.
�V
ASPEN HIST&C PRESERVATION COMIAION OCT. 23, 1996
Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant
could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and
supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing.
Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing
this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do
not want to see anything built here. He also stated that if the Board tables
his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he
didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He
stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls
and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he
needs two weeks to look at the project.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns
they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of
meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right
up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment
for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They
have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has
always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they
can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved lot to build on and she feels they
ae out of line in requesting tabling.
Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5.
David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to
Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the
neighbors.
Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and
they did not contact the neighbors.
David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant
would show the new designs to the neighbors.
Gretchen stated that has never been something that you have to do in an
approval process.
66
ASPEN HIST&C PRESERVATION COMN&ION OCT 23, 1996
David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the
applicant in the long term.
Roger asked the HPC if they desired to table or go on with the meeting?
Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be
available for the another meeting next week.
David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago
at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced
about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a
representation was made that before that design would be considered for
approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed
by Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of landuse law
that representation made by a developer in a development process become
part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and
develops the project.
Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next
week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled.
Sven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated
that he did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is
when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received
adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by
Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees
letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige.
Susan stated that she agrees with Sven.
Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an
obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the
neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a project
and take more of HPC's time which he really objects to he viamently
objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this
project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed
development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a
stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this.
10
ASPEN HISTAC PRESERVATION COMMON OCT 231996
Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far
but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide
notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is
interested in reviewing the project.
Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should
proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have
been here.
Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling.
Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property
owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information
has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the
property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the
records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until
Monday. -
David Hoefer stated that if HPC decides to proceed we would note for the
records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was
not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they
received notice of the public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction
to proceed.
Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last
meeting.
Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far
away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in
order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they
are not a 1/1/2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The
entire site has been surveyed.
One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto
the otherside of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on
site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this
point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the
11
ASPEN HIST IC PRESERVATION COMION OCT. 23, 1996
same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and
the car port will be ten feet away.
Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they
did that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition #2 which is the
exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the
overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt.
On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side
of the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the
building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a
heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements,
sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual
relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the
new units which meeting condition #3.
Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to
condition 44, the separation of -the new work from the existing town houses
so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of
the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a
lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a
combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles
in very much the same location as in the other buildings. This makes for a
visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same.
Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of
Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback.
Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is
a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to
go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated
that they need a strong approval for the design by HPC.
Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line.
Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that
is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off
and giving them the key.
12
ASPEN HISTAC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCT. 23, 1996
Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings.
Mark asked if the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and
inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10.
Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings.
They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted
saved.
Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit 910 as he is
concerned about the tree.
Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the
drip line.
Mark stated that he recently lost a couple of trees because they were so
close.
Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting
200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman's
unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to
survive.
COMMENTS
Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is
back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry side
which is the east elevation it is dark.
Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports
have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then
an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open.
Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding.
Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and
shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be
13
ASPEN HISTAC PRESERVATION COMMMION OCT. 23, 1996
sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds
of materials.
Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings
on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11.
Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is
7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The
unit next to that is four feet lower.
Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter
to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the
neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final
he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should
be presented. A drawing of the adjacent building to scale should also be
presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be
placed on the site.
Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will
let Amy know.
Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the
chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not
see the relationship in the drawings.
Gretchen stated that she met the conditions.
.116tion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the
proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units 1,10 and 11 with the following
conditions: Prior to final fenestration be restudied and that the materials
be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the
chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present
drawings. Details must be enlarged for finals. The fenestration has
problems with framing and site lines. A letter be sent to the Board of
.-ldjustment in support of the side yard variance; second by Mark. Motion -
carried 5-1. Sven voted no.
14
ASPEN HISTRIC PRESERVATION COMMWION OCT 23, 1996
Motion: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor,
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8: 00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
- ! _,
J 667 �.: _ ?56
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
3. Trails
The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie
Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this trail
easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no
financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work.
D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND:
Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot
4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that
this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the
Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof
shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance
of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail
locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments
which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which
subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of
existing topography.
Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and
proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water.
E. t_OT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Existing development on Lot 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately
1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been
approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight
three -bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee
houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two
on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR
with three bedrooms. Total build -out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty-
three bedrooms and 27,500 squire feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet
per dwelling unit). FAP.s and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee
houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Iand Use Regulations in effect
as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
22 \ 1 1-
t\
•4irc 7 01l224;'^2 1b: Rec rjf: 667 ,='G 757
i1.,i Da i�, Pi}r::in`C my ��k:, Doc =.;?:_?
period next succcec11ril! aunt. ;), 19)1, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change
to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an
allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open
space, as noted on the Plat and as described below.
1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted:
a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft.
c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet
d) Minimum front yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 5.)
e) Minimum side yard: 5 feet
f) Minimum rear yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
g) Maximum height: 25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee
h6uses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35 %
23
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
i) External FAR (maximum):
1:1
j) Internal FAR: no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom
2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded
condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5.
Condo miniumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an
affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(1)(c). The fee
totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat
and declaration for the units on Lot 5.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan.
3. Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as -built location of each easement.
(b) Landscape Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book o 2 at Page 5- , et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed -
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
24
.a.,__, _..-_. ..
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper.
4. Trai 1 s
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off -site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as -built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
S. Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above -described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to
Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public
Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he
shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual
cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site
or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
6. Employee Housing
Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight
trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in
each unit remains at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the
three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
F. LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 6 is owned by Savanah and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6. Approved under this plan is
development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR
each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and
17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit).
FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as
set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991,
notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding
June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or
calculation of FARs. The seven new townhomes have received an allotment under the
City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for
accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein.
26
0
0
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE ASPEN MEADOWS
TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES, UNITS 1, 10, AND 11, SPA AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be
approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. if the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and was not required to return to the conceptual review stage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 at a public
hearing on December 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendment is
not inconsistent with the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Agreement and recommends that
City Council approve the amendment with conditions.
i
•
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT IT HEREBY
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOME
SPA AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by City
Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the last
extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the Aspen
Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
1996, by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Sara Garton, Chair
I, Jackie Lothian, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held
1996.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
«MO,mv ,.
NOTES. ��..,✓��:. f'_
1 '
5 s
1
^ `1
_
7
� f
TPOPONAPH
1 I I l \ \ / is 1>kU�dTi
\ Apia Sub
J.
��n ��leadoWS'Iru�f'� �(oW�hou�a5
uf� ►T oN�
�'�opos�d �uil��inq �"o�"�rirst- 4 ��dinq �ty�lo�
10
gin
wee
/ " / / // /
.j
iV
262�" I
f / / 0
25947
1
Meadows
n6ou5c
Unit l o1�
,��izoPos,ed Sul )� I jlq
lZ � 'print i ulL1i4
� 1
�1
CARPORT
Li IN 1 1 1 l^ �- 1
x
lJ N I - r I • 0/*- --, T t:5- L,- ' o !�1
V4
If
S
a
:2
km
V8 It , 1 1, a 11
P-j
L4 N I --r I r O LJ Ci V -7- 2 t-4
1-1
LJN ITy 10 f II ✓/I 0�1'r e,V6,\//,-,-- 1 0 N
Ve8 1, ; I o "
0
A • 31rc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo�
THRU: Mary Lackner, Acting Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11,
SPA Amendment
DATE: December 10, 1996 (continued from December 3, 1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows SPA was approved by City Council on May 28, 1991.
It included remodeling and expansion of the eight existing Trustee Townhouses, and
construction of three new units. Subsequently, the Institute concluded that the proposed
construction, which was to step down the hillside above Castle Creek, is not feasible for
their organization and has not been built to date. A new scenario has been selected and
conceptually approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (minutes attached) under
which the existing historic townhouses Bayer units will be remodeled slightly, but not
significantly expanded. The three new units are to be built to the FAR which was
approved in the SPA Agreement and will now be detached from the original units to avoid
overscaling them. Detaching the new units from the existing units requires a change in
the approved building envelope and therefore requires an amendment to the SPA
Agreement.
Vested rights for this development have been extended several times since 1991 and are
currently set to expire on December 19, 1996.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Doug MacPherson, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood.
LOCATION: Aspen Meadows, Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee Townhouses
ZONING: RMF/SPA
1
0 •
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The Community Development Director
has determined that this application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to
the SPA. Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be approved
pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the
proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage.
The review standards of Section 26.80.040(B) are as follows:
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA). In the review
of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development
plan, the commission and city council shall consider the following.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The proposal does not affect approved land use or density. Detaching the
three new units from the existing townhomes preserves their architectural integrity and
preserves vegetation which buffers them from the new construction.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Response: The proposal does not increase demands on public facilities or roads
because there is no increase in density.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The applicant represents that the characteristics of the new building
envelopes, in terms of slope, ground stability and environmental hazards, are the same
as the previously approved envelopes.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserved significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
2
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant's proposal to detach the new units from the existing units is a
result of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Because the new
units are physically larger than the existing, and because of a desire to visually distinguish
the new construction from the Bayer units which are considered historic resources, the
Commission found that a physical separation of the buildings was compatible with the
surrounding context. This results in the preservation of several large trees which are
directly next to the existing end units, and provides some privacy for the owners of both
the new and old units. Relocating the building envelopes for units 1, 10, and 11 does not
impact the trail easement established in the SPA Agreement.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposal is not in conflict with any elements of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional expenditures for public
facilities.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Response: The requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b) are met by this proposal.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and
11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by
City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
%.1
0 •
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section 11(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee
Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by
City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
Attachments:
A. Historic Preservation Commission minutes of August 28 and October 23,
1996
B. Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement, Trustee Townhouses
In
Meeting was called to order by 1st Vice-chairman Roger Moyer with Susan
Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman
present. Jake Vickery was seated at 5:10 p.m. Melanie Roschko and Sven
Alstrom were excused.
MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of July 10th as amended
and the minutes of July 24th; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion
carried.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy stated that 820 E. Cooper was red tagged.
Amy also stated that the Hotel Jerome is requesting air conditions for a few
days in their rooms to accommodate a group of clients requests.
Roger stated that Aspen is an tourist town and possibly health issues are a
concern. He also stated that it could be an air exchange system and more
research needs done.
Amy stated unless there is some justification she recommends against air
conditioners and the use of fans would be more appropriate.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH
Gretchen Greenwood, architect presented the affidavit of posting to
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer.
David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice meets the requirements of
the City of Aspen and the HPC has jurisdiction to proceed.
Amy stated that an approval was given in 1991 to modify the units and add
three new units. At that time all the units were going to be brought to 2500
sq. ft. Since that time the plan has changed and the existing units are going
to be modified as is without much additional square footage. The new units
were expected to be built basically to match.
1 tj �it
She also stated that the applicant would like to now change the new units.
They are proposing the same square footage but the building has a different
character. Originally there were to be detached car ports and the three new
units have garages which is very different. There is not the solid and void
character in the new units. There ought to be some type of one story
element on the street facade. The HPC also needs landscape information.
Staff recommends tabling.
Gretchen Greenwood is the architect and Doug MacPherson is the
developer. There is one site at the south and two sites at the north end of
the existing town homes. The Aspen Meadows restaurant is at the South
end. In 1991 the units were designed for 2700 sqft. including a ten foot
addition on the back and a below grade space. The car port was to be
eliminated and garages were approved to be built. Although garages do not
exist they have to ability to build them at anytime because they are
approved plans.
She stated that the proposed plans for units 1, 10, & 11 are similar in size in
terms of FAR, they are 2700 sqft. but closer to 3400 sqft. in terms of what is
below grade in terms of mechanical laundry room which are below grade
quite extensively. The intent was to not replicate the designs of the existing
units. There is a one story element at the street which is a garage and the
door recesses back six feet with wing walls on either side and cut outs to de-
emphasize the garage and pick up other elements of different units. The
existing Bayer units are 1 1/2 story down a steep site. The intent is to re-
create that with the two story element 30 feet back from the face of the
building. The height of the existing building is 21 feet above the existing
grade at the street and the proposed buildings. are 26 feet. The buildings sit
in the approved foot print of 1991. The buildings are separated from the
existing town homes about five feet. There will be shingles and clad
windows on the building.
Suzannah asked about the FAR and does it reduce the availability of square
footage for the other units. I i
Doug MacPherson stated that the Institute owns two other units and David
McLaughlin owns one and he has assigned that square footage to these three
units. None of the other home owners would loose square footage.
2
Amy stated that they were approved for all the units to have the same square
footage.
Gretchen stated that the SPA amendment allowed the units to vary in the
FAR due to the way each unit sits with the grade. Our attempt is to create a
different development because there are so many Bayer houses and they
stand on their own.
Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing.
Bob Maynard resides in unit #2 owned by the Aspen Skiing Co. which was
involved with the redo of the Aspen Meadows from the beginning. He
stated that the square footage is larger than the existing units and in the
existing units not one person has tried to do the expansion that was
approved in 1991. You can't do it economically. He stated for the last
thing to do in the institute is to bring in a foreign design different than what
was there before.
Harris Sherman stated that he owns unit 91 and he walked the area. As a
general matter he agrees with Bob about the character of the Meadows. The
existing eight units are low density and they all step down from the south to
the north end. There is a feeling of openness that goes with the units. He
stated that the car ports create space between the units and for those units
that have windows on the north side you can see Castle Creek and the
hillside coming down. Herbert Bayer made an impressive design. He stated
now on the north side there will be a two story wall beside his unit and he is
greatly effected by it literally being five or ten feet from his house. He
stated that he is looking into a wall of the new unit and detracts from his
unit and the overall ambiance of the Meadows. It is partly a problem of size
and how the units are located. There is adjacent land that the institute owns
and the units could be moved 40 feet to the north and vegetation planted.
He stated that he did not know what could be done with the south side of the
project. He stated that these are serious design issues and impacts. The
Aspen Institute owns the land and is selling it to Mr., MacPherson and Mr.
Sherman does not want to complicate the plans of the institute. They have
the right to sell the land and get as much money as they can within the
context of what is being preserved. All of the existing eight units are
9
between 1600 and 1700 square feet. On the west side there is permission
to add space under the first floor living room and technically you could not
do unless you excavated underground in order to create a basement area.
No one at present intends to do that. The proposed units start at 2700 sq. ft.
up to 3200 sq. ft. which is almost a doubling of the square footage. That
will change the character as it is twice the size. If the units could be
separated visually from the other units this maybe acceptable. Moving it 40
feet may not be acceptable depending on how the buildings are positioned.
Bob Maynard stated that there is a waiting list for the existing units and to
say that larger units are needed to meet the market demand is inappropriate.
Doug MacPherson stated that there maybe some demand for the existing
units but we are taking at a lower price given the price that he is going to
pay the institute for the vacant sites. Financially a bigger unit is needed
given the difficulty of the site and because of the price the institute wants
for the land. The prices for the existing units is $500,000.
The biggest unit is 3600 sqft. with some of it below grade. The institute had
expressed interest in having this kind of unit. David McLaughlin gave us
the transfer of square footage to this unit because the institute felt the need
for larger units.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the Institute stated that they support the
proposed projects. He spoke on behalf of five of the eleven units. In 1991
when HPC had the debate whether the units should mirror the existing there
was a split on the HPC at that time. He presented a letter from the institute
in support of the project.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Donnelley stated that he is the monitor and acted on the project in 1991.
HPC's responsibility then and now is to the existing styling of the
architecture created by Herbert Bayer anti'. Fritz Benedict. He stated HPC
cannot comment on the FAR because the applicant does have the right to
build to what they are allowed. They are also building within the foot print
that was approved in 1991. He stated that there are three major problems:
1) Hipped roofs are explicitly anathetical to that design.
S
ASPEN HISTOIC PRESERVATION COMMWION AUG. 28, 1996
2) The roof pitch is too steep. What was approved in 1991 the S. elevation
acknowledge the very shallow pitch of the other units and that is consistent
with the Bauhaus aesthetics, no hipped roofs appeared in this design.
3) The vertical fenestration or bands of fenestration always emphasized
horizontality.
Susan stated that the HPC needs to stay with the Herbert Bayer plan. She
also stated her concern is that on the north there is one house and the south
has two which looks awkward. It is unbalanced and she also indicated that
the new houses should be spaced appropriately, i.e. 40 feet separation on the
south.
Mark stated that his concern is the proximity of the two units to the existing
units. He also stated that roof pitches need addressed and he agrees with
Donnelley.
Suzannah agreed with Donnelley also. A cue should be taken from the
older buildings in the way the massing was done and the way they split
from side to side with the sloped roof and flat roof. That is important to the
rhythm of the project. They do not respect one another the way the original
design does as the eaves drop down. # 10 should be sifted to the outside and
well as # 11. The new buildings need to be significantly separated and the
amount should be determined.
Roger stated that he was here in 1991 and concurs with Donnelley. He also
agrees with the separation of units at both ends.
Gretchen stated that they want the units divorced from the original units and
it would be better project if they could be stepped down. Right now we are
allowed a five foot setback and they are 21 feet from the side so there is
room to move. 40 feet might put them over the property line on the road.
Doug MacPherson stated that he met with Sherman and his concern was
separation and he would rreove them as far to the north as possibly. He
stated that he could get some separation on Bob Maynard's unit on the
south but the restaurant is close and it is a steep site. He will get a topo
done this week.
5
ASPEN HISTAIC PRESERVATION COMM ION AUG. 28, 1996
Roger asked about the garages.
Doug stated that the present homeowners did not want to peruse it.
Gretchen stated that if you site visited the area the turning radius would be
very difficult to do.
Bob Maynard stated that the units are large but that is his personal concern.
It is deviation from what is there historically that concerns him.
MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for units 1, 10 & I of the
Aspen Meadows town homes be tabled suggesting restudy of specific areas:
1) Reduction or elimination of hipped roofs.
2) Reduction of the pitch of the main roofs.
3) Restudy of fenestration to be more consistent with the prevailing
aesthetics.
4) Investigation of possible further separation of the proposed new work
from the existing town homes; second by Roger.
DISCUSSION
Suzannah stated that she would like massing included in the motion.
She stated that you have a tall volume and a longer low volume going along
and in the proposed elevations there is one single large volume and the
hipped roof doesn't effect that.
Amended motion:
5) Restudy of massing in general to reflect a better articulation of
heights as expressed in the existing town houses.
second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion.
Suzannah also stated that she has concerns with the garages.
Roger stated thalt he does not find the garages objectionable and they
differentiate between Bayer and new. He also likes the idea of the winged
walls and recessed doors. In this particular case it is not on the street.
on
ASPEN HISTOIC PRESERVATION COMMON AUG. 28 1996
Donnelley stated that there is a precedence as the entrance to the units is on
the side where you park your car.
Gretchen stated that the entry is 26 feet back from the face of the garage.
They tried to get a relationship between the depth of the entry without cars
similar to the existing town homes.
Donnelley stated that the 1991 approvals did not approve garages within the
units. He also stated that he would rather see car ports than garages. He
would rather see a more appropriate reflection of the shallow pitched roofs.
Jake stated that the issue of the car port should be considered with the
general issue of massing.
MOTION: Suzannah moved to table the application until Sept. 25, 1996,
second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried.
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented the EIS in its'
most recent form. The impact statement was handed out to the Board. Stan
also presented a draft resolution to the Board on part of the Elected Officials
that would be a unified response. The response accepts the modified direct
alignment which goes through the Marolt Open Space. In CDOT's
suggestion of the supplementary draft a highway would be constructed as
the first phase which would contain two general traffic lanes and two
dedicated bus lanes. This draft is asking CDOT for two lanes of highway
and a transit envelope. The concern of a four lane has impacts on Marolt
Open space which is too great. The proposed cut and cover of 400 feet
would mitigate for the open space of the new road. There would be a
continuous flow of open space from upper Marolt Thomas to the golf
course. Cemetery lane would be brought in on the Castle Creek Bridge and
intersect with Main Street.
Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC did not support the cut and cover
and she supplied comments to council. Numerous issues need to be taken
into account.
7
ASPEN HISAIC PRESERVATION COMNI�SION OCT. 23, 1996
Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the
windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the
existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space.
Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area.
Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the
glazing was not taken to ground level.
Susan agreed with Donnelley and it looks chalet like.
Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground.
Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with
the beams.
Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was
inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc. it would be difficult to
maintain.
Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European
building and either window elevation is acceptable.
Sven asked what the material would be on the windows.
Stefan stated wood.
MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram #2 that was
presented at the meeting for the window modification; second by Susan.
Motion carried 3-2.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL
Roger stated that this is conceptual continued from Aug. 28th.
Amv Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous
forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three
5
ASPEN HISTAIC PRESERVATION COMMON OCT. 23, 1996
new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the
property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not
feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the
existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR
they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units
will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger
than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five
conditions outlined in the memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the
new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC
talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in
scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the
new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have
really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new
design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The
existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and
altered.
Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have
an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The
applicant is concerned with their due diligence period.
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into
the record.
Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of
HPC' c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen
Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug
MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the
hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review
them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that
he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the
hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to
receive and review the new plans.
i
Amy stated that the second letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter
concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested
the postponement of HPC's Oct. 23rd consideration of the new plans for the
three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the
C'7
ASPEN HISAIC PRESERVATION COMIOSION OCT. 23, 1996
proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern
regarding the size and location of such units because of their corresponding
impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town
houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six
weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in
advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which
occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to
review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly
request the following:
Postponement of this matter at Wednesday's meeting.
That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the
next meeting.
That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff.
Roger asked if the public had comments relative to this proposal, for or
against.
David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is
representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town.
David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps
strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before
this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part of
this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this
commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the
neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go
through the process in a reasonably amount of time to look at those and
consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is
an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short
term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that
the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be
distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall
sense of that unique area.
Cindy Vinesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute
stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the
Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and
have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate
7
ASPEN HIST&C PRESERVATION COMN&ION OCT. 23, 1996
most of the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the
original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be
detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute
intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes
but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of
funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also
on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with
Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that
were out standing.
Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug
MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to
provide them to the interested party.
Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of
Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he
assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is
in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can
represent the unit that he represents.
Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant of the unit
which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain
Partners.
Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but isn't a
full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his
concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to
him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a
separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to
him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would
be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new
diagram. He told him over the phone that he moved the units as far as they
can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot
i setback off that northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit # 1
from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One of Harris's concern were
the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan.
ASPEN HIST&IC PRESERVATION COMIOSION OCT. 23, 1996
Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant
could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and
supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing.
Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing
this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do
not want to see anything built here. He also stated that if the Board tables
his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he
didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He
stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls
and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he
needs two weeks to look at the project.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns
they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of
meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right
up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment
for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They
have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has
always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they
can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved lot to build on and she feels they
ae out of line in requesting tabling.
Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5.
David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to
Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the
neighbors.
Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and
they did not contact the neighbors.
David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant
would show the new designs to the neighbors.
Gretchen stated that has never been something that yoti have to do in an
approval process.
L�
ASPEN HISAUC PRESERVATION COMIOSION OCT. 23, 1996
David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the
applicant in the long term.
Roger asked the HPC if they desired to table or go on with the meeting?
Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be
available for the another meeting next week.
David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago
at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced
about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a
representation was made that before that design would be considered for
approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed
by Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of landuse law
that representation made by a developer in a development process become
part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and
develops the project.
Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next
week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled.
Sven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated
that he did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is
when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received
adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by
Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees
letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige.
Susan stated that she agrees with Sven.
Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an
obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the
neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a project
and take more of HPC's time which he really objects to he viamently
objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this
project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed
development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a
stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this.
ff,
ASPEN HISTAIC PRESERVATION COMNAION OCT 23,1996
Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far
but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide
notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is
interested in reviewing the project.
Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should
proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have
been here.
Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling.
Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property
owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information
has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the
property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the
records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until
Monday.
David Hoefer stated that if HPC decides to proceed we would note for the
records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was
not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they
received notice of the public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction
to proceed.
Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last
meeting.
Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far
away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in
order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they
are not a 1/1/2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The
entire site has been surveyed.
One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto
the otherside of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on
site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this
point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the
11
ASPEN HIS'WIC PRESERVATION COM45SION OCT. 23, 1996
same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and
the car port will be ten feet away.
Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they
did that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition #2 which is the
exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the
overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt.
On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side
of the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the
building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a
heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements,
sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual
relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the
new units which meeting condition #3.
Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to
condition #4, the separation of the new work from the existing town houses
so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of
the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a
lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a
combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles
in very much the same location as in the other buildings. This makes for a
visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same.
Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of
Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback.
Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is
a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to
go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated
that they need a strong approval for the design by HPC.
Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line.
Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that
is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off
and giving them the key.
12
Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings.
Mark asked if the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and
inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10.
Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings.
They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted
saved.
Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit # 10 as he is
concerned about the tree.
Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the
drip line.
Mark stated that he recently lost a couple of trees because they were so
close.
Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting
200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman's
unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to
survive.
COMMENTS
Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is
back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry side
which is the east elevation it is dark.
Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports
have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then
an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open.
Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding.
Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and
shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be
13
ASPEN HISTL C PRESERVATION COMM&ON OCT. 23, 1996
sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds
of materials.
Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings
on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11.
Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is
7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The
unit next to that is four feet lower.
Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter
to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the
neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final
he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should
be presented. A drawing of the adjacent building to scale should also be
presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be
placed on the site.
Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will
let Amy know.
Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the
chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not
see the relationship in the drawings.
Gretchen stated that she met the conditions.
Motion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the
proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units 1,10 and 11 with the following
conditions: Prior to final fenestration be restudied and that the materials
be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the
chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present
drawings. Details must be enlarged for finals. The fenestration has
problems with framing and site lines. A letter be sent to the Board of
.Adjustment in support of the side yard variance; second by Mark. Motion'
carried 5-1. Sven voted no.
14
ASPEN HIST(�C PRESERVATION COMMIDION OCT. 23, 1996
Motion: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in, favor,
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8: 00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
- 1.1 :_. 1 7 r.:Fa_ y�: ( 0 b . 667 F'C:; ?56
4c), : r' t.. 9 :_ 1. __ . . _.
D a'�; �' i �:: k: i. n � �._ �' . �� r � : , Doc
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
3. Trails
The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie
Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this trail
easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no
financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work.
D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND:
Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot
4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that
this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the
Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof
shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance
of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail
locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments
which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which
subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of
existing topography.
Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and
proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water.
E. LOT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Existing development on Lot 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately
1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been
approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight
three -bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee
houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two
on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR
with three bedrooms. Total build -out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty-
three bedrooms and 27,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet
per dwelling unit). FAR_s and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee
houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect
as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
22
40-77 ' '?14 ( 1.3 R e c ,;;� 00 {iF:: f='G 667 757
Z v i -F D a v i. , ' -J. t k: i n'C n t_ y C r k: , D o c t.
period next succce veil, au ne. 110, 1.9)1, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change
to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an
allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open
space, as noted on the Plat and as described below.
1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted:
a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft.
c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet
d) Minimum front yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 5.)
e) Minimum side yard: 5 feet
f) Minimum rear yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
g) Maximum height: 25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee
h6uses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35 %
23
d �_4:: 667 =3 758
J t �:: 1 n C. fl i_ V C�. a i_''� C `;
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1
j) Internal FAR: no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom
2. Condom iniumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded
condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5.
Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an
affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(1)(c). The fee
totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat
and declaration for the units on Lot 5.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan.
3. Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as -built location of each easement.
(b) Landscape Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book ,� k at Page 5- , et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed -
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
24
9:} _?q �' ? �. ,"� /9 16: 1.3 Re ?�? y ?� D:: 667 PG 759
i'via Davis.
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper.
4. Trails
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off -site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as -built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
5. Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above -described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
.: rlr_i-.:;7 0' 4;`92 16': i";y Fie c:�i?.c?c Elf 667 PG 760
i 1 v? a D a v :i. P i t F:: i n C n t •r e r-• 1<: , D o �:.. 1. c r
constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to
Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public
Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he
shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual
cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site
or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
6. Employee Housins?
Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight
trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in
each unit remains at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the
three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
F. LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 6 is owned by Savanah and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6. Approved under this plan is
development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR
each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and
17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit).
FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as
set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991,
notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding
June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or
calculation of FARs. The seven new townhomes have received an allotment under the
City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for
accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein.
26
0
Novcmber 5, 1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code'.
Section 26.80.050.(B)(2)
E. Amendment to final development plan
2. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section 26.52.030. are as follows:
1. Applicant: Mr. Douglas J. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-7000
Attached please fund a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant,
2. Legal Description: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3. The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
5. A Site Improvement Survey is attached for your review.
6. A written description of the proposed development is attached.
7. The Review Standards for anSPA is attached for your review.
NUV-OC>-'7b WEJ 04 : J i rii'I
6. Written Description of the Proposed Development
Backzround
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks. The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer townhouses Units 2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units 1, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the north of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet different floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their rental
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor. Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft, for the entire Lot 5, Units 1 through 11. This amendment does not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. ( See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SPA- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the existing townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses.
NOV-06-96 WED 04:52 AM
Amendment Proposal to the approved SPA
as follows:
1. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
2. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units 1, 10 and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the HPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings
located as far as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated yet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lot 5-
SPA. With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted in new
building envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planing
Commission and the City Council. The proposed building envelopes for Units 1, 10 and
11 are shown on the attached drawings.
A. Unit 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of Unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast corner of the existing building envelope and 26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B. Unit 10 and 11 Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of tint 9, with a
distance of 40 feet from the northeast corner of the existing building envelope and 25 feet
from the northwest corner of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, floor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the 13PC. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
NUV—coo-9b WED a4:53 Hil
7. Review Standards
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SPA. The
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot 5, the development does not
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SPA, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows for buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilities
and roads as the original approved development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot 5 area as was the original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes, The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
HGV-oo-3e WED 64:5S AM
0
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users of the projects and the
public at large.
The proposed development preserves many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition; the relocation of the new townhouses, preserves the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, the relocation further establishes
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at the Aspen Institute. The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocation of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, preserves a mature growth of
trees growing directly next to Unit 9 as well as a significant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. There are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA.
5. Whether the development is in compliance with the aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
funds. The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26,84.030(B)(2)(b).
S. Whether there are sufficient GNL IQS allotments fro the proposed development.
There are no new units created by this SPA amendment proposal.
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b. A precise plan of the proposed development......
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and accessways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows. A copy is available through the City of Aspen Community
Development Department.
c, A Statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel land, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26.80.040(B).
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later than 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Permit procedure. This statement is for Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development .
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SPA
will remain the same.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review boards.
,It Ld : —cJo— 7'D —G i.l 04 : JJ
16
(� rtir �. l It !
r R►�[2:!r» �f..Lj'+�1 �i�..�J1L1��1�Alt/4��ku �11 ,d 1 t' ,�4/(� �� ��r�� �. !/.�! ��A�" � ��.►'I�l �,a�
tt344937 01 /24/92 J 6: 13 Rvc. $400. 00 1317: 667 Pa 76L
Si1��a Davi:, Pit'I in t;n+.v ClprE. Dcir_ 1:,04
1, Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 6 are noted.
a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq, ft.
c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet i
d) Minimum front yard: j
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
(]YSLLti. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to I
zero feet for Lot 6.)
e) Minimum side yard: 5 feet
f) Minimum rear yard: i
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
g) Maximum height: 25 feet I
(N9_tc. A dimensional height variation for the center portion of the tennis
townhomes has been granted by the City for up to three feet as shown on
the Plat.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35 %
( L=. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
27
1
CWOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITwo ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 11/6/96
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2735-121-12-
CASE # A84-96
STAFF: Amy Amidon
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Trustee Townhouses SPA Dev. Area Final Dev. Application
Project Address: Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee
APPLICANT: Mr. Douglas J. Mc Pherson
Address/Phone: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen 925-700
REPRESENTATIVE: Gretchen Greenwood
Address/Phone: 520 Walnut St. Aspen 925-4502
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV HEALTH
CLERK
TOTAL
FEES RECEIVED
$1050
PLANNING
$1050.
$405
ENGINEER
$105.
$0
HOUSING
$
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
$0
CLERK
$
$1155 TOTAL RCVD $1155
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
DATE REFERRED:
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
# APPS RECEIVED (,0
# PLATS RECEIVED iv
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
TYPE OF APPLICATION
One Step
_ ❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
Date:
Date:
Book
Page
0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOUSES SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The
Aspen Institute c/o Doug McPherson, requesting an amendment to the SPA approval. The applicant
proposes to change the location and design of the three previously approved townhouses. The
property is described as Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11, Aspen Meadows Trustee Townshouses. For
further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 16, 1996
City of Aspen Account
fr, L . mykCr_-'�0vq <<f jgq(0
0
•
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOUSES SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 10, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The
Aspen Institute c/o Doug McPherson, requesting an amendment to the SPA approval. The applicant
proposes to change the location and design of the three previously approved townhouses. The
property is described as Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11, Aspen Meadows Trustee Townshouses. For
further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 23, 1996
City of Aspen Account
Saturday-Sanday,Notl�hn i 164?,,J99C�Vk0" n`itWS' '
00 N Alte
1: 1,w r,:v:reti...... _^15..tertYWt;5'tGiriiA��se> -:. .-.r1zT .}. -. _ ., :+. - ..=,an.ac�m+•fP"k':R3�kXs:'•.,+S:o.'at+t'_ey;;fKa
'll
INVilAT10N�q� iID 74 C31VELV, ASPEN MOUNTAIN AIR Flats area, and is described as lying within Lot
131D A 19962fX4CFipROR t A"v O�1NxN AIR EkPRESS,-FOR THE 12, Section 16, ToWnshljr 9 South! Range 85
Pitkin County, Cof64d6,ivlh act ie8led dCCll ANNCTt N6 UEE OF THE AIRLIN West of the 6th P.M.- For further Information
bids at the Office of the blr�'c}Qr.9 P Ili TERM.jNAC AND FACILITIES AT TH contact Francis Krizmanlch at the Aspen/Pitkin
Works, Pllkln County gem.to Clfl 941 to . ASPEN(PJTKIN COUNTY AIRPORT; AN � Community Development Department (970) 920.
Ater Road Aspen, Co btado, (Intl] 9:45 a:ld. S TTTIN_. XPUBLIC HEARING THEREON. 5105. Copies of the proposed Resolution are
bFi W�dnesdatfTr1S68i �; 199A. Af - : Resolution N 96288 V available for public Inspection during regular
10:00 a.m, on the iamb Kati, all bids wlll.be fit sumrniiy: The Resolution approves th business hours In the Office of the Clerk and
opined�,�QQUblidy et the OIBe! of the Dltectoi of referenced Lease and Use Agreements for th Z Recorder, 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado
Puglia Works. Ill "h' if�l TIT e w octupat" find use of the airline terminal an 81611. Phone (970) 920-5180.
4' lis 1 i I Al 11&8 . 3hElYT IAClfltsel.at the Aspen Pltklh County AUpbrt to Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk
+fJ1 fYiM bl one (1) year, The occupancy and us s/James R. True, Chair
tr�.pbLiCE SPECIAL Pi�6CtP�tJ1Nd':j li Ibr th2 purposed of providing scheduled Board of County Commissioners
OP'170NS ttoo�mintrcialgairline services. The terms and Published In The Aspen Times Nov. 16, 1996,
& TWO(2)UNITS-TtVddts6 'y }�j pE{IA I INEtl'Til p�brtestandardsii are slfor the PUBLIC NOTICE
' NINE(9)1JNfTS-FOMD00 13 Q� n!tAftftYll6fld1Nsl.. RE: STAGE 3 METRO RESIDENTIAL GMQS
Bids shall be subtri Djj���g. iottli e I o ,this Resol lion document and the SCORING
�,aupplled, by Pitkltl C�Iifl i, 819.�tfitt{s 1 P t}
Instructions to ,. liE►e1 � chniclf' F:fe1J'rencilgl,ttlii and Use Agreements are NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public
Spedficatlons, and o�t�i fl EeliAt� minis SLellibl$,loi f5bbht In4ificlibn In the Office of hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 17,
will be available iron t11g "6111s�yo� k! 011lce the Dlteec�tta�r of Aviatlort„Aspen/Pltkin County 1996 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before
At 76 Service Centel RAA AMile11' eolorado. JC(rpfftft"Ad the Pltkin County Clerk and the Growth Management Commission, Sister
after 10:00 a.m. MID Frlr I Ndyember. I5, R cdrdeti.t�' Clues Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena
1996. Bid packets wltl.�AWIMsd.li 0"dil� lAst -4r.1 ->.go�OF000NTYYCOMMISSiONERSOF St., Aspen, to score the 1996 non -metro
by tentactihq the PdDIfLi,1f!dt[>l,fltactdh Al „ r t r PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO residential GMQS Applications. The following
by b 92pp553390 Ry James R. True, Chair application was rkelved for the competition:
Published In Tf;e �It�f!!E'ftlil� �e A'tiF7:>"eAnette Jones Deputy Clerk & Recorder 1. STAGE. 3: George Carlsch Is requesting one
( w - llshed In The Aspen Times on November allotment to permit the construction of one
' And November 23, 1 f a.>tti�•.«rti'x11 c.�r Z-• , new free market unit above the Stage 3
PIAt' 11I •F► y 99gc �' s e
J�t('7!y` Theaters In Aspen. Associated approvals are
PLEASE TAKF. NOT CEt : ThA ,%t 6dArA bi pOT10EOF,F�f3%1L�'AYMENT requested for GMQS Exemption for three
County Commissioners 6l PfIld duttTv PIIRIN COUNTY affordable housing units and Special Review to
Colorado, at Its regular filWhl4h ovembet NB itfli hereby given that this Board of Increase the allowable FAR, to establish the
8; 1f198, aril tile+ a de1(�tibgh`Fd llub(ft haAting, Cbhnty CBfnmisitonen of PItkIA County, required parking, and to reduce the required
adopted a (olloY 0 1)t A ante: ": ;Ciilut (herelhafter called the ''Boitd"), trash service area. The property Is located at
V . AN EMERGF,NCY ORtlINAN Up IttE HL7AR11 chill .md a final settlement for the work 625 East Main Street, and Is described as lots
°(iF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS"[ill'Pltl(IN tontfacted to be.d6666A the project knout as E, F, and G and the east to' of Lot D, Block 98,
COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THEA996 MAROON REEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, City and Townslte n.
METRO AREA TOURIST ACCOMMODATION (hereinafter known as th2'Project-), to CIVIL For further In n, contact Suzanne
SUBMISSION DATE FROM ACCOMMODATION
1, 1996 TO CONSTRUCTORS, 379 No. 9TH STREET, P.O. Wolff at the A /Pltkin Community
N BMISSI R 1DATE ay��. .,,;t „ BOX 99, tARBONDALE, CO 81623,(hereinafter Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Copies of the lull toil ohlfie Or�inancJ ire knowq It! the 'Cbntdetor') on the following Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093.
'available Ibr public Inalfettlutl BUHhg tfsgular tldtl: 16 bttEMbER,1996 it 3:00 P.M. MST. s/Sara (]anon, Chair
�olllee hours In lhpp lihrlg6 tit the CIeFk Ahd .- Any person, co-patlnershlp, association of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
"Recorder, hours
I E. # 61 St, _Atb'YA, l4ikC616Itlo - rlons �ompany 6r corporation that has Published In The Aspen Times Nov. 16, 1996.
Si611. Phdhe: (970) 92"t80:' + rbtli4d_ labbol, material, teem hire,
Jeanette JonvolDeglityC60MYCIark ' lbitenadce, provisions, provender, or other PUBLIC NOTICE
Published in The AspehA'Ihies ott N&_ 16, sUpplle4 used or consumed by the contractor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the
,199E .^atC�ifi.i c or his subcontractors In or about the requirement of Section 9.6 of the Charter of the
,performance of the work contracted to be done City of Aspen, that a proposed budget has been
p the project, whose claim therefore has not 'submitted to the City Council of the City of
�IOTICEl3pt71YOUCOUNITT n t y en aid b' the contrsctoi of hid sub- Aspen, Colorado, for the fiscal year 1997 and
herePITKby
00 tt4(' { contractors shall file with the Board, bt their that a copy of such budget has been filed In the
Noficeli hereby gIOERthAI rite Board tit
County CAntmisslgnlrl p fklo C un� r,-dellgnitted representative, written notice of Office of the City Clerk at City Hall and Flnance
Cblofgdd (tierelrtdllr4�(Ir'.crL t1' ! �d '�Htlaltli(s) prlbtC$thtlHiiie And tlineot final Department at City Hall In Aspen, where same
shall ma a final site% I�. Oi-thb.. It (eitlement first stated above, or forever waive Is open for public InspeCllon during regular
ebiilrittea to be dbltil ��tttt,t�i ?Bit kd aV y in a Jl Oil ma,,tylinout limitation, pursuant business hours.
AIRPORT SOUTH FItbNTA(M'yL1Gf�0 to 19� L424'3R96101 ks intended, aljalnst the NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a Public
PRbJ�CT.(herNnafter o"'llib tf) Pr to
o fa of CSu-n�. oC" Rr itLilolie7ifPRrdn COGnty, hearin8 on the proposed budget, proposed
'16-�j' �� blbradd and tfle PfdJltt.' r" capital program, Colorado Highway User Tax
RAA ENT%pItf � �X ��qq i • i A7II cldlfll! ihUat Ne kddt�3it i°Allt�/:'" Funds; aid the specific use of Impact fees has
'° CA"QIS CO 81( I+ l� kltb�Al Ml
_ fitsCOnlriicor"),dAt�ilo't"`fitr'i�i11t8!I
8'•��il;E)`'ftg•W'�'Idr p,'{.1' ir. been set or November 25,1996,after 5:00p.m.,
DF.CEMBEIt 199E it 351 P.M, MST: County Engineer lb be held In the City Council Chambers, City
s . �i f 76 Service Center Road Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, at said
Ahy person co er��II rSji)pp Ylsoclatlon .,,, y,
jietsons, tordompr°b h4lbratlon that s Al A LY)81611 ^ ' time slid place.
furnished ;labor, i.Mg g !YIkD team hlrl, �M°slie In The Aden Tiir e3 N6%+mber 16 ALL CITIZENS within the City bf Aspen may,
sustenance, broJ117b11g;>TDlHder, or other -iNd 23 149E " prior to, during the hearings or at anytime prior
supplies used f conlufhed by the tontra1 c: to the final adoption of the budget, have a
supplies
his i sedo r conlutht&d M bout; let,
& PlJ�la� f1tt. reasonable opportunity to. ptovlde written and
peH menceolthewdtkEd tobiidobe Rt: GRE NA "1041 HAZARDiliV1EN� AND :oral comment and to ask questions
qr j� C1Al iiEVIESV' ~ ' ' concerning the efdire budget:• ,
oh the' 0511kl, Whol81ef11AV th to Nth n6! ,t a
t!C•eh pal by the IF016l< IW "Irsu6b'• E19l1FItF�4 CitYFlV tWil dwt Firing Published In The Aspen Times Nov. 16, 1996.
j Lrontractors shall till' Wlth''tNlt WWI, 611 thAt ' �h be held bA Weilhettdajt, Dfcbmtw 18, 1996 at
designated r representative, written notice 4f fn!long lb at 5fi0 p* belitte the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
such hated r prior to tht�.dal!rIttII �n n� of hail "Rb`rd of Counts. bmr�ll'slonfigt DIItrict t PLEASE TAKE ROTICEI'That the Board of
Csettlement nisi stated-Ab"4 bP'MfEVeIf 1rYt'!a M 341 phi to WhsIc er an 'County Comm1111dners of Pitkin County,
K'>;ihy And�j�,gqdmst.wU tltitdf{ pi lIlAt ♦ !prc yx� U tf b HaiiI'.Gte Hkay 1Cbl add will tof d4d 11 public hearing on the
to t973 CRSr 389Fr107r as amend s ptnCt the " a�'+ �fN�� 8 R�10 Mid Yo86RVl01 RWItIHbN"O 3:36 p.m� on December
t3otrd bl County CottiittllilbnbYi; lTdtl CitUli spKlll ReWIN tb e6hltroEt A single IaMlly ; 4, 1998, In the BoiitN bl County Commissioners
Itoltfrddo find the Pr'6Jeld t_ �l'A 4a}RV S "'rn Inag clal°t dtl tittle '; Meeting Room, 530 East Main Street, Aspen,
a; AR titfidls must bee LEI ljl i g K a b 1O1Drsn At � Mbnftor Colorado 81611 at which time and place all
I7, - B.W. Eylir�` fi 1 Ibltaterl In lh Ittl! Annllt �asln area, Diem era of the public may appear and be
r ;16 SetylCd C tt� tiA i lS i : itwi?lira Ml►rilt3lhn f6 IAlle. Annie Raid and alit!
$'�1i6(li��i ran T�h�'1L4�f��1111��
i.. v• Pllf31, ,. .e,,,u,i,
+ .�
REfi t3lrl-rE 0 ��`�
R A 507t DENSriY-R
NCEPTUAL.'StlBMIS Otif''
NOTV. 3 HERS I.
` wl be held
81998 it a regular mw1fid 10� jj((��S�
(ore thkBoard of CdUlity Cbf11RIR
Ict Courtroom ME
Itfei ali appticiflofj
tan atlhjl the,11
t
t. bt'60
iiMEftemptltflt
action t.&SPIR, i •t , t
s ConClp%al Subml�allii 3�
§ubdlvilldn to create tw# tlfi l fat
eohlainlill 38 aciel Ada 45 Vf ll
wnd a 99 Atte toniefvitiffA piieili41t1
todveyed to Pitkin Cfidlittfil let, job
conservation easement Mat *111_to
benefit of Park Trust
s 1041 Hazard RevIM?' (� *
• Caretaker Dwelling Unit Atolibul
ppitached br_ detached Unit b 4ch bi
Iota. T.h6 property Is I-'iC A 3t t
nd Is del= Y iU
Pliu�fbYd i, N
h 1
ettuataa to Li1 ota i A �a s sac
T°Whihlp 9 South, Rifr ' West6
+P,M; For further Intofhlltlf�hWil
SAtAino it the Aip;,9o�P, R!>� l;lfh
hOOrs In lne VulCe of ! Cler no tteCi
SM E6st Man Slrlet' i1, C bnot, I
n
iPhdne (970) 920.51fJ0 r; . . .
i Jeanette Jojja3,u Co
Imlt tub
BtiafB plCaddty tlIT111a11
Published In The Alptl� „ 41 ;;16,
PUBLIC holiC6 �. ,n
RE., COMMERCIAL; LODGE tft)_
' AMENDMENT . _
NOTICE IS HERgB qq t�iet i p
f .'ate NOTICE
well be held oh 1N1 6*', D€`c
, , 4 •1996 61 a sheet nq to p
n Planning and Zonl Comihls4l
lk 8 n8,
n R m I li Il 130 S. Gales
Les Meets g oo , C ty, . a
n, to consider amellUing,Sectil' 2tirl
lit City of Aspen land. Vito Code; deflnit
odge to include btilld figs 'preiEBtt,ly z
Comhterdal Lodge rCL). t Airthlrf flifmfM
Fa—itticf.Sbianne W61 91f.1he'AllpZh]I
t: Cti imunity DevelopAfellf �ebb"Itiant, 1
Galena St„ Aspeti, CO (9i11) 9205093 b
SIS&A Olrtun:
Aspen planning dit11 Zrfllidg t6lilth'
NOTICE OF ADOPTION dF At
c, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That
County Commissioners ell PI
Coldriddi at a regulat mbetil19.
6t1, 1996, and allot itduly-ni
beating, adopted the below-iltlild
A FORMAL RFSOLUfiON OF,T
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS bF Pr
COLORADO. APPROVING AN
LEASE AND USE AGREEMENT$
TERM OF ONE YFAR, BETWEEN
'ebAlict Elleit SIIltAbb'A't lh2 Afiden/Pitkin
OF COUNTY COMMIS31pNER3, COLORADO,
°A
"Cdiflanitt►�t bei�topMet* "O'Wthellf (9103 920-
e. CAJSil1! of tH6 oYdobgea Resolutidh ire
FORFEITING VES Eb RIGHT, AND
APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE . ACTION
Moto tdr public, In' Ion dil tang regular
tIBM,
WITHHOLDING PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR
Aj lid tl in tie blhce ojf��the Clerk and
PFANENS IEL LOT 6 AND OTHER PROPERTIES
' AND BY WALTER
53� W1 Ma1R SMM6t AtpM, Colorado
OWNED CONTROLLED
bFE1F,Ptiaxe(91o)92oa1rID, , •, f
PFANtNSTIEL
-" Jeshelte Jdhel; bap* County Clerk.
RESOLUTION #96
Ii6
a/JaM R 7r4e, Chair
Mr, Planenitiei received BOCC approval for a
,
+;
d t,y,�, , r - Rnlyd of Cdarity Contmltslbnets
gDIls M to The Alpeh Times Nov. is,,19%.
1041 hazaid review slid general submission for
PlanenstlA l.ol 6, whlch IS subject to a number
if
t
of conditlons, Including no disturbance outside
PUBLIC NOTICE
@''Is 1KtN UNTY LAND 0h C DE
- '�kl 1I Cp Q
AE}3bMENt SHE' AFR-1
the building envelope. The property received a
correction Amick and stbp work order for
building
4+:y ADDI1dQ ZONE
development outside the envelope,
CT- •,
ICf .HEI A IVEN `tliat ay ubilc
and for development Within a wetlands area. A
site visit to the property showed two ditches
fWAbl held dot 4desdiy, December 17,
at ileiaj meeting to begin at 3:�tl
which have been dug on either side of a prime
wetlid8i area, In violation of fedetai law,
jl: ,�1996 a pm
f llotI the d6ard bl Countyy CohiMlaalone"'
St.,
variotd pfovisionl of the Pitkid County Land
Use Code the l.ot 6.
4`I• :.011trlit ChUrhbbni; 506 E. Mild Aspen to
', t onslder a ending the pItkin County Land Use
and resolution approving
The Issues surrounding the development have
the
to irk the addltlon of the AFFt-1 done
not been fut1t tesolved by parties although
eitthma'Ving has been Issued to
isttrct: F1fr'furthet IAlbfrrt6116d tmttatt Rick
an petmlt
aglll al, the Aspen/Pltkin Community
)I' 14160tfi tni tl lAfi lfient (916 920-5062.
allow for reclamation. The County desires to
terminate thl! 011fed right established by BOCC
bEtet,61(He L 1`bpb'1Nl Res6 o6n iiN Available
Resolution A96.92,,which granted 1041 Hazard
A .for public Inspection durin regular business
Review and General submission approval for
d , hbUri In the Office of the C�erk and Recorder,
Planenstlel Lot 6. Additionally staff seeks to
g3tl EAst,Mi ll Street Alpf•A, Celotado 81611.
ensure that no additional land use approvals or
' Pliooe (97 9265h10.
building permits will issue for Planenstlel Lot 6,
fl.. 16inefteJodL4,6eputyCouniyClerk
or eny.othbr real property owned by
L - ilJbmes R. Tr, Chair
Planenstlel, Including but not limited to Lot 6 A
Board bf County Commissioners
and 11 A; . Unplitted Redstone Unique
Published In The Aspen Times Nov, 16, 1996.
Subdlvlsibn; Tract 3, Swiss Village Tracts; and
s
Lots 4on. 52, 53 and 54, Elk Mountain
PiJBLJC NOTICE J
�. �E ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTi k TOWN-
Subdivision.si
Copies of the entire Resolution are available
NOUSFSSPA AMENDMENT
for public Inspection at the Clerk and
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public
Recorder's Office, Jeanette Jones, at 530 East
It beiring will be held on Tuesday, December 3,
Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, during
it 76 at a meeting to begln at 4:30 p.M, before the
regular business hours.
en Planning and ZoningCommission, Sister
' Il1ei Meeting Room, City all, 130 9. Galena St.,
Published Ili The Aspen Times Nov. 16. 1996.
pert; ld Consider in appllcatiol submitted by
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Aspen Institute c/o Doug McPherson,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of
an amendment to the SPA approval.
County Commissioners, at Its regular meeting
�equesting
ho AppllcAht proposes to change the location
on November 6,1996, adopted the following
hd deslkn of the three previously approved
Resolution 096-287: A RESOLUTION OF THE
! ; liUmhoUses. The property Is described as( Lot 5,
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS F
y hits 1, 10 Arid It, Aspetl Meadows Trustee
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING A
ownhoubes. For further Information, contact
MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN PITKIN COUNTY
My Amldon it the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St,,
AND SHAW, SPANGLER & ROTH
Resolution No. 96-287
Ailx, LRT.t91ln g2II5f196.
s/Sara Osittort. Chair
OnI'linnlhgandZoniodCbmmisslon'
;( i'1 Ift
Recitals
1. The few firm of Shaw, Spangler & Roth
the Board of County
g
1 Published In The Aspen Times Npv. 16,,1996.
represented
Comailmioneil of Pitkin County, Colorado In
litigation captioned as George M. Wilk
PUBLIC NOTICE
itLOT LINE ADJUST,-
Wilkinson et al. v. Board of County
Commislibnets of Pitkin County, et al., Civil
,Y.fiURN/RAYDO
lu WT, RFIONING, CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION
Actloe No. 94-K-2244. A dispute concerning
AND t041 HA.?ARDREVIEW
attorney fees ih thell matter atose between
L+S' NOTICE IS HERF-BY GIVEN th6t a publle
Pitkin County and Sh1w, Spangler & Rdth.
V Aiftrlrfg will be held on Wednesday. December
2. The parties have negotiated a settlement of
V '1& 1196,10 aregular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm
claims In connection with representation by
before (be Board of County Commissioners,
Shaw, Spangler & Roth. The Mutual Release
for
DlttrlCl CAliritdom, 506 E. Main St., Aspen to
cdMidet, appllcetlon by Don
provides a release of each patty's claim
a by Pitkin County of $20,000.00
an submitted
IiUiri 6d8 Raydo, ]fie. requesting approval of
upon payment
to ShAw, Spanglet & Roth.
A LbI Uho X11justment, Rezoning, Conceptual
3. The Board desires to have the Chairman
f hbdivlllod and 1011 Hazard Review to develop
execute the Mutual Release and pay Shaw,
i neytl Irei mirke[ residential building envelope
Spangler & Roth $20,000.00 to finally and fully
And create a deed t8riclidAffordable Housing
resolve any and all disputes between the
unit, Tha property III Incited In the TWining
pattlts which are the result of Shaw, Spangler
A Roth's representation In the Wilkinson
S. HlatdrlFl$ndifiiflrL6T3pIH..ihesplitofa
litigation.
heft
lot that If A designated historit IangmaFk'lor
development of one 'sing a IYhilly
NOW, THEREFORE, resolved by the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners,
the new
dwelling. The Historic Litulmatk Lot Split !hall
that'the Chairman of the Board of County
- meet the requltemehts-- of Settlon
Commissioners is hereby authorized to sign
26.88.030(A)(2), Section 29.100.050, Section
that certain Mutual Release between the Board
26.72.010, and the following standards.
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
,- a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of
Colorado and Shaw, Spangler & Roth, In a form
by the County Attorney. The County
9,000 square feet In size and be located In the
R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square
approved
Attorney Is further directed to take such
feet and be located In the R-15A zone district.
actions as may be necessary to expedite
payment In the amount of 420.000.00 to Shaw,
b. The total FAR for both residences shall not
i exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the
Spangler & Roth.
original parcel. The total FAR far each lot shall
Copies of the full text of the Resolution k96.
be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
287 are available for public inspection from
': c. The proposed development meets all
8 30 am to 4:30 pm In the Office of the Clerk and
dimensional requirements of the underlying
Recorder, 530 East Main Street, Aspen,
i zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are
only permitted on the pirtel that contains
Colorado, 81611, telephone (970) 9205180.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk
,a
historic structure,
Published In The Aspen Times Nov. 16,1996.
Section 4:
This Ordinance shall not affect any ezistidg
PUBLIC NOTICE
litigation and shall dbt operate as an abatement
ORDINANCE NO. 39 (SERIES OF 19%)
of any action or proceeding now pending under
or by virtu8 of the brdinances tepealed of
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION
amended as herein pf0ided; and the tame
OF THE 1993 LODGE GMQS ALLOTMENT AND
;'shall be conducted and concluded under such
VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO.
Y,Wor or h $antes. , , •' ,-, . :., . '
S
3, SERIES OF 1993, AND EXTENDED BY
• 11 Any section, 3ubsecliod, slnlence clause,
ORDINANCE NO. SERIES 1994, S OrAND
FXTF.NDF.D 8Y ORDINNANCE. N0. 1 15, SF OF
phr6e, of portion of this Ordinance Is for any
-RIPS
1995, AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 16.
reason held Invalid or unconstitutional In a
court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
SERIES OF 1996 FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN
LODGE REDEVELOPMENT, 720 EAST COOPER
.; shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
AVENUE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Independent provision and shall not affect the
validity bf the remaining pottloha thereof.
Copley of this ordinance are available In the
Section & .. '
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 130 South
; A public hestlAg on the Ordinance shall be
Galena, Aspen, during normal business hours.
FINALLY, adapted passed and approved this
held on the 9 day of December, 199E In the City
Council chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
11 daayy oof f November, 1996.
John Kennett, Mayor
Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Nov. 16, 1996,
hearing a public notice of the same shall be
published In an newspaper of general
Published In Ti%Aspen Times
circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED
ORDINANCE NO. 41
PUBLISHED as provided by Jaw, by, the City
(Series of 1996)
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 day of
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF
,- November, 1996. - -
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING
John Bennett, Mayor
CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
USE REGULATIONS, TO EXTEND THE HISTORIC
` Published in The Aspen Times Nov. 16.1996.,
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT TO THE R-15A ZONE
'
DISTRICT BY AMENDING SECTION 26.28.060(B),
; ORDINANCE NO.42 (SERIES OF 1996)
MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-ISA),
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY
PERMITTED USES, SECTION 26.28.060(D),
i COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION
MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (11-I5A),
i..OF VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND SECTION
;: 49, SER4ES OF 1993 FOR THE KAS'rELIC
26.88.030(A), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION.
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNPD' "UNIT
WHEREAS, Section 26.92.030 of the Municipal
£ DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, Or ASPEN, ,
Code provides that amendments to Chapter 26
Code, "Land Use Regulations,"
COLORADO
WHEREAS, StcoahehM 61
of the to wit,
shall be revlewed'and recommended for
pursuant to
F the Aipeh Municipal Code, CRY Cdwwl,%&Y
approval by the Planning Director and then by
grant vested rights for three (3) to ,
the Planning and Zoning Commission at a
spedticdevelopment plan; ,and, ''i
public hearing, and then approved, approved
WHEREAS, on Octobef 25, 19�3t lilt"�Ity
with conditions, or disapproved by the City
+ Council adopted Ordinance 49, Series of 1993
Council at a public hearing: and
which approved the Kastelic Subdtvlsloh/Planned
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive
' Unll Development with conditions, for two
from Henry and Lana Trettln an application for
: residential pareel$ and also granted treated rights
an amendment to the land use regulations, and
; for a pgrlod of three (3) years; and • '
reviewed and recommended for approval,
WHEREAS, the applicant, B.A. Powell limited
certain text amendments to Chapter 26 relating
,: partnership, has requested a six (6) month
to Sections 26.28.060(B), Moderate -Density
;, extension of vested rlghtg to preserve the..%
Residential (R-15A), Permitted Uses, Section
developabllity of the property; and;
26.28.060(D), Modetate-Density Residential (R-
ISA), Dimensional Requirements, and Section
WHEREAS, the Community Development
Departtnbnt, having reviewed the application
26.88.010(A), Subdlvlslon Exemption; and
i tecofnmended denial of the six (6) month
WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning
'.!ldepsfort for alackofcomrdunitybenefit; and s.
,the
Commission reviewed the proposed text
amendment on October 1S, 1996 at which time
WHEREAS, the Aspeq City Council, in
r conilderatlon of the apppllc.. I "and
the Planning and Zoning Commission
by a
recommendgtibn !tom the' CblltmUnlly
Dev P-h,eAt lit, does wish to gtil it a
recommended approval to City Council
vote of 5,D; and
ji"Aml
ilx month ext sioh of 4ested rights,
t � THEREM I, BE iT OROAINM BY THE
WHEREAS, the Clty Couricll finds that the
text amendment will he consistent with the
; CITy COUNCIL OF. THIS' CITY bF ASPEN,
public welfare and purposes and Intent of
COLORADO:
Section 1: Ntsuani to Section 26.52.080 of
Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code and will:
the Munlefpal Code and C.R.S. 24413-104(2), City
• provide a historic preservation Incentive to
create non-conlormidg sized
,
i Cdgnell dost hereby grant the applicant an
'status
parcels an allow lee simple ownership of these
I bittehslon 61006d tights for the site
lots,
3 In
specille development plan lot the Kasten!
' Subdlvlslbn and Pianffed Unit Development at
• be available to approximately parcels
the R-15A zone district;
S70 RNetside Url M Al apptoved byy Ordinance
w 49 Setles of 1993, fb April 25, 1991, with the
permit a lot split on parcels of it kilt 13,0110
Ioliowingconditions:
square feet In the R-ISA zone ,
district, with Planning Director approval
1. ExteBslbh of vested rights shall be lot six
• provide the Historic Preservailtih
a (6) months, frond October 25, 1996 to April 25,
Coimission i n phyllcal plahning feview '
authority over both parcels created,ln the
1997,
2• Any fallute to abide by the terms and
Historic landmark Lot Split;
condition! attendant to this approval shall
restiltInforfeiture ofsaid vested rights.'"
• permit the Historic Preservation
Commission to grant historic variances to thb
' 3 The approval granted hereby shall be
lubJltt to all fights ieterenduin and judicial
parcel that contains the historic structure($),
' of
r'
no variances will be permitted lot the new
. 4 Nothing In the approvals provided In this
residence; and -
"Ordinance shall exempt the site specific
• provide an Incentive to historic landmarks
develbpment plan from subsequent reviews
by not restricting the number of
.
and or approvals required by this ordinance or
these lot splits per year, no by taking them out
the geffHYl rules, regulations or ordinanced or
of the specified growth pool.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
the City provided not .that such reviews or
raper°vats ate not IncoAelstent with the
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO: F
appprovals granted and vested herein. •
5. The'eslabllshmeht herein of a vested
Section I:
`property'tight shell not pteclude' the
Moderate-Density
Section 26.28 060(B), Moderate -Density
applitilaoAbf ordinances of regulations Which
Residential -ISA , Permitted Uses
(R ) y
• are giti&tl Ili nature and are applicable to all
recommended to be amended by the addition
property subject to land use regulation by the
of A new sectlon(B)(6), to read as follows:
City of Aspen Including, but not limited to,
6. For properties which contain a historic
building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
landmark: two detached residential dwellings
: mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition
on a lot with a minimum lot size of 13,000
`of this Bile development approval, the
square feet.
develbott shall abide by any and all such
Section 2:
! building, llte; plumbing, electrical and
Section 26.28.060(D), Dimensional Require-
metHeilleAl todea, unless exemption therefrom
ments of Chapter 26 of the
.Is granted Igwrlting.
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
ldn 2:-
Colorado, Is hereby recommended to be
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this
amended by repealing and reenacting the
'Ordinance to be published In.a newspaper of
following Sections to 26.28.060(D):
general circulation within the City of Aspen no
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 15,000. For
later than 14 (lays following final adoption
lots created by
hereof..,:.
Section 26.88.030(A)(5), historic Landmark
Section 3:
Lot Split: 3,000.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq. feet):
phrase or portion of this ordinance Is for any
Detached residential dwelling: 15,000
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any
Duplex: A duplex may be developed on a lot
court of nth etent jurisdiction, such provision
of 15,000 square feel that was subdivided as of
and such holding shall not affect the validity of
April 28,1975. Otherwise the duplex must be
the remaining portions thereof. '
developed with a minimum of 10,000 square
Section 4:
feet per dwelling unit, unless the property
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing
contains a historic landmark, In which case two
litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
detached residential dwellings may be
of any action or proceeding now pending under
developed with a minimum of 6,500 square feet
or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
per unit.
amended as herein provided, and the same
3. Minimum lot width (feel): 75. For lots
shall be conducted and concludedunder such
created by Section 26.88.030(A)(5). Historic
prior ordinances.
Landmark Lot Split30.
Section 5:
10. External Floor Area Ratio (applies to
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be
conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
held on the 9 day of December 1996 at 5:00 P.M.
Detached Residential, Allowable Square Feet'
In the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Duplex, Allowable Square Feet'
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) (lays prior to
• Total external floor area ratio for two
which hearing a public notice of the same shall
detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a
be published once In a newspaper of general
lot of less than 20,000 square legit containing a
circulation within the City of Aspen.
iNTRODUCED,READ AND ORDERED
historic landmark shall not exceed the floor
area for one detached residential dwelling.
PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Section 3:
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 day of
%Is
Section 26.88.030(A), Subdivision Exemption
Novembet, I996..
John Kennett, Mayor
hereby recommended to be amended by
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
repealing and reenacting the following Sections
Published In The Aspen Times Nov. 16, 1996.
26 R&030 (A)
0
40
•
is
NOV-06-96 WED 04:50 AM
1 40
P.02
•
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC
ANUMITECTURE • INTERIOR DES10N - PLANNING
November 5,1996
Ms. Amy AnUon
Historic Preservation Commission Officer
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
Attached please find eight copies of the Final Development Application for an
amendment to the SPA for the Aspen Trustee Townhouses. We will present the
application on December 3rd to the Planing and Zoning Commission and to the City
Council on December 9th. If you have any questions and/or need any additional
information and copies, please call me at 925-4502.
Sincerely,
O
Gretchen Gr nwood, Architect AIA
520 WALNUT STREET - A5PEN,COLOAA00 87611 • TEL; 9701925-4502 • FAX. 9701925.7490
NOV-06-96 WED 04:51 AM P.04
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE - INTERIOR DESIGN • PLANNING
November 5, 1996
Ms. Amy Amidon
Historic Preservation Commission Officer
City of Aspen
To whom it may concern:
Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Assoc.,Inc. is authorized to act
on behalf of Mr. Douglas J. McPherson and the Aspen Institute for the processing of this
Final Development application, SPA Amendment for the Aspen Meadows Trustee
Townhouses, Lot 1, 10 and 11. The address of the owner is as follows:
Aspen Institute
Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
c/o Mr. Douglas J. McPherson
514 E. Hyman St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Please direct any questions and or inquiries regarding the attached application to
Ms. Greenwood at the following address:
Gretchen Greenwood
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-4502
Sincerely, wc Q�X��
Mr, ouglas J. McPherson
520 WALNUTS TAEET •ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • TEL, 970/925-4502 • FAX: 9701925.7490
10
Novcmber 5, 1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code:
Section 26.80.050.(E)(2)
E, Amendment to final development plan
2. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section 26.52.030. are as follows:
1. Applicant: Mr, Douglas J. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-7000
Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Legal Description: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3. The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
5. A Site Improvement Survey is attached for your review.
6. A written description of the proposed development is attached.
7. The Review Standards for anSPA is attached for your review.
0 735-
N V Y -tJ G- V O W ClJ 04 . Z, 1 H11
6. Written Description of the Proposed Development
Background
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks. The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer townhouses Units 2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units 1, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the north of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet different floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their rental
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft, for the entire Lot 5, Units 1 through 11. This amendment does not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. ( See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SPA- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the existing townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses,
NOV-ba—ye WED 04:52 NM
P .
Amendment Proposal to the approved SPA
as follows:
1. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
2. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units 1, 10 and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the HPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings
located as fax as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated yet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lot 5-
SPA. With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted in new
building envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planning
Commission and the City Council, The proposed building envelopes for Units 1, 10 and
11 are shown on the attached drawings,
A. Unit 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of Unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast corner of the existing building envelope and 26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B. Unit 10 and 11 Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of tint 9, with a
distance of 40 feet from the northeast corner of the existing building envelope and 25 feet
from the northwest corner of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, floor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the HPC. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
NOV-06-`JO WtED 04 :5J HVI
7. Review Standards
I. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SPA. The
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms of land use, density, height, bulk:, architecture, landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot 5, the development does not
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SPA, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows for buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilities
and roads as the original approved development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot 5 area as was the original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes. The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users of the projects and the
public at large.
The proposed development preserves many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition, the relocation of the new townhouses, preserves the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, the relocation further establishes
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at the Aspen Institute. The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocation of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, preserves a mature growth of
trees growing directly next to Unit 9 as well as a significant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. There are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA.
5. Whether the development is in compliance with, the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
funds. The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.84.030(13)(2)(b).
S. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments fro the proposed development.
There are no new units created by this SPA. amendment proposal.
(Y Ii Y-t7b-7b i�l tL a . J4 riN
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b, A precise plan of the proposed development......
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and accessways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows. A copy is available through the City of Aspen Community
Development Department.
c. A Statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel land, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26, 80.040(B).
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later than 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Permit procedure. This statement is for Lot S, Units 1, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development.
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SPA
will remain the same.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review boards.
I`IlJ . —tJb-96 WEO 04;6Z5
1i ,�.II •1.`t.�*� 11 ) " i,'( IY ►. �. q./+4,'G �� fir• i r '.
t►1�?.-!�»•(`��•rJ'�.+� �.:,W�A1�.i:�.Y�'ieilli �1� .� :'t. i17+�:t%�. . tit.�.�, �. I! Jt!J<i1G�r ��1►'lF��;r 1
tr't4/)937 Q1 /21 /9_2 J 6, 13 Rr. c 4,4f1r1, 00 )it; 667 PG 761
Silvio llavi; Pitl in Cnty Clert•:. I)c)r- 9-00
1. Dimensional Requirements andyari3 ions Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the Rh1F Zone District;
variations in these requircmcnts that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 6 are noted.
a)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000
b)
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft.
c)
Minimum lot width: 60 feet
d)
Minimum front yard:
i) Principal building: 10 fett
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 6.)
e)
Minimum side yard: 5 feet
f)
Minimum rear yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
g)
Maximum height: 25 feet
(Note. A dimcnsional height variation for the center portion of the tennis
townhomcs has been granted by the City for up to three feet as shown on
the Plat.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35 0
(N_Qljq. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requircmcnts have been
waived by (lie City for Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otlicrwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
27
( �, li✓i r �` y� � at l -� t�•,� t 1''A%i�•Y�4i t A.' -' �.�.�?fr♦tl t �;tt''�%�:K-�- 1 1 t' i .r ..
rt' ,.C, uNra� �,ti .sr? �y :s•,:'. •'1 Y r �7���11�,�.y�
`! `. ?c1 Ot�a!T,. r'i . t: f .t : I, : r•7 b2c�c •t.q,;,,. ,„ r:rr
667 rG 1
. i I j.l• C:,!.�. t:l c:r t f?c,- q.,ri,•,
i) External FAR (maximum):
.1) Internal FAR: no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom
2. Condom iniumi7ation and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condom iniumization approval for the seven tennis townhome units on Lot 6 as
approved by this SPA plan.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to file seven condominium units on D)t 6.
3. LLe Lrn vc rn n
(a) i ' ie . All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as -built location of each easement.
(b) Lands, -,a Im •[overngUt . Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book _ZjL at Page 5 , et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agrecd-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvement,. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. All
28
IY l� v'-tJb-7b wG LA a4 :... - r-f it
' ti ►� �� A.k.
;hY'r4i7��'��K.� ':•.
ruff(_-? I-; -,1/Z'I/V
{ z ,. I. r c�� a4., ,, f;f;, r n 667 r•c:; 7,62
i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1
D Internal FAR: no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: I space per bedroom
2. Condominiumi AIion and Six Month Minimum Lem Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condominium ization approval for the seven tennis townhome units on Lot 6 as
approved by this SPA plan.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to the seven condominium units on Lot 6.
3. Le Improycments
(a) ILLi ' e . All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as -built location of eacli easement.
(b) Lan--112CIm Ilyc Ile. • Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of tote
Plat in Book IL at Page , et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule wily
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, ere.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agrecd-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parlics that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements evcn though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to the terms Of this Agreement, All
28
•Aid f�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo
THRU: Mary Lackner, Acting Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11,
SPA Amendment
DATE: December 10, 1996 (continued from December 3, 1996)
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows SPA was approved by City Council on May 28, 1991.
It included remodeling and expansion of the eight existing Trustee Townhouses, and
construction of three new units. Subsequently, the Institute concluded that the proposed
construction, which was to step down the hillside above Castle Creek, is not feasible for
their organization and has not been built to date. A new scenario has been selected and
conceptually approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (minutes attached) under
which the existing historic townhouses Bayer units will be remodeled slightly, but not
significantly expanded. The three new units are to be built to the FAR which was
approved in the SPA Agreement and will now be detached from the original units to avoid
overscaling them. Detaching the new units from the existing units requires a change in
the approved building envelope and therefore requires an amendment to the SPA
Agreement.
Vested rights for this development have been extended several times since 1991 and are
currently set to expire on December 19, 1996.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Doug MacPherson, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood.
LOCATION: Aspen Meadows, Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee Townhouses
ZONING: RMF/SPA
1
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The Community Development Director
has determined that this application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to
the SPA. Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be approved
pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the
proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage.
The review standards of Section 26.80.040(B) are as follows:
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA). In the review
of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development
plan, the commission and city council shall consider the following.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The proposal does not affect approved land use or density. Detaching the
three new units from the existing townhomes preserves their architectural integrity and
preserves vegetation which buffers them from the new construction.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Response: The proposal does not increase demands on public facilities or roads
because there is no increase in density.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The applicant represents that the characteristics of the new building
envelopes, in terms of slope, ground stability and environmental hazards, are the same
as the previously approved envelopes.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserved significant view planes. avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
2
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant's proposal to detach the new units from the existing units is a
result of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Because the new
units are physically larger than the existing, and because of a desire to visually distinguish
the new construction from the Bayer units which are considered historic resources, the
Commission found that a physical separation of the buildings was compatible with the
surrounding context. This results in the preservation of several large trees which are
directly next to the existing end units, and provides some privacy for the owners of both
the new and old units. Relocating the building envelopes for units 1, 10, and 11 does not
impact the trail easement established in the SPA Agreement.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposal is not in conflict with any elements of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional expenditures for public
facilities.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Response: The requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b) are met by this proposal.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and
11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by
City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
3
• 0
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee
Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by
City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
Attachments:
A. Historic Preservation Commission minutes of August 28 and October 23,
1996
B. Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement, Trustee Townhouses
4
Meeting was called to order by lst Vice-chairman Roger Moyer with Susan
Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman
present. Jake Vickery was seated at 5:10 p.m. Melanie Roschko and Sven
Alstrom were excused.
MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of July 10th as amended
and the minutes of July 24th; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion
carried.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy stated that 820 E. Cooper was red tagged.
Amy also stated that the Hotel Jerome is requesting air conditions for a few
days in their rooms to accommodate a group of clients requests.
Roger stated that Aspen is an tourist town and possibly health issues are a
concern. He also stated that it could be an air exchange system and more
research needs done.
Amy stated unless there is some justification she recommends against air
conditioners and the use of fans would be more appropriate.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH
Gretchen Greenwood, architect presented the affidavit of posting to
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer.
David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice meets the requirements of
the City of Aspen and the HPC has jurisdiction to proceed.
Amy stated that an approval was given in 1991 to modify the units and add
three new units. At that time all the units were going to be brought to 2500
sq. ft. Since that time the plan has changed and the existing units are going
to be modified as is without much additional square footage. The new units
were expected to be built basically to match.
She also stated that the applicant would like to now change the new units.
They are proposing the same square footage but the building has a different
character. Originally there were to be detached car ports and the three new
units have garages which is very different. There is not the solid and void
character in the new units. There ought to be some type of one story
element on the street facade. The HPC also needs landscape information.
Staff recommends tabling.
Gretchen Greenwood is the architect and Doug MacPherson is the
developer. There is one site at the south and two sites at the north end of
the existing town homes. The Aspen Meadows restaurant is at the South
end. In 1991 the units were designed for 2700 sqft. including a ten foot
addition on the back and a below grade space. The car port was to be
eliminated and garages were approved to be built. Although garages do not
exist they have to ability to build them at anytime because they are
approved plans.
She stated that the proposed plans for units 1, 10, & 11 are similar in size in
terms of FAR, they are 2700 sqft. but closer to 3400 sqft. in terms of what is
below grade in terms of mechanical laundry room which are below grade
quite extensively. The intent was to not replicate the designs of the existing
units. There is a one story element at the street which is a garage and the
door recesses back six feet with wing walls on either side and cut outs to de-
emphasize the garage and pick up other elements of different units. The
existing Bayer units are 1 1/2 story down a steep site. The intent is to re-
create that with the two story element 30 feet back from the face of the
building. The height of the existing building is 21 feet above the existing
grade at the street and the proposed buildings. are 26 feet. The buildings sit
in the approved foot print of 1991. The buildings are separated from the
existing town homes about five feet. There will be shingles and clad
windows on the building.
Suzannah asked about the FAR and does it reduce the availability of square
footage for the other units. i
Doug MacPherson stated that the Institute owns two other units and David
McLaughlin owns one and he has assigned that square footage to these three
units. None of the other home owners would loose square footage.
2
ASPEN HIST C PRESERVATION COMMSION AUG.28 1996
Amy stated that they were approved for all the units to have the same square
footage.
Gretchen stated that the SPA amendment allowed the units to vary in the
FAR due to the way each unit sits with the grade. Our attempt is to create a
different development because there are so many Bayer houses and they
stand on their own.
Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing.
Bob Maynard resides in unit #2 owned by the Aspen Skiing Co. which was
involved with the redo of the Aspen Meadows from the beginning. He
stated that the square footage is larger than the existing units and in the
existing units not one person has tried to do the expansion that was
approved in 1991. You can't do it economically. He stated for the last
thing to do in the institute is to bring in a foreign design different than what
was there before.
Harris Sherman stated that he owns unit 91 and he walked the area. As a
general matter he agrees with Bob about the character of the Meadows. The
existing eight units are low density and they all step down from the south to
the north end. There is a feeling of openness that goes with the units. He
stated that the car ports create space between the units and for those units
that have windows on the north side you can see Castle Creek and the
hillside coming down. Herbert Bayer made an impressive design. He stated
now on the north side there will be a two story wall beside his unit and he is
greatly effected by it literally being five or ten feet from his house. He
stated that he is looking into a wall of the new unit and detracts from his
unit and the overall ambiance of the Meadows. It is partly a problem of size
and how the units are located. There is adjacent land that the institute owns
and the units could be moved 40 feet to the north and vegetation planted.
He stated that he did not know what could be done with the south side of the
project. He stated that these are serious design issues andiimpacts. The
Aspen Institute owns the land and is selling it to Mr. MacPherson and Mr.
Sherman does not want to complicate the plans of the institute. They have
the right to sell the land and get as much money as they can within the
context of what is being preserved. All of the existing eight units are
3
ASPEN HIST C PRESERVATION COMMON AUG. ? 8. 1996
between 1600 and 1700 square feet. On the west side there is permission
to add space under the first floor living room and technically you could not
do unless you excavated underground in order to create a basement area.
No one at present intends to do that. The proposed units start at 2700 sq. ft.
up to 3200 sq. ft. which is almost a doubling of the square footage. That
will change the character as it is twice the size. If the units could be
separated visually from the other units this maybe acceptable. Moving it 40
feet may not be acceptable depending on how the buildings are positioned.
Bob Maynard stated that there is a waiting list for the existing units and to
say that larger units are needed to meet the market demand is inappropriate.
Doug MacPherson stated that there maybe some demand for the existing
units but we are taking at a lower price given the price that he is going to
pay the institute for the vacant sites. Financially a bigger unit is needed
given the difficulty of the site and because of the price the institute wants
for the land. The prices for the existing units is $500,000.
The biggest unit is 3600 sqft. with some of it below grade. The institute had
expressed interest in having this kind of unit. David McLaughlin gave us
the transfer of square footage to this unit because the institute felt the need
for larger units.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the Institute stated that they support the
proposed projects. He spoke on behalf of five of the eleven units. In 1991
when HPC had the debate whether the units should mirror the existing there
was a split on the HPC at that time. He presented a letter from the institute
in support of the project.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Donnelley stated that he is the monitor and acted on the project in 1991.
HPC's responsibility then and now is to the existing styling of the
architecture created by Herbert Bayer and. Fritz Benedict. He stated HPC
cannot comment on the FAR because the applicant does have the right to
build to what they are allowed. They are also building within the foot print
that was approved in 1991. He stated that there are three major problems:
1) Hipped roofs are explicitly anathetical to that design.
.19
ASPEN HISTIC PRESERVATION COMMION AUG 2 g 1996
2) The roof pitch is too steep. What was approved in 1991 the S. elevation
acknowledge the very shallow pitch of the other units and that is consistent
with the Bauhaus aesthetics, no hipped roofs appeared in this design.
3) The vertical fenestration or bands of fenestration always emphasized
horizontality.
Susan stated that the HPC needs to stay with the Herbert Bayer plan. She
also stated her concern is that on the north there is one house and the south
has two which looks awkward. It is unbalanced and she also indicated that
the new houses should be spaced appropriately, i.e. 40 feet separation on the
south.
Mark stated that his concern is the proximity of the two units to the existing
units. He also stated that roof pitches need addressed and he agrees with
Donnelley.
Suzannah agreed with Donnelley also. A cue should be taken from the
older buildings in the way the massing was done and the way they split
from side to side with the sloped roof and flat roof. That is important to the
rhythm of the project. They do not respect one another the way the original
design does as the eaves drop down. #10 should be sifted to the outside and
well as 1. The new buildings need to be significantly separated and the
amount should be determined. -
Roger stated that lie was here in 1991 and concurs with Donnelley. He also
agrees with the separation of units at both ends.
Gretchen stated that they want the units divorced from the original units and
it would be better project if they could be stepped down. Right now we are
allowed a five foot setback and they are 21 feet from the side so there is
room to move. 40 feet might put them over the property line on the road.
Doug MacPherson stated that he met with Sherman and his concern was
separation and he would move them as far to the north as possibly. He
stated that he could get some separation on Bob Maynard's unit on the
south but the restaurant is close and it is a steep site. He will get a topo
done this week.
5
ASPEN HIST*C PRESERVATION COMM&ION AUG. 28. 1996
Roger asked about the garages.
Doug stated that the present homeowners did not want to peruse it.
Gretchen stated that if you site visited the area the turning radius would be
very difficult to do.
Bob Maynard stated that the units are large but that is his personal concern.
It is deviation from what is there historically that concerns him.
MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for units 1, 10 & I of the
Aspen Meadows town homes be tabled suggesting restudy of specific areas:
1) Reduction or elimination of hipped roofs.
2) Reduction of the pitch of the main roofs.
3) Restudy of fenestration to be more consistent with the prevailing
aesthetics.
4) Investigation of possible further separation of the proposed new work
from the existing town homes; second by Roger.
DISCUSSION
Suzannah stated that she would like massing included in the motion.
She stated that you have -a tall volume and a longer low volume going along
and in the proposed elevations there is one single large volume and the
hipped roof doesn't effect that.
Amended motion:
5) Restudy of massing in general to reflect a better articulation of
heights as expressed in the existing town houses.
second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion.
Suzannah also stated that she has concerns with the garages.
Roger stated that he does not find the garages objectionable and they
differentiate between Bayer and new. He also likes the idea of the winged
walls and recessed doors. In this particular case it is not on the street.
ro
ASPEN IC PRESERVATION COMM&ION AUG 28, 1996
Donnelley stated that there is a precedence as the entrance to the units is on
the side where you park your car.
Gretchen stated that the entry is 26 feet back from the face of the garage.
They tried to get a relationship between the depth of the entry without cars
similar to the existing town homes.
Donnelley stated that the 1991 approvals did not approve garages within the
units. He also stated that he would rather see car ports than garages. He
would rather see a more appropriate reflection of the shallow pitched roofs.
Jake stated that the issue of the car port should be considered with the
general issue of massing.
MOTION: Suzannah moved to table the application until Sept. 25, 1996,
second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried.
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented the EIS in its
most recent form. The impact statement was handed out to the Board. Stan
also presented a draft resolution to the Board on part of the- Elected Officials
that would be a unified response. The response accepts the modified direct
alignment which goes through the Marolt Open Space. In CDOT's
suggestion of the supplementary draft a highway would be constructed as
the first phase which would contain two general traffic lanes and two
dedicated bus lanes. This draft is asking CDOT for two lanes of highway
and a transit envelope. The concern of a four lane has impacts on Marolt
Open space which is too great. The proposed cut and cover of 400 feet
would mitigate for the open space of the new road. There would be a
continuous flow of open space from upper Marolt Thomas to the golf
course. Cemetery lane would be brought in on the Castle Creek Bridge and
intersect with Main Street.
Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC did not support the cut and cover
and she supplied comments to council. Numerous issues need to be taken
into account.
h
ASPEN HIS WC PRESERVATION COMIVIkION OCT 23 1996
Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the
windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the
existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space.
Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area.
Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the
glazing was not taken to ground level.
Susan agreed with Donnelley and it looks chalet like.
Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground.
Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with
the beams.
Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was
inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc. it would be difficult to
maintain.
Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European
building and either window elevation is acceptable.
Sven asked what the material would be on the windows.
Stefan stated wood.
MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram 42 that was
presented at the meeting for the window modification; second by Susan.
Motion carried 3-2.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL
Roger stated that this is conceptual continued from Aug. " Sth.
Amy Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous
forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three
5
new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the
property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not
feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the
existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR
they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units
will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger
than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five
conditions outlined in the memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the
new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC
talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in
scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the
new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have
really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new
design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The
existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and
altered.
Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have
an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The
applicant is concerned with their due diligence period.
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into
the record.
Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of
HPC'c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen
Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug
MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the
hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review
them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that
he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the
hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to
receive and review the new plans.
Amy stated that the second letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter
concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested
the postponement of HPC's Oct. 23rd consideration of the new plans for the
three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the
ASPEN HISTOIC PRESERVATION COMN&ION OCT. 23, 1996
proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern
regarding the size and location of such units because of their corresponding
impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town
houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six
weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in
advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which
occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to
review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly
request the following:
Postponement of this matter at Wednesday's meeting.
That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the
next meeting.
That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff.
Roger asked if the public had comments relative to this proposal, for or
against.
David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is
representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town.
David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps
strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before
this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part of
this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this
commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the
neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go
through the process in a reasonably amount of time to look at those and
consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is
an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short
term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that
the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be
distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall
sense of that unique area.
Cindy Vinesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute
stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the
Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and
have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate
7
ASPEN HISTIC PRESERVATION COMM&ION OCT 23 1996
most of the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the
original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be
detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute
intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes
but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of
funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also
on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with
Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that
were out standing.
Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug
MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to
provide them to the interested party.
Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of
Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he
assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is
in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can
represent the unit that he represents.
Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant of the unit
which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain
Partners.
Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but isn't a
full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his
concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to
him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a
separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to
him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would
be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new
diagram. He told him over the phone that he moved the units as far as they
can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot
setback off that northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit # 1
from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One of Harris's concern were
the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan.
ASPEN HIS IC PRESERVATION COMI&SIGN OCT. 23, 1996
Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant
could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and
supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing.
Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing
this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do
not want to see anything built here. He also stated that if the Board tables
his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he
didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He
stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls
and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he
needs two weeks to look at the project.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns
they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of
meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right
up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment
for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They
have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has
always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they
can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved lot to build on and she feels they
ae out of line in requesting tabling.
Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5.
David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to
Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the
neighbors.
Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and
they did not contact the neighbors.
David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant
would show the new designs to the neighbors.
Gretchen stated that has never been something that you have to do in an
approval process.
9
ASPEN HIST&C PRESERVATION COMM&ION OCT 23, 1996
David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the
applicant in the long term.
Roger asked the HPC if they desired to table or go on with the meeting?
Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be
available for the another meeting next week.
David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago
at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced
about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a
representation was made that before that design would be considered for
approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed
by Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of landuse law
that representation made by a developer in a development process become
part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and
develops the project.
Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next
week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled.
Sven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated
that he did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is
when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received
adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by
Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees
letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige.
Susan stated that she agrees with Sven.
Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an
obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the
neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a project
and take more of HPC's time which he really objects to he viamently
objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this
project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed
development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a
stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this.
10
ASPEN HISTIC PRESERVATION COMM&ION OCT 23, 1996
Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far
but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide
notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is
interested in reviewing the project.
Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should
proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have
been here.
Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling.
Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property
owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information
has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the
property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the
records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until
Monday.
David Hoefer stated that if HPC decides to proceed we would note for the
records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was
not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they
received notice of the public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction
to proceed.
Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last
meeting.
Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far
away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in
order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they
are not a 1 / 1 /2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The
entire site has been surveyed.
One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto
the otherside of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on
site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this
point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the
II
ASPEN HIS WIC PRESERVATION COMAkION OCT. 23, 1996
same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and
the car port will be ten feet away.
Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they
did'that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition 92 which is the
exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the
overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt.
On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side
of the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the
building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a
heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements,
sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual
relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the
new units which meeting condition #3.
Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to
condition #4, the separation of the new work from the existing town houses
so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of
the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a
lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a
combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles
in very much the same location as in the other buildings. This makes for a
visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same.
Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of
Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback.
Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is
a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to
go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated
that they need a strong approval for the design by HPC.
Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line.
Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that
is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off
and giving them the key.
12
ASPEN HISTOIC PRESERVATION COMMION OCT. 23, 1996
Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings.
Mark asked if the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and
inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10.
Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings.
They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted
saved.
Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit # 10 as he is
concerned about the tree.
Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the
drip line.
Mark stated that he recently lost a couple of trees because they were so
close.
Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting
200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman's
unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to
survive.
COMMENTS
Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is
back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry side
which is the east elevation it is dark.
Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports
have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then
an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open.
Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding.
Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and
shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be
13
ASPEN HISTOIC PRESERVATION COMM&ION OCT. 23, 1996
Y
sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds
of materials.
Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings
on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11.
Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is
7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The
unit next to that is four feet lower.
Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter
to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the
neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final
he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should
be presented. A drawing of the adjacent building to scale should also be
presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be
placed on the site.
Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will
let Amy know.
Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the
chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not
see the relationship in the drawings.
Gretchen stated that she met the conditions.
Motion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the
proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units 1,10 and 11 with the following
conditions: Prior to final fenestration be restudied and that the materials
be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the
chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present
drawings. Details must be enlarged for finals. The fenestration has
problems with framing and site lines. A letter be sent to the Board of
Adjustment in support of the side yard variance; second by Mark. Motion'
carried 5-1. Sven voted no.
14
ASPEN HIST&C PRESERVATION COMIN&ION OCT 23, 1996
:Llotion: Donnelley moved to adjourn, -.second by Roger. All in favor,
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8: 00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
667
; ;1, ter,
i ,_..
i- � r. is 'r c
i.:�. i .a. i_ 1 i n n i,.
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
3. Trails
The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie
Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this trail
easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no
financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work.
D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND:
Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot
4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that
this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the
Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof
shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance
of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail
locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments
which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which
subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of
existing topography.
Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and
proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water.
E. LOT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Existing development on Lot 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately
1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been
approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight
three -bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee
houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two
on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR
with three bedrooms. Total build -out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty-
three bedrooms and 27,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet
per dwelling unit). FAR.s and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee
houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect
as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
22
40C1 -- ;_? 1 1 21'� , '- _ _ : _. = ;ac r_ 3E:: 667 .=!:_ 757
i1 v i. Da V :i._ Pi+ k J n nt_ r-i::LDoc r., ;(-,
period next succeeViril! :iune. 10, 191, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change
to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an
allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open
space, as noted on the Plat and as described below.
1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted:
a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft.
c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet
d) Minimum front yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 5.)
e) Minimum side yard:
5 feet
f) Minimum rear yard:
i) Principal building: 10 feet
ii) Accessory building: 15 feet
g) Maximum height: 25 feet
ote. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee
h6uses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35 %
23
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
i) External FAR (maximum):
1:1
j) Internal FAR: no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom
2. Condom iniumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded
condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5.
Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an
affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(1)(c). The fee
totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat
and declaration for the units on Lot 5.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan.
3. Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as -built location of each easement.
(b) Landscape Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book -A SS at Page S , et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed -
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
24
i 667 _ 759
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper.
4. Trails
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off -site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as -built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
5. Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment or credit from a Financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above -described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
667
constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to
Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public
Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he
shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual
cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site
or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
6. Employee Housing
Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight
trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in
each unit remains at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the
three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
F. - LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 6 is owned by Savanah and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6. Approved under this plan is
development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR
each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and
17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit).
FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as
set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991,
notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding
June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or
calculation of FARs. The seven new townhomes have received an allotment under the
City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for
accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein.
26
•
November 5, 1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 26.80.050.(E)(2)
E. Amendment to final development plan
2. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section 26.52.030. are as foilows:
1. Applicant: Mr. Douglas J. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-7000
Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant.
Legal Description: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3. The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
5. A Site Improvement Survey is attached for your review.
6. A written description of the proposed development is attached.
7. The Review Standards for anSPA is attached for your review.
NUV-J0-77 wGJ IJ-; ♦ ---I
- . J -
6. Written Description of the Proposed Development
Background
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks. The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer townhouses Units 2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units 1, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the north of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet di$erent floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their rental
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor -Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft. for the entire Lot 5, Units 1 through 11. This amendment does not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. ( See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SPA- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the existing townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses.
IYUV-C10-70 wCJ d"iJ� ry �1
Y . U b
,.mendment Proposal to the approved SPA
as follows:
1. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
2. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units 1, 10 and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the IHPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings
located as far as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated vet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lot
SPA. With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted in new
budding envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. The proposed building envelopes for Knits 1, 10 and
11 are shown on the attached drawings.
A. Unit 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast corner of the existing building envelope and 26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B. Unit 10 and 11 Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of Unit 9, with a
distance of 40 feet from the northeast corner of the existing building envelope and 25 feet
from the northwest corner of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, floor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the ETC. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
'. Review Standards
I. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SPA. The
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture; landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot the development does not,
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SPA, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows for buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilities
and roads as the original approved development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot S area as was the original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes, The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
- J J
•
6-1
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users of the projects and the
public at large.
The proposed development preserves many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition, the relocation of the new townhouses, preserves the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, the relocation further establishes
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at the Aspen Institute. The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocation of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, preserves a mature growth of
trees growing directly next to unit 9 as well as as'
gnixlcant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. There are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA.
4. Whether the development is in compliance with the aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
funds.
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26, 84.030(B)(2)(b).
8. Whether there are sufficient GNIQS allotments fro the proposed development.
There are no new units created by this SPA. amendment proposal.
iYU'1-u0-70 WG'.1 U-t .mot .11�
•
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b. A precise plan of the proposed development......
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and accessways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows. A copy is available through the City of Aspen Community
Development Department.
c. A Statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel land, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26.80.040(B).
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later than 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Permit procedure. This statement is for Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development .
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SPA
will remain the same.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review boards.
�� � .. �. l� � �'��:��^� �I, )t ty,�' ;;% •` �y�• .�. r - � �e. r. i'/�;�i, k��' � �;n�Y r- �, ,; � � � •
r li���`?;.�!,.�i'��.�� ,�R�I�S��Li��1�.1:1���C�ti ��i a`, t. � i+1'Jf�'�Tl:.�� ��t.�, �. //.JL`•�11Z•�/�:�YF i�.�'1}(k'.,1
3:3401737 01 /24 /9:: J 1,: 17 rt,,_ 1s401). 00 ;31-' 667 PG 761
Silvj,i Ravi:, Pit•I in C:nty Clert,, i)c,c 1.,0o
1, Dimensional
Reouirements and variations Therefrom
The
following dimensional requirements are for the
RMF Zone District;
�Phnd `
variations in these requircm 14a"t have been granted
for the development
activity
contemplated for Lot re noted.
a)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.):
6,Q00
b)
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. ft.
c)
Minimum lot width:
60 feet
i
d)
Minimum front yard:
l
i) Principal building:
IO feet
ii) Accessory building:
15 feet
IIt
A variation from minimum RMF Zone
District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted
by the City to
zero feet for Lot 6.)
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 feet
f)
Minimum rear yard:
I,
!
i) Principal building:
10 feet
ii) Accessory building:
15 feet
g)
Maximum height:
25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the center
portion of the tennis
townhomes has been granted by the City for up to three
fact as shown on
the Plat.)
h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in [lie SPA development plan.)
27
1
NOV-e6-96 WED a4 :55 AM 1 1
:: r • .. (ti ., i :k.f�11
ff� ;r{ �. L feN 1z�jZ F�.�%/;yf?�� f{Z ,tl�•`�+:' r'hi r7� ��i��K '. .
li ..
i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1
j) Internal FAR: no requirement
k) Off-street parking requirement: I space per bedroom
2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease TZeouircmgnt
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condom iniumization approval for the seven tennis townhome units on Lot 6 as
approved by this SPA plan.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to [lie seven condominium units on Lot 6.
3. Uq Improvements
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrourided. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as -built location of each easement.
(b)Lands'--al2c Im roveMents. Savanalt shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book at Page �5- , el seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and Iocation of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed -
upon landscape features. Such landscaping sliall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvement$. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to [Ile terms of this Agreement. All
28
•
-11
vo
�, 4� CO•rl�ive�h�-� �� T�i �lo.Ct..t...� .� �trrio��� �Iw�,6p p�7�JeO�C
rem -y fP a CO to �-+ t �/ A ay/► .D -� t % f c. �Q�.+.l y
riot --�h �G /✓,s ��.� o f � �y �o,. � �i�.� �- �*.'
? �!r!l -! 1Vp — I1Q-a /ItiI d
4v CC Wao
N�
E tin arr'I �► • � �rl �� ' it
I Sp ces " "
l �'% /
flow
Apr; " 1,',
Pi 4_3" Pine 1-8 u'
2 �1-8 Aspe %;!�, IMF
fee& _ /
l R OVE'
not a �% � • , ! • i .
�Ai'/j� i I \B. /
1-1 e ► '
1 66ee 7em ve due to
1 e
RELO 1�4 y ne t
1_8
1 P1 - .F
_8,. _Aspen $� ��,,8te�e towmhuse ,.
rel�d ... , I ,.
4g,. Aspen `\ � ► to b�e 1��1�nd , ; , xigtin� .
► �.
E7�3'Cn �P�t'king � p �p
�t1q eo
1-8" ' ne 16 S�d88 ,,.
1_6„ Pi� ,
1-11" Aspen 1� 0.. 1 o V Existing parking '
3_6„ PineZ
\ 31 Spaces
1-4 Pine Aspen,
P1 no
1.
4 2" F"teli 2-2NM en Bu81'i
- ' Aspen an ti
1-2\ Aspen 3- n
2-W%spen 1-1
4-"8
1-8" e
Aspen dead Aspen span i• INS
f \
1 g� �1RELOCATE 1
1 8" Plne,,
61, Ping
6" Pine
pen
,C 8 ved due to y to
e®
LEGEND
c4 Buildings to remain
Buildingsto be red
l,ped or remodeledep
Trees to be rexnow�ed.
�X
Trees to be reloeaxed
x 7782.8 1
s
0
0.
I
DAVID
INN
AR
......... . .
OKI
r4
Irv!
& low,
m
M
om noll
son
Ing
;Ammmv
isms somell
now
lunge F,, "FIL sommasommollso ;." . W%..
Meing
11150".
I mill
W.1 FAVA. tiSiI
Book smanne loss PLO
r gas
On-mm
Min.:
r
VICTUMMENOM ImP.&M,
I vllx WE
Y'Ru
6 MIT 0L Mier
rm FM Sol
Vlm MON
WOMEN mommillairg INK
no mil:ww�EEMEN INUNIIII a 9 a me
mom 10
%Ad as a
M-0
3
In 8 CRV
was ,am ...
EWEN
Am NONE
ili�� if:!� In me
sm
14 9 RENE
N
10
xxoIKS H1,111111
�� \
T
• 'vl
..-�-:��:.-�:�.:!!!!!i!!!!!!!!I!!!I!!!!�!!!q!!!i!!!g!!g!!!!!!!!�iipllllii!!!!iiii!
■
Idmalumm Avg 0 =OEM
T
_. _:
...J
T
T
jaw.
AR
s
4r
•_I
T
-ZA
Gil
Tl S
L Ll
M Mill
PONMW
N
. .........
p-, MIMI,
11p
-1;-� 4- Alwi:-
Saw. looms
Moog ®r
"mom 'a
........... .
:nR RS
.;R*R FF
MMMRPAI
t
m
m
Mason
mmoul
usual I IN
REIFF!� �l.d��
—
........... . ... .....
..........
Rai to MEN summossommul
man
.1 11 as ===won 'Awassummomm
somal
lugs
memo . . . . . . .
show assommossan
IM,
OMNI lammamossomillat 9•—
Oman
soot samonsmowgi,.4*,"
Monsom Nip,
111111011010100 Ismalmossuar
0 JOHN
DAVID)
Fir."IfMA
POP"
9
JOHN
DAVID
6
--77- Ii.
owl•
. .. .................. . ... ...............
. . ...... ...
twi.!cMiJv�rlelAM
. ... .... ......
Hill
[IN 0 IN MINI N1.1N IN.IRIP.1111
.. ..............
................
-ask
III OWN Mimi IF jimm M.
Mimi
Image
.. ..... ...
III in mso
::......
MK-R...ti................. ... .... X.
........
on
jr
2x8 FASCIA.PANTI
ix4 T&G PAINTEC
METAL FLASHIN(
2x 12 PAINTED -
lx4 T&G PAWTE
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOF 4'T.W.
NEW ROOF
STRUCTURE R-40 MIN
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE
METAL FLASHING
DETAIL SIMILAR
`:•\\ \ :\
TO EXISTING
NEW FASCIA
2x12 PANTED
MATCHES SIZE
OF E)OSTRNG
Ix4 T&G PAINTED
BALCONY DETAILS
TO MATCH EXISTING
-- I
I
DECKING III, FLOOR
JOISTS/BALCONY
NOT SHOWN FOR
CLARITY
WINDOW TRIM SAES
I
;.
TO MATCH EXISTING
,
CEDAR SHINGLES B'T.W.
PARTIAL ELEVATION SHOWING NEW ENTRY and MATERIAL DETAIL RELATIONSHIPS
ALL DRAWINGS AT 3/4•=1'-0'
WALL SECTION thru ENTRY ROOF PLAN 0 END WALL
I
Q
Q
C7
Z
Z
Z
Q
J
d
�
0
Z
Q
W
rr
I-
U
w
U
Q
U
Z
co
w
Q
U
O
U)> z-
Q
0
O
O =
z
Q
Q W
W
w j
J
O
- - - W
Z
Z
W
a. a
(n c
0
>
Q a
Q
0
DRAWN BY:
- R VISIONS'
WALL SECTION thru END WALL
VA
gip.., '.�,. c ..•fir; +
. � .. ' �,� tow -• t� � � �c�=i{w' "" '�. t�• � �
E'_ r (,• it s • �
y
':> r . see � r✓ f �. • 1•`�. ,�M,
r Y . 1� s��� � '' e. • // •,t , 111TTT����{+,' ,f �i • 4 Y
� �' ai`ra�ty� r� �yJ � fj � ��w�' ♦ �
41
,, .,. .. • ern' �A�, .F, • 'a;� • s i' �•�tt
T.
k ��ti iAI
3!-
�.wA.•.i �� ,�4+x rr ,
o=
ASPEN MEADOWS
PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING
DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC.0 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A.
-, ate■■■■■■■■■■
t+ k!
i
1 r A+
j We
4 P.
.•-10
-
y 1 �
Y
�y .,, • Y' SAS "�C331�y r {�' i7
I .K
r 1 �. ri � 1•
Flo
y, r► i r.'� f[ + l/
w f �
r
41.
Herr.—'���o�*... j .•
�s.• '��!Zt" .
I
�'�--t T�� )1 .• .. .-�...... �.- .hr'.k'. f � `} "6qr� � ' gj f(�T .4 .c 'K'��a '�i «�u
�,��8�.� t.' e �4sr�;� `•r%f�� f'v. ,'s ssx x�,�j. •w1�
iA
. �•Kv., bye
+ay ;"mow""•
•
W t 1 LLC V A 11ViV
g ade -
SCALE: 1/4' = 1'- 0"
aic�t �Y-
!'(,�' awn
NG C`RoE
\IK65�
S Ex�strr�
T
VUMlM-�
e Avc7rrtdt4
� t xN&7Tw:�)
W415
SOUTH ELEVATION
Existing ` ` �
grade \� J/ I
I
I
------------
LOV�E�LEVELEVE
•
Ll
.,oc ■ICJ■■■■tRON
• •
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'- 0"
T
d 1
A3. 3.3
11
C
EXISTING GRADE
eumril -
`r) S �Q<45ab
n
4' wood trim
Wood shingle
siding
W-0'
Stone paver
patio
A B z
A3.3
Flashing,. I
I I
I 1,
--------------------------------
FAST FT.FVATTON
•
00 • 0
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
5) Fencing visible from the street shall be restudied and
perhaps moved one or two feet back and look at an alternate
solution of vegetation. The fence can be whatever on the
west side.
6) 71 rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation
is more compatible in character with the historic landmark,
than would be development in accord with dimensional
requirements.
7) Parking reduction of one space, finding that the maximum
number of parking spaces have been planned on site. The
parking space in the front yard shall be eliminated and re -
vegetated as proposed.
Motion second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries.
Les Holst will be the project monitor on 214 W. Bleeker.
THE MEADOWS - RESIDENTIAL ONLY
Roxanne: I have reiterated the conditions of conceptual approval
in the memo and have responded to them. The Planning Office is
recommending approval of the meadows with conditions to be
approved by Staff and the Meadows sub -committee of the issues
that were not yet met for their final approval.
1) Detailed preservation plan needs clarified for the Trustee
townhomes.
2) Palate of materials.
3) Amendments to the design.
4) Covenants to more clearly define the massing, scale and
articulation issues.
5) Clarification of the material treatment of the end walls and
party walls and clarification of the tennis townhomes west
elevation regarding correct scale of door and windows.
6) Clarification of tennis townhomes regarding balcony snow
removal.
Perry Harvey: Lets discuss the Tennis townhomes, Trustee and
then the single family homes.
Nickie and David Finholm presented materials and responded to all
concerns of Staff as presented in the memo May 8, 1991 (attached
in records).
Nickie: The snow removal of the Tennis townhomes will consist of
5
• • • 9
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
all internal drainage. The north/south wall is designed to be a
rubble wall. The partition walls are done in the rubble also.
The tennis townhome parking is the same design as the Trustee
houses with the earth berm and use of natural soil. The curb of
the berm is similar to Anderson Park. Natural vegetation will be
incorporated.
Bill: The Board is in approval of the Tennis townhomes.
David: On the townhouses, three units were added. We have also
created earth landscaping. We will remove all the stairs and
keep the window detailing exactly like it is. The fascia is
shingle. We would like to change the color of the roof asphalt
singles which are silver color now to a darker color (cedar mix).
Bill: Changing the color doesn't effect the historic nature of
the structure. I would think the color selection is up to the
applicant.
David: There is room for two cars in the covered parking and one
on the side.; All the architecture is glass with sun control.
Bill: The Board unaminously approved.the Trustee homes.
Perry Harvey: I will discuss the single family homes. Regarding
the covenants we will have a design review committee. This is an
R15 zone. Council had requested that we lower the lots to 12,
000 sq. ft. We have created building envelopes that range from
61 to 64 hundred feet which is down to an R6 lot. After
reduction of rear yard setbacks etc. we have created 30 foot
combined side yard setbacks. This creates view planes of the
Meadows as you come in. The homes are a little over 4000 sq. ft.
and the accessory dwelling units are 500 sq. ft. We are going to
market the lots.
Roger: Do the covenants state that you can't build a linear box.
Perry: It talks about creating movement.
Bill: The City in their attempt to protect sage meadow is
forcing them into a box which is going to create a design which
is a box. In your architectural review committee you might force
the buildings to be more irregular. The buildings along that
area in the west end are less rigid and in your guidelines if you
require that you get a little more interest and vitality and
avoid the "wall".
Les: Who is the design review board for this project?
n.
M N
.,
C Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Perry: Us as the developers with input from the Institute and
the property owners and David and Nickie Finholm.
Les: I would suggest that there be one member of the HPC on the
Board.
Bill: Board unaminously approved the single family homes and
recommendations to Staff and to the applicant.
Bill: Trees along the rear property line would be a help in
reducing the massing and soften the area.
Bill: All the conditions for final have been met.
Bill: We have reviewed the palate of materials and color for the
residential portion and a condition of this approval would be
that the palate of materials and colors still need to be
submitted for the meadows.
MOTION: Glenn made the motion that we grant final development
approval for>the residential portion of the meadows as submitted;
second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries.
�MOTION: Les made the motion that the outline for the single
family parcels is appropriate with the recommendations that were
made to Staff during the meeting; second by Glenn. All in favor,
motion carries.
601 W. HALLAM - DELETION FROM INVENTORY
George Vicenzi: I received notice from Jed Caswall that the
building permit is illegal and I feel it is alive and well.
Staff was concerned about setting a precedent and I don't feel
that is a problem because no one can ever equal the same
situation that I have due to Ord. #17 is now in effect and would
preclude anyone from getting a demo permit to any structure that
you are interested in. Most of the house was built after 1910
and has no historic interest. It was moved to this site and was
vacant up until 1960.
George: I will not go into facts as to why this house has no
historic value. The main factor is that the old house which is
the gabled end, south side of the house is pre 1910 and does have
minimal historic value (the bay window on the east side). The
victorian porch was added by myself and I did the dining room in
1970. 70% of the building wasn't even constructed prior to 1910.
The part that was constructed before does not have historical
value. It also has no historical value to the neighborhood
because it was moved there in the 60's and on a vacant lot. This
7
•
To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Conceptual Development: The Aspen Meadows, residential
portion only, Public Hearing
Date: February 13, 1991
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR MEADOWS PACKET FROM THE
FEBRUARY 6 WORKSESSION.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development a proval for the
residential portion of the Aspen Meadows including the
remodeling, deling, renovation and three new uni s o the (Bayer)
"Trustee Townhomes", seven new units referred to as the "Tennis
Townhomes" and advisory review of the four single-family home
sites.
LOCATION: Westerly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as
"The Aspen Meadows"
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Savanah Limited Partnership,
represented by Perry Harvey and Joe Wells
ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending
PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Though no formal action has been taken
previously by the HPC, a worksession was held on February 6, 1991
to informally review the proposal. Positive comments on the
Trustee Townhomes regarding massing; scale, height, spacing and
site planning were received from the HPC. Concerns focused
primarily on specific materials, details, and landscaping. The
earth covered parking spaces were considered appropriate. Most
Board members considered the massing, scale and modular design of
the "Tennis Townhomes" compatible with the thematic International
style of the Meadows. Comments generally focused on the stepping
of the units, design of the end walls and treatment of parking.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Currently, eight (8) Trustee Townhome units
exist, with incorporated carports attached to each. The
remainder of the proposal consists of new construction.
PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review
Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). The applicable portion
of the Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings,
Renovation and Restoration and Section VII. Residential
Buildings, New Construction. The Guidelines generally address
detached buildings of the Victorian era, however, the intent and
general application is the same.
Development Review Standards
1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in
character with (designated historic structures*) located on
the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the
subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is
adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks
where proposed development would extend into front yard,
side yard and rear yard setba:-•ks, extend into the minimum
distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed
floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more
compatible in character with the historic landmark, than
would be development in accord with dimensional
requirements. (*historic resource)
Response: The Meadows parcel has not received landmark
designation, however, HPC review and approval is required as
called for in the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, adopted last year.
Staff finds that this Standard has been met in the proposal.
We- find that the significant elements of the Bayer townhomes has
----- — --- ---
been respected__and_ preserved in the renovation and expansion of
the existing units, as well _asin- the design of the three new
uni s on -Tie ends . Sts concerns - focus on mar-aTs;
detailing and landscaping, as well as the need for a subtle
difference between the origi--n-a-1 units and the new. We feel that
simp e topography considerations are not enough, and that more
study is required by the applicant to make this subtle difference
successful.
The proposed Tennis Townhomes incorporate elements of the
"Chalet" structures and the Bayer townhomes, and carry on the
International/modern theme, a signature of the Meadows. HPC
worksession comments were supportive of the massing, however,
staff is concerned _about the visual impacts to the ridge, the
overall height as perceived from all elevations, the treatment of
the end walls, and the detached covered parking structures.
These units may be described as appearing "modular", or grid -
like, particularly the west elevation. It can be argued that
either this design solution is compatible with the surrounding
multi -unit structures or that its collective parts (particularly
as viewed from the west) create a massive structure that no
longer relates in scale. The Tennis Townhomes are presented in
the application narrative as one and half story units at
streetside. Only two of the seven units proposed are one and
half story; the remaining five are two story and do not step down
due to relative flat topography. We are recommending a restudy
to lower the height of these townhomes.
2
Streetscape and Landscape Material: The need to preserve all
existing trees is an important element of this parcel. A
detailed landscape plan will be required at Final, with
mitigation measures stated.
Fences: Fencing has not been discussed, and shall be included
for Final review.
Parking: Detached covered parking has been proposed for both the
Trustee and Tennis Townhomes. The earth -covered parking areas
proposed for the Trustee Townhomes appears compatible with the
surroundings. Staff is _concerned that the Proposed carports for
the Trustee Townhomes are a slightly discordant visual_ intrusion
along the road to the Townhomes; weare rPcommendinq a restudy of
these or reducing their_ height,_analyzing an earth -covered
option and significant vegetation cover/screening.
Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof
pitch. The architect has studied the geometry of the existing
roof forms and has keyed the new design to this, which we find
appropriate.
Doors: We are unable to determine the style of doors proposed on
the new construction, and recommend discussion of this feature in
the Final application.
Windows: The fenestration pattern on both the Trustee additions
and the new Tennis Townhomes are critical design features for
each. We recommend that the HPC require restudy of fenestration
patterns where they feel necessary, primarily on the Trustee
Townhomes. The contemporary window pattern proposed for the
Tennis Townhomes appears sensitive to the thematic geometric
patterns established throughout the Meadows, a signature of
International and Bauhaus style.
Materials: It is important to recall the original construction
technique and use of materials was based on economy. The
architectural style can be described as International vernacular
in many ways, and restraint must be used in incorporating
expensive materials on the buildings and in landscaping.
The new and replacement materials at the Meadows are as important
a design feature as the overall geometry and site planning.
Great care just be taken by both the applicant and the HPC to
determine specific materials, texture, finish and color.
Significant discussion regarding materials at the February 6
worksession leads staff to the following recommendations:
1) New and replacement materialsmust key off of original
materials. Materials were simple, and not of high
cost. Vertical surface shingles should be smooth and
C
square, fascia thicknesses carefully designed, and roof
material not wood shingle. Asphalt roofing
alternatives should be studied and presented to the HPC
at Final.
2) Finish and color of materials is important. A palette
of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by
the participating architects, and submitted for HPC
approval at Final. This palette would also apply to
the Single Family home sites as well.
3) An exact materials representation shall be made at
Final, including major materials, windows, balcony
railings, decorative features, etc.
2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the
parcel proposed for development.
Response: The Planning Office feels that the proposal meets this
Standard, defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel
itself.
3. Standard: The proposed development enhance. or does not
detract from the cultural value of (designated historic
structure*) located on the parcel proposed for development
or adjacent parcels. (*historic resource)
Response: The Meadows parcel represents perhaps better than any
other the diversity in Aspen's culture. We find that the
proposal does not detract from the cultural value of this
important parcel, representing Aspen's post-war renaissance
heritage.
4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not
diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a
(designated historic structure*) or part thereof.
(*historic resource)
Response: The architectural integrity of the Trustee Townhomes
is critical to maintain. We find t";-at the conceptual submittal
of the addition design does not detract from the existing
conditions. However, due to the importance of materials in this
project, and the need for careful study of compatibility issues,
we feel that a higher level of detailed drawings and material
specifications is required of the applicant to determine if this
standard has been fully met.
We are concerned about the convers'
an en ra„r•o aria —are req
luesting this element be submitted in
Beta - �-
4
The Tennis Townhomes and the single family home sites do not
apply under this standard.
ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives:
1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as
proposed.
2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with
conditions to be met at Final Development, such as:
a) Restudy of the?heightl and" step of the
Tennis Townhomes, to reduce titre6tr, e// fight
to a maximum of one ,and half /t�rl s, as
s ated in he appl'' tion rat'
tudy of Tennis Townhome carports to reduce
� visual i_ mp ca � � Tp --�, --
b) Detailed preservation plan for Trustee
townhomes materials and architectural
features. Subtle, compatible design
differences sha a -incorporated into the
three new Trustee Townhomes units, to discern
between original and new,
7
1 ) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating AlcW
existing vegetation and including a study of
enhanced vegetation buffer
fencing shall be detailed
,�"O-ttc�gP anti ri W OnG � tinn All.—Pz-@poSs�--
Trustee Townhome carport remodeling
(representative) detail drawing
�Rertudy of design, articulation, materials
and texture of all end walls
�) Massing models O/iz, lj ��,p P%��
Material representation: An exact materials
representation shall be made at Final,
including major materials, windows, balcony
railings, decorative features, etc.
(fir) A palette of materials, textures and colors
((JJ shall be prepared by the participating
architects, and submitted for HPC approval at
Final. y -t�-the-
^
i uui
Recommendation from applicant for compatible
5
massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials
for the four single family home sites design
covenants for HPC consideration (advisory
only) . � Ctl4 Ip �-,-nM LA T,1 Tr Ulf KD .
3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant
time to restudy specific areas.
4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the
Standards have not been met. ,
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC
grant Conceptual Development approval for the Aspen Meadows,
residential portion, with Conditions A-J (stated above) to be met
at Final.
The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants
process an application for Landmark Designation for the Meadows
Parcel.
Additional recommendations: d a4,W sl • G
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW COMMENTS:
memo.hpc.meadows.res.cd
N.
•
I�
To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: ,Worksession: Aspen Meadows Conceptual Development
application, residential developments only
Date: February 6, 1991 r 6:00
a 6r
=========
SUMMARY: The applicants for the Aspen Meadows have requested a
worksession with the HPC to review the residential development
Portion only of the overall Meadows project. The conceptual
development review/public hearing is scheduled for February 13.
The HPC is requested to carefully review the proposal, and be
prepared to enter into a dialogue with the applicants. Feel free
to offer suggestions for amendments you feel would be appropriate
to the plan at this time, understanding that no formal action can
take place at this worksession.
The residential portion of the application includes only:
I. Trustee Townhomes (Bayer design):
Renovat
Plannina
modificatio
materials, landscape bufferi
2, Tennis Townhomes:
itions, site
_parking, etc.
New construction, site planning, materials, --landscape
buffering, parking, etc.
Single family home sites:
Four sites at the far south end of the Meadows parcel,
of which the HPC has advisory review only. Suggestions
for Design Guidelines are song general massing and
scale, materials, building envelope and site planning,
landscape buffering at edge of oval open space area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC
carefully review the proposal and enter into a dialogue with the
applicants at this worksession. Important issues to focus on are
the preservation and new addition compatibility of the existing
Bayer (Trustee) Townhomes, and the general compatibility of the
seven proposed "Tennis Townhomes". No formal action shall be
taken at this worksession.
memo.hpc.meadows.wrksn
•
THE ASPEN MEADOWS
HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANT
REVIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
0
•
Z`HIBIT Al
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) Project Name THE ASPaN M�rE WS
2) Project Location 645 Meadows Road / 1000 North Third Street
(See attached legal description on Subdivision Exemption Plat (Exhibit A3))
Conservation
3) Present Zoning SPA (no underlying zoning) 4) Lot Size 85.5 acres
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone #
See Cover Sheet of this Submission.
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells, AICP
602 Midland Park Place,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925-8080
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Conceptual SPA
X Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review
Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline
Conceptual PUD
Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin
Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane
Subdivision
Historic Designation
Condominiumization
Text/Map Amendment
GMQS Allotment
Lot Split,/Lot Line
GMQS Exemption
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing
Uses (number and type of
existing structures; appro-
ximate sq.ft.; number of
bedrooms; any previous
approvals granted to the
property).
Approximately 140,000 square
feet of meeting/performance
facilities and
accommodations. (See contents of submission for
specific breakdown.)
9) Description of Development Application
Expansion of 50 lodge rooms, 10 new townhomes, 4 single-family homesites
with accessory dwelling units, an 11,000 square feet rehearsal hall and
4,000 square feet of accessory uses.
10) Have you attached the following:
Yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
des Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
Yes Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
•
0
THE ASPEN MEADOWS
Request for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review
of Significant Development
January 21, 1991
Submitted to: The City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-920-5000
FAX: 303-920-5197
OWNERS: LEASEHOLDERS:
':fie Aspen Institute Music Associates of Aspen
100 North Third Street P. 0. Box AA
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: 303-925-6396 Phone: 303-925-3254
FAX: 303-925-4188 FAX: 303-925-3802
and and
Savanah Limited Partnership Aspen Center for Physics
c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. P. 0. Box 1208
600 East Cooper Avenue #202 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen, Colorado 61611 Phone: 303-925-2585
Phone: 303-925-4272 FAX: 303-920-1167
FAX: 303-925-4387
INTERESTED USER:
International Design Conference
in Aspen
100 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-2257
FAX: 303-920-1167
PREPARED BY:
Joseph Wells, AICP
Joseph Wells, Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8080
FAX: 303-925-8275
CONSULTANT TEAM
Architect for the MAA Facilities
Harry Teague
Harry Teague Architects
412 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 8161
Phone: 303-925-2556
FAX: 303-925-7981
Architect for the Lodge
Howard Backen
Backen, Arrigoni & Ross
1660 Bush
San Francisco, California 94109
Phone: 415-441-8457
FAX: 415-441-8360
Architect for the Residential Protects
David Finholm
David Finholm & Associates
P. 0. Box 2839
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: 303-925-5713
FAX: 303-920-4471
Site Planners/Landscape Architects
Donald Ensign
Suzanne Jackson
Design Workshop, Inc.
710 East Durant Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8354
FAX: 303-920-1387
Legal
Representing Savanah Limited Partnership:
Robert Hughes, Esq.
Oates Hughes & Knezevich
Attorneys at Law
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-920-1700
FAX: 303-920-1121
•
Representing the Aspen Institute:
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
Law Office of Gideon Kaufman, P.C.
315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8166
FAX: 303-925-1090
Title Information
Vince Higgins
Pitkin County Title, Inc.
601 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-1766
FAX: 303-925-6527
L
/1
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Existing Improvements on the Property 2
B. Conceptual Development Program 2
II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION 32
FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (§7-601(F))
A. The Residential Projects 32
B. Submission Contents 34
C. Conceptual Development Plan Review -Standards 36
III. EXHIBITS
A. General Application Information (§6-202)
1. Land Use Application Form
2. Applicants' Letters of Authorization
3. Street Address and Legal Description
4. Disclosure of Ownership for Institute
and Savanah Parcels
5. Vicinity Map
6. Property Owners Within 300 Feet
I. INTRODUCTION
This submission for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of
Significant Development of the residential projects at the Aspen
Meadows is filed on behalf of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic
Studies (Institute), the Music Associates of Aspen (MAA), the
Aspen Center for Physics (Physics) and Savanah Limited
Partnership (Savanah). The residential projects are being filed
for HPC review prior to the other projects in order to facilitate
their review at a worksession scheduled for February 6 and the
subsequent public hearing on Februry 13. The other projects will
be filed for HPC review within a matter of a few days in a
separate application.
On November 22, 1988, these parties joined with the International
Design Conference in Aspen to form the Aspen Meadows Consortium
and to enter into a Statement of Intent (see Appendix B of the
February, 1989 Conceptual SPA Plan) regarding a proposal for
preservation and development of the Aspen Meadows property,
presently owned in part by the Aspen Institute and by Savanah.
The proposal outlined in the Statement of Intent was the product
of the efforts of the Institute, MAA, Physics, IDCA, the Aspen
Valley Improvement Association, the Aspen Community and Institute
Committee, the Aspen Foundation, and other interested parties.
In February, 1989, the Consortium submitted a Conceptual SPA Plan
for the City's review. During the review process for the
submission, however, the City expressed its desire to undertake a
master planning effort of its own prior to considering a specific
development plan for the property. That effort took place during
late 1989 and 1990 and resulted in the adoption on October 16,
1990 by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Aspen Meadows
Master Plan, an amendment to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
The City's adopted document states that in order for the plan to
be successful, it must accomplish the following things:
1) Provide a secure, long term, suitable lodging base for
the Aspen Institute through transfer of land and all buildings
associated with the lodge operation to the Aspen Institute.
2) Provide a land ownership opportunity and secure the
future for the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for
Physics.
3) Preserve the important visual open space character of
the campus.
4) Provide compensation to the principal landowners
sufficient to return all land to non-profit or conservation use.
0
A. Existing Improvements on the Property
The existing facilities within the two ownerships include
the following:
1. The Academic Parcel (Aspen Institute Ownership):
a. Paepcke Auditorium, Boettcher Building, seminar
meeting rooms, classrooms, offices and related spaces in three
structures owned by the Aspen Institute and used by the
Institute, and occasionally by the IDCA, MA.A and Physics Center.
These buildings contain approximately 27,000 square feet.
b. A 1650 seat temporary performance tent of
approximately 16,500 square feet with permanent backstage and
rehearsal space of an additional 4,700 square feet, on a parcel
leased to the MAA on a long-term basis and utilized during the
summer by the MAA'and IDCA. The IDCA also erects a small tent of
approximately 1,000 square feet for outdoor discussions during
the Design Conference.
C. Three buildings belonging to the Aspen Center for
Physics consisting of 13,446 square feet; the Physics Center
received a separate SPA approval from the City in 1977 for these
facilities, which are located on 2.3 acres leased from the
Institute.
2. The West Meadows Parcel (Savanah ownership):
a. The three Chalets, the Kresge Building and the
Trustee Townhouses, used as short-term accommodations, and
totalling approximately 49,400 square feet of floor area, 20,700
square feet of resturant and administrative space in the
Restaurant/Reception Building and Kresge Building, as well as
5,700 square feet of health facilities and six tennis courts with
a pro -shop. These facilities are located on land owned by
Savanah and are available for use by the Institute under the
terms of agreements established at the time of the sale of the
property in 1980.
B. Conceptual Development Program
In conjunction with the planned sale of the Conservation
land to the City of Aspen and the final approval of the
residential townhomes and single-family lots, the present owners
of the two parcels have announced their intention to turn over
ownership of the remaining property to the non-profit
2
organizations currently using the property. The boundaries of
the three parcels to be owned by the Institute, MAA and Physics
are described conceptually on the proposed Conceptual SPA
Land -Use Plan (see following page). It is likely that these
boundaries will be adjusted as the final agreements are resolved
between the parties.
Maintenance standards, reciprocal easements, restrictive
covenants, architectural review rights and rights of first
refusal will be developed within the Meadows Consortium to ensure
that each Institution has the quiet enjoyment of its own property
during the time that its activities are held on the Aspen Meadows
Campus and to ensure that MAA's rehearsal facility, as well as
the Aspen Institute's lodge expansion, are constructed in a
manner that is consistent with the existing campus ambience.
1. The Aspen Institute Parcel:
Savanah will gift to the Aspen Institute all of the land within
the West Meadows parcel not included within the residential and
conservation parcels, including all of the existing buildings
within that portion of the property, to secure the future of the
Institutions and to maintain a cultural campus at the Aspen
Meadows. This gift of approximately 30 acres will include the
restaurant/administration facility, the three Chalet lodging
buildings, the Kresge Lodge, the tennis courts, the sculpture
garden, and the remaining "race track" open space area along
Meadows Road.
Under the City's Master Plan, the existing lodge may be expanded
to 110 rooms. The Aspen Institute proposes to reconstruct and
expand the 44 lodge rooms in the Chalet buildings and reconfigure
the lb rooms in the Kresge Building.
The 50 new lodge rooms approved under the Master Plan will be
located as follows:
1. A new building with 20 rooms will be added to the
southeast of the health center.
2. Six additional rooms will be added to Chalet C.
3. A new building with 24 rooms will be constructed to the
east of the Kresge Building.
As discussed previously, architectural plans and elevations for
the lodge will be submitted under separate cover.
3
% J
. The Aspen Meadows
Qiett Land tape Atchiteda None
A.p- 10 7Ea FiWorishop• Inc /jam
Aa.ocres ofAsen It1 p,t Ummt
Awe• co B for Ph. slcs Aspen. Coiwado 61611
' IM, 9?:4354
H- - Aspen Hoid—,
IA*W Mind— Coaion I
Qaan, 15. 19W
:. f THE ASPEN MEADOWS CONCEMAL SPA
• /^) ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN
w V
t ,
NM 1—&-- oono Bono. s
s f now T 6
Units r'
I-
QaYNaa1W / _ _ VI44
(C) J .)Ip.B a eB art.
n r.
Tnoio. Town as _ 1
.Iwa . as iIB
• sws..+ to a►..no � / y ��� _�_
laoa T
tins, N-W
04 M..no M1911 1 a
to«as..
INS ,
M.I.. Mno... rW..I.. ,.rY no� 1 •_
•' r.•• _ [taw ANitiw
au.. tta.6 ' ��
.� - ,� INM �aMfeW PayiM/
! L M Amaa way to sweat
C�'.�.�ITJFT:., DZ �P�VT FK�u Fri ct i na
Facilities New Facilities Final Program
IDdge Iodg=_ Lodge
Units S3.Ft. Units Sg.Ft. Units Sa.Ft.
I . A= rISI'ITLTIE PAR'7:I.. (42.4 Acres)
1. 3iilding 1 (Qzalet A)
12
5,620
-
3,310
12
8,930
2. Building 2 (Chalet B)
16
9,100
-
2,270
16
11,370
3. a,i 1 ding 3 New Chalet)
-
-
20
13,200
20
13,200
4. Building 4 (Chalet C)
16
91100
6
5,420
22
14,520
5. Building 5 (Kresge Building)
16
12,130
-
-
16
12,130
6. Building 6 (New Kresge)
-
-
24
18,210
24
18,210
Subtotal:
60
35,950
50
42,410
110
78,360
3. !3e*,.ing/Perfo=enoe Facilities
1. Paeocke ALrUtariun
-
13,000
-
-
-
13,000
2, Seminar Building
-
7,000
-
-
-
7,000
3. Boett_4, Building
-
7,000
-
-
-
7,000
4. Kresge Building
-
6,060
-
-
-
6,060
-
33,060
-
-
-
33,060
.. Accessary Facilities
1, Vista
-
14,700
-
-
-
14,700
2. Health Facility
-
5,700
-
11800
-
7,500
3. TlerLis Shop
-
500
-
250
-
750
Subtotal:
-
20,900
-
2,050
-
22,950
Total for Parcel I:
60
89,910
50
44,460
110
134,370
II . MAA FA= (9.5 Acres)
A. tgeting/Performanoe Facilities
1. Tent
-
21,200
-
1,500
-
22,700
2. Rehearsal Ra11
-
-
-
11,000
-
11,000
Sj .otal:
-
21,200
-
12,500
-
33,700
B. Accessory Facilities
1, Lam na ie Stand
-
200
-
-
-
200
2. Gift Shcp
-
100
-
100
-
200
Sdutc al:
-
300
-
100
-
400
Total far Parcel II:
-
21,500
-
12,600
-
34,100
5
CT>N--EP`
:L DE=P!- N P 4
Existing
Pace Two
Facilities
New Facilities
Final
Pr�^�
B
ums Sc.Ft.
Bedras
Sq.Ft.
Bed
So.Ft.
III.
pLmICS aEzT t PAFCEL (4.3 Acres)
A.
Meeting/F)erfannance Facilities
1. T.iilbert Nall
— 5,560
—
—
—
5,560
2. Stranahan Hall
— 4,220
—
—
—
4,220
3. 5ethe Fall
— 3,666
—
—
—
3,666
Total for Parcel III:
— 13,446
—
—
—
13,446
IV.
C2zmwA=, PARS., (25.0 Acres)
A.
Open Seam
— —
—
—
—
—
V .
TgJS^�.4' TT-Nnq -Es PA= (2.6 Acres)
A.
Ddsting Residential Units (8 DU's @ 2,500 SF)
24 14,000
—
6,000
24
20,000
3.
Proposed Residential Units (3 DU's @ 2,500 SF)
— —
9
7,500
9
7,500
Total for Parcel V:
24 14,000
9
13,500
33
27,500
VI.
TES TCXNrus PAR' , (1.2 Acres)
A.
proposed Residential Units (7 DU's @ 2,500 SF)
— —
21
17,500
21
17,500
VII. 7th SI P SrTZE FAMILY PARM (1.1 Acres)
A.
Residential Lots (4 sites)
1. Single Family Units (4 DU's @ 4,040 SF)
— —
16
16,160
16
16,160
2. Arx)ssaiy Dwelling Units (4 ATJ's @ 500 SF)
— —
4
2,000
4
2,000
Total for Parcel VII:
— —
20
18,160
20
18,160
T= FOR PK37FX.T: 86.1 Acres
84 138,856
100
106, 720
184
245, 576
All sire foatages are gross interims sq.ft., eft for the townhomes, single-fa¢aly residences and
rehearsal hall, far which FAR square footage l ; mi tatiors have been established Larder the City's acted
Master Phan.
r 6
0 •
2. The Music Associates of Aspen Parcel:
The Aspen Institute intends to convey to the MAA a parcel as
identified on the Land Use Plan as the Music Associates of Aspen
Parcel. The site is presently shown as 9.5 acres in order to
accommodate the alternate rehearsal hall sites. Now that the
City has expressed a preference for the eastern site, the acreage
of the MAA parcel may be changed.
The Music Associates of Aspen plans to increase the seating with-
in the performance tent by approximately 400 seats. This may be
accomplished by changing the layout of seating sections, using
current building code requirements or by installing fixed
seating.
The outdoor seating area will also be improved with a series of
berms. Conceptual studies indicate that if the berms are built
at the same angle as the floor inside the tent that sight lines
for the orchestra stage can be achieved without any modification
of the present tent design. It would therefore be possible to
achieve visual access to performances from the lawn area by
simply removing the side panels of the tent. A decision as to
whether this is desireable, however, will be made by MAA at a
later date.
A backstage expansion of approximately 1,500 square feet is pro-
posed to the east of the existing backstage area. This expansion
is necessary to bring restroom facilities for the public and for
musicians up to current code requirements and to provide adequate
dressing rooms for performers.
The MAA proposes to build a new 11,000 square foot (FAR) rehear-
sal facility on the eastern side of the MAA parcel as designated
on the Conceptual SPA Land Use Plan. The structure will not only
be fully enclosed, but a significant portion of the building will
be buried below natural grade. The excavated material will be
used around the perimeter of the building to further reduce the
amount of exposed wall surfaces. Architectural plans and
elevations for the MAA facilities will be submitted under
separate cover.
3. The Aspen Center for Physics Parcel:
The Aspen Institute will convey to the Physics Center the 2.3
acre parcel which is presently part of the Physics Center's
long-term lease as well as approximately one acre immediately to
the north of the leased land. No new buildings or expansions are
currently planned for the Physics Center site, although there
have been discussions with NASA regarding the possibility of
r
L_J
E
locating a research facility on the site. The adopted Master
Plan permits an amendment of the plan to incorporate an
additional building on the Physics Center site provided that it
is compatible in scale, materials and massing with other
buildings on the Parcel.
4. The Residential Parcels:
Three parcels are proposed at the perimeter of the Campus for the
residential units approved under the City Master Plan.
a. The Trustee Houses:
The eight existing three -bedroom Trustee townhomes located along
the bluff to the west of the health center will be renovated and
condominiumized for sale. These units are identical in floor
plan and are laid out in a repeating fan shape along the crest of
the hillside. Each unit has the same horizontal relationship to
the next. The townhouse at the south end is the highest unit;
each unit to the north is stepped down two feet in response to
existing topography. Because of the alternating flat roof and
pitched roof elements of the design, these units read as
one -/two-story detached residences from the Campus side of the
site and two -/three-story units on the creek side.
Three new units are proposed to be constructed adjacent to the
existing units -- two at the north end and one at the south end.
The square footage of each of the 11 units will be limited to
2,500 square feet of FAR floor area. Because the residences are
located at the perimeter of the Campus, they will impact only
minimally on the continued use of the Campus by the Institutions.
The height of the Trustee townhomes is generally less than the 25
foot height limit of the R/MF zone district, measured according
to the definition for height in Article 3 of the Code. In order
to maintain the vertical and horizontal relationships established
for the existing Trustee houses, however, the two northern -most
units exceed the 25 foot height limit by several feet and will
require an SPA variation for the additional height.
b. Tennis Townhomes
Seven new three -bedroom townhouse units are proposed for the site
that presently serves as the parking lot for the tennis courts.
These townhomes will also be limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR
floor area. These units are located at the top of the bank
overlooking Castle Creek so that the perceived height of the
three -level units from the Campus appears to be only one and a
half stories.
�s1
4 1'
7 +
-Y�
�v
:7
-s
1
= I
a.
I
1 44
17-
all
me or. a,
1
&
wasintons some 3W
$0101sesses" toomfelo.,
Ms ............. a.,
wool wagoordsmse,
01149990115.
I. !!a--
e.g.
6M
OM MAI to M
3
�-S
3
�-S
16.
�i
1
4a
1
�s
�s
The design of these units includes
design of the Trustee houses. The
along the bank to break the plane
Flat roofs are used in combination
the upper level of each unit which
building is made up of a series of
elements borrowed from the
units are stepped horizontally
of the two longer facades.
with pitched roof elements at
give the appearance that the
detached units.
C. Seventh Street Single -Family Parcel:
Four single-family lots of 12,000 square feet each will be
developed to the north of Seventh Street as it enters the
property adjacent to the Physics Center parcel, as shown
previously on the Conceptual Land Use Plan. Building square
footage will be limited to 4,540 square feet of FAR per
residence, exclusive of exempt garage space but including a 500
square foot accessory dwelling unit to be developed above -grade
on each lot. These lots are to be located on the north side of
the new road alignment.
• 23 •
_.pv
<<
�s
n
4 4
W-9
��j
r
.-n
Ah,
/A V�-
SITE PLAN
7 M 004
W3Aft CPd%OMBW]cm -9
a k-1
Ll
II. REQUEST FOR HPC CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (§7-601(F)(4))
The Applicant requests Conceptual Development Plan approval for
the renovation and expansion of the existing Trustee houses and
the addition of three new residential units. In addition, review
is requested for the construction of a new seven unit project to
the south of the Meadows Restaurant; advisory review of the four
single-family lots is also requested. By prior agreement, the
townhouses are limited to 2,500 sq.ft. of FAR floor area. A
total of 27,500 sq.ft. is therefore proposed in the Trustee
Townhomes and 17,500 sq.ft. is proposed in the new units near the
tennis courts. The single-family homes will be limited to 4,540
sq.ft. each, or a total of 18,360 sq.ft., all as described in the
Conceptual SPA Plan.
Several design changes have been made in both townhouse projects
since Conceptual SPA review to minimize the impact of the auto-
mobile and to create a more gracious entry for the units. The
carports which were previously attached to the units have been
relocated to the east of the units and landscaped entryways have
been added in their former location. The new carports will be
built into the hillside and the roofs of the carports will be
landscaped to reduce the visual impacts. The carports will
accommodate two cars per unit for both projects.
Additional glass has been added at the entryway to the Trustee
townhouses to allow more light into the entrances and provide a
view through the units. One surface parking space will be
retained in this area for guests.
At the new townhouse site, the removal of the attached carport
allows the overall length of the building to be reduced from 70
to 60 feet. The parking area has been reduced in size and
lowered by aproximately three feet to minimize the visibility of
the parking area from the entry road. A landscaped parking space
is proposed beside the entry in order to satisfy the parking
requirement in the R/MF zone, but owners will be encouraged to
use these spaces only occasionally.
A. The Residential Projects
1. Trustee Townhomes
The Trustee housing, originally designed by Herbert Bayer, is
situated on a west -facing bench of land at the Aspen Institute
overlooking Castle Creek. The complex is designed such that each
of the eight units is located two feet lower than the adjacent
unit to the south and each unit is rotated approximately 7.5
degrees to naturally accommodate the buildings on the site and to
create -privacy for each unit. Each unit is made up of two parts
-- the carport entry, which is a one story element with a flat
roof, and the enclosed living space, which is a two story unit,
depressed into the hillside a half level. This element has a
gently sloping pitched roof.
The architecture is very simply delineated. The walls separating
the units are covered with lx4 vertical wood painted white. The
end walls, which fit in between the side walls, are 8" cedar
shingles, natural color and left to weather. It should be noted
here that the original Bayer drawings show "fancy butt" shingles
indicated in this location, probably to tie into the adjacent
Victorian neighborhood. Since the primary views were south and
west, Mr. Bayer also created a sun control system of wood
trellis. The exterior terraces are random flagstone and the
retaining walls are made of native stone.
The proposed remodeling of the existing units consists of an
interior renovation of the bedrooms, baths, and kitchen and an
addition on the west side of the living room of approximately ten
feet. Below the existing terrace, a new bedroom/bath suite will
be created.
Three new units will be added to the complex -- one at the south
end and two at the north end. The plan of these units will be
the same as the renovated units described above. The geometry of
the level changes and angles of the units will also be the same.
The new unit to the south will be set back into the hillside more
so than the existing units, and the two units to the north will
be several feet taller, to maintain these relationships, because
of the natural topography.
The proposed exterior materials of the remodeled complex will be
similar to the original. The vertical siding will be lx6. The
shingle end wall will be either standard or a mix of standard and
fancy butt shingles. A new heavily insulated roof with asphalt
shingles will be applied over the existing roof. Sun control
devices similar to those existing will be incorporated into the
final design.
2. Townhouses Near the Tennis Courts
The design intent for the new units is to accomplish the program
with a relatively quiet architectural solution that utilizes some
of the concepts and materials utilized at the Trustee houses.
These new three-story units have been depressed into the hillside
to reduce their visual impact from the entry road. Along the
east facade only about a floor and a half extends above natural
grade. The units are stepped approximately 7 feet in the east/
west direction and the top floor is setback from the facade of
the middle floor to reduce the perceived mass of the building.
3. Single -Family Lots Near Seventh Street Entry
The new entry road into the Meadows curves gently as it enters
the property and the four new lots to the north of the road are
cupped around the end of the racetrack area. The lot configura-
tions have been varied so that the appearance of a wall of
buildings at the end of the racerack can be avoided. Side yard
setbacks will also be varied to assure that the openings between
the structures will be irregular. Purchasers of the lots will be
required to maintain a 15 foot setback of natural vegetation
toward the Meadows.
B. Submission Contents (§7-601(F)(3)(a)):
The submission requirements for Conceptual HPC review are as
follows:
1. General Application Requirements (§6-202):
(a) Application Form is attached as Exhibit Al.
(b) Applicants' Letters of Authorization are attached
as Exhibit A2.
(c) The street address and the legal description of
the parcel is shown on the application form.
(d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit
A3.
(e) The Vicinity Map, included as Exhibit A5, locates
the subject parcel.
(f) As required for Public Notice (§6-205(e)), a list
of all owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Stewart
Title is attached as Exhibit A6.
(g) Compliance with Substantive Review Standards:
Specific Conceptual Development Plan review standards are
addressed in Section II(C), beginning on page 36.
2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal:
The architectural drawings following pages 8 and 23 illustrate
the proposed improvements.
3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials.
The following materials are proposed conceptually for the
projects:
(a) Trustee Townhomes:
- lx6 vertical wood end walls
- Cedar shingle infill walls
- Composition shingle roof
- Sun control devices
- Flagstone decks and paving
- Brick or stamped concrete drive material to create
a feeling which is softer than asphalt.
- Stone retaining walls.
(b) Tennis Townhomes:
- Masonry dividing walls
- Masonry retaining walls
- Glass block with masonry
- 1x6 wood siding
- Composition shingle roof
- Flagstone walks and decks
- Sun shading devices
- Earth berming and possible sod roof on carports
- Brick or stamped concrete material on parking
lot.
(c) Single-family Homesites:
At the present time, it is not anticipated that a range of
materials will be established for the single-family homes.
4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development Upon the
Historic Structure and Character of the Neighborhood:
Because of the size of the Meadows parcel and the considerable
separation between most of the development proposed and the
surrounding area, the effect on the character of the neighborhood
is neglible. Individual projects are discussed below.
(a) Trustee Townhomes:
The design intent of the Trustee Townhomes project is to improve
the functionality of the existing units and repair the deteriora-
tion which has occurrred over the years. The new expansion
respects the relationship established in the original design.
While the new units maintain the scale, materials and style of
0 355 40
the original units, topograhic conditions and detailing assure
that a distinction is discernable between the original and new
units.
(b) Tennis Townhomes:
Some of the major design elements used at the Trustee houses are
employed for the new units to be built near the tennis courts,
including the flat and pitched roof elements, the stepped facades
and sun control trellises. The pallette of materials is also
similar. These units are at the perimeter of the existing
complex and therefore have somewhat less of a relationship to the
other structures in the campus than other new buildings proposed
at the :Meadows.
(c) Single-family homesites:
The single-family lots are located at the new Seventh Street
entry and therefore function more as an extension of the west end
residential neighborhood than as a part of the Meadows. In prior
discussions about the design character that would be appropriate
for these homes, the conclusion has been that they should relate
more to the west end residential neighborhood; they should not be
designed using the vocabulary of the international style since
ey are so removed from a resto t e campus.
C. Conceptual Development Plan Review Standards (§7-601(D)(1)):
The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows:
1. Compatibility:
"The proposed development is compatible in character with
designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with
development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H,
Historic Overlay district, or is adjacent to an Historic
Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development
would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks,
extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, or
exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation
is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than
would be development in accord with dimensional requirements."
The design intent of the projects is to provide consistency and
compatibility with the existing structures on the property which
are listed on the historic inventory, but which are not Landmark
structures or within an Historic District. Any variations which
are required from the underlying zine districts to be applied to
the sites will be accomplished through an SPA variation as
suggested by the Planning Office.
0
36 •
2. Neighborhood Character:
"The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for
development."
The Meadows has always been a separate area within the neighbor-
hood, touching its borders in various places. The creation of
new buildings with a character different than that of the single
family residential area will not negatively affect the neighbor-
hood. The buildings within the campus are not only a reflection
of an important period of time in Aspen's history that is
distinct from the growth of much of the community, but they also
accommodate uses which are unique to the neighborhood. The
campus buildings should be unified in material, scale, and
massing but should not be made to look like the adjacent
neighborhood.
3. Cultural Value:
"The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the
cultural value of designated historic structures located on the
parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels."
The proposed residential projects are intended to complement the
existing International Style structures designed by Herbert
Bayer. The significance of these buildings rests perhaps as
much on the fact that they reflect that period of Aspen's rebirth
as a cultural center as on their architectural significance.
4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures:
"The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or
detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic
structure or part thereof."
The design intent is to accomplish a consistent building
character through massing, materials and scale with the original
structures without imitating or replicating the existing
buildings. The existing buildings should remain recognizable as
the important buildings on the site from the period in which they
were built.
Lck \/� --Q V-
t
e-) o 6 U- —') e,-,L .
�l.iMiN41� (� UNC�J)
lD1 �ppf'(uit�( 'jb t�IcN 1�.•�
r--I.IMit,"� Wwal X-VEL
Lot 5
3.2 A�REh
pNILD M—E Al
UNR I PPR VPA
A Pr OVAL tL NATION,
1
FAIGwa>TRuuION I C.ON ON
. o16
UNT-O* i -7 uNITq. I, lII
N GANTrN4 UNIT
W1R Sno �
[/,y� �/� � � � �� ��y.�/'
t"
UNDG'p.P fD Pf[FMT
A GL
l�1[�Y xAc&)
I-eW NEW ENT
- 6
AcE
6iyw4
�]PA�-no�I � �1
,A 8wO0Vi lLAd _ �
-re45
SITE PLAN
o 1o, I
b�EV
`f.S'g5
� hrMAMA Y
I. WCR Td AffAµcp kM.a¢pcD
iris PL1N Alp ELeVATION�j.
TMG kiCoPelD PLANT FG
pAEr OP THE 5/A.fLADN A68flMRNT
IOP-iNr lrlRn Do1V> ffly Mr,c«.
��'�' p41NaNF iOaTgs,NTy, NE�e
PAP. MPiIN4, AND L BouIN4 ITeM
A.
— Y1YwT >P fVL YA. A( PlEM[wR AND
A6rlL A0.+cANiry CONYyPN µTH TN>'AY :1
1.uTIUTy riAN> ARE ATTA GN[D TO nNs
P!YlE. m A-TAwlD a�EYeY>, unLm
M s ror. E[ceEDLD �>EMpxs.
6 AKW eV AND T8Po4N'cIG 3uRV EY>
A[r AYTAWBP.
4 VA[VrtYoN pF NLIOMT yBAIVYtP YYJR U
i8Y uOOVr NLATY RAL 41LADL TO M
ABWVL TrMT P
L InP>PMATIp,I aYYb Dc T4t PROPLETY
N 6MLM1N YYaR rLUTAfYATNG pop POA1
i Pkm WED yrrgYLY_FOIL Ar �.Scc:
A MINIMUM
\I
VK",
OWNER:
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
616 SMv OAlr=rw S—, ABrt3Y CO 81611
ASPEN MEADOWS
TRUSTEE
1�1 TOWNHOMES
REMODEL/ADDI TION
1101-1211 MEADOWS TRUSTEE
OFF OF MEADOWS ROAD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
•
Crawl Vents
Below —
Dryer
Vent
Crawl I
c w w/
i Cabinets
Venty nx0 op-ng
E
PATIO
1 NIX)) slider
T
BEDROOM 3
carpet
Abrt:
BATH 3
/8' in place concret well
/1Va 'hN belle
9Yi bd.
marble deck
11
deck
C WL SPACE
� I
TYPICAL NEW UNIT
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
•SCALE: 1/4" = 1'- 0'
Wall of a*cem
Mt except at
end L"t—_
O
(D
fl
01
.0
A
PLAN NOTES
1. Radiant tudrg in Concrete Slab
more lower level.
Also in toping slabs at Entry and new 10'
portion of Imrg Room on Main Level.
Also staged to bosom of Plywood enure
Master Bedroom Level.
I I I I
A3.3
Roof
add fruits
match among
D c
_ 2
`� 3A
--en,—rRfftdCVYB�n _— I --- -------------
Living 1 Dining below
II
-r
handrail .36',
I sliding glass panels. panels stack
sit .30' here
1 1 T dia.
Smoke Detector above door per
guard rail .36'
Code. Fire Alarm system per
pickets 6' oc
Coda and designRwikl by
ROOF OVER
FOYER
IS. Roof Plan)
w
BALCONY
D 1 1 Qg'-0'
T
Electrical SubContractor. Central
Command and monitoring station
al MeadowLodging Check -In in
adjacent Building.
ZQ
S
—
Jamb light 10'
-
wnler line
cm
MASTER SUITE
carpet
I-
a
PLAN NOTES
1. Radiant tubing below
Ia
— — — — —
e
fleatNalor GC100 direct
vent Decorative Gas
Appliance
Moor fixing of Master
Suite. Staple to
underside of plywood.
lop of wall and Inreriorwats:
e \
y
ess window
egress
.7'4' insulation on 2 x 4
'
01'4'oc.
-- — — --- MASTE BATH MiroredDoors
deco Alive eem 51' ' 4'-0' 3'd 1! ' 1' 1 • S' x 6,
/ y�^ -- -- ----- — access panel
l y/ ) _----- Marble Deck on to motor
1! v� tie backer boast
® on Sb' ply
wd,
ne
9� WY wd.
has w/2x4 0
i
I r
bencm
N re
L^" O
c
4
lop of talet and
c shower
compartments
.74'
O
R
" 2 3' rad wl balusters 51/3' o.c.. Posts 16' o.c.
match existing pattem and materials
3. refer to details 2 . 7 A7, existing Bayer Plans,
TYPICAL NEW UNIT
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'- 0"
wtoEl�
u dMI
l YYILAL NLVV UNIT
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'- 0"
CI S z 5.�
ti
ft
tcolum r
a
I II
I I I
PLAN NOTES I I
1. Radiant tubing in Concrete I
Slab enure lower level.
Also in toping slabs al Entryand new I
I fp�Level.rtion f Living
Room on
3.3 �
Alyityl bodan of I I I
yrs Master i I I
I
I I I
I II
Trerxth Drain I
a tTr—
I I I
TERRACE II
Stone Pavers I I
I
sunshade
I I trellis
I I I above
II
cantilever treks above I I
fl4
safety glass I
Access Panel to crawl I
_
space below Foyer I
I
Snake
Deadw DN
of closer+7'd' BR 0 6.75. 1.1
FF y�'
RoofslorOie frER7T 01r=-5'
UP
BR 011'.6-'{7T 0 6.751.5'2Xflue
Wdrain
ill
—
3070 ,9i 3070
----8T314'
0 11—___—�/c'
beam above
I
—_—
cool abovew
—__—
—__
hose bl
r_
pecloot
39
3
I
W IT7 ' "•
'�
IrO
Landscape
Planter stare
s
pave
�t,IMlt�
adi seboa
per. Mechanical
Window at
end unit aNy
NOTE ON DISABLED ACCESS:
o
PowdenBath 1 Rooms and the
Heaulator GC
unit through Bedroanlere
directvenI dem
con figured forcawersion fw actress I
Gas Log Applance wl
or the disabled per the requirements
fixed glass and
do Statues that appy aM
redra4atkg vents
ANSI standards.
far to partial plan this sheet for
p modification.
Stone on floor
8080slkfer
ROOM
Weatherstrip threshold
I
�1�-0
flash w/ 1' drop to terrace
TT O. F . FFF.. �.
.7
NORTH WALL:
Fib
1 hour assembly : as described below.....
if approved by Building Code Official:
314' Drop Siding extena surface
rX plywood
wood Mooing on
2x4 surds at 16' oc with
Full Bads R"13
treads
fining strips with 2 layers 1/4'reFlacfix(R10)
stone on risers
5r8' Type X Gyp.Bd on interior surface
36' guardreil
pickets 6' o.c.
handrail+36'
I balcony above
1 1y2' dia. typ.
glass rail
_
—
Wdows at
—blewer bar end tin t Doty
counter
6Smoke
��14a"I
_
L�ar1IBi�61BTOw —
®--
baroink,tsTrOlos'.W I
2468
cabinet
above
Po er
®
KITCHEN
t
wood
wood floor
ATH 1
hood 24'
I
I
flow
above
I
I
---
0— -----I
L A
0
net
I
I
j STUDY/
EN
BEDRO
M 1
carper
I
2 X 4 Nnrg inside
8' conc. wall
egress
2' retuning wall window
root and treul above
♦--7---- ------ --- ; I-,-�-------
14 parking for I I
and driveway �J
i.
4
TYPICAL NEW UNIT
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/& = 1'- 0'
O
O
fl
0
O
95O/S-
PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING ,
AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS ASPEN 780000LORADO
7816
DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES
ARCHTECTURE 8 LAND PLANNING
P O. BOX 2839
ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
lam"
303-925-5713 (FAX)303-920-4471
7 Bd0
7 1
7850
RESTAURANT BUILDING - � �r . �,,• � • .
_\\\
78
ti
I HEALTH CENTER
783- SITE PLAN
• • 7840 NORTH®
0 510 2 50 75
v
itfbi�SjS
0
f,
9
A
V
;. i i \v". - -
co
JOHN
DAviD
F34HOL-1
K
0
J4
0
z
z
z
z
LLI
C)
Lij
C)
cr
■
C)
z
U)
L'i
L)
0
<
O 0
m
C) w <
w
< 2
Lu
0
2 F m
Z a Z
w —
LLj Cj) LL
n. 0 C)
CL
0
a: >
< CL <
RAWN BI
EViSIONS
m
0
............
id Prp
.. ........
r
Min
•DAVID
esFOu -
1
A 10.0
imams
ANN
NMI
sumal
'llamol
KONEN
MEMO
ME=
Imemi
ism
I.
10
ji,
owl Oman, ommou soo, Bodom 7
nil
for,•-onalls j Ira,
I;Davw lessiol l�om Emmo=Nl Ilk-.*%-:
do
mommonso
NEC anolkwoust UM lessomenesso lisel
-6�uw, must
ou I !man Ia/aUrrn IN
I Boost Moommadmi
i�PAOMI move ovesmal
anmuuruau ow
..INN I an
�ossal 7maouumsmal
7m,,! MEN oil
Idol 111111
--------- ONS
ii,
a,
J 14\
--tz5-
I
FiE
SIG
JOH
1'-20
0 20 40
2 FOOT CONTOURS
ny \
NO. 4 REBAR
CERTIFICATION \
JOHN HOWORTH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM \
LD T S SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING \
, 19"- THIS SURVEY VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED. \
E0 THAY F
O_aR 1996. LSH \
447 \
r
26295
BUILDING
25947
I
c
4
0
O
(
4
A
O
x
�
�r
r
i
z
w
w
1629
< i
w
3 i
1
,r
25947
\
m
0�
m
9
26295 Z
r
f
LEGEND AND NOTES
O FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED
UT;LITY BOX
SURVEY CONTROL
F FIRE HYDRANT
TREE
MANHOLE
— o FENCE
e WATER VALVE
tf'xicr(I t4G
_ �A 5 26295, TBM 87 52.6
\ ,.\ p7
6295
TPOPOGRAPH I C SURVEY
OF
UNITS 1110 AND 11 OF THE TRUSTEE TOUNHOMES
PAVMENT AT THE -ASPEN MEADOWS, A CONDOMINIUM.
I
I CITY OF ASPEN, PfTKIN COUNTY COLORADO.
® \ BUILDING if
® 1 PREPARED BY
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS/ INC.
210 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PHONE/FAX (303) 925-3816
DATE JOB
10/96 251928
UN I'i \/?`-T-10H
2 11
0
4-17 o Lj --- �-i I o N
I/g I, _ O
� Nin� rm �Inln�rm
do
+��-
01
--� n
I I
L1 N I T
Gretchen
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-4502
Fax 970-925-7490
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY.
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS:
dN I--r I W ri�9-r
T ! O f �I
lJ N I �' I ��` T ✓�/� T 1 o N
1.1 N iT I oo �'-' L-
�!
uN ITKi 00
Gretchen
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-4502
Fax 970-925-7490
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY.
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS:
26295
IZ
��
i
G.C.E.
IWIWI
00
Iv-
V-
Ov
z
BUILDINC
47
r
259
,1 /
�7e-n I I�idoWS
.l ruo iee lawn ho u
1
Wlf)9
,-, Ve- to �e-
�� l8 I
1
� 1
o
w 1
,
� 1
0
w
1
r
UN 1T I O G� a UT �i r--- \'/ /"S,-T- 1 o N
/8" = 1 '- 0 "
— — I
U N I'( 10
Mai N
u NiT I I
2 o
UNIT 10 LA
,il8 n = I , D„
Gretchen
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-4502
Fax 970-925-7490
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS:
Gretchen �
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-9254502
Fax 970-925-7490
U H r- 10 jzoo;% H
YB„, 1 o n
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS:
UJ rr 10 � N i'r 11
NO. 4 REBAR
\ LEGEND AND NOTES
I
Z
0 20 40 A / \ i < O FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED
2 FOOT CONTOURS > \ j v
> / \ \ ❑ UT%LITY BOX
-10
SURVEY CONTROL
6 F M °s' 0'w/0 � ` \ FR F^SF��� � \� lJ FIRE HYDRANT
I ` al TREE
/ j MANHOLE
5 / FENCE
% e WATER VALVE
/ 0 TREES/ eO /� 26295
26295
7
!
S / BUILDING
/` TANK
�� ✓ UNIT 10
2594
p S /
G.0 E. q /' / TREES I /
e � 1
UNIT
9 1 �1
PAT 0 J ;�C. 11
1
A�EM 'a o
S 6z\ CARPOP.'
SI x CpE. 10 0 1 1
( 1N.I L.0 E
I � fi
s i Z _
r " 1
s7. N 16295
F f K U
!13 w
- ; OB n j
r •
U
O J
I O
UN
y
f W II o ;
0 0
I I I
n O
\ S 77°17 3
In
I z
1
\� 1 O UNIT 6 ' 1
21947 \
I o \
1 S 84 20 47-E 113.51
o
-.1
h JNiT 5 + I rn
om
I
G.C.E.
i c
N 88°17 51"E
26295 =
\� ✓
a
0
1 ` s UUNIT 4 \ ,
v
106.52
26295 \ o \ N 61°25 09'E
L.C.E 3 y
UNIT 3 \ \ L.C.E. 2
\ \ G.C.E.\ \ \
\ o
s \
\ � , \ L.C.E. 1/
\ 0� , °56.5 \ \ ➢ \ I 26295
\ \ y ^ \ T \ a \ \ UNI 2 a
\ \ } CARPORT PAYMENT
\ \ -� \ \ N
PATIO \ \ \
VENT
26295 ) TBf'/ 87 52 .6
6295
TPOPOGRAPH I C SURVEY
OF
UNITS 1 10 AND 11 OF THE TRUSTEE TOUNHOMES
CERTIFICATION PAYMENT
AT THE -ASPEN MEADOWS, A CONDOMINIUM.
\ \ I
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO.
I JOHN HOWORTH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM \ � 1 , ` \ � ( I
FIELD NDTES SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURNG
I
rCir�1 1996. THIS SURVEY VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED.
\ G.C.E.
SIGNED TH I AY _or_m�� ' 1996 . \ "'lll l5L
BUILDING I PREPARED BY
JOHN ORTH P.L.S. 75947 \ \ pa �
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS) INC.
\ 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET
\ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
\ 925-3816
COMMENCE TO COLORADO LAW YOU PRISTCOMMENCE ANY LEGAL \ PHONEIFAX (303?
'ON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS
VER DISCOSUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT NAY ANY ACTION
DEF&_T IN THIS PLAT BE COM6000 HONE THAN TEN
13 VOID IFFNNOTTWWETFSTAAMPEEDD W THE OFETHE DO 96 251928
26295
°
0
r1
°
Qa
m
N
Ln
m
N
Pico in
0,
/ -
OD
INC
l /
CP
— s r'" - - "
i — �-
/ ° /
\ Y
°
O O
CID \ m
F - -� \
FTI
\ \ N
N
� N
i 'a
m cl,�
C6�i
03039 9 ' W 84 . 29
n hou
N�en MuoW�'"j ru�r"� aw�e�
N) N u NQD
froed�uIIjin rrn"' Idsn�t\le-lopt-
ra,��
�, r-,\//>- T 1 O rl
1/ g,"% I '- p 11
2 Ll -r ice► u T I O N
vin� rm Ain it) q rm
lo�io�, Gfn 1O7io„
1
IJP do do
� � C
8 ry ag -o
18001
— n
I 10-OX
.1 n
L-ow�g � �-\'/ �-'L' F7�Loo9 N
%eL
Gretchen
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-4502
Fax 970-925-7490
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY -
CHECKED BY -
REVISIONS:
r
26295
G.C.E.
pad � ink
i �n/cl e u n i-
G.0 E. /
f
i
TREE �fl� 26295
JA
,T 1 � � �t►v�lo�rt
V
o �. / BUILDING
le
/ �TANK
UNIT. L�O
TREE �fl� 26295
JA
,T 1 � � �t►v�lo�rt
V
o �. / BUILDING
le
/ �TANK
UNIT. L�O
V-
C)
co
V-
111)
25947
�7�ef1 �Ie4doW5
� TREES � � / � / '` /T�,-j��oWnhoUyes
llni-f'
PAT10
UNIT 9 r�"�l'l� �.11 IG�Il1I
z �o
I I L.C. 11
EOCE 0 I o;
I AVEM T �%0)
CARPORT -�
r
l
N I T I O U'r �-t V g%- -r" I O
�gn ; it_ Oil
0
J
r
UNIT II
UNIT to UNIT II
I/e,I1_ I1-Dn
Gretchen
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-4502
Fax 970-925-7490
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS:
LJNfT ID ffoor- H UNi'( Ii
I/a 1' c I - i7 II
UN I�� �G � I i � ✓� �'� ����� T I � N
Gretchen
Greenwood
& Associates, Inc.
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-4502
Fax 970-925-7490
SCALE:
JOB:
DATE ISSUED. -
DRAWN BY.
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS: