HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Meadows.A8595ASPEN MEADOWS INSUB. AMEND TO SPA
2735-121-29-007 A85-95
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department _
130 South Galena Street ,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
?.3s=/a,-,-?9 cl)67
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041
Deposit
-63855-042
Flat Fee
-63860-043
HPC
-63875-046
Zoning & Sign Permit
- MR01 1
Use Tax
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033
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
00123-63340-190
Housing
00125-63340-205
Environmental Health
00113-63815-036
County Clerk
Sales:
00113-63830-039 County Code
-69000-145 Copy Fees
Other
Total !/ V
jDate: jheAck'-)// S
Address: S/ 5.�; - I ect:
Case No:
Phone: No. of Copies /
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 7 /14/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2735-121-29-007 A85-95
STAFF MEMBER: SC
PROJECT NAME: ASPEN MEADOWS INSUBSTANTIAL AMEND. TO SPA
Project Address: LOTS 7 - 10
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: ROBERT HUGHES
Representative Address/Phone: 533 E. COOPER AVE. 920-1700
Aspen, CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 224 # APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 224
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: XX 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date
CC Meeting Date
DRC Meeting Date
-------------------
-------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED. INITIAL.-LJ--1
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
• -- 0
385465 B-793 P-755 09/15/95 03:19P F'G 1 OF 3 REC DOC N
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 16.00
AMENDMENT TO
"THE ASPEN MEADOWS" SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
�.
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into effective the /���'Iy of July, 1995,
by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule city (the
"City"), acting by and through the Director of Community Development (the "Director")
pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-804 of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen
(the "Code") and Savanah Limited Partnership, a District of Columbia Limited Partnership
("Savanah") with reference to the following:
RECITALS
1. The City and Savanah are parties to "The Aspen Meadows" Specially Planned
Area Development & Subdivision Agreement recorded January 25, 1992, in Book 667 at Pages
731, et seq., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records (the "SPA Agreement").
2. Savanah is the owner of Lots 7-10, The Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
(the "Residential Lots"), which were approved in the SPA Agreement for development of single-
family residences.
3. Subsequent to the development approval for the Residential Lots, the City adopted
Ordinance 35 (Series of 1995), which contains provisions that are inconsistent with the text of
the SPA Agreement insofar as the Residential Lots are concerned as a result of which, and
pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-804 of the City Code, Savanah has made application to
the Director for an Insubstantial Amendment to the SPA Agreement in order to conform the text
thereof to Ordinace 35 and thereby eliminate any confusion in the public as to permissible
building activities for the Residential Lots.
4. The Director has considered the application of Savanah and has determined that
the requested amendment to the SPA Agreement involves technical considerations that could not
reasonably have been anticipated during the process culminating in development approval for the
Residential Lots and is, therefore, prepared to authorize the request of Savanah as an
Insubstantial Amendment to the SPA Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals and pursuant to the
provisions of Section 7-804 of the City Code, the parties hereby agree as follows:
First, the language that precedes subsection 1. Dimensional Requirements of Section II,G
of the SPA Agreement shall be and hereby is amended and revised to read in its entirety as
follows:
Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 are owned by Savanah and are zoned R-15 according
to the Plat. These lots are currently undeveloped. Each lot has received
385465• B-793 P-756 0/15/95 03:19P PG 2 OF 30
a development allotment under the City of Aspen GMQS and has received
certain variations from the minimum R-15 zone district dimensional
requirements, as noted on the Plat and as described in Section II,G,1,
below. Each lot has been approved for the development of a single family
residence, together with an accessory dwelling unit, which shall be used,
occupied and rented in the manner provided in Section II,G,4, below.
Each lot has a developable FAR of 4,540 square feet, including the
accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet above grade, but excluding a
garage to the extent of the exclusion therefor allowed under the provisions
of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. As of the date of this Amendment
those provisions provide that if an owner of one of the lots wishes to
construct a garage of 500 square feet, the developable FAR remaining for
the single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit would be reduced
by 125 square feet to 4,415 square feet. Each of the four single-family
lots has a specific building envelope as shown on the Plat. In all other
respects development shall proceed in accordance with the Residential
Design Standards and FAR definitions contained in Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code and any amendments thereto. Each owner, at anytime,
of any of Lots 7-10, inclusive shall be obligated to comport with and
abide by the applicable terms, provisions, and conditions of Ordinance 14
and the Plat.
Second, the parenthetical note following Section II.G.I.j), which reads "(Note. The
square footage includes an accessory dwelling unit of 500 sq. ft. and excludes a garage of up
to 500 sq. ft.)" is hereby deleted in its entirety.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been made and entered into as of the
day and year first above written.
0 THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal
Corporation
5 19g5 By
`� tGR Directof of mmunity Development
COO,", CO. OF PSPEN SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of
rIiia t ted Partnership
spen En ses International Inc., a
ado Cprp$ratioft, its general partner
385465 B-793 P-757 09/15/95 03:19P PG 3 OF 3
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
_ II The foregoing instru . ent was acknowledged before me this Q� day of
J v l 1995, by _S � , �, a USA �1 as Director of Community
Develo ent for The City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation..
•t �-h� ►am
�F`. • WITNESS my hand a ' d official seal.
;V y commission expires
3l ,
0F co`N`�`"°�
Not ry Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 175T� day of
(L. , 1995, by Omar Benjamin as President of Aspen Enterprises International
Inc., a Colorado Corporation, general partner of Savanah Limited Partnership, a District of
Columbia Limited Partnership..
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
(SEAL)
ROBERT Rom;;n
�gp00MM. viol o ry Public
We CCU" --
M'�m E pp ISM
rh\..,,m.n\=nma."
•. .1 .,i`t f: ''-tom . � .;
•
Afl t, n.U.L7 0"IVI'n 40
OATESHUO HAS enPazPC-
Third Flo Pia Building
533 E. Hopkins Avenue �W
Aspen, Colorado 81611
•
•
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ
DAVID B. KELLY
July 7, 1995
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
Stan Clauson, Director
Aspen Community Development
Aspen City Hall
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lots 7-10, The Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
Dear Stan:
AREA CODE 970
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920-1 121
Kindly allow this to serve as formal application and request of Savanah Limited
Partnership ("Savanah"), the owner of the above -referenced property, for an Insubstantial
Amendment to The Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area Development and Subdivision
Agreement recorded January 24, 1992 in Book 667 at Page 731 of the Pitkin County records
(the "SPA Agreement"). This request is made pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-804E of
the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen.
Section IIG on page 30 of the SPA Agreement provides in part that the above -
referenced four single-family lots:
will be subject to protective covenants that
will be placed of record prior to the sale of any of
Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, which covenants will, at a
minimum, provide for (a) the establishment and
incorporation of an association of homeowners with
a Design Review Board, at least one member of
which shall be designated by the City of Aspen
Historical Preservation Commission, which Board
shall have original jurisdiction in all matters
involving any change to the then existing state or
condition of any lot * * *."
Savanah has yet to sell any of the lots or to record protective covenants for the lots.
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
Stan Clauson, Director
July 7, 1995
Page 2
Savanah was in the midst of preparing to record covenants pursuant to the SPA
Agreement when the City enacted Ordinance 35 (Series of 1995). Ordinance 35, with its
incorporation of new design standards and its provision for a Design Review Appeal Board,
effectively renders redundant the need for a private Design Review Board and private
architectural standards for the Meadows single-family lots as contemplated by the SPA
Agreement. In order to avoid the specter of a lot owner facing separate boards performing
essentially duplicative functions (with the attendant risk of inconsistent decisions) and, in
general, to simplify matters for prospective purchasers of the lots, Savanah would prefer to
amend the SPA Agreement to eliminate altogether the requirement of protective covenants, while
preserving in the form of an amendment to the SPA Agreement the other features that the
covenants were to address.
We have accompanied this request with a proposed form of amendment. The
form of amendment will also serve to conform the FAR figures for the four lots to the
interpretive provisions of Ordinance 35 and will thereby eliminate confusion and inconsistency
between the existing text of the SPA Agreement (with its vested rights language) and current
regulations.
Thank you for your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
�HU VIC H , P.C.
Robert W. Hughes
RWH/mlp
Enclosures
cc: John Worcester
rh\ savanah\ltr. rcquest
THE CITY OF ASPEN
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
June 21, 1995
Robert W. Hughes
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: The Aspen.Meadows SPA Development and Subdivision Agreement
You have asked, on behalf of your client, Savanah Limited Partnership, for the City's
interpretation of Section G of the above referenced document in light of the recently enacted
Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1995. Ordinance No. 30 adopts residential design standards and
revises the method for calculating floor area ratios ("FAR"). Section G of the SPA Agreement
reads, in. relevant part, as follows:
Each lot has a FAR of 4540 square feet, excluding 500 square feet of garage, but
including the accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet above grade. FARs and
the definitions thereof for the residences and the accessory dwelling units shall
remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as
of June 1, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
period next succeeding June 10, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or
change to the definition or calculation of FARs.
After conferring with Stan Clauson, the City's current Planning Director, and Amy Margerum,
the Planning Director at the time the agreement was executed, the City's interpretation of the
agreement is as follows:
The three year vesting period referenced in the agreement has expired. Accordingly, Section G
of the agreement, as it relates to FAR definitions and the calculation used to establish FAR, is
subject to the new ordinance.. Ordinance No. 30 did not exempt the Aspen Meadows SPA.
Ordinance No. 30 neither alters the method for calculating FAR for the lots in question nor does
it materially alter the method for calculating ADU's (unless a detached ADU is contemplated.)
The 4540 square feet mentioned in the SPA agreement and the inclusion of the ADU in the 4540
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5055 . FAx 303.920.5119
Print d m r y,W Paper
figure is, therefore, unchanged. The ordinance does, however, alter the method for calculating
FARs for garages. Thus, the FAR calculation for a garage would be subject to the new method
described in Ordinance No. 30. In addition, any development on the affected lots would be
subject to the design review standards adopted by Ordinance No. 30.
You have asked that the City consider adopting a mechanism for permitting the private
homeowners' design review board to coordinate their approval with the Design Review Board
of Appeals. As I understand your proposal, a variance from the applicable Residential Design
Standards could be granted by the affirmative vote of a committee of persons comprised of
members of both the private homeowners' design review board and the Design Review Board
of Appeals. While we appreciate the concern that some applicants may be subjected to a "ping
pong" effect if their plans required the independent approval of two separate design review
committees, the final approval of any variances must, under the new ordinance, be granted by
the Design Review Board of Appeal. Your proposal would delegate variance approvals to a
committee that may not, in some instances, have the majority approval of the Design Review
Board of Appeals. The City is willing to consider a mechanism that would coordinate the appeal
process between the two review boards, but all variances must ultimately be approved by the
Design Review Board of Appeals.
I trust this letter is responsive to your questions regarding this matter. I think you will find after
reviewing the new ordinance that your clients will not be adversely affected by the changes.
While there may be a small penalty in FAR for constructing a 500 square foot garage, the built-
in FAR incentives to conform with the design standards may well make up for the difference.
Based on our conversation earlier on this day in which I explained this interpretation to you and
your response, I am not planning to schedule a meeting with the Aspen City Council to review
the SPA Agreement. If you or your clients have any additional questions regarding this matter,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
John P. Worcester,
City Attorney
JUN 2 2 1595
cc: Mayor and City Council
City Manager
'
Planning Director
06/01/1995 17:40 2026869788 JOHN SARPA JANCO PAGE 01
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
515 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
June 1, 1995
Mayor John Bennett
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear John,
RECEIVED
JUN 1 :^^5
City ManaUer/Mayor's Office
iBUTED TO:
Attached please find a copy of the letter submitted to the Planning
and Zoning Commission on our behalf by Bob Hughes. It addresses our
request to exempt the Aspen Meadows SPA from the forthcoming
changes which may be enacted to the Design/FAR regulations.
Although no action was taken on our request by the Commission, a
majority of the members appeared to be sympathetic to our position.
As you may be aware, we are currently cooperating with City Staff
to incorporate many of the major provisions of the proposed new
design guidelines into our Homeowners Association for the Meadows.
We believe very strongly that this action plus the significant
concessions we made to the underlying zoning at the Meadows during
the SPA process as noted in Bob's letter, achieves the same kind of
outcome envisioned by the proposed new regulations.
Thus, we ask your sincere consideration for our request. Thank you
and please feel free to contact me or Bob should you have any
questions. We will be represented at the Council meeting on June 12
and prepared to discuss our request at that time.
Since y
J n G. Sar
1
%4%
06/01/1995 17:40 2026869788 JOHN SARPA JANCO
JLJN. 01 ' 95 10: 41AM OATES n ENV ICH
LAW O/PICK/ Or
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
rMOfaaa101MAL COMPORATIOM
TNIKO fL001I. AarIN rLA2A BUILDING
aaa 9"T NOrK1Na AV[NUa
ASPEN. COLORADO 41611
LLONA�O M, OAT'/!/
"SCAT W. NUONia
1116MAR0 A. KNtKVICM
T90 0. GA004"SWARTa
or ca""aL, May 16, 1995
JWI,''' 7NOYAa ltLLv
i
B,,rl!ucce�e Kw,
irman
Aspen
Zoning C
130 S. Galeaa Stroet
Aspen, CO 8 611
Re: posed Residential Design Standards
nd Revisions to boor Area Ratio Calculations
PAGE 02
P.1
A11tA 0001 aOa
TCLcrMOwc •ae•170o
T[LKCOfIaA al0•II11
GI
Dear Commi Members:
On of Savanah Limited Partnenhip we have been asked to commend to you the
recent efforts the Aspen Community Development Staff, the Aspen Historical Preservation
Planter and dconsultant, Solomon Architecture. and Urban Design, in dealing with the
media -styled' Home` problem in Aspen. In general, Savanah endorses the approach
Of Staff set in the proposed resolution as being both reasonable and enlightened -
particuiiazlythk design standards. In your delh'bet ations of the proposed resolution and any
recommendati to City Council, we would, nonetheless, like you to consider the following:
j ELy
rong case can be made for exempting the R-15B Zone District from the
inning Chang ended by the proposed resolution, a strong case can be made for
exempting the approved Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area and Subdivision. -�
Elam is why:
A. Marty of you were involved in the lengthy and extensive planning process
that attended the much awaited and celebrated final approval of the Aspen
Meadows SPA, which paved the way for a secure future for our non-profit
cultural institutions. As you may recall, one of tie components of that
approval was the creation of four single family lots - Lots 7-10 - at the
06/01/1995
17:40
2026869788
JOHN SARPA JANCO PAGE 03
JLN 01
' 95
10 : 43RI GATES HW W EZEV I CH
_ • P.2
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEvtcH. P. C.
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
May 16,1995
Page 2
southern portion of the old Meadows racetrack. Initially, Savanah had
conceived of these lots as being 15,000 square feet in area, but agreed to
downsize them, if you will, to 12,000 square feet, because of their
relationship to the adjacent open apace, the R-6 zoning across the street
and, most importantly, because of the fact that the dimensional features
of the homes to be constructed on the lots (4,540 square feet of FAR,
excluding a 500 square foot garage, but including a 500 square foot
accessory dwelling unit) was agreed to and assured in the Aspen Meadows
SPA Agreement. These dimensional features were related less to the
square footage of the lots involved than to the myriad other considerations
that were traded off and exchanged between the parties during the
approval process, including FAR provisions which are unique to these lots
- e.g., a mandatorily sized ADU which counts in us entirety against the
allowed FAR. It goes virtually without saying that had Savanah known
that, a short three (3) years after its agreement with the City, these
bargained for dimensional features would be facing compromise, it would
never have agreed to reduce the size of the lots to 12,000 square feet and
would have assured the dimensional features of the homes by means of
Luger lot sizes.
b. The Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement mandates a design review board for
the Aspen Meadows Lots, one of the members of which must be
designated by the Aspen Historical Preservation Commission.
Additionally, the SPA Agreement requires the recordation of private
protective covenants, which in turn incorporate architectural guidelines
which were uniquely developed for the Aspen Meadows Lots. As a
practical matter, the guidelines incorporate and respond to most, if not all,
of the design issues addressed in the proposed resolution but, more
importantly, were mated especially for this particular area and are more
appropriate for this site than the design guidelines contained in the
proposed resolution which, of necessity, are more general in nature. The
approved building envelope for the Aspen Meadows Lots are in conflict
with some of the set back and other provisions of the zoning changes
contemplated by the proposed resolution. It seems unfair and onerous to
require the ultimate purchasers of those lots to have to go back and either
amend the SPA or obtain a variance merely to build what all agreed to a
short three years ago.
06i 01 f 7.995 17: 40 2026369788 JOHN SARPA JANCO
JLN el '95 10,45;M UATES W =ICH P.3
PAGE 04
OATES, HUCHE3 & XNEZEVICH, P. C.
Bruce Kerr, Cbairman
Asp= plastnin j & Zoning Commission
May 16, 1995 _
Page 3
C. The entire Aspen Meadows approval process was a unique and
unprecedented exercise in trying to determine just what was the scale of
development at the Meadows that could economically sustain the ability
of Savanah to give the campus land to the non-profit institutions. The
City acxually engaged its own economic advisers to determine this critical
point. The result, of course, was a precisely crafted development plan,
including the four single-family lots, a seven unit townhome project and
permission to upgrade the existing trustee townhornes which, while it
came nowhere near Savanah's reasonable and legitimate investment backed
expectations, held a slim potential for Savanah to ,recoup some of its
Investment, while the non -profits moved forward with the gift of the
campus land. In these circumstances, after Savanah has already given the
land away, it would be manifestly unfair to deprive Savanah of any part
of what it was to receive in exchange.
with respect to garages, we would commend to you the many well -reasoned
citizen a!mMme. +ts presented at last week's P&.Z meeting. Altering the FAR exclusion for 500
square foot galrages strikes us as being unnecessarily counter -productive to many long held
community vaWes. Whether we like it or not, the 500 square foot garage (2 cars and reasonable
storage space) has become something of a staple in this community, not just for the second home
owner, but fot the local full. -time resident with growing family, as well. Tinkering with the
exclusion for garages is as likely as not to result, not in a smaller home, but in sacrificed garage
space, cars od the street, temporary storage sheds, and unwarranted inconvenkmce to the
homeowner -a "rnixed bag" result at best.
Savam$ is presently in the midst of attempting to sell the Aspen Meadows lots and, for
obvious reaso4s, has been following the so-called *Monster Home" debate with keen interest.
While, gives ithe effort that Savanah put into the Aspen Meadows approvals, it was difficult
enough to accept any adjustment to the 500 square foot garage exclusion, Savanah was
particularly d�'ma yed to learn that the adjustment of .25 square feet to garages between 250 and
600 square feet that had been recommended by the City's private design consultant at the "brown
bag" lunch w k session on design standards was simply doubled to .50 at the- staff level for no
particuliarly compelling reason. While we do not at all feel that an adjustment to the 500 square
foot garage exemption is necessary, if there must be an adjustment then let's start with what the
paid expert cohsx&ant recommends - more than that is simply punitive.
Once apin, and so that we do not end this on other than a positive note, on behalf of
Savanah we dwant to express our enthusiasm for the general approach that the Community
Development and HPC staff have taken to date. They have done a remarkable job with a very
06/01/1395 17:40 2026869788 JOHN SARPA JANCO PAGE 05
JUV 01 '95 10.47AM OATES K EZEVICH F.4
0ATE3, F{MMES & KNEzE:v'c , P. C-
I
BIUCB [1Gi1,
Aspen P do Zoning Commission
May 16, 1995
Page 4
difficult and emotional problem. We urge your favorable consideration of their work and hope
that our concerts, as set forth above, can find their way into your recommendation to Council.
Sincerely,
OATES, HUGHES do K.NEZEVICH , P.C.
By:
Robert W. Hughes
RW8/mlp