The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.601 Aspen St-Project#2.1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 601 Aspen Project General Submission/Scoring - Public Hearing RE: DATE: June 13, 1986 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: L-2 and R-15 (PUD) (L) LOCATION: Lots 1 through 22, Block 6, Eames Addition (Barbee Tract), Lots 3 through 12, Block 11 (Parking Lot), Lots 13 through 20, Block 11, Eames Addition, and tract of land adjacent to Block 11, Eames Addition (IH ne Dumps). Proposed development is between South Aspen and South Garmisch Streets and south of Juan Street. The unplatted area between parking lot and Mine Dumps tracts is included in the project area but not owned by applicant, nor used in calculations. LAND AREA: 113,545 square feet BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Hans B. Cantrup, requests GMP allocation of 92 free market residential units so to construct a 112 unit short-term residential/hotel proj ect. The project would include fully hotel services, health facilities, tennis courts, an entrance reception/lobby area, a 152 space underground parking structure and 20 surface parking spaces. BACKGROUND TO THE 1985 RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING: Two appl ications were submitted for the 1985 mlP competition: Sunny Park and 601 Aspen. GMP scoring of the Sunny Park and 601 Aspen projects were originally scheduled for January 28, 1986. At the request of the Sunny Par k appl icant, Sunny Par k was scored by P&Z March 18, 1986 after the outcome of the proposed Ordinance No. 2 (1986), employee housing Code amendments. Ordinance No. 2 reduces the total points available for employee housing and repeals the conversion of existing units category in the residential GMP scoring procedure. The ordinance also allows for a cash-in-lieu payment to meet employee housing obligations. Council adopted Ordinance No.2 on February 10, 1986. On March 10, 1986, Council unanimously passed a motion to allow the 1985 Residential GI1P competitors to choose whether they be scored under the old or new scor i ng sy stem. The 601 Aspen Residential GMP application was rejected by the Planning Director on February 18, 1986, for reasons of zoning code violations. On ~lay 17, 1986, following the adoption of Ordinance No. 2 (1986), the PI anning Off ice reconsidered the decision to reject the 601 Aspen application, provided that the applicant, Hans Cantrup, would submit a clarification of his application by April 1, 1986 which would adhere to all repre- sentations made in the December 1, 1985 submittal. Clarification of site design, architecture, service commitments and the elimination of on-site housing and replacement with a cash-in- lieu commitment was allOl-led in the nefl submittal. During the time of uncertainty over the status of the 601 Aspen application, Me Cantrup agreed not to oppose the scoring of the Sunny Park Project and the award of units to it before the 601 Aspen Project. On June 9, 1986, Council allocated four (4) residential units to Sunny Park. INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review is the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for the 601 Aspen application resubmitted on April 1, 1986 for the Residential GMP competition. This application is for an allotment of ninety-two (92) free- market residential units. Requested reviews associated with this project will be dealt with at a later meeting subsequent to the Planning Commission's scoring, provided that the project meets the threshold of points in the Residential GMP competition before you. These reviews include: (1) requested future year allocation from the residen- tial GMP quota; (2) rezoning the parking lot parcel from R- 15 (PUD) (L) to L-2; (3) vacation of Juan Street; (4) conceptual subdivision for construction of a mUlti-family building; (5) G~lP exemption for employee housing using cash-in-lieu; and (6) 8040 greenline review. QUOTA AVAILABLE: follows: Quota for this competition is calculated as Carry-aver Annual Quota Expirations 1985 Construction Sunny Park Allocation Total Available o 39 units 13 uni ts 12 units 4 uni ts 36 units The attached memo from Alan Richman provides additional detail on these calculations. PROCESS: The Planning Office will initiate the meeting by summarizing the project and providing a suggested number of points for the scoring of the application. At this time, we will also review any procedural issues which may arise from questions by Commission members, the applicant or members of the public. The applicant w ill next give a brief presentation of the proposal including any technical clarifications, and rebuttal of Planning Office recommendations. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing, each commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. A minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each Category 1, 2 and 3, and a minimum of 35 percent of the points available in Category 4 must also be achieved. Under the new scoring system the minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 3.6 points, Category 2 = 4.5 points, Category 3 = 1.8 points, and Category 4 = 7 points. The minimum threshold number of total points, not including bonus points, is 3l.8 points. Should the application score below these thresholds, it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to get a project over the minimum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points under the revised scoring system to the application as a recom- mendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively score the proposal. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Public Facilities and Services Quality of Design Proximity to Support Services Employee Housing 9 pts. 8 pts. 5 pts. 13 pts. 35 pts. TOTAL PROBLEM DISCUSSION: According to the Planning Office's recom- mended scoring, the 601 Aspen application meets the threshold number of points in each category and reaches the threshold for total points. Please note that the Planning Office has not yet made recommendations on the future year allocation and other reviews that would be conducted at subsequent meetings if the Planning Commission scores the project above the thresholds. In our review of the project, we have identified some commitments that would be outstanding including: improvements to water and sewer service, energy conservation and employee housing. Trails and green space elements of the proposal are also positive aspects of the design that merit recognition. There are a number of problems with the proposal which effect scoring areas. The parking design appears to be flawed as it pertains to fulfilling the ASC commitments for 30 spaces and a potential mass transit facility in the Aspen Mountain Master Plan and the large brick paved entry court. Neighborhood compat- ibility is not adequate regarding transition from urban uses to adjacent Shadow Mountain open space. Thi s si te desi gn is not acceptabl e in our view as it pertains to usable on-site open space and the urban character that would be created in the presently rustic edge of the community. Other concerns effecting the ability to evaluate this project should be noted. Some of the maps incl uded in the April 1 submittal show a vegetation scheme and possibly a bicycle trail adj acent to the proposed new Dean Street that are on portions of Lift 1 Condominiums and Timberidge properties. The applicant and his representatives state that the entire development would be located on the applicant's property and there may be minor problems in reading the maps. Nonetheless, if all the buffer vegetation is on the applicant's property, then the whole scheme may need to shift south by several feet. In addition, the development proposal shows vegetation and building on the unplatted area north of the Mine Dumps not in ownership by the applicant. This area has not been used for purposes of calculat- ing land area, open space, or FAR. However, it is inappropriate to indicate any project-related improvements off-site, such as in rights-of-way, public lands, or private property, without indica ting the arrangements f or accompli shing such impr ov ements. Some of the representations, including open space, landscaping and energy conservation aspects, have been difficult for the Planning Office and referral agencies to evaluate because of the 1 evel of generali ty. We appreciate that representations in some areas of a GMP application may be quite preliminary in nature, however, we caution the applicant that these representations in the application must be honored, and can only be changed through the GMP amendment process as defined in Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code. As mentioned above, the Aspen Skiing Company agreed through the Aspen 140untain Ski Area Ma s ter PI an a ppr oved by the Boar d of County Commissioners on May 6, 1986: " . . . to maintain the existing parking lot (of at least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit related uses. The Agreement shall be in the form of a recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen." The Aspen Skiing Company should not have sold the parking lot on Aspen Street without deed restrictions compeling future owners to maintain the lot for parking or transit related purposes. TeChnically, the Aspen Skiing Company violated the County approval of the Aspen Mountain Skiing Area I.laster Plan. Accord- " ing to the advise which we have received from the City Attorney, " the appl icatlll is not bound by the strict conditions of the Aspen Mountain Skiing Area Master Plan pertaining to the parcel in '" question. Nevertheless, the applicant volunteers within the GMP application to meet the spirit of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan approval which encumbered the "parking lot". In our opinion the 30 spaces within the underground parking structure to be reserveJ for Aspen Mountain Skiing Area parking presents a problem. A plan must be developed and reviewed regarding the management of the 30 spaces for skiing purposes. In any case, the transit option will be lost. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Planning Commission concur with our point assignment, resul ting in a score aw arde d to the 601 Aspen application that exceeds the required threshold. SB.6 f[7.' ~.,' .,Y.. I."/ ...... ...!..... (i( ~-V i)....&:::::: (Cio'. ..,,/<i; ~.~. ;/ --, ~ -.' i_. ~ ~tlc.[j[j] .J [J131Q ~~!~ '~..' tt0~ lfjl!J rw....~ nEl~;~el ~ ><.... .. . ....., '. ~ '. ~. w. \"\'\ ...~. ~..'.~ V~..:: <'.' ".:a:<:", ....'.";,r.\~..'!',,.,.. /(',,~l?;/~;~ ~' :' " iifir";~~;, . ::). <C ;/" "18 N3d$V '.'. ~~ '-" -~ _.~",- - \ .' ."..,....... ". -.....- . - .. . . ,?~ffif! ,--" ." W .>,~,':;<>'b ... \ \ \ \ '- ---., \ ) 'y ~q \ /. \ , \ !I II :1 I. >~,-J /-_:._~ / /; J \ ~~ --... z'" ........:I: ~ lO . ." \. ,..., ,\,~!;l\ \" -t . '-...\ ,,",. ~ ,,', , 'll" 4t'< " \, "- \,1 " II i\ I :\ I I~I '-0, ~ <~~ "ll '" cnlil o ~~z ~ f;;~ C) '" z < ITI :I: n r ITI .,,~ "'... ~:I: ---- ". ..... 0 .... Ut .e-,. ::x~1 ~ ~f;; ''-... ," ,...~ ~~ ~\ "" , ",:I: I ~ ~ !!il :XI\, "-.'ll" ill", 'III "-." ~~ --/ ;.(I' I " -~- :://ij: I u___ -~.~/ 1 i /'k/,I~t" , "!. .:. ~ I . .. lit . 1# ... . . I . \ / . S COR I N G D I,S P LAY 1 2 3 4 5 SERVICES AVAILABLE PLANNING P @ Z CORRECTION CORRECT POINTS OFFICE SCORE REQUESTED SCORE SCORE WATER 2.00 ,2.00 2.00 0 2.00 SANITATION 2.00 2.00 2.00 0 2.00 , STORM 2.00 2.00 1.67 0.33 ,2.00 , FIRE 2.00 1.00 0.50 1.50 2.00 PARKING 2.00 1.00 0.75 1.25 2.00 ROADS 2.00 1.00 0.33 1.67 2.00 TOTAL 12.00 9.00 7.25 4.75 12.00 DESIGN NE I GHBORHOOl 3.00 1.00 0.16 0.84 1.00 SITE DESIGN 3.00 1.00 0.42 0.58 1.00 ENERGY 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 TRAILS 3.00 2.00 1.67 ' 1.33 3.00 REEN SPACE 3.00 2.00 1.17 0.83 2.00 TOTAL 15.00 8.00 5.42 4.58 10.00 PROXIMITY 6.00 5.00 5.00 0 5.00 EMPLOYEE 20.00 13.00 13.00* 0 13.00 GRAND TOTAL 53.00 35.00 30.67 9.33 40.00 ..p &Z SCORE CORRECTION REQUESTED CORRECTED SCORE 60% THRESHHOLD P & Z SCORE MIN. CORRECTION TO MEET THRESHHOLD 30.67 9.33 40.00 31. 80 30.67 1.13 .. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 601 ASPEN APPEAL JULY 28, 1986 SUMMARY: The Applicant concurs with the Planning Office that City council alter the number of points in connection with the Employee Housing category by the addition of 5.78 points as the scoring of P & Z Member David White was clearly a denial of due process and abuse of discretion on his part. The Applicant further recommends that in addi tion to this the scoring be amended to that of the experts in the Planning Office who scored the project a total of 35 points, as 35 points comfortably exceeds the threshold of 31.8 points, although the Applicant feels the project is entitled to a scoring of 42 points. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Applicant agrees with the Planning Director. BACKGROUND: Applicant agrees with the background as stated by the Planning Director. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In this case, only by changing the number of points awarded to the Applicant's project can relief be granted by City Council of the totally inappropriate scoring of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Al though discretion is delegated to P & Z by the Council through the Zoning Regulations to score GMP Applications, contrary to the Planning Director's statement, City Council does get involved in point-by-point scoring review when appropriate as such is specifically provided for in Section 24-ll.4(g) of the City Code. We agree with the Planning Director that there is not necessarily always a "right" or "wrong" score, but in this case there was concerning Employee Housing scoring as set forth above. While Planning,commission Member White's scoring in the area of Employee Housing wils clearly a lack of due process and abuse of discretion, his scoring in Other areas as well as that of some of the other Commission Members was more subtle as applied to this Applicant but clearly fell into the category of a "wrong" score. The Applicant submits that there is a range within which scores can fall in certain categories and not be subject to attack, but that several in this case are beyond that range. When that permissible range is exceeded the scoring is not beyond reproach. We take issue with the Planning Director's conclusion that the Commission could not possibly have abused its discretion through prejudice when they each give the same score in specific categories. An appeal in a case such as this reaches exactly the opposi te result of , . that suggested by the Planning Director. An appeal such as this does not "thoroughly destroy the integrity of the entire GMP process" but to the contrary, the integrity of the process would be destroyed if review was not allowed in cases of lack of due process and abuse of discretion. I do not know of any other way to clearly show this failure <m the part of P & Z in the instant application other than to go through c'Eirtain items of scoring in detail to show that no reasonable person could. reach the conclusion reached by the majority of the Commission Members. ALTERNATIVES: The Applicant feels that the only acceptable alternative in fairness to this Applicant is alternate 3. and to alter the P & Z scoring in at least some of the categories in which the Applicant has requested relief. The staff has presented P & Z with its recommended scores and a copy of that recommended scoring is attached to this Memorandum. This is a copy of the scoring which was previously furnished to the Applicant. Any concept of fairness to this Applicant must lead to the increase in total points to at least the threshold of 31.8 and realistically to the range of 35 points. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street proj ect by the addition of 2.1 points to the score of 29.7 points to a total of 31.8 points." "Move to find the 601 Aspen Street Project to be eligible for an allotment, having met the competitive threshold." MEII>RANDOM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager Alan Richman, Planning and Developnent Director ~ THIU: "ATE: 601 Aspen Appeal July 28, 1986 RE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: "'he Planning Office recommends that the "ity Council alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street project by the Planning Commission by the addition of 5 .78 mints in the Employee Housinq Category. This action would raise the average score for the project to 30.67 points. still below the threshold of 31.8 points. The Planning Office therefore further recommends that the Council finds the 601 Aspen Street project to be ineligible for an allotment, due to not having met the compe- titive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied. PREVIOUS COUNCIL AcrION: There have been no prior Council actions on this application. BACKGROUND: On June 17. 1986, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored the 601 Aspen Street Growth Management Plan appl ication. As is summarized on the attached tally sheet, the six members present at the meeting awarded the project a score of 29.7 noints, which is below the 11 8 mint minimum competitive threshold. According to Section 24-11.4(f) of the Code, appeals of the scoring must be submitted within 14 days of the date of P&Z'S hearing. The attached letter prepared by Doug Allen on behalf of the appl icant was submitted in accordance with this provision. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Code provides that City Council shall consider challenges to P&Z'S scoring, "1 imi ted to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Commission in its scoring". The Code further states that following its hearing of the challenge Council has the authority to change the number of points awarded by the Commission to the a ppl icant . The applicant's letter asks you to rescore seven of the 14 criteria upon which this project was scored. The applicant bases his arguments on the contention that the Planning Commission had a preconceived or prejudiced idea of the pro;ect or its proponent, Hans Cantrup. Were this true, it would be logical to conclude that the Commission did, in fact, abuse its discretion. However, in reviewing the scores awarded by the Commission, and the testimony from the public hearing, staff does not believe that the applicant's contention has been proven. In considering whether the Commi ssion abused it s discretion (we can ignore the question of violation of due process since the applicant makes no claims in this regard) we need to first define what constitutes the di scretion granted to P&Z by the COuncil throuqh the zoning regulations. By the cl ear Ian guage of the Code and by precedent of nearly a decade of GMP reviews, the COuncil has delegated to the P&Z responsibility for scoring GMP applications. It is the P&Z which reviews the applicant's original submission in its entirety. conducts site visits when necessary, holds lengthy public hearings and considers all pertinent facts and representations. Unlike conceptual subdivision and PUD, where Council repeats the in-depth investigations of P&Z, in GMP Council does no more than grant allotments and hear challenges. and never gets involved in point-by-point scoring review. The heart of the applicant I s case is a fOint-bY-fOint evaluation of the scoring done by the Commission. The applicant contends that the Planning COmmission abused its discretion by awarding the "wrong" scores to the project. As should be obvious to anyone who participates in land use reviews, rarely is there such a thing as a "right" or "wrong" score. If scores were based on mathematical calculations. we could simply feed the data into a computer and emerge with the correct answer. However, you have specifically granted to P&Z the authority to consider the facts presented to it by the applicant, staff, and the public and to make decisions as to the most reasonable score. We believe that there is no question that the P&Z did exactly this, and that their scoring is therefore beyond reproach. An example of how P&Z might abuse its discretion is easy to imagine. Looking at the tally sheets, if 5 of /; P&Z members had scored the proiect similarly, but one member's scores exhibited significant aberration below the norm, causing a low average sr.ore, then it might be said that the individual had abused his or her discretion. However, in the case at hand, all of the scores which the applicant questions show mutual support among the members' scores. If five members of the COmmission feel that the proiect rates a "0" in terms of neighborhood compatibility and the applicant disagrees. is one side right and one side wrong, or do we merely have a reasonable difference of opinion based on the facts at hand? Can the Commission fOssibly have abused its discretion through prejudice when for so many criteria (water, sewer, drainage, housing. transportation and proximity to commercial facilities) all, or virtually all members gave the project exactly the score the applicant requests and staff recommended, while also for energy and trails the staff and Commission were in agreement? 2 ;"^'''' ''-"' For us to acceFt a challenge based on the premise of the applicant being "right" and the Commission "wrong" would thoroughly destroy the integrity of the entire GMP process. It would mean that P&Z has no discretion to listen to the advice of staff and the input of the public, but merely should hear about the issue from the applicant and score the project accordingly. This is obviously not the intent of having the Planning Commission sit as a public bodY to hear land use applications. Further. if Council sets the precedent of reviewing each score given by each Commission member, you will be placed in the position of re-scorinq every application about which there is controversy, which is counter to the idea of deleqation of scorinq to P&Z. In only one appeal issue can we support the contentions of the applicant. The GMP regulations provide an unambiguous formula on which employee housing is to be scored. The planning Commission has no discretion in this area, and yet one member developed his own interpretation of this provision and scored the project accordingly. For the integrity of the orocess we recommend that Council increase this one score from 7.22 points to 13 ooints- althouqh this sinqle action has no effect on the overall project outcome. ALTERNATIVES : There are a variety of alternatives available to Council including the f 011 owing: 1. Certify the P&Z scoring as it has been forwarded to you. 2. Alter the P&Z scoring in the area of employee housing. 3. Alter the P&Z scoring in some or all of the other cateqories in which the applicant has requestpd relief (this will require a new hearing so staff can present you with its recommended scores). 4. Remand the proj ect to P&Z for rescor ing. The Planning Office's recommendation is to follow al ternat ive 2. As we have di scussed above, while the appl icant certainly has the riqht to request relief in the other scorinq areas. we do not believe it is appropriate for Council to re-hear the detailed scoring issues. If Council feels, however, that is should reconsider each of the P&Z I s scores, it should schedul e a hearing at which time both staff and the applicant can present the proj ect to Council, and the public can be heard, or it should simply send the project back to P&Z for a second hearing of the scoring issues. 3 .-. - REOOMMENDED fl>TION: "Move to alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street project in the employee housing category by the addi tion of 5.78 ]:X)i nt s to the scor e of 7.22 lX>i nt s, " "Move to find the 501 Aspen Street project to be ineligible for an allotment. due to not having met the competitive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied.". AR . 711 4 "..... """'" JUly 1, 1986 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 601 Aspen Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Scoring To Whom It May Concern: This letter is filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 24- 11. 4( f) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Notice is hereby given that the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Commission is challenged by the Applicant because of abuse of discretion by the Commission in its scoring. When the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in its scoring capaci ty as it did in this case, scoring pursuant to the Zoning Code, it is performing a quasi-judicial function. In so performing this function it must make its decision based upon a rational and fair review of the facts and data presented to it, not on a preconceived or prejudiced idea of the project or of the proponent for the project, Hans B. Cantrup. The facts in this case clearly support a score far in excess of that given the Applicant by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The professional staff of the Planning Office scored the project 35 points. The Applicant's summation of the scoring at the public hearing yields a total of 42 points. The Planning and Zoning Commission scored the project with 29.7 points. The minimum threshold is 31.8 points. Enclosed as Exhibit" A" to this communication is a chart showing the respective scoring of the Applicant, the Planning Office, the Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the individual members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. You will note from a careful review of Exhibit" A" the wide disparity in scoring, even in the objective areas as well as the subjective areas of scoring. Six members of the Commission scored the project. The cumulative total of points from all scorers to meet the threshold needs to be 190.8 (6 x 31.8). The total Commission scores were 178.22 or 11.58 points short of meeting the threshold. The discussion below will detail point by point the abuse of discretion in the scoring which resul ted in failure to meet the threshold and clearly show the correct scoring absent abuse of discretion. I will deal with the scoring in reverse order from that set forth in the Code as it more clearly points out the abuse of discretion by the Commission. EMPLOYEE HOUSING is strictly a mathematical calculation based upon the number of GMP units for which the Applicant has applied (92) .-" .~ mul tiplied by the Employee Housing commitment to construct or convert housing or to provide cash in lieu in accordance with the City Code. For reasons unknown to the Applicant, one Commissioner was extremely prejudiced in this area as well as others and chose to score the project as having "270+" units when the application is clearly for 92 GMP studio units plus reconstruction of 20 existing units. This is the most blatant example of prejudice in the scoring but other prejudice will also be discussed below. Thus there must be a cumulative total increase in employee housing of 5.78 points. Quality of Design. While quality of design is more subjective, the required considerations in the Code, the scoring criteria and the facts of the situation absolutely preclude scores given by some Commission members from being anything but abuse of discretion. The site is largely zoned L-2 at the present time with the permitted and expected uses in such zone to be those compatible with the lodge zone and as permi tted by the lodge zone. I quote from the stated intention of the L-2 Zone: "To encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist oriented single-family, duplex and multi-family units." In this zone permitted uses are "lodge units; boardinghouses; hotel; dining room, laundry and recreation facilities for guests only; mul ti-family residences; single-family and duplex residences". Clearly the intention of the Code is to encourage and promote development such as this on this type of site and on this particular site. The proposed project in terms of size, height and location is actually a less intensive use than the South Point, Lift One, and Timberidge, and similar to that of the Skier's Chalet and Holland House which are to the south and east of the project. Also on the east is the site for the proposed Ski Museum and Aspen Ski Club building. The property to the south is already mul ti-family development including the Mine Dump Apartments and Shadow Mountain which are proposed to be reconstructed and moved down the hill in the 601 Aspen project. The land adjacent on the west side of the project is presently developed with a single- family house owned by Mary Barbee, although with its present zoning (and in accordance with her letter to the Planning Office) represents development potential of approximately 20 single-family homes. Mrs. Barbee's stated intention is to market the land for such development or more intense development if the land is rezoned to L-2. Taking the scoring criteria into account the conclusion is inescapable that those Commission members who scored the project zero in this category abused their discretion. The proposal is clearly an excellent design as to neighborhood compatibility but at the very least is an acceptable but standard design taking into account the zone for which it is proposed, the existing surrounding development and the proposed development for adjacent areas. The Applicant does not concede a major design flaw, but even if we did and thus scored the -2- ... , project one in the neighborhood compatibility category there would be a cumulative total increase of five points. Si te Design. The Planning Office scored the project one in this area criticizing the placement of buildings adjacent to Garmisch street which "will denegrate the rustic single-family and open space quality of the Shadow Mountain hillside area". As we have seen above, the adjacent Shadow Mountain hillside area is also eligible for development even conceding no rezoning for this area. Thus this area, will not forever remain "open space". 601 Aspen is proposed for a platted area of town which has been zoned to allow such development thus meeting the considerations of quality and character of the landscaping and open space area in conformity to that which might be expected with such permitted development. All utilities are underground. Either a cursory or intensive review of the arrangement of the improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy can only lead to the conclusion that this project meets such criteria. Thus the project does conform to the Code criteria for site design and should be scored at least two. Again, conceding that this is a subjective area, perhaps the project could be scored one as the Planning Office scoring suggests. Scoring this project one in the Site Design category yields a total cumulative increase of 3.5 points. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES in the scoring system is almost as objective as Proximity and Employee Housing. Specific criteria which are easily verified are set out for the scoring in this category. Water service and sewer service were correctly scored. Storm Drainage. The criteria in this category are the consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. These cri teria were met 100% by the Applicant proposing to install drywells and retention to retain site runoff plus curb and gutter along portions of the property which would tie into an existing catch basin. These additional improvements in and of themselves improve the quality of service in the area. This was also further confirmed by the Engineering Department letter verifying these facts. Thus there is no choice but to award this area two points. As two members gave the project a score of one in this category the cumulative total score should be increased by two points. Fire Protection. The criteria here when properly applied lead to the inescapable conclusion that the project must be awarded two points. The DePagter family, owners of the Holland House, were opposed to this project and their son-in-law, John Simmons, appeared, giving the impression he was speaking for the Fire Department and raised some fire protection concerns. It was later discovered that not only did Mr. Simmons not have authority to speak for the Fire Department, but that his statements did not correctly state the position of the Fire Department or the facts of the case. You now have the letter of June 24, 1986 from the Fire Chief correcting and clarifying this mis- statement (copy attached as Exhibit "B") and setting forth the ability -3- r "",, of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to the existing station. This coupled with the commitment for new fire hydrants leads to the inescapable fact that the quality of service is improved in the area. Thus, applying the Code criteria the project must be scored two points. This increases the.cumulative total scores by nine points. Parking Design. The criteria in this catergory relate to ( 1 ) adequacy of numbers and, (2) design of the spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. The Planning Office's only criticisms were as to the 30 spaces required in connection with the Ski Company agreement and the amount of paving. 'I'hat being the case, this is truly a Catch-22 situation. To provide surface parking would have required more paved area visible to the public than is required by underground parking or to leave the area unpaved with difficult access in the winter and dust in the summer. This would truly be a poor plan. The Applicant chose to improve on this with an underground garage. The Planning pOlicy of the City of Aspen has long been to eliminate the visual effects of parking as much as possible by providing underground parking. This has not been implemented to any great extent due to the high cost involved. The Applicant in this case has not only improved the situation by providing an excess number of parking spaces but provided virtually all of them in an underground parking facility thus not only minimizing the visual impact but increasing convenience and safety by providing a warm, dry and protected area for winter parking. It is a fact of life in Aspen that 30 marked-off parking spaces on the surface during the winter with snow accumulation taken into consideration does not allow for the convenient parking of 30 cars while a garage facility does so as well as allowing a safe and convenient place for skiers to remove and replace ski equipment before and after skiing. The underground skier parking would be signed to easily direct the skier to the facility. Relative to the question of paved area, the new proposed Dean Street is, of course not only paved, and snowmelt, but paved in a first class manner. In addition, the entrance to the garage is similarly paved not only providing a snowmel t access to the garage but also providing area which could be utilized for transit purposes should the new Dean Street access donated by the developer be incorporated into such a transi t system. Again using the required criteria, the service improvement by the Applicant benefits more than the project only and does benefit the area in general. If it only benefited the project and not the area in general it would be entitled to one point but the project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area by vastly improving the ski company parking and thus must receive two points. Correcting this score resul ts in a cumulative total gain of 6.5 points. Roads. All of the facts presented lead to the inescapable conclusion, even if the Engineering Department's estimate of trips is accepted rather than that of the Applicant that the project may be -4- ,." "".... handled by existing level of service in the area. Not only that but the project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the area by recreating Dean street where none has existed for many years (see Exhibit "c" attached). This creates an east-west connector wi th the existing Dean Street to the east and also creates a very logical loop at a low enough level to be suitable for either bus or trolley connections should they ever be utilized for mass transit in the area. The Engineering Department's comment on this is, "However, in this case the applicant is creating a new street that could be used more appropriately as the connection between Garmisch and Aspen Streets. .. This, with the upgrade of Garmisch Street can only improve the quality of service in the area mandating a score of two in accordance with Code requirements. Thus the cumulative total score in the roads category should be increased by 10 points. In summation, the project, absence abuse of discretion, is clearly enti tIed to an overall increase of 41.78 points which would resul t in a new score of 36.66 points, well exceeding the threshold required for GMP approval. The Applicant fully realizes the necessity for the many hurdles to be cleared after an appropriate scoring of the project is achieved. There has been considerable controversy in the past relative to this Applicant. All of these have been reviewed in great detail by the Applicant, the engineering and design team and legal counsel. We can unequivocally state that the problems that have been experienced in the past will not be problems in the future. We all realize that the problems of the past undoubtedly prejudiced the scoring system and only ask that this application be scored fairly and be given an opportuni ty to contribute to the betterment of the lodging community. Also appended to this application are the P & Z scoring results for Aspen Mountain Lodge, Lyle Reeder's Lodge at Aspen, Little Nell Base Area Redevelopment, and Sunny Park. All of these were scored as lodges except Sunny Park, but with similar scoring criteria to mul ti- family. A careful review of these scorings coupled with the facts shown above must clearly lead to the conclusion that this Applicant was the subj ect of abuse of discretion in the scoring process on June 17, 1986. -5- 1"'..''''- CITY OF ASPEN RESIDEN~L GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET Project: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project P&Z VOTING MEMBERS Planning P&Z Applicant Office Mary Jasmine Roger Welton Al David Avg. l. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 d. Fire Protection 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 e. Parking Design 2 1 1 0 1 .5 2 0 f. Roads 2 1 0 0 .5 0 1 .5 Subtotal 12 9 8 7 7.5 5.5 10 5.5 7.25 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Compatibility b. Site Design 2 1 1 0 0 .5 1 0 c. Energy 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~ d. Trails 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 e. Green Space 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Subtotal 12 8 5 5 5 4.5 8 5 5.42 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Transportation b. Community Comml 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Facilities Subtotal 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4. Employee Housing a. Low Income 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 7.22 b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income Subtotal 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 7.22 12.04 5. Bonus Points 0 0 TOTAL POINTS 42 35 31 30 30.5 28 36 22.72 29.7 EXHIBIT "A" ~ ( ~ ( ~~ r@(~ r?/tw!PlF~ 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5532 June 24. 1986 ~rn~~~~~rn;~ l!.~ Mr. Alan Richman Planning & Development Aspen/Pitkin Office 130 South Galena Street Director Re: P&Z meeting on 601 South Aspen. Dear Alan: This letter is to serve as a correction to a statement made by one of my firefighters at the June 17th. P&Z meeting re- garding the 601 South Aspen Project. Jack Simmons the fire- man who spoke against the project was not authorized or qualified to speak on behalf of the fire department. Jack Simmons was representing the Holland House Lodge not the fire department. The fire department voiced Its opinion on the project in a letter to Mark Danielson of Danielson Develop- ment Group on March 28. 1986. The fire department did not. nor do we anticipate any access or fire flow problems to the 601 South Aspen Project. I apologize for any problems that my fireman may have caused by voicing his personal feelings and not the opinion of the fire department. rID yours '-i-ht0~t57 Chief AVFD cc: Doug Allen EXhibit "BI! GOIIDON "EYEII 1( GRAND AVENUE. SUITE 212 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULnNQ ENGINEERS & SURVE'ORS June 17, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein, City Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 o ~rnOWlrg n ml JUN 20. U RE: 601 Aspen Project Dear Steve: On behalf of the City of Aspen, we were asked to offer oooments for the Aspen lDdge Area Special Inprovenent District regaroing the 601 Aspen Project. The following items are of interest to the district: A - we support the vacation of Juan Street. B - we support the upgrade of Garmisch Street with cul-de-sac to the Barbee lbUse. '.tt1e 1\pplicant needs to consider some parking as shown in the district plan. C - '.tt1e Applicant needs to ensure inprovenents on the right-of-way of Aspen Street follow district plans. '.tt1is is particularly intx>rt- ant with regaros to parking. D - '.tt1ere is a need for a ooblic pedestrian right-of-way on Dean Street between Aspen am Garmisch. '.tt1e right-of-way should be a mininun of 20 feet. '.tt1e design the 1\pplicant has sul:ruitted is generally what the district desires. we want to ensure concur- ranee of the 1\pplicants plans with Lift One am Timber Ridge CondominilullS. Final plans should be integrated into district design ooncepts. E - The district requires a drainage easement a mininum of 20 feet through the property for a. + 72" pipe for storm waters from Aspen M::>untain. The easement oouTd follow the Noroic Trail easement, if that easenent is also secured by the 1\pplicant through the Barbe_ property. OJr need is to get from Aspen Street to Garmisch Street. Sincerely, Q(~~' ~n~ Project Manager m::. Rl':lc/5726 xc: Mr. Jay Hanm:Jnd, City Engineer :r'. S, :i. o.;l<:R$lPtJ J. :p 4 7::. +UfWC! Cl ~ l doUJ~ I ~ .., .., . ~ " N 0 " , < .. '" tTllIn ntrDt~ ~n.OtrlllO ~OintTllt"Oon !i . .. g ... ~ . . . ";; . . . .. ~ ~ ~-r? ~, d ~ . r: ~~............ O""! ::ao"'3 ~ <:"tI,'r9tn)>o ~ :O"'1tncn~ 0 ~ '" 'tl ~ HlfDSI ct....llIlIl H ....DI.i~....1'1 >< O....I""Clllll O. 0''0 O::lOIll r'1 U1t1.C"I'O llI'10(rt "'J ~ ,: ~~~ n 1'1........C"I' tI'l C~-~ct::r 0 Ooct;fDlIl,. if; >i .... ....'< r'1 : "g ::::: ~. "0 ~ ~: 0 ~.., III "0 I't '1 ~ tIS tC tI'l 11I....1\1 rT ".t,Q:u o.Q ,.CD CD 0 '10tl'ltl'l t"'::a \.. ~~'CD ~ :;~:;> ~ ~jlIg~g." ~~I\l~:; tI'l (...- :::Jill:: ::SOUl" H 'O::l::Jo.QC H fDl-"~< H (I) oCIrtO "0 en PI.... (II 0 (I) III 0.1II::l11 3: tn n ::s........ fI! 3' ; cb'~ a ~ ....::::: = ~ ; g.n~ ~ ~ & ~~ ~ g tI'l . ~ e.;:I;;- f:: (! ~ ~.. >oj <5 ~.~ ~;j g III ~ ' 0 ~ rt D1o.Q n >i n I\l t'" 0.., n rt l? [>j >i 0... r 'r< III g, "0 ~ ~1Il g. "f: f.,:;~. ~ f: . tI'l L .. " g..~. g: g" %::l og ~ .. ~ l-\ ltI 1-1 .... It [lJ 1-'- tI'l <::-T' g ~ : ~ ~ g >i ;:; po ::l rn 0 t1j_. ~2 fi 0 tn z. ~ ~;:. rn o cn 111 H " " " ... . " o . . 0 . r' .. . . . . . ~ ... ~ :" .., .., 0 0 ;l .., " /:: .., .., 0 0 H H Z Z .., .., Ol Ol .... .... , , '" ... .. I; Iwl~ I~f I~ I~ Itl~ I~Hli+ I~ HlllN Ii I ~ I'" I ~ I ~ f I ~ Il~ H+ I~ H111c I: I+H~I N I~ I' 1+ I"~ I" II'I.H. 1'111i+ 1.l1i+l. I' ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ IF + ~ ~ o+~w ~ ~N__ N i I ~ 10 I ~ I ~ I~ I ~ IF rH~ I~ I+H+ } H+H N I~ I tIN Ie I'" I~ I'" ir rrl~ IE IcH+I~ I~ H*H N I~ It /0 /: I~ f I~ !r rrl~ IE I+H~~ I~ H+HN I~ I~ j;~ I~ ~ ~ ,~. I .r. \ . . /'''' [) ~~ , zo> (, .H'" "...... z c;,p. " ';' (0 ~!::: 0'" , NN o "'e> z" ~~~ .. = Eh OlH" =Ol" ""'I:! ~SOi zz .., .., 0'" ~~ Ol Ol ..c "., R~ ..'" ..,H HO oz Z trill (1 ~.!",!>> (: !'~!l!1'!>> 0" .. 0 ~ 20 Z ~ '" H H O~~ ~ . ~g:~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ n~om ~ .~mrtn t'JflI.... z: ~~::C". (t) ~~~I1l~ ~ ~~~ Q11 11I.0....::1 "0 .....,go.c i'~. 0 In..... ~...,~..a ~ H 011I0 ::0 rt~m 0 o~m> < a~o....rt ....rt ~ ::JOln~ H ~::J::J.oC M ::J1ll~ (t) Ill.... m C (t) lIl~ln::J~ X (t) (t) ~rtO "0 C ......... III ~ C n m III "0 C C . .....: C tJJ .... III 0 tll nOI1 .... ~ tll ~ ; g:'!. ~ ~ ;' ~ ~ .., <3 ~.~ ~ ~ o .... ::J H ~ om ~ 0 ~ 0". i M ~ ~ ag..a n ~ = III g ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "0 _.... tr 0'" 1ll::J..a z o. - 0 rt .... C rt::J ~ ~ ~ .... m t'J .... (t). (D.... I1l III III 0 gQ VI .. ~ ::J ~ . ,~ [ g ,.", ~ . ~ ~.' . g o 0 . , 0 , . . . : '" :-' ~ .. o 20 " " ,'" o H 20 ., " ., o ., ,. '" '" o H 20 ., " ... , '" ., o ., ~ .. o H 20 ., " ... I ~ ... .. .. . ~ '" , w e < .. tDOd~O''' "0 S n .. ... ;; H ~ r- '" z h tot c;') (.,( tf;!~~: n u.- (11"0<11' .., ~ ~ III g ~ ~ fi ~ .(\ .. H" a~::%' ~ ~ rtlll"l'1 ti 11I....< < H n:s ~..... to! r1'1ll0n tn ....o.Q(DrD go s; c . :-' Cl c .. " H " 20 " .. ~ H n .. " I ~ I 0 I ~ ' I~ ~ F I ~ 11 + I~ lol~ I~ I~ r:l~ IllW I ~ I 01 ~ I~ I~ I~ I~ 11+ : 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ i+ I ~I 01 ~ I~ ~ I~ II~ H+ I ~ I 01 ~', IE I~ IE IE Itl~ I : I wi t" ~ I~I~I~ I~I~I~ e 0 e F , IE H119~ I~ I+H+ I~ I~ Ill+l~ r I~~H+ ,IE I~ H11+ ~ I+I+~ I~ ~ hWW~ ~ +~rr I I~ H+I+ ~'rrrrr II I~ 1~ltrrr ~fr~f I~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ' ~ F ~~~r~ t ~ ~Nr~ I , l~ NW. i v.. o..v,;" I. ...,01 '., . \ .. ,-. , 2:\ J/ ~I\ --'0 {v Z/ h 20m H" 20 "'" , ..... 20'- C'" I WN o H" 20" ~~~ 5ii "H" "''''' !:l~1:! .,~~ ., .. 0" HI: ;jz ~ " ~c R~ ,." "H HO 020 20 .< " ~ ~ w '" :-- ~ ;1 " e ~ U~ 8 ou ~ > ~~nu~ 0 ~~nu. ~ ~ a i .. '" .<. ili ..... c..... till:! :;: ;g ~ ~ ~ ~ !i'i ~ g~ ~ :g~~ H ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ n z . i ~ o~, ~~ > n~n~ ~ =~~~n .~O~" ~ ~ _ = <~ z ~~~" ~ c~~~~ 0 ~~"~~ > Z ;J ~~ Q :~:::~ e.~o~ too;! CD a,," 0 l:D ~ o:a ~ CI.l '" It 59 (T ITIQ ;S ff.I IQ rt (D 0 rn :.y 1:1 rn o:a t"f ti i ~rt ~-~ ~:$> ~ m ~.g~~ ~ m ~~~~ ~ 0 3 3 ~ ~= ~ 50m" M ~ i~~~c M ~ rt~~< M . = = ~ og a ~ ~~ : ~ ~ n~1 ~ ! ~ ~i~h ~ ~ ~ > ~. w > ~. 0 > rtn~ ~ ~ > ~.. o:a OJ t'" .... t" t" "01"''' t"'.....q ~ t'" Oil !; , ... .. :: (; .. ~:; .... a" B ~ i tIJ..::I C .... ..... 0 ~ c.... (I) ~ I '" a .... 0' ....0 .... toJ 0) .. ... t'" :;::r ~ ~~. ~ ~ 13 .. ::I .... .... (D r.l .... en < IQ Q tD CD;f 0 .... Cl m'" ff.I ::I ~ Q a g 9 0 fit .:: ~ ~ ~ ". H N " . '" " o . ~ !i1 ".... 5~ F r F F ~r F ~~ r r <ffrrr r frr~~ ~~ i~ ..~'l E r. f F ~r r r~ r E r~rrr ~ ~~~~~ ~'" ~II _d_ r r f H~ F ~~-r- r ~r r ~rrrr iw a:: f r F F rr f r~ r F r~rr~ r rrrrr e. .!i F r F F rr F rr r E rrrr~ ~ rr~rr I" ! F r r F ~r .F r~.r F rrrrr r rrrrr I~ " F ~ F -F ~~ F ~~ ~., l ~~~~~ F ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~r~~ ~ ~ ~ > < ~ .. F . ,:. " f::.l, I ' ."'''',,", fML crrY (P l\SPEN RESIDBNrIl\L GIOf1'H Ml\NICfJIBNr HJ\R SIlBMISSIOO R>IRrS ALLOC.lIrIOO - TI'lLY SHERr Project: 'Sonr\Y Part 1985 Residential Pr<riect f3118/116) P&Z varIlG _RR!': AL- Milo' .:Li!!L J_ine ~ Welton ~ Imid Jlwerage 1. Public Facilities and Services a. ~ter Service J_ J..- ....L ---1-_ 1 1 --1- b. Sewer Service --.l.- ....L ....L 1 1 1 --1- c. ' storm Drainage -L --2- ~ 2 2 2 -L d. Fire Protection -L -1- ....L _1.- 1 1 --1- e. Parking Design ~ ....L ~ 1 1 1 -L..5 f. Roads -L --2- --2- 2 2 -L- -..l...- wmOtl\L ~ --L. .JL -'- 8 -'L_ -- --L.5 8.2 _ 2. Quality of DeSign a. Neighborhood -L ~ ~ 3 2.5 -L._ -L. Can(atibility b. Site Design -1- J..- J..- 3 3 3 --L Ci'TIlIl!!\'~ . V>>-L- --2- --L- 2 2 2 -L 4@...mw~ -1- J..- ~ 3 2.5 '3 -L e. Green Space -L- --L- J..- 3 2 3 -1...5 NJtSI.'OJ:l\L J.L 11- IZ- 14 ....l2 _ 14 -- ..n..s 12.7 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public -1- J..- J..- 3 3 3 -1- Transportation b. Calmunity <;arml -L --2- --2- 2 2 -~- _2- Facilities SOBOOrl\L ~ ....L. ....L. 5 5 5 --L ~- 4. Employee Housing a. Low Incane ....1L. lO- lO- 10 10 10 ...lQ....... b. Moderate Incane -- c. Middle Income stmarllL ...llL lO- lO- 10 10 10 ....llL ...l!L_ SOIrOrIlL 1-4 JL H- 3ti....- 37 ~- 37 JL .....JU _ 5. Bonus Points --L .JL .JL 0 2 0 -L -1-,_ 'l'Ol'1lL R>IHl'S --H-- :lL 3ti....- 37 37 37 JL 37.1 1 CITY OF ASPEN .. MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN To, 601 Asre~ F,k JJ"k: h"2Hf Hl"" 4.J~ a,.,.f Df~~/k., .N.fhJ;L ,Y\.&. ~ t t~ ~ u.. bQifl..,~ t)l1t'Mf'~'I':J I-~ by PJ.2." 6 -(j.'lJ:wi+f19r4'MiL fI.~I~V.~)~ ~~ ~ ot-wJJ Lor' PJZP, 7-1-~t tct,}((P.l i1,,,,i.) ~ u.... L.~1 Jj, ~ . ~h-~ ~J 'Y'M. : wt.iJJ /I..;J (kill ~ bel ';p~ j, ~/4~{11~~. .. r 0-11-- i 6 - ......, w't~ -6,rk-- fJ6.1+I~li~+ if>!'J --, ~ ~ob 0 W-ln:, - N1 ~i\( - "'P c ~'" 1 I"J.]'''- bloc '( iHf'lfH~ r'f-lA), -"P I ~ ~ rrrJlJ."t J ,1\ V-ey- 'riAl V \"" 11'1.J-'t. ,~ p,....J'(i"l fVI lJ a.v, :'t: y~ ~ I ~ O're,,.Y-f~it (}N.A. ~ I\'\hflt. ) C-v~jffl}A. -r: h\}M~\~ jlH I~'f , . , 0 rJ>J.t..1J~^",-" ' ::;~rl!'\ \-1.- WV---> ~_ if Fv\lse(J;'<rLJ.,~, 14~b)ovK f,.r--<. ~ .11+< fo;,-t;~ f(j Lf )..,.J, ~ ,. ~ rurh'l~j r, ct" ~ SJ.(-ell.l1 ~ \ i (;..i I tlfiVI u ---.,. ~ ~ {J.~ -1 !A)..;"'1y-~\\ ~ X\iJ ~ IM~/ g; 1& -+0..,1 ~tfi~\\ I~~k #.;t~ '~I"- 5~ t \0rf~ Iv>'j f;tr.. O~ ~,.. ---., ~ - -- - - ....... ~ .~ ~"r \l oJk) ~/J<.v IL ~_L1^ ~ ~7~1ir~;~"~mL~ r;:~ - ,,~/. I~ ~mJ ~p~\ ~TP"" - M,~ DV<<1 - ~ ..... ~~ ~ tJ1. ~ 1vJ~ j lpJJ Mt }v,,.,.!trdvJ ;ft;r ~,~<! ~t."b 5 ~,)J ~ be.vo {i)/oj vp , I D? ~ ,) '~1' b' , j J 1M i\N.... J/) flWo Jf' c.~vJ., - A rhf J. O/v\tl l..liJ1MV\ ~-fv1\in'yf l..\lu(~'I""'" '0sk", 5 ~,^"f,\\0h,,~ ~ q 1;1-'1/7 'l1lu" I~ ....... . - S \ VY\\"I\O"'1. - +r^j\lltJ~J fhrv ,...... Ilfl\1 tv ~ .p" ?X: P vii" +li ~)j ,1;-/ O!i\v-\.(!;.,?-- ~1,r", drA', r1')^' eX'\0',~) (vrLj'1v1riv Pl~M -- f k), ~ (c~ ..~ f" r I~- iI" ~ f:, t~~ 1 A~'r7d, \. ' 0" II'i't...HL 7ir.,I,..r';~ '----- /J ~. '---,/ +rvol( ~ - 2') I ~ +ybJ , Nv1 ~ 51r&'" - rgJJ.~'~~ )tl'D~ ~ ()V>~ ~ ( TltJ.tfV") .------- 5 ~ ft,^; \ i ,f, V0v) J 1 rf 1 J C J {fb.n!(J ~fr (,.r ) M P:A, R, VlO ~~ vi"I/) /011> ~'O'4 M'" - {f\o I i I \J\f J trv'J" l .. r'\bJ "I V}<, ct~-~&~fI"7 :L.j ;1 OtUJ\0 ~ ~, -' - ....... - . ,. ,,' O I j. ^" p~ )~It\ CVf-F'" H ~ IIJO~ Jlfo~ 1(IG'.v t (Ie..) 'J I rJJJ. r fifr' ' c~Jrft~ (} o{~:tf '1 u J G~700 F-rl ffjlPf{'i ~t~~v.J - J;~ ~ 4, ~vJ~,n, f, r!- V/f.Vu 1 v~ - fA ) ~ L~ q (b-t;, {\ R'fJ.o/urt, l' -... - -:; (J"'~-t\\hJ ,~ r'lf r1).c.'" COrl1!>\~~ " - .. ... 601 A\fe~ (P,bli, H/~r~ PlOil< t DesL/o'llr,~" "fglithTi," TIl 1<..... 6... IM/(1.~. i,~,i I,'/"" M-~j f!S ;4 A IJl7Q{'('I~j II K,1,Jw,. '1.. D F -I\, 1(1, v nit 4.g, ~~- !l,n, IJ.'Y l/~:1; - I fZ J~......Mr'"" r"1;z v sur." flt;,!,!:''''J J - n rt(J) pfJ1t.t< De.n s), ~1,'?'JhlJ -ll4.'),.,.{"W 10" 1''1 - s'Jnlj.J~F"v;J1""''' '''f'''r''' ~ 1.t~opPtr, , -' )."tll 4~l, ,- lo~bj,dir.;.J rlli"'J ft~ 11',d.,,~ pJ. otlt, re,I",\ -O~~Hn" - tj, J,,4.fJ,< - j 1"" j+'N, "'DIll J. (Vi").>) dt(V'1 -Ii '4J 11~ R(l. G i1p \ >n'1 2 ~tc. : ~ V"h)' f.,k '1,1' (L.,f 'I) if- {oj AIg>fl'.. - S''''~j f"lt k w..~ ~ iilii> fr<' ~ 'iI'f~ {lj'll,t iJ - ;/,,",<>.11 iL 6oiAtrwJ..,.../ - it ~ ~t """ /'J.?/<,I;J).; f'14r11 ~ ;~, Cb'hv-.' JNrwt" ~ / t1 wJ., ~rvd h -iL 1:-.* fly, leC+;r.{ 6"'P /'11>0 ~/ f l'i~/S~ f.l., 1.-11. c~ 1. u- -tU> vJ,.~ ~ ~~. J. rrt".l #11~ . · -t~;I~~~ (7f1.f5/Qr;"J - J'J/~~1" t\<fW~ -IkrvwLrMl; i~A;~,'i1frf-,{,~~Juj ),u" >0rJ ~ 1)... -011'1\4 <yrle.,... ~ tr.,!. ~ , 7JJr((Jffl1~ (Ill;~)l Nul- -t~ . _ s..,.. ~J~ ~ n.;;};...~ - vi,j,t ;,> , ,~~, &f1rtt' I.-."...~ J - J &1lJ f-- ",-\L ~ (tj, flc,. {)('J;7~ - An,1.1 f/~;tj d-. +l~j A5t,~Io"A," fr..",;ivp-4. [ I ~,tA-r -1",,,1,,,...,.. -...Ii,v> Ai, , rhl /Je;IH,(i,~rI t~S - s.t..~ 'f(~I{.'''lriJJ., P4,AjfybJI,/+"";~~J dLfJJ,(,Ib",.~.t""{" ( (\ u<~ It. -- lJ"V- Sf. tvu1l, - (a1 Sj~ Oe~;,h ." pl~( /'Iiy, rljh1'r Toaly1,.f 1'$.;t-4 ~ b-1~ '31 :) GO/~l, H ~ .~i *' .... ''11. j,-L''^ t'('l .J.J..f jJJ lW, J.M.r' '" vz",L M 'trw-J !I'rv~ ~j < 1-11 ~-J -- /, )X,.~) .~ f~~ ~,.~ + ~ A I" 1 fA ,t," 1/ ,))1" ''i(fii/- ~ r ~~~~ v " fi~ ;Jg 1t ' /,', I /1' f11 rf ,J, f-1rv'v> J!;J;/- fjr f.. Il, :lJ)~ iN .... l ~ r 'I 1~0"~ ~ p ~ 1 It.(, 1 Lr-Lr;.," ",7JI,: ~,,~ P:5 M(t, -J}W.1o II :) uw-1 tf'" '"r'" / mf /i/( i /VD4, J /~ iJ.J J C' ~ !viI 111 r>l-e/ (tJoJJJ (r 41u,JAu'r\ ~t"rcl ,. J;f _ f~ ~ lilt.<- <rrwri Tv W ti /,1 Ur , t-1'lttovJ ~ ~ tk.~ll,LJ pj,'j ~f" \..1. - lJrh~~ Lb~,,'flr , VV/vVM1 t \.1 w<."tV ~ ltw ~ 1J,.4 ~ ~-k.'l>>f w.J, , Dtv~ 1/ II,., - 11;.... Ovrt'f'iI (11, ~ ,IM41' J - fn)lIl(-< $iv)iiS - (eft,.... ~.,.-f,.Ylj AlA., - vi .tJ ~ fhvD"Jh O'-#'<U: . -J ... ~""~d".,,, \ ,( L I I It /' rl ....1 .-t , M . ()J'I .(H \0- ..I ,'r~-".,...;.l..l (t-(' 1,/1'" 1 /..~ _ (I, 1 f) ~ """'" 7-}- 0 ? _GO I n€)on,"~ ~ [1\HK \1 i Lot~ ']-11 ~ (I-i') PUrJ/L /-, L-c. L~ 'JY- 11 S(d) (11~ (I G,;y,,~~ ri ~I~ ~.wtL ~~ '1'''' ~ ~, b"H.r / t ,.",',+".... "'4 hJw<<,., thI C(IL~ J);.t.,J 1!,rJ, ~)" r.f~'1i.1'4 If'n i(r\'l>" ,t 1.LI';J, J kl t, . ~ ' ,1 ~/d '1 ,j/;n "IA/U. ,N 0 tf\f1.,fI i I I .J. ./. i ~ .,. IV Y('/f(h)l...tl{'~ -0' J/Lk. A.1fw t. v"'1.<'"tlA I~! \ -, ') - ~ ~1 t' ~~t t, a.tN< M -WA, ~ ,,,,,t " ("'4>. Wf1(IJ ,,o-t'..dSlf.'1'.J<k~ McrriH k,..~ 'j_rrtl'J < 0" ,Jr0..J"J...Ib/';,~), & J,~ L U")~(." 1(, r~"i'lb.f""f;" t..r< t"J.d< i'l..t-4.. ~ ...,;, O*/,rv-J ( U"V?'1<V~~ wi L l ~C':l (f. Icy.' t,:, 4-l1-'il3 PJ'J"'("f-~itr'; f"~,^, If 4'1")\ pJJ.i.~ " J/(l"" "'J wvth ()WJUJW,...,L,'; ,.pJ A ,.Jk ",," ) i-/fr",t; 5/ ' - If /l,t.. ,~LwJ ,.oJ I~ ']W'W J ~ @'", ,':..J,!A<L.. ( 'it "'-t.J) -:"'{;A '~ '"'(,) 1);'0 ~...:.v,uI ,'ttfrll,) -1"Ji,I..v ~J ~ .... u L .. d "+,,fl, ~ P'f !{it" 5./lj &/,.,,- 50,fir",+ fI'\1~g 1. COj ~(.I\.~ II j 'j', tt.Il..,,,ot.~Jp'.',) ti4V'y O{f;t({ J, b,l J~ ,:.... ~~ I() ,fr,,~ fI, vii"" f"," s,,,,,,j,.]r"'fl'{.., e~" -< ....1.1...40 VI(1- 1'Lt.... 6"A'V-\ , (. v ,i ,~ ;..-" , 1\ ,t {,I/Jc~ ~ "" L, J ,.f fj..o; V"A f (I.u.-J t I( plf!l ( """1")1 vJ~.-J f; J~ ""~'1 J)lt+ J 5")')< lNJ,.."1h M "l1rvY -7 'I<..j (")1""'''1., !.Jail - (p)'lvJlWt.) L J./v1Vl, '.. .11 IJ / f.l, "",.J kr>-< ,vJL", +1.. ( tj 1/J ) .m. /: "~ -~ " ~ ~"p..J~.,< ,.J. 11<11< I.f~ Aopv., MI1I<;J..,,, ~rly) ~J,it 1 I "ri 1', t ''', 11,.. {,('~....-ii......J~ L-I ("rIl /.~ I' A (,i" j, 'f"<Ll '{j.p. " r;. ,./.. ,~fft> ~ [1 ~ /wJ. VucJ,,,,,1!. , IV.' ) 1't(f-' ( I {6~- -- ---- I -- --- -- \ ~I I L~, 1 '" 11'0 f' <- - \ LJ u\ ~ S" ri<", -,Or hI,.... frv~f, , Ii IJH"" 0\ LVI .tH4 ra T t~~ ~J.,., P~,6J"~y.w~,...It~'p,,iejt r"... '\ej ~ ';,$1 ~MJU, [ill;-T.nb.~Ar ,'JhJ $'l~ ~J! fi'JJ ,Va.- Q-t1i\'~-t ~'rl'" r',' .pA (; ~J <;{I ~6i~~ f.riJ1T~~ -lfr,j\"3,,..Itof +~. , II' I - 5_~).!;;fl"'~"'n,e..L (IIIIvt,J,1"L'f4>' alii C"",..IJI li~kh'IJ<. n ,? ' 'J(~etlf h pJ.>11 ' Vf'-J ~v"tlon.~k. (101 otv~1 9"I'II'I(\. ~~'2D ~q I.#fo.t.o:u.. $u'1,h,l,'tj 1W rl)"J",\,U~ \a' IY.J.I"~ jPJ!)# - lt~-tlpljl'flt-) V'Jh tD iJ., 5"'1~r~ hi ~ PI nJ '''^~ .l.u1\"l1 "'. ~w f o."~ - I ' I I Y' _ . ~'t~ ~-U ~ ,,-W, /Vj d>J~ ",,~J)J, IiT7)Af" A~~r~ \ 2 \ I.q..')\~--t., l{, i"}1<<. viL '" TfrM t'( lfr- ~ ~~ M.~ Wlk, UP.# 1tJ .~I'~"'f~; ~,;, .~ .v',}'") Ifl.\f" W ,.. vf, I,~,,, 5~r"ilee~..1f~_ oJ'Jl1 hHIIJ "(v,.tt I"P pP'" J -f. ~')v>< ~ wk ~ . ~ J "Z'I sr1.."k', ..((v..4.,~~~ f:J"V".." f.b.\,i,,,,, ~(,..I~'.L ~ ti~ t~1t(rlL 1- .\1 +J -~,jIU) CITY OF ASPEN .. MEM.O FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Plannmg and Development Director ('f. ~~.(\~ _ ""\=- r--\':) CL- ') O"\) G"w... \ '\'1 ? ~ r- L u e 'Cll_:L (-<< ~ tI 'T \ \t~,-_ t~.L('c"'-' '\ \ -~ ~,-~..... \...o..~ ,~ ~ CL- \ l....,,~ .Q..~\\ ~ ~ ~ V"'-(h,~.j.4':' l...........\-c..-.....-"). ~..e ,\ A ~.....r"'-(t........-\,-k.,~ ~ 0<- ~'-W L\.. ~ ot.: c...L I L.. J L,z... k <C ~0K \ S oF- 6\..... '--<0., - ~,~ I h.- ~ j::'-\:\<, ~_ \)' lc) (f\) 0) A.\~ L.t~ "'-\ '^"'i u~A,~ 1\ u'l\ ,-\ ~:-\-> ",~ k- ,~LWl.-D4.k.,-\ Lk-Lc 6\......... .. L' ') ~3: "'--\ ~- \ ~ J_~ ~,-\-\'n I s",b# ~ <?'^'~~ (lv O. (J,~-\-L, I 'i ,,-,,- ~ ~kU-\ Jl r ') , '0 ~ Y A - . ~ <>--L,l"" c-L.,..Dt.\ +- c i'-'-~ 6\--- ~ ,-\ "--A '-'0, +--.0 '"'- \ '"" ~ l.. 0 \ ~ ~ I " r\ ~~ L,\~ C\...: ,~ "-'+-- \ , 4--., ~ +<> ~"~. <; f A-..L \ \" Ul'~ ~ \ ') ^-U\ "'.... ~ .<tyt>--<> I'-/;;:t. +0 Au' ~i. vL'H~ "~, (II'\.. -h> 6\.......,,..<. ,., ~~~ CITY OF ASPEN .. MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN AICP Planning and Development Director' \ , \" '-.i ~ ~ loo, I\<,~ ' V'C .yt.. ... '( '^-" - A '\ ~', '- '1..'" , ~ ') ,\L '1'-v~,> A -J~ b ~ 1=L!. \,; \ \'o~,,- k.. ,1" A:-\.......z '-\-0 ~ vIA ,~'^ . '1.0 ~ Ol~""-"':> I \ ~\,,~O~ "'>1 L, rt \ , '-v, \ \.o'll ~\ ~ A "-I( +-.IL L '- t:" -t (A, fl...0.- <;~ Lf",~ Q9- ~ ~'^~ +"'~ ~J I\'t, J2.&v-. >.<L] ....... C\... : \ IN.A~ AI'\...{;~ 'i wl~~ l'> I ~J, ~ ~'-< ct:- .ic '-"'" M,vJ,-,\" ~ ~ 0\ 'L"'( (k ~S'-"...... ~ v-~~ S~ ~ ",~ ""LS r y-<l c.. "^-) \ \ -to '^"" ..1.; <; L.~-J i..""t,....- ...\- ')l'-Uv-, G-o cL---,,,, J~~ ~\+~-~ ,,,.:+~ L t L. /~-\IL . '1""" ~ \'" "\ L~~ i"-JW L l P'-'o) ~ \ -A. -\. "'-""\ _ ), f--..a "- ~~~ +" ~ ~o'-" r)" Jk 'h ~ "\..L)D,) ./l-\.L.y ~ /\..-\;- ~~~ ~ ~o"'--.........~\......... . iI.... ... ~.. 1:,. Qi).~ P'4' '. 'ffJ fP) linn ","'I'M"" \0 , I Q r'\ 1;... \Ii. '';' lAP., ~\Ir, 11 , 'V v' i~ ''-1J({ f.: /If'Z.bl'1lilJi~ ~~V~') a/~ J Cw 'tl.~ 'bA~ - P Vf:) I, '- H e..",^", j \,1~~6 \.! Dr~ "\8 J tJA~'1JV"": fl 'rIM 11, ,1'66 fA, flwu, l!,r2~ (~ tYtrf'CJ -Jk 601 ~ ~ Grnp~, 7J r71'~a fJ.2~1-!1rJ TlL~~tl#f,~J a. ~I-(J!.'.~ ~~~"T:') -, it +~ J)J pf J /. '8 pn..J.. - JltI ~'i.J i<:Jl a' - ~ - , CI>'l.Il,.,rj+. fI,."COJ Alp#' f~ irtt~ ~.J.../ :i. +.~~ w.. ~ ~ I~ by ~ PL-~ -D I 1b~,,~1 {,:1::.' iii".) ;? V)>..v~ vL'P~~ ,j fJ...;, , -:1 '.'~ "J ~ & (v'~ iLJ- ~ f\WJMt7,k It,d... I1ft,tJ ~nJ k"" JcJ p ,;.,~ 1:. )-4, if., (:J"'P ~~.Ul< flu~-IJJ H,,~ ( '1,; ~ Jlv ~ ~ ~~~-Lj" m,)d~r'V(~ ~(;fY'n~ "', f'~1~tl:.(b~Pcl-2~~~ 1>'hV\ To ~ CD"',,j J ~~. F~J a ~ ~ L.,~ ~6n+"~ " n"..,b-, rl ~ to tLNo,17J€~/'r>'~L'~~411u~~ -:-:-J ,'~ -i."f"' ~ ~ ~ r AJv ~~~ -/; ~ . . -1.- T. ~ Re?O~I~J' 'T/v ~p 'UOltJ.j:, ~~ 1 JJo 3~ 12 leJ..J lU=~ ! 4L't ~ ,~- It; PUQ h t L-'1. , ~~ l4-nfldJ (UJ) aRt1Jv (;),bM fr, wLJ " f u .~ ~~ ,~JP iIMIw ". "';'V I.F ' IS? (I) ~~~~J, ~~ ~ 4v~'~, tJ cr,lRfW< U) J uror~ .~:~I-l ?VJ 'J.OI<"J. ~~ W W ~ : le?..O~;"J(J ~. + 11 f~ II' J.. ' \~) 1J,. 1m1 .tl>r' f';-.y~ ~ ~ff""'4 k Uf>~.wJJ ~~'af'U ~ +l y.~ Cc/L4rJJ,.J 1,...(IJ~f1.r~^'(rI '-9nJlh-;t \. L ~ ,(;vj!kf)lZ~ ~fIlI,,,nN r-vr-J fd4 :J W /~.. ~I \~,>\.o~ ' )v7.J(}!W a~ U< f ftl/) ca-rJ,' t ~ -+kt tk, io:h." lM~+-fJ.1v"'VA~ q?) ~:rv ~,~~ 14'0) 1 Lp+, 7 -I l/ ~k ~ JtJ J -t.jJ (l~~ . in I hr--n~ l/'r'j).. . ~ b) '7- J, IO~ "r','Wo1M' fu, /jt i/ ~W 'I! ~.j,J v~J-~ J(? , ~f.l4 6<!/to ,J, .,,,.f. J Q .v-7;11 0""'" 1..4- 1-, , '/ . /4-' ~ piU i..:Ji!.I'w< (/.. j). iw/~//lWW ~ ~,:rt.tr1,jlll (~",l",~, ~ r'il> ~ fA C /,,+, r'~ -cg. rr.j~l oJ ~~-Jk, NJ~ /.vf"~1 &l.~~ Lit /~ <. ,~/ ~ ~/;(r'fJ Lfl'}<. A ill !fit J.. ~ ,X-J.. {9:J()o ~'M~ 9;l~. __ ~D~~~J"r'+; Jplf'" , lC) ']:h '" " P. ~~ l,-{ I,~-t.l(( " {~ "'l.fU/!glJel/.I}'~' 51~H u'rl~ 1,; tlr. t'" ,M g.",.:/U ~ tL ~,J - Dl th;, ~L 1 +~ -1M> . (d) :tJ. I-..V~ IA ~ ~ J,p V'1 l~ ~IL" f i-J.... ra.r~' -y [, l"s.,-,::.,J;;~rk~ {r~" j<""C<I'J."f'~ ~{.c~ ~ I - - - -- - ~ .. ~ - ,.,., ~l- f (1.) J~1.~t*o.~ kk~~' "JJ~~iJ.~ {' "i'" ,t t!,. ~ ~ ~ 2,1JIo-tl,P.'" J-, a"'; ~~ fl4<r{ ~(JJe4~ftyl'VJ ~_ ~ tL.. ~.~. .(). AVt~{,(.,~it~ t~v.;j. '~AMA.",~{J1) t4tr'~..~ ~J ~ + eMut.;l. 7lt., wN/.~ 0'6T" ~ ( tkif ~r~ y.',.J- 1 ;w M VN iO.-vJ.,) . r~ \ 1k io .IM> C<fT}-~ evJvw 1 ~ ~ i" tk r'~ f8i(P ,1/", ~,q.. , r I. J ;t~ f1~h ~J tkiL ~J 11'1' ~l j-Jt!;fJ~ ,,/1 ~ ~~~ "ff€1-Q/f); '~ ~r-~ J..:f v t r r) /'17''') AIr W UiU fL",.., ~ -{~ ~).(,-, -I,. .;.<.tr1AT(~.TflTwJu.' ~ '+'Vv ~".'UJ' ~~4P~1''j-tl1i.;?5~?:,{j,,,}[. /_,-11 v , . 16',;k~ 1<1 A f'4""~ fA ~t ~ (J 'l~~'~ (.J! , -I ~ , 1,_ / '1 / ~ ~~-L...; "4 L i~ ~ W f). ..J.r1.tlv m" I .J, tw' 1., ,J j",,:u' ' i1 (J..A'f'- ^ f ~ff2" f. 1ft ~+ 7 hvlI11T1.:d,i.~,..J t, lz, ''1 '^ p 'tf' ,~ '~ .0. 1.~ 1,,"\Iv o / ~"VV- '::v J\i~'" '~f'~; It- ~ .. -;,Jc. .0..."'2 i ~ rfJ.{ I -l.J.. ~~" it ....+ ~ 1<. 61,,1.. I tJ,'tIv. At1~ . (' ....... r - lj- 11.. C~vJ ~~'. o.,~')-q 11l ~~ ~(Jt..0) ~ ~ t. lit~,\w.v ,)IT,L' 1.[ fv.J r ~, '1t p~ Of ~ +J" ~L ~ I19Arl;",~~s T'VJit ,,~tluw~tprDp.~ 11",,/~ - ~4 ~~.J: ~,~\1 }. 7.t'~~~1~~1-tl.J. ~~hJ'r~'p;~ sri I ~ f>'~J~J 'i !~~ HjN) t)., ~~ ,I.u h-/r ~ ~~ ~ j.t,-t~ sJ.A,,+tJ. ?. , 'kl, ~J, ~ ~J by-L~ ~ bV'~ O~tJ'J~ f)r~ t 1,( .,4~ ~ lA, JJ, -f~ /"173 ~~ ~ 1[.< uVrlMi p~ , ~bJ~~\~~ J', ~~..~tt~~A~~tLi~Jv~lMli~ ~'J~~ <"tho, { tt11 ~~ ~ -JJ.. 414), ~ ' 'J. ~JJil. ~Jt AlUJ~pJ JT,I.T'j ~j I,.~ -ItJt.Ju-,~ ~~~~~. fleto(MI'.J1-r'I", 1i f4~ off~ f,j? it, ~ ~ ~ c.-7y (o.,'cII i ~~ { 4~t ~7 ~,~ s-id'-'l/." ~ wJ1. ~ Gft'f~~ ' . , 1 AJ M- ~.ctv'~r . -{ 1~ P~",I>') ~_~ J.~~ k I~ ~} tl. ~ . './- ,; J 0 L.,.j. 1'Lr.I~' } ~ v .,,; IflohA,n, ~ ,~~ ) L 1 ,-I ~H'+< J I I .J. ' , , 1j<-'V .''1. r. J,{""l':; VIl'Yltj),~ L.t~ J H~" .-I' I .,H, , ,,' ..} .., .1+'1_ _ I 5 e,dH e),'"1-, , I'''~ I U" I 11/ "t. '1I,T- ~ .f/'-:f>o?:ft~!, ~~J..~!1 '\ I rif -- --- -- - - ~ ft vt,j.- (, ~ /JvJ.. ']11 1)AJv..t /f" Ti. ~ 4ft/WlY1 D 11w ~ tlv M wrr~ ~ ~ "1wJ b 1). rrJ " ' 61 elC4fr VwJ.- ') -# ..'. ~i( }v'" __ 1 \O'/!b / -r~ . ,,;! 1...,t Jl\l\.jllb~ -. ~ 1:.03 rLf:'~"1f'hJ "I.<-:tu .11.-<-:1\ ,J- '" ~.rw- stARt I ,y,M) IUt.,IJj,.~ f'Mv~~J.~,~ . ,.J '/>/--J" .J '~" I ;<4fl~~ l ''v- wJ>>.';J w~~u/ ~-t (.jiJ J nil' "IV;' 111 .... iJ f'~v/;~ ..t< ~fW- bl ,..jI l;t:~ I I' 'l)Yl vJv rJ " -rl,-t i ";Or" ~ "Ii...l f' \!\vf ~ furL ~ iA. biJ I , ,j J L..T r~ "I v t ~ J fNr ff t17~) )(VV;/'t' ~J) PH' {I('fJ/ ~ Cl.., ~ I'" j' 'J.. r ( J~ ~ I/J~~~_ "'I.. S 1 ^ (J.t -'<< "1'f'4'> ~ J., p.,t;.JI'j 0, 6#<.k. f"'f' <i; . '-{;J . ("I J.. .... '1I-iJ ,..J ..kr~ 1<....( ~LJ<, .~ f fu1VK ...... r. ~.J..<J Mt\i ' 5 X . /Jt..(4..V. {..~ J~ ~ ~~~t~.~~, 'J, ~.t, ~.J~'rU'..JJ ~t~').$""Y/I)AJ dttv. ;ll,J F"dl, :....d:t.. 1!. hv. vud..r; I Det~ 'V. ,v,,,k. 4.u~'~ k ,~'.,ik. M 1t, 6.;1 h-tJJ to If'~''J 1. f'" Jk,.k-, -tL.u ,ot1, 'C\IU.'VlIo , ;<:'....~, ,I.. w. a.... o"I.'~.9t ' NK: QOI A.pqn Nq.ldqntl.1 OMP Sub.i..ion OATH: June II, 1986 ~==~======~~===~================================================ r have reviewed the Residential GMP Submission for 601 Aspen and have the following comments: Fire Protection 1) The proposed widened to 40 ft. at. both curbs. fire department access at. Dean Street should be to provide a minimum fire lane with cars parked 2) The cul-de-sac at. the Garmisch St. terminat.ion must have a minimum radius of 50 ft. to allow fire department turnaround. 3) Access is not. provided to within 150 ft. of all exterior walls, so the building must be fully fire sprinklered, with an approved standpipe system to accommodate fire fighting operations. 4) The placement. of fire hydrants appears to be too close to the building. A hydrant should be no closer to a building than 40 ft. to remain effective. 5) The site is in a low hazard wildfire area. Building Code 1) Units designed for and accessible to the physically handicapped must be provided in conformance with state regulations. 2) The energy program is, without a doubt, state of the art technology but seems extremely ambitious. Automated night shading devices should not be given consideration. Their practicality and durability is questionable on a project of this nature. 3) The efficient fireplaces shall be safety tested, listed approved gas fireplace units. Gas logs are not acceptable. JW/ar _.__..._--._-_._..~ ~ I 'n~.' k:~>~~~ '-.......~:...;..;.c.~_ ~ CO.....IrI'......%.b.fi!_a.D..I1.1....J...CilD-f:. orono... ~ft _I tint nAPD da-wctr t i..... i.. n..... s.u.~~t:. And old_Julin StrpP-t:. 1natlll1 An ...ioht: l81 tn~h ft.-w~r ltna in the nrono!':u~d new Dea.n .st:r~et a1 fenme"t and reDl ace the cl AV RPwpr tin... in the allP.y or Block 61. The Sanitation Di~trict ManaQer statp-d these improvements would improve the quality of ~ervice in the ar~a and that th ere is adeq ua te tr ea tment capa hil i ty . c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop- ment wi thout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Appl icant is committi ng to install dryw ell s and reten- tion on the site to retain site runoff. Curb and gutter along t)ortions of th~ property will also be installed t;ying into existinq catch basi n. The En9ineering Department stated that these measures would help the drainaae of the neighborhood. d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department or the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropri- ate distr ict without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: Proximity to the fire station. provl.sl.on of two new fire hydrants and upgradi no of two existing hydrants \'/ill provide for adequate fire protect.i.QIL.. Fire hydrant locations must be changed to give effective .s.ervice. The new Dean Street is proposed to serve as a fire access: hcwever. th~ Fire Harshall stated twenty-five (25) feet is not adeqm'te......QD....th~ private. 1!1ll1 ti-purPOse road and forty (40) width would hI' l;lOre .ilPP.Lo.J?riate. 'l'he proposed .G.ilrm;sch Street cul-de- sac must be 50 feet il1.......t:adius to meet turn radius requirements for fire en9ines~ e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual inpact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: ._..L_ COMMENTS: 152 narking spaces will be provided under9round and 20 spaces will be located on the surface near the entry to the project /1 w~ ~~ ~Ut7PlF~ 420 E, HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5532 . March 28,1986 Mr. Mark Danielson Danielson Development Group 0155 Lone pine Road A-7 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mark: Once again I have reviewed the plans for the proposed 601 South Aspen St. project. At this point in time I see no problems with regards to access for the fire department. Your plans show two new fire hydrants, one on Juan & Garmish and one on Dean & Aspen Street. These new fire hydrants would satisfy the fire departments requirements for this project. We would also recommend that you replace the two existing obsolete fire hydrants located on South Aspen Street (hydrant is 720 & 721). If you have any questions regarding this matter feel free to contact me. , :l ,- , /) ,_j/(~ 14~",~,"j ,)" . I' .'..:. _/, C/ ' -, Peter \.irth Fire Chief AVFD j '- X CITX;0,~~,~:;A~PEN 130 southglllena,street ~ aspen', colorado' 81611 ,D,'~~& 1M, 303-925-2020 11 ! A'.... ~m/' v~~cj MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1986 TO: city council city Manager Planning Director FROM: City Attorney RE: 601 Aspen Project Attached is a letter from Doug Allen offering to stipulate that no appeal of the Cantrup matter will be filed if council agrees that "the number of units presently available in the mUlti-family allocation system will not be removed from the available units and will be available to be considered for allocation along with the units for 1986. Please provide me with your reaction to Doug's letter as quickly as convenient, inasmuch as a willingness on the part of the Council to retain the contested units for allocation may avoid the filing of a lawsuit. PJT/mc Attachment - ...... .. !~ 11(' ",.I'? "'-f'iF ....~ " , !>>~9 ~ ~d~ ~g4=88~, .J'J(J rf>ad~J~ srMdsr~ ~. ~ d'/O'// (~tJ~) .9'?S-&f'tJtJ August 9, 1986 PAUL TAD DUNE City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 601 Aspen Dear Paul: This letter is written at your request to confirm our previous discussions concerning the challenge to City Council pursuant to Section 24-l1.4(f), of the scoring of the above project by Planning & Zoning Commission. Our discussions have related to a non-judicial negotiated compromise and settlement of the Applicant's problem with the handling of the challenge by City Council and its results. In accordance with our discussions, the Applicant will stipulate that no appeal will be filed by anyone on behalf of the Applicant of Planning & Zoning's decision and City Council's decision relative to the challenge with the understanding that the number of units presently available in the mul ti-family allocation system will not be removed from the available units and will be available to be considered for allocation along with the units for 1986. Merely having this assurance addresses all of the Applicant's remaining concerns relative to the scoring system as we will be able to again submit a revised project in December of 1986. In the meantime, we will diligently work with the Planning Office to address concerns that have been expressed by the Planning Office and Planning & Zoning Commission in the previous scoring. Would you please confirm by return letter your acceptance of this stipulation in compromise and settlement of this controversy. ~it.... / (~tJ~) .9.?S-.9~.9d' MEMORANDUM FRml: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Steve Burstein, Planning Office TO: RE: 601 Aspen Project Conceptual Review/Rezoning (Continued Public Hearing) July 2, 1986 DATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant has requested tabling of this item. The planning Office and City Attorney recommend that we comply with the Applicant's request for tabling. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends that this item be tabled to a date uncertain. The Applicant will be required to supply the appropriate materials for the renoticing of this case when it is ready to return to P&Z for its review. " .... ,~,' '-d'" -sIre MEK>RANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THID: If? . -:z--- ----- Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager r~ FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Developnent Director tv( RE: 601 Aspen Appeal July 28, 1986 nATE: ================================================================= SUMMARY: "'he Planning Office recommends that the rity Council alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street project by the Planning Commission by the addition of 5.78 mints in the Employee Housinq Category. This action would raise the average score for the project to 30.67 points. still below the 'threshold of 31.8 points. The Planning Office therefore further recommends that the Council finds the 601 Aspen Street proj ect to be ineligible for an allotment, due to not having met the compe- titive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There have been no prior Council actions on this application. BACKGROUND: On June 17. 1986, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored the 601 Aspen Street Growth Management Plan application. As is summarized on the attached tally sheet, the six members present at the meeting awarded the project a score of 29.7 Doi nt s, which is below the 11 8 mint minimum competitive threshold. According to Section 24-11.4(f) of the Code, appeals of the scoring must be submitted within 14 days of the date of P&ZIS hearing. The attached letter prepared by Doug Allen on behalf of the applicant was submitted in accordance with' this provision. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Code provides that City Council shall consider challenges to P&Z IS scoring, "I imi ted to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Commi ssion in its scoring". The Code further states that following its hearing of the challenge Council has the authority to change the number of points awarded by the Commission to the appl icant. The applicant I s letter asks you to rescore seven of the 14 criteria upon which this project was scored. The applicant bases his arguments on the contention that the Planning Commission had a preconceived or prejudiced idea of the proiect or its proponent, Hans Cantrup. Were this true, it would be logical to conclude that the Commission did, in fact, abuse its discretion. However, .,-' _, .-.0_, ...... . .'~' -c., '{':;~'. ."'__";' -~-..-",\ .,'jIl"~ . r;-~ ;: :'~-~'7<~:;~~f/~ _ ~ .~ -"_ - _ . ~,>Z ...:,:,~~~~:- -~,.,.,. -<..",.;,...."'.',';;...?,,'. ~.._-:i;:~ rr;. ~~ ___..;.,.:..~;.;.~..,,' :~--~"~~?::-.-,. - 7."";.,,.,~ _ - .~,t'p}?t~~~.: _,;".c;.;?4'_~_ ,,; ~-/" .~:~~~*~t~ .~ ,. " .....' . in reviewing the scores awarded by the Commission, and the testimony from the pUblic hearing, staff does not believe that the appl icant I s contention has been proven. In considering whether the Commission abused its discretion (we can ignore the question of violation of due process since the applicant makes no claims in this regard) we need to first define what const i t ut e s th e di scr etion gr anted to P&Z by the Co uncil throuqh the zoning regulations. By the clear language of the Code and by precedent of nearly a decade of GMP reviews, the Council has delegated to the P&Z responsibility for scoring GMP applications. It is the P&Z which reviews the applicant I s oriqinal submission in its entirety. conducts site visits when necessary, holds lengthy public hearings and considers all pertinent facts and representations. Unlike conceptual subdivision and PUD, where Council repeats the in-depth investigations of P&Z, in GMP Council does no more than grant allotments and hear challenges- and never gets involved in point-by-point scoring review. The heart of the applicant's case is a p:>int-by-p:>int evaluation of the scorinq done by the commission. The applicant contends that the planning Commission abused its discretion by awarding the "wrong" scores to the project. As should be obvious to anyone who participates in land use reviews, rarely is there such a thing as a "right" or "wrong" score. If scores were based on mathematical calculations. we could simply feed the data into a computer and emerge with the correct answer. However, you have specifically qranted to P&Z the authority to consider the facts presented to it by the applicant, staff. and the public and to make decisions as to the most reasonable score. We believe that there is no question that the P&Z did exactlY this, and that their scoring is therefore beyond reproach. An example of how P&Z might abuse its discretion is easy to imagine. Looking at the tally sheets, if 5 of 1\ P&Z members had scored the proiect similarly, but one member's scores exhibited signif icant aberration below the norm, causing a low average score, then it might be said that the individual had abused his or her di scretion. However, in the case at hand, all of the scores which the applicant questions show mutual support among the members' scores. If five members of the Commission feel that the proiect rates a "0. in terms of neighborhood compatibility and the applicant disagrees, is one side right and one side, wrong, or do we merely have a reasonable difference of opinion ~ based on the facts at hand? Can the Commission possibly have abused its discretion through prejUdice when for so many criteria ~ (water, sewer, drainage, housing, transportation and proximity to } commercial facilities) all, or virtually all members gave the ~ project exactly the score the applicant requests and staff recommended, while also for energy and trails the staff and Commission were in agreement? ... '..Ii ,;,,,..,, It "-:~ .. 2 _;."";-Ji~~"',,..~ "',0.-' .-'-::f;~;~-,;~}.f~~; , '~ ,:'" /. ,- :" ,~.,., " -' " -' ".-.. ". -' " . --'-"-"-"'.~~a?f. -- r-t - :~';~';~'~:'~:'i:~~~sl;1l~',.'.;~ 1 . .~ 2 . \ , 3 !'i . 1 4. ~1 f ;.~\ \' ! , ) : o d d e s e 9 t Y Ie n e ,a :0 Ie f ,d /,..... ,-.. "-' For us to acceFt a challenge based on the premise of the applicant being "right" and the commission "wrong" would thoroughly destroy the integrity of the entire GMP process. It would mean that P&z has no discretion to listen to the advice of staff and the input of the public, but merely should hear about the issue from the applicant and score the project accordingly. This is Obviously not the intent of having the Planning Commission sit as a public body to hear land use applications. Further. if Council sets the precedent of reviewing each score given by each Commission member, you will be placed in the position of re-scorinq every application about which there is controversy, which is counter to the idea of deleqation of scorinq to P&Z. In only one appeal issue can we support the contentions of the applicant. The GMP regulations provide an unambiguous formula on which employee housing is to be scored. The planning Commission has no discretion in this area, and yet one member developed his own interpretation of this provision and scored the project accordingly. For the integrity of the nrocess we recommend that Council increase this one score from 7.22 points to 13 pOints, althouqh this sinqle action has no effect on the overall project outcome. ALTERNATIVES: There are a variety of alternatives available to Council including the f 011 owing: Certify the P&Z scoring as it has been forwarded to you. Alter the P&Z scoring in the area of employee housing. . Alter the P&Z scoring in some or all of the other cateqories in which the applicant has requestpd relief (this will require a new hearing so staff can present you with its recommended scores). Remand the proj ect to P&Z for rescoring. The Planning Office's recommendation is to follow alternative 2. As we have discussed above, while the applicant certainly has the riqht to request relief in the other scorinq areas. we do not believe it is appropriate for Council to re-hear the detailed scoring issues. If Council feels, however, that is should reconsider each of the P&Z' s scores, it should schedul e a hearing at which time both staff and the applicant can present the proj ect to Council, and the public can be heard. or it should simply send the project back to P&Z for a second hearing of the scor i ng issue s. , .~ 3 "~;~~'56~~::- ...~",,:..;:' ."......{.'...". ' .~-. '-.~~: 0'- ,'. -, .~.",~~ .;;....., ::;It~', "'~l~~(~l'"",:i;",-,;. ., ,>,f;',;.;?..,-~-:a~~,~..>~: '. _.', _.',. '. oj'''.", '''_'.,,.,,..~~~.:,l ~,~;~t:: . .',;o;.~' ;]1 .,~ . r ~ .., f"''''''' - RECOMMENDED MOTION: ~i "Move to alter the number of points awarded to the 601 Aspen Street project in the employee housing category by the addition of 5.78 JX)ints to the score of 7.22 p:)ints-" "Move to find the 601 Aspen Street project to be ineligible for an allotment. due to not having met the competitive threshold, and consider it to be finally denied." ~ '~\ f.) !! AR .711 i ~ ~ ,I . 4 _i f "~J~~~~R:.::- ~:.,{:f't:"';j;:,\'!ti:E.:'. "',' . ,'-," . """""''''''~~'''.'''''''''' ;.' -~;",,;;.%i'" ',-- ,.-.. ,;..-..,......,-.' .~----~~f~~:'l~',', ...' .;:'~ :"1;~-;;:i;~:'-.,,' !>>~9 ~ ~td~ ~.9~~~. ,,(It) ~tZJC~./t-d. !Fu.d!Fk.,. ~1!W. ~ cf/O'// (3tl3) .P.!.f:d'd'tltl July 1, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 D ~;~,o:~~ ---- Re: 601 Aspen Project Dear Steve: Enclosed is the Code required challenge to the Planning and Zoning Commission scoring of the above project. Due to the size and complexity of this project and the many complex issues involved, on behalf of the applicant, I request a study session with City Council regarding the entire project prior to the public hearing before Council for appeal of the scoring. y, ~'It' / (3tl3) .P..!.f:.P3.Pd' .",' July 1, 1986 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 601 Aspen Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Scoring To Whom It May Concern: This letter is filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 24- 11.4( f) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Notice is hereby given that the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Commission is challenged by the Applicant because of abuse of discretion by the Commission in its scoring. When the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in its scoring capaci ty as it did in this case, scoring pursuant to the Zoning Code, it is performing a quasi-judicial function. In so performing this function it must make its decision based upon a rational and fair review of the facts and data presented to it, not on a preconceived or prejudiced idea of the project or of the proponent for the project, Hans B. Cantrup. The facts in this case clearly support a score far in excess of that given the Applicant by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The professional staff of the Planning Office scored the project 35 points. The Applicant's summation of the scoring at the public hearing yields a total of 42 points. The Planning and Zoning Commission scored the proj ect with 29.7 points. The minimum threshold is 31.8 points. Enclosed as Exhibit "A" to this communication is a chart showing the respective scoring of the Applicant, the Planning Office, the Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the individual members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. You will note from a careful review of Exhibit "A" the wide disparity in scoring, even in the objective areas as well as the subjective areas of scoring. Six members of the Commission scored the project. The cumulative total of points from all scorers to meet the threshold needs to be 190.8 (6 x 31.8). The total Commission scores were 178.22 or 11.58 points short of meeting the threshold. The discussion below will detail point by point the abuse of discretion in the scoring which resul ted in failure to meet the threshold and clearly show the correct scoring absent abuse of discretion. I will deal with the scoring in reverse order from that set forth in the Code as it more clearly points out the abuse of discretion by the Commission. EMPLOYEE HOUSING is strictly a mathematical calculation based upon the number of GMP units for which the Applicant has applied (92) -,"', mul tiplied by the Employee Housing commitment to construct or convert housing or to provide cash in lieu in accordance with the City Code. For reasons unknown to the Applicant, one Commissioner was extremely prejudiced in this area as well as others and chose to score the project as having "270+" units when the application is clearly for 92 GMP studio units plus reconstruction of 20 existing units. This is the most blatant example of prejudice in the scoring but other prejudice will also be discussed below. Thus there must be a cumulative total increase in employee housing of 5.78 points. Quality of Design. While quality of design is more subjective, the required considerations in the Code, the scoring criteria and the facts of the situation absolutely preclude scores given by some Commission members from being anything but abuse of discretion. The si te is largely zoned L-2 at the present time with the permitted and expected uses in such zone to be those compatible with the lodge zone and as permitted by the lodge zone. I quote from the stated intention of the L-2 Zone: "To encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist oriented single-family, duplex and multi-family units." In this zone permitted uses are "lodge units; boardinghouses; hotel; dining room, laundry and recreation facilities for guests only; mul ti-family residences; single-family and duplex residences". Clearly the intention of the Code is to encourage and promote development such as this on this type of site and on this particular site. The proposed project in terms of size, height and location is actually a less intensive use than the South Point, Lift One, and Timberidge, and similar to that of the Skier's Chalet and HOlland House which are to the south and east of the project. Also on the east is the site for the proposed Ski Museum and Aspen Ski Club building. The property to the south is already multi-family development including the Mine Dump Apartments and Shadow Mountain which are proposed to be reconstructed and moved down the hill in the 601 Aspen project. The land adjacent on the west side of the project is presently developed with a single- family house owned by Mary Barbee, although with its present zoning (and in accordance with her letter to the Planning Office) represents development potential of approximately 20 single-family homes. Mrs. Barbee's stated intention is to market the land for such development or more intense development if the land is rezoned to L-2. Taking the scoring criteria into account the conclusion is inescapable that those Commission members who scored the project zero in this category abused their discretion. The proposal is clearly an excellent design as to neighborhood compatibility but at the very least is an acceptable but standard design taking into account the zone for which it is proposed, the existing surrounding development and the proposed development for adjacent areas. The Applicant does not concede a major design flaw, but even if we did and thus scored the -2- , project one in the neighborhood compatibility category there would be a cumulative total increase of five points. Si te Design. The Planning Office scored the project one in this area criticizing the placement of buildings adjacent to Garmisch street which "will denegrate the rustic single-family and open space quali ty of the Shadow Mountain hillside area". As we have seen above, the adjacent Shadow Mountain hillside area is also eligible for development even conceding no rezoning for this area. Thus this area will not forever remain "open space". 601 Aspen is proposed for a platted area of town which has been zoned to allow such development thus meeting the considerations of quality and character of the landscaping and open space area in conformity to that which might be expected with such permitted development. All utilities are underground. Ei ther a cursory or intensive review of the arrangement of the improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy can only lead to the conclusion that this project meets such criteria. Thus the project does conform to the Code criteria for site design and should be scored at least two. Again, conceding that this is a subjective area, perhaps the project could be scored one as the Planning Office scoring suggests. Scoring this project one in the Site Design category yields a total cumulative increase of 3.5 points. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES in the scoring system is almost as objective as Proximity and Employee Housing. Specific criteria which are easily ver~fied are set out for the scoring in this category. Water service and sewer service were correctly scored. Storm Drainage. The criteria in this category are the consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. These criteria were met 100% by the Applicant proposing to install drywells and retention to retain site runoff plus curb and gutter along portions of the property which would tie into an existing catch basin. These additional improvements in and of themselves improve the quality of service in the area. This was also further confirmed by the Engineering Department letter verifying these facts. Thus there is no choice but to award this area two points. As two members gave the project a score of one in this category the cumulative total score should be increased by two points. Fire Protection. The criteria here when properly applied lead to the inescapable conclusion that the project must be awarded two points. The Depagter family, owners of the Holland House, were opposed to this project and their son-in-law, John Simmons, appeared, giving the impression he was speaking for the Fire Department and raised some fire protection concerns. It was later discovered that not only did Mr. Simmons not have authority to speak for the Fire Department, but that his statements did not correctly state the position of the Fire Department or the facts of the case. You now have the letter of June 24, 1986 from the Fire Chief correcting and clarifying this mis- statement (copy attached as Exhibit "B") and setting forth the ability -3- #....". of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to the existing station. This coupled with the commitment for new fire hydrants leads to the inescapable fact that the quality of service is improved in the area. Thus, applying the Code criteria the project must be scored two points. This increases the cumulative total scores by nine points. Parking Design. The criteria in this catergory relate to (l) adequacy of numbers and, (2) design of the spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. The Planning Office's only cri ticisms were as to the 30 spaces required in connection with the Ski Company agreement and the amount of paving. That being the case, this is truly a Catch-22 situation. To provide surface parking would have required more paved area visible to the public than is required by underground parking or to leave the area unpaved with difficult access in the winter and dust in the summer. This would truly be a poor plan. The Applicant chose to improve on this with an underground garage. The Planning pOlicy of the City of Aspen has long been to eliminate the visual effects of parking as much as possible by providing underground parking. This has not been implemented to any great extent due to the high cost involved. The Applicant in this case has not only improved the situation by providing an excess number of parking spaces but provided virtually all of them in an underground parking facility thus not only minimizing the visual impact but increasing convenience and safety by providing a warm, dry and protected area for winter parking. It is a fact of life in Aspen that 30 marked-off parking spaces on the surface during the winter with snow accumulation taken into consideration does not allow for the convenient parking of 30 cars while a garage facility does so as well as allowing a safe and convenient place for skiers to remove and replace ski equipment before and after skiing. The underground skier parking would be signed to easily direct the skier to the facility. Relative to the question of paved area, the new proposed Dean Street is, of course not only paved, and snowmelt, but paved in a first class manner. In addition, the entrance to the garage is similarly paved not only providing a snowmel t access to the garage but also providing area which could be utilized for transit purposes should the new Dean street access donated by the developer be incorporated into such a transit system. Again using the required criteria, the service improvement by the Applicant benefits more than the project only and does benefit the area in general. If it only benefited the project and not the area in general it would be entitled to one point but the project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area by vastly improving the ski company parking and thus must receive two points. Correcting this score results in a cumulative total gain of 6.5 points. Roads. All of the facts presented lead to the inescapable conclusion, even if the Engineering Department's estimate of trips is accepted rather than that of the Applicant that the project may be -4- r"..... "'< .'/ handled by existing level of service in the area. Not only that but the project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the area by recreating Dean street where none has existed for many years (see Exhibit "c" attached). This creates an east-west connector with the existing Dean street to the east and also creates a very logical loop at a low enough level to be suitable for either bus or trolley connections should they ever be utilized for mass transit in the area. The Engineering Department's comment on this is, "However, in this case the applicant is creating a new street that could be used more appropriately as the connection between Garmisch and Aspen Streets. " This, with the upgrade of Garmisch Street can only improve the quality of service in the area mandating a score of two in accordance with Code requirements. Thus the cumulative total score in the roads category should be increased by 10 points. In summation, the project, absence abuse of discretion, is clearly enti tIed to an overall increase of 41.78 points which would resul t in a new score of 36.66 points, well exceeding the threshold required for GMP approval. The Applicant fully realizes the necessity for the many hurdles to be cleared after an appropriate scoring of the project is achieved. There has been considerable controversy in the past relative to this Applicant. All of these have been reviewed in great detail by the Applicant, the engineering and design team and legal counsel. We can unequivocally state that the problems that have been experienced in the past will not be problems in the future. We all realize that the problems of the past undoubtedly prejudiced the scoring system and only ask that this application be scored fairly and be given an opportunity to contribute to the betterment of the lodging community. Also appended to this application are the P & Z scoring results for Aspen Mountain Lodge, Lyle Reeder's Lodge at Aspen, Little Nell Base Area Redevelopment, and Sunny Park. All of these were scored as lodges except Sunny Park, but with similar scoring criteria to multi- family. A careful review of these scorings coupled with the facts shown above must clearly lead to the conclusion that this Applicant was the subj ect of abuse of discretion in the scoring process on June 17, 1986. -5- " --.,--~.,-_.__." , CITY OF ASPEN RESIDEN(;AL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET Project: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project P&Z VOTING MEMBERS Planning P&Z Applicant Office Mary Jasmine Roger Welton Al David Avg. l. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 d. Fire Protection 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 e. Parking Design 2 1 1 0 1 .5 2 0 f. Roads 2 1 0 0 .5 0 1 .5 Subtotal 12 9 8 7 7.5 5.5 10 5.5 7.25 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Compatibility b. Site Design 2 1 1 0 0 .5 1 0 c. Energy 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Trails 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 e. Green Space 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Subtotal 12 8 5 5 5 4.5 8 5 5.42 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Transportation b. Community Comml 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Facilities Subtotal 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4. Employee Housing a. Low Income 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 7.22 b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income Subtotal 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 7.22 12.04 5. Bonus Points 0 0 TOTAL POINTS 42 35 31 30 30.5 28 36 22.72 29.7 EXHIBIT "A" ._.~..~.__.._-- - ......--.-,..- 0/","';" (~/ ( ~~ r@(~~~!PJf~ 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 (3031 926-6632 June 24, 1986 U'rn@mn\Ylm~ :-. J.lN 2 5 936 " \ 1:1 1\ li'l Mr. Alan Richman Planning & Development Aspen/Pitkin Office 130 South Galena Street Re: P&Z meeting on 601 South Aspen. Director Dea r Al an: This letter Is to serve as a correction to a statement made by one of my firefighters at the June 17th. P&Z meeting re- garding the 601 South Aspen Project. Jack Simmons the fire- man who spoke against the project was not authorl2ed or qualified to speak on behalf of the fire department. Jack Simmons was representing the Holland House Lodge not the fire department. The fire department voiced Its opinion on the project In a letter to Mark Danielson of Danielson Develop- ment Group on March 28, 1986. The fire department did not, nor do we anticipate any access or fire flow problems to the 601 South Aspen Project. I apologize for any problems that my fireman may have caused by voicing his personal feelings and not the opinion of the fire department. cf7Jr yours It ~UKi eter Wirth ~ Chief AVFD cc: Doug Allen EKhibit "B" JI.1ne 17, 1986 1( GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 212 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULnNG /ENGINEERS' sUIlvnoll. Mr. Steve Burstein, City Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, O>lorado 81611 RE: 601 Aspen Project D~~::~~ Dear Steve: On behalf of the City of Aspen, ~ ~re asked to offer moments for the Aspen IDdge Area Special Inprovement District regarding the 601 Aspen Project. '.l1le following items are of interest to the district: A - We suwort the vacation of JI.1an Street. B - We suwort the upgrade of Garmisch Street with cul-de-sac to the Barbee Ii::luse. '.l1le IIpplicant needs to consider same parking as shown in the district plan. C - '.l1le Applicant needs to ensure iltprovements on the right-of-way of Aspen Street follow district plans. 'Ibis is particularly inp>rt- ant with regards to parking. D - '!here is a need for a ooblic pedestrian right-of-way on Dean Street between Aspen and Garmisch. The right-of-way should be a mininun of 20 feet. 'Ibe design the IIpplicant has subnitted is generally what the district desires. We want to ensure concur- ranee of the IIpplicants plans with Lift One and Timber Ridge Condominiums. Final plans should be integrated into district design concepts. E - '!he district requires a drainage easement a mininun of 20 feet through the property for a + 72w pipe for stonn waters from Aspen M::>untain. '.l1le easement CDUTd follow the Nordic Trail easement, if that easement is also secured by the IIpplicant through the Barbee property. Our need is to get from Aspen Street to Garmisch Street. Sincerely, ~.~. Project Manager Rl':lcj5726 xc: Mr. Jay Hanm:ind, City Eng1aeer -=t. S. :J:. u.;l\!:lt$W1J J. INC. l' J. t:. -+u~ a. <00 l doUJ~ I z ZO OH U .. .. n "2 Ih ~~: I~~ "H o "" , ~~ ~ .. " U'-" ..~-o . ."', 5~ 0 z ti l ! ; ..-1 ~ ~ ~ t: : gj ':l e.. '.. .. '4 Q 8 .&J .. va ''j 13 0 (f) ~~..!t.!. .., u .. 0 .... .. 0 ..L.= H '0 en lit Ql U U en (I) -\~ . > en.. e!" opt H ct! foe t1 - '2. = .. t: ~ a~ .. ~:s .~ "~ .. "1 i!i H j ..' ~ I ;: 0.... ~ '" .0 .:: ~.. " ..' 0 0 :;)0 '" ~ G ':l g ~ 2 .s G U ~ u,'..5:l' " ~.. .. ~ c: ~ Q,,~ ~ -.4: ): H s:; .... ~ ~ ...:a ~, G G ll.~ 10 .... t<l" 10 '" ,,; ~ 10 Ii! ..: 8 Ii 10 "~ " s=- :3 .2~~~ ~ ~ ~c;:'Ci ~ It = ::';I<g~:':g-;1~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ t t ';J , tot.a $~ ~ B ~ ~: ~ g: .",'- 1:I:::J!i ? ;, en 1-1 .....0 "UllI _ H 0 ....fa..... 0 ......... \ " ...:a V)tnC... 0 It C!,.tJl 0:: tJl........ _ ...... WI ' ~ I&l H .......120 III fat ~ ~ -= Po ~ ~ g' = tV t'~.... ~ ~ l;! GG""" 0 ""i"" .. "......" ~ .....&1 j H '"' U) 0 ... " u ,&J ...., fIJ. U c:: U 90.0 0 d. CJ ~~:;:;:i ~:.!~;:;: t: :!~E.I "I~' 'I' .. ~~ 1-1 H e ~ .. H 10 :;l i:i ill ~ fj ~ ~ ...au';. g ...au.oG ~.. AU ti.j.a I I&l > ' . ~ ::. ' . . 0\, At Po .... N ',. . . " ' . ,p'-' -' I I ~ ~I ~31 ~ ' , , ~11 i~' ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I 0 I 21 ~I~i ~ ~I ~ ~I i ;1 ,,/ ~I . , II "H+H ~i' +I+H ~I ~H11~ I~ ~ /. ~ I 0 I ~ I ~ ,,' ........".... ~ ++0 ~ ~ + 4~ ~ ~ : 0 : ~I "1+1+1"1 +rrH ~I ~I+I =1, ,~I ~~I i :/0/':/ gl "prrH ~I ~~~~H ~I ~I+I =/ I ~ ~ I } ~ I ~ I ~ I II "~~~H~I +~~H ~I~I~~I=I,., ~ I ~ ~ I ~ : I ~ I : I .. J' d I . ~I~] II , H H~111 1~H+1 ~I ~I "H~I~1"1 +I+I~I ~I '.' of" '" ..; ',':. . i" " a. , , . . . " ~ '~ .. . """ " . ;.' 'c. .:r , I ~~N~~~ ~~~:~~ j~~"~ '~.:~o'~, "j ~\. IIIIJ J 1J...d, II ~N' ~II~I ..I ::;;". ~I ../ ...1 ! ~ I.. I ~ I ill l1111'i 1,.;lii~1 ..;....;=,~.:~,~~t~ ~ '~I ~i~~i + ii..I..\..\ ~I '~~I..\ ~I ~I ~ ~I ~,~ 10 I ~ I ~~ II 111111 41+H ~I +H ~I ~I ~ ~I, ~ 10 I, ~ I , U I 111111 ..M+ ~ +~ ~~ ~ = I ' 0" ~~ ~1111+1 i +~~H '~I +H ~I,/.~ ~~I~'~ 10 I ~ I III sl iHj3li ,~~~~I.I"~~I.I)~ ~ ~ ,I : .1.1 .1 . !f II +H..H ~I "p~~H ~I ' +H ~ltSt;1 ~=I f a 101 a I '" ' , #3',...' .; '.....'" ,,""";, ",~ .c ...:.- , ,:t ,!,ll ."", r ' =....i g .,; S,' I :s ~ $ ~; .,t! :' , . . .. /) 13 "',', ',' ~ " " " . ',.L Cl 8 ~:';:J,' -" . "" l' '? Ii ~ ' ~ '8 5.: i', it1l' ~ " ; ~ ~ ~ . w ~ ~ G ~ ..~,~ ~ ~ ~ .. " !;; g, c~ ".il:;j ~.. '2.", '!l ft'" 2 2 c::( Ul', ~ I ol~:l ~.. ~ .:: ~u,~,,; II ' ll' c' ~ .!l.e ~ 2, .ll~ ~'.i',(,,::;cil ~ ~ -\-::- <<"oS ...t";j""'~Cl"~ra.~,.!t,.og,~ t J: . A' Ul B B il'.. !!l.... u " .. . ...... " . ,.g;:.... Ii! l:: l:: '-l... ~ ........ c. u U)::C'" C ItI '0 a W Q .. .... 11I:I U), ora 11I:I C ~ tt~3 H S~8C5. ~ ~:~s ~ :~;: ~ 1Q:l cXcX~e ~ .~.! tJ'H ti! tI'~I&o'" ~fi>t~~ ~ , I [1 .......AI. 1&0 ~ t;~o;;: AI ~~lf: ,U";Oili ',' e; << ". Ioi . '0 o.a " ....w. ::s W ""........... i "'I.Q " 1&0 ""'>>0.... u""'...... ~ .u~u 2 ]. u :U':.l! ~ ~lila:~ ~ UiS.l! ' . 0 n, ' ~ :;j ::t H . r&. ~ fi ~ ~ .iA ci.u Ii g.iA u.a. I Ili .Q u' ~ iliA ~ ~:, . . AI ~..; . rot ,.; ..; . '" : ~. ., . \~: . ~ . . ' .. ,.. , ',.,.,';""","',"i',;",';' ;:- /-:. "-, ..;.~ i .'"."< :'~ '~:"r: . : _, r ~.(,_',_:.~:~:.~. ~1 ',,- " !," ; j ~ ~ ' ,~ ,~~ 1 t , ~ . ".,,'1 ., ~~~~~ ~ 11~11 L 1119 11;9Jj 9 ;~ t ',:.", ~ I 1111i 1 ~~11~ ~~' ~~ ~, 11J~ ~ 1 ~ I -I 111111 11j11 ~ 111 ~ .. 11l~1 ~ . . Ii' .; 11111 { 41j11 ~ 111 ~ 11 ~ ~, ~ ,>'.1 JiB -I 11111 ~ +~ LH1J ~H~ U ~"""'~ ill -; 11111 1. 11111 ~ 111 ~ 11 ~ ~ , ~ .... /. .;~ 3 ~ .. ~ 2 t CQ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" o "'... " ft S ~,;.. U IP _'. tI) or4 I' II ... ... s::; ... I;: 6.;g~ g ~ ~ 2 11 7 II 11 '.. il .. 0 .:;l ':l . .. S & '11... ' .. 2 pot ~ ~ .. ~ S'ra .. P4 . ~ ~ ~ i~ij ~ 9 i ~~ ~ m i~ ~ i i ~ ... a"u, ~ a w .ila ~ ill" ~ 0 0 ~ ij"8.~ ~ ~ <..0 ~ ~ o. ~ ~ 0; '@i .:.. 0; III ..::~:: 0; 0 :11 0; :l S :l to! ;:::Q'tt:;" ~~:: fj ~t .J:! t o iI.3.t~1 !.Ii ~(J"Stf . ~ 7t= 14 14 .. ~.."... R I.... I 18 2 , l:l <"'''.01>, I:l ~...... '" :l t\': l'l ~ Ii! 8 .i.ci'C;;";': '~"..Q 0 8..0 .\ i.. :,j. i > < ti ... & '" ~ &! 13 .!!!u ... tt... !'I l:l .. ~1l .., ;:3 COUlQ,t I U tte.: ",111 Iii HJl~l! 12 Co) ar.ocoi:li ili S ~ g ~ ~ ..ao..;. ~ 2..: f', " , N . .. . . .. t , . ',',,' .;'/,t ,,:; , ,,"~ " '/! ,c. ....~ " . '-~ .~ ,~ , - .,. '! P. . '~A, " ~1 , .:;:.,',1 .. , , . - -,..., ~ crrr (P ASPI!R RESIDllNrIlIL GlOIl'B MANlGEJU'm HoAR stIlMISSIal POIRrS IlUoOCIlrIal - TllILY SHEBr Project: ~ Partt'-l985 RE!sidMt.htl Prai-+ (3/18186) P&Z VOI'DG -- Al...--. tIiu:1! JiDL JAallti~ ~ Welton -.... DirlJ.a lNer"Ql" 1. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Service -1_ ...L: ...L: --1.._ 1 1 -1- b. Sewer Service --L- ...L: ...L: 1 1 1 -1- c."' storm "Drainage' -L.. ' ...L. .:..L. ' 2 2 2 -L. d. Fire Protectioo -2- ...L: , ...L: _1....-- 1 1 -1- e. Parking Design -1-- ...L: -L 1 1 1 -L..S f. " Roads -L.. ...L. ...L. 2 2 2 -1- tIiUm'Ol'lIL -L -L .JL 9 8 ..i._ -- ~ 8.2 - 2. Quality of DeSign a. Neighborhood -L -L ...L. 3 2.5 3 ----L- Canp:stibility b. Site Design -L ..3- ..3- 3 3 3 ----L- - _.Alti"...~, ~-L -L ...L. 2 2 2 ---L ~- - .~ -L ..3- ...L. 3 2.5 '3 ---L --1 ~ e. Green Space -L ...L. ..3- 3 2 3 .J..5 ~UllI:orllL ...lL U-. 12- 14 ...u _ 14 -- ...l2...S 12.7 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Public -L ..3- ..3- 3 3 3 -L Transportation b. Camlmity <;arm1 -2- .:..L. .:..L. 2 2 ~- ---L. Facilities SOBrOrl\L -L- -S.- -S.- 5 5 5 ........5- 5 4. Employee Housing a. Low Incane .JJL. 1.IL 1.IL 10 10 10 ...llL b. Moderate Incane c. Middle Income -- tliUmuH. ...llL llL llL 10 10 10 ...llL 10 ~l\L 1-4' ...JL H- JL. 37 ~- 37 ...3.L. ..JU_ S. Bonus Points -L- .JL .JL 0 2 0 -.lL -1-_ 'f(]l'1.[, POIHrS ...!L- 3L- JL. 37 37 37 ...3.L. 37.1 ""'" '-' ::) Mr. Paul Taddune Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 18, 1986 RE: 601 So. Aspen Development Dear Paul, It is my understanding that an aspect of consideration regarding development proposals is appropriateness of land use in regard to title and restrictions which may exist. July, 1978, Block 6, Eames Addition was sold to Frank Woods. That parcel of property is contained within the current development proposal of 601. A covenant was a provision of that sale and is recorded as such in the Pitkin County records. That covenant provided: "CERTAIN USE RESTRICTIONS: From and after the closing and for a period which shall end upon the sale or transfer by David E. and Mary K. Barbee of their residence situated near the REAL PROPERTY, upon David and John Barbee written consent or upon the death of the last to die of John or David or Mary Barbee, no building or structure of any kind whatsoever shall be constructed, erected or installed above grade on Lots 12,13,and 14 of the REAL PROPERTY, no buildings or structure 0 any kind whatsoever shall be constructed, erected or installed on Lots 1,2,and3 of the REAL PROPERTY exceeding sixteen feet in height above the grade of Juan Street or the same height as measured by using the plane created by such height. " The 601 proposal as currently presented ignores the covenant. I also understand that at the time the property was transferred from Frank Woods to Hans Cantrup no property transfer tax was paid in that they were successful in proving that Woods has acted as an agent for Cantrup in the purchase. It would follow thereby that all recorded information would be equally transferred and applicable. It is my proposition that consideration of 601 development proposal may be inappropriate at this time as the current design violates thi covenant provision. a Box 788 Aspen, Colorado 81612 b e 1fIjfJ/ cc: Steve Burnstein, P&Z Hallie Rugheimer John Barbee " ",,-.>.- ~~9. ~ ~td~ ~9~!J8t+. ,f',y(J ~ud ~./~ YWdYk... ~. ~ rf/o// (3tJ3) .9?S-&l'tJtJ July 8, 1986 ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 rr [g@rn OWl[g~ ~ 711 .AI. ~8" i. :/ Re: 601 Aspen Project Conceptual Review/Rezoning (Continued Public Hearing) To Whom It May Concern: I am in receipt of the Planning Office memo of July 2, 1986 regarding the tabling of the above item to a date uncertain. Due to the fact that it is continued to a date uncertain it is probably necessary to re-notice the case. If it is appropriate we would like to have the case continued to a date certain, say August 26, 1986 or September 2 or 9, 1986. This would avoid the necessity of re-noticing over 100 different individuals. eM"YO a;(L DOUgl~ Allen DPA/pkm cc: Steve Burstein Karen McLaughlin Hans B. Cantrup ~ ".. / (3tJ3) .9?S-.93.9d' ,.-....-,. !>>~9 ~ ~d..L%- ~9~~~, .5Jtl ~ud ~,ftNd; srM-dsr~ ~. ~ d'/o// (,fC,f) .9.?5-d'dW ~rn@rnDWrn ~~ .Jl.-8- v.... July 8, 1986 Mr. steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 601 Aspen Dear Steve: I talked to Mayor Sterling today concerning a work session of City Council prior to the public hearing in connection with the appeal of the scoring process before the Planning & Zoning Commission. He advised me that he is willing to schedule 45 minutes at one of the regular work sessions in order that the applicant may fully explain the entire project so that Council Members may have a comprehensive overview and idea of the scope of the project. Mayor Sterling asked that I schedule such work session through Alan Richman, but I thought it was more appropriate to direct the letter to you in order that you may arrange it with Alan as you are the person most directly involved in the Planning Office with this project. ~llY, ,~~~ Allen DPA/pkm cc: Hans B. Cantrup t\D \ J C ~.' '\.... , '~V 0 "'-\ L '"'- ; \~4!n I '-.. J \, .1 _It_._ i',,- __-, \. "'!( 0'" ~ ( r:, , -J..... .j ...-." ~\ "-... ,t f'y;oL -- ..~ .-L{, ....('. /h-2. ~ ,..,~ / (JCJ) .P.?5-.PJ.9d' ,<"-,. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen planning and Zoning Commission FROH: Steve Burstein. Planning Office RE: 601 Aspen Project Conceptual Revie\ol/Rezoning (Continued Public Hearing) DATE: July 2, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant has requested tabling of this item. The Planning Office and City Attorney recommend that we comply with the Applicant's request for tabling. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends that this item be tabled to a date uncertain. The Applicant \'Till be required to supply the appropriate materials for the renoticing of this case when it is rearij to return to P&Z for its review. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen planning and Zoning Commission FRO/I: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 601 Aspen Project Conceptual Review/Rezoning (Continued Public Hearing) RE: DI'.TE: July 2, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant has requested tabling of this item. The Planning Office and City Attorney recommend that we comply with _the Applicant's request for tabling. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends that this item be tabled to a date uncertain. The Applicant Hill be required to supply the appropriate materials for the renoticing of this case when it is ready to return to P&Z for its rev i ew . ~ " .... w~~~~{OJF~ 420 E, HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 13031 925-5532 June 24, 1986 IT rn@rn D\Ylrnij JUN 2 5 1986 I,: :11 I;" Mr. Alan Richman Planning & Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Office 130 South Galena Street Re: P&Z meeting on 601 South Aspen. Dear Alan: This letter is to serve as a correction to a statement made by one of my firefighters at the June 17th. P&Z meeting re- garding the 601 South Aspen Project. Jack Simmons the fire- man who spoke against the project was not authorized or qualified to speak on behalf of the fire department. Jack Simmons was representing the Holland House Lodge not the fire department. The fire department voiced its opinion on the project in a letter to Mark Danielson of Danielson Develop- ment Group on March 28, 1986. The fire department did not, nor do we anticipate any access or fire flow problems to the 601 South Aspen Project. I apologize for any problems that my fireman may have caused by voicing his personal feelings and not the opinion of the fire department. rmyours '-t/:~/-~ki t57 Chief AVFD cc: Doug Allen ~ / '. RE: DATE: " ~~\ ~ 0 p 0 W7 f~-i~;il 'llJi~~ ~I I'll ') lilt JUN I 61986 :/ tdU1 J Aspen Planning and Zoning commission Members David Ellis, President Timber Ridge Condominium Association 601 Aspen GMP and Rezoning Application June 13, 1986 ~ MEMO TO: FROM: The Timber Ridge Condominium Association objects to the proposed rezoning and allocation of a GMP quota for the 601 Aspen project for numerous reasons including increase in allowable density, traffic and parking considerations and violation of bulk and area requirements. The following discusslonTs arranged in the same order as the applicant's submission covering rezoning, street vacation, GMP scoring and summary remarks. REZONING REQUES'l' 1. Contrary to the applicant's assertion that all land abutting the proposed rezoning is L2, land to the south and west of the subject tract is currently zoned R15L-PUD. 2. Contrary to the applicant's claim that on-street parking capacity will be increased, on-street parking capacity will actually be decreased on Juan, Dean and Garmisch Streets as discussed later. 3. The project will not improve traffic or road safety since the proposed cul-de-sac fails to account for fut\:re development on the Barbee Parcel abuttir;g Garmisch on the west. 4. The proposed development cannot possibly improve upon the existing quality of vegetation or open space since the site plan proposes to cover 60% of the rezcned property .,i th structure. 5. The rezoning will not, contr'ibute to relieving congestion in the area as the rezoning to L2 represents an increase in density of 28 studios versus that allowable under the current zoning. This will not disburse traffic or population better than the current zoning. JUAN STREET VACATION 1. 100% of both sides of the street are not in the applicant's I ownership as claimed. / f3.( { ~",l,,? ,y{.d blA...t':1h( .{ ^ ;'1 f.," . -1- 1 _ r-"l ~_ (/ I:) ; - ) li~"- , 7 r ! 'Lq, ,..,k"..J +\JM, .""'-- .......;, ,", 2. The creation of a cul-de-sac on Garmisch will not be in the best interest of the neighborhood as future development occurs on property west of Garmisch. ! \ 3. 4. The cul-de-sac as shown is ,~~--OIL..tn", B",rhee_,_E.~ert~. Existing Juan Street services the Barbee Residence as well as the Timber i-idge Condominiums and, although signed for no parking, is consistently used during peak ski pericds for on street parking. 5. Contrary to the applicant's claim that the vacation will allow "superior land use planning" the open space and setbacks from Lift One Condominium and Timber Ridge Condominium are exactly the same as shown in the December 1, 1985 Submission when no street vacation was requested. 6. Snow removal operations for the city will be adversely impacted as it is always more difficult to plow dead end streets than loop streets. In reality, it will be quicker and more efficient to plow the full length of existing Juan Street than the shorter cul-de-sac. GROWTH MANAGE~lENT PLAN SCORING 1. Storm Drainage: The applicant states that he is clearly improving the general area by installing curb/gutter on both sides of Aspen Street between Dean and Durant. The referenced secticn of Espen StLeet is already fUlly improved with curb and gutter. No points should be awarded based on this representaticn. 2. Fire Protection: The closure of Juan Street will not improve the quality of fire protecticn for the existing neighborhood as f1Jtllre dpvp]opment occurs west of Garmisch Street. --~'----~-_.,,~-"----~--~- ------- 3. Parkin.)!: 1) The current parking plan indicates a reduction of 12 , spaces from the 184 spaces shown in the original ~-~ Ih 1\1"r' December 1, 1985 Submission. This is in violation of '" ~,. ,d",.. the Growth Management Plan Regulations as well as the el'f11iV . j conditions for resubmission stated' in Alan Richman's If)..,";"" ,~.i, - ~1arch 17, 1986 letter to Doug Allen. 2) The underground parking garage as shown on the Entrance Section in the Appendix is clearly on property belonging to Lift One Condominiums. -2- ~4) "'("-'1 '~J ", 'J <, ,.-,' .~ 3) The applicant claims that excess parking is being provided, however, no parking is identified for conference or dining space. There is a significant loss of on-street parking capacity in the neighborhood resulting from: It'! , , :to '7 a) The closure of Juan Street, T,,,,)if.L;(' b) The changes in usage of Dean Street and, c) Potential loss of parking on ~if all proposed improvements are completed. None of the 172 potential parking spaces addresses any of these losses for the adjoining neighbors or tbe general public. 5) The proposed parking plan for the Timber Ridge Condominiums on Dean Street as shown on the Entry Level Plan and the Parking Design in the Appendix will eliminate all landscape improvements in front of the Timber Ridge and utilizes Lift One Ilroperty for parking and vehicular access. The latter bas not been approved by Lift One. 4. Roads: 1) It is hard to imagine that the project will not substantially alter existing traffic patterns when the primary access for 112 units becomes the Garmisch and Dean loop. In addition, it is proposed that Gc;rmisch Street become the exclusive ingress and egress for service and delivery vehicles. Garmisch Street south of Durant is presently a relatively low volume street and Aspen Street is the n.ajor access street in the area. 2) The traffic generation figures make no allowance whatsoever for service and delivery vehicles and buses. 'L/i~',;-~I~ 10 3) II The Garmisch Street right-of-way is only 41 feet compared to 75 feet for most city streets. The street is extremely restricted in the winter due to parking and snow accumulation. To create a fully improved street section (curb, gutter, sidewalks, one parking lane and two traffic lanes) as proposed by applicant will mean paving from property line to property line with no space for snow storage or landscaping. It seems inappropriate to award points for this type of design. It also seems appropriate to have applicant demonstrate how these improvements can reasonably be accomplished. -3- ,,'"' A"...... ... 4) From the site plans presented at this stage, it is not apparent that large trucks can access the service area from Garmisch Street. Any approval should be conditioned upon providing access by full size tractor trailer combinations. 5) ~, ~ OVV" 0" ";;,,,J '\ dP I "5111.~J ;/" ',' /5. ~~,~J:, f( i'.~.~ ).-, ),' The applicant states that while Dean Street will be privately maintained, it will be open to the public. Is this with a public easement or what are the conditions? Neighborhood Compatibility: The applicant claims to have provided maximum open space between existing and proposed structures, but the 5 foot setbacks along Aspen Street and the west property line violate the minimum 10 foot front and rear setbacks specified in the L2 zone. To be more ,,"i:.i~ compatibl,; with the surrounding R15 zoning the density . ,,' should sh~ft toward Aspen Street rather than toward Garmlsch Street. The high pressure sodium exterior ..l.~tiIllJ.. as proposed in the energy conservation letter is nor-compatible with the neighborhood. 6. Site Design: As mentioned elsewhere, we find many problems with the proposed cul-de-sac, bike path location, and circulation plan. 7. Trails: The applicant claims to be providing a pedestrian walkway along the north side of the private Dean Street alignment; however, the Development Site Hap, the Project Elevation, and Project Section in the Appendix clearly show the bike path and landscape buffer located in the existing Dean Street right-of-way and on Lift One Condominium property. The proposed plan does not demonstrate how these improven,ents will be incorporated on appl icant' s property together ",ith the 25 foot private roadway. Under fire protection, the representation is made that the street will be 31 feet wide to allow for a 6 foot wide path. The mi!,imum~...$tandar<LLo.x_Cl bike path is 8 feet of paving ,^'itf;'an additional 2 to 4 feet for shoulders. 8. Floor Area Calculations: The floor area calculations on page 34 show alY-of the ground floor and public entry level as being below grade and excluded from the FAR calculation. This space represents ~,..the..totaL-fl,Q9r area eXCluding parking. Section 24-3.7 (e)3 of the Mllnlc~pal Code states that subgrade areas meeting natural light, ventilation, and emergency exit requirements will be counted in FAR calculations. It is hard to believe that none of -4- 9. C\\.i . ; - f{_:"s :.:..j- > ... .. these public areas will meet these requirements. Where are the conference area, meeting space, lounge, dining and recreation areas accounted for? In the L2 zone, covered trash areas are also included in the FAR calculation. From the information submitted it certainly appears that the project exceeds the allowable 1:1 FAR. Densi!X: The applicant has made much retoric over the fact that these are deluxe studios. A quick glance at the Typical Unit Plan indicates that they are much more than a studio. It is inconceivable that a studio requires two full baths. The convenient placement of the entry door and divider partition evokes memories of past manipulations with the door game fOllowing approval of the project. While shown as studios, they are at best one bedroom units, and at worst, an efficiency studio plus a lodge room. The allowable density for studios is 112 versus 90 one bedroom ,', '--'units. A more reasonable peak occupancy population would be at least 2.5 people per studio. The applicant obviously anticipates occupancy greater than 1.25 people per unit or ,', ,why would two baths be included. At 800 square feet, the units are twice the size of an average lodge room and larger than many one bedroom units in town. 10. Allowa!!le Us!'",: Dining facilities "for guests only" are a permitted use in the L2 zone only in conjuction with lodge ,"" units, bearding houses and hotels. The applicant is applying for mUlti-family not lodge or hotel. Secondly, the applicant is very vague as to the nature and scope of the dining facilities. We know of no lodge or hotel dining facilities that are 100% restricted to guest usage only. A public restaurant is a cQDd.i.t.ional use in the L2 Zone and requires conditional us~ approval ~}~rcn has not been requested. 11. Multiple Year 1.11ocation: The applicant has requested that the 92 necessary-unitS-be allocated from prior year unused quotas or from the '85,'86, and '87 quotas. It is suggested that it would be inappropriate and unwise to award unused quotas from prior years in that there is a surplus of condominium units in virtually all price ranges within the City of Aspen at the present time. There seems to be no beneficial gain from this action. To award the requested allotment from future year quotas does not seem warranted based upon the many questionable aspects of the project. Future year allocations are even more questionable when viewed in light of the complex, and probably very lengthy, litigation involving the property ownerShip as a result of the Robert's foreclosure. By tying up future year -5- -". ". allocations with an uncertain project, it is unfair to others who may apply. Finally, there is ample precedence that the applicant has not proceeded with previously approved projects within the time frame required by the GMP Regulations. If an allocation is made, it should be conditioned upon the applicant curing title to the property no later than December 1, 1986 to allow the planning office to certify the real number of mul ti-family unit.s available for the next GMP compet.ition. SUHMARY The applicant has made many references to "first class resort hotel operation" and to the high standards of major hotel operators such as the Broadmoor' Management Group. However, he has ducked the issue of a first class resort hotel by applying for a GNP allocation in the mUlti-family residental category. The concept of "first class hotel units in an apartment configurat.ion" is tot.ally contradictory. First class hotels do not have kitchenet.tes in all units. If the applicant truly intended to provide a first class hotel operation, he would in fact have applied for a hotel - a permitted use in the L2 zone. This together with other defects and an~iguities of the application, and the obvious implications of tbe two bath studio floor plan war-rants denial of the rezoning and the Gl1P quota. Once again, the con@unity is being led to believe it is going to receive great benefits from a "hotel" when in reality the proposed will ultin:ately cost the public and the City many hours of agony and many taxpayers' dollars. We ask that you deny this project before it goes any farther. -6- '"r To: Planning and Zoning Committee From: Mary K. Barbee et al~^^ Re: Cantrup 601 Aspen develoJ(l:n\ 'p oposal June, 1986 L" " il\i ;1',-j~l; , i O~[g ~ ~ I ~ II II iI99) '\1 , I ! ,-, : ~ Primarily my objection to the project lies within three areas of concern. 1. Closure and abdication of two public streets 2. Density and change of density proposed 3. Surrounding property considerations This document will quote from the proposal and offer summary consideration remarks. .....'" c (- RESPONSES TO SUMMARY REMARKS DEFENDING THE PROPOSAL PAGE 11 (1.) Although the land to the north and south of lots 7-12 of Block 11 ~Iere zoned L-2, that is not the case with lots 3-6 of Block 11. The property South and West of those lots is R-15. The statement: "It a~rears the when the zone districts were created that in this particular situation the land was zoned by ownership rather than as a part of a comprehensive plan. . " is inaccurate. The ownership of lots 3-6 was held by Mrs. Pechnick at that time and lots 7-12 by still other owners. The inference that the ownership was held by the Barbees who were zoned R 15 is in error. There is no validity to this defence statement for change in the zoning. Page 11 (2.) To suggest that adding 92 units will result in less traffic or congestion to an area is to deny that people will occupy the dwellings of the site. Currently there is parking on lots 7-12 during the winter months as well' as street parking on Aspen street for skiiers during the day. These street sites will certainly be target for lodge dwellers as the building exists. Even with off street parking underground, one only has to observe the parking habits of Timberidge occupants to see that the provided parking to the North of their building is seldom used because parking on the street etc. to the South is handier. It is my contention that whenever you put additional people into a,n area, there is no guarantee they will use the designated parking, but will use handy parking. It is logical to assume that skiier parking on Aspen street will be further dimenished. I do not deny the larger tax base . . . nor should one deny the larger expenditure from additional people. Page 11 (3.) Increased vegetation would be difficult to accomplish on areas that have retained their natural vegetation. Aspen street is already paved as necessary and does not offer severe.particu1ate matter"in the air. Certainly increased people in the area will though. I have lived on Juan Street and Garmisch Street for nearly forty years now and can attest to the fact that the quality of life is not dimenished by the.particu1ate matter"of those streets in the air. Page 11 (6.) "Intelligent.." traffic and visitor 10a,d throughout the lodge area will not necessarily be promoted by this additional density. To the contrary, the congestion o~ Aspen street will be enhanced. r.. ......-, ( c PAGE 14 "As per recommendations from the Water Department, isolation valves shall be installed at each end of Juan Street, with the 6" Juan Street water line being a private access to the project and maintained by the project." Currently, the water service to the Barbee house and all adjacent property is via the Juan Street water line. This proposal e1eminates water access to the Barbee property by making this a "private" line. No provision for current users is suggested, nor any provision when interruption of service would be experienced. PAGE 16 Once again, the proposal denies the Barbee home/property the sewer line. There have not been excessive root intrusions and frequent servicing as cited on page 16. Inference that it is inadequate to the needs is false. No provision is made for the adjacent Barbee property and no provision for interruption during construction. PAGE 17 Dry wells are questionable in light of the underground erosion issues recently so evident on Aspen mountain and elsewhere throughout the state. * "Garmisch Street leading into Durant Street to be improved and widened How is the street to be widened? " PAGE 17 "The private realignment of Dean Street connecting Aspen Street and Garmisch Street will improve the quality of fire protection service in the surrounding neighborhood by providing better access to the property at a lower elevation." How does the developer propose to guarantee access in this private street? Would this "private" street not be subject to closure of they so chose on their "private" property? How will clearance be insured? Parking could well make access impossible in that emergency period of fire. If "providing better access" is an important issue, then certainly we are reaffirmed in the non closure of Juan Street, for it provides "better access" to the Barbee property. PAGE 19 Parking provisions are inadequate in the very important area of a loading area. We all experience the difficulty with such planning not being a part of development in the past when we travel the streets of this area and the various trucks are parked in the street while doing their unloading. Consideration of this aspect would seem very important and provision for at least two large size trucks should be off street and maintained only for this purpose. PAGE 20 "servi ce area will be screened from nei ghbori ng property vi ew .. " How is this to be accomplished in light of the service area directly across the street from the Barbee home? PAGE 20, "The project thus is providing a total of 30 spaces over and above the legal requirement of 142." This is not cause for credit in that these spaces are the result of their agreement with the ski corporation in order to acquire property and has no bearing on special consideration. (see pg. 3 for referrence) * Surface retention and two dry Hells as cited on the Storm Drainage plan are not even on the developers property, but are cited on the Barbee property. ........ e=, c PAGE 26 Too bad a seventy year old cottonwood will be sacrificed. PAGE 28 Is it my imagination or is the 45,000 Open space consisting of 15,000 which is a pool and a tennis court? Certainly considering Juan Street as Open" space is nothing gained because it already is open space. MAPS AND PLANS: The Barbee house is always pictured as further from the proposed buildings than is truth. It is also important to acknowledge that the proposed project owns NONE of the green space to the West of the project, yet the project is "cheavily built in this area seemingly taking advantage of open space that is not theirs. . . and will most surely be utilized by development of the Barbee property. SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS . . . . What happens to the parking Timberidge currently uses on Dean Street? There seems to be some contradiction in the illustrations sometimes depicting green space. . . sometimes parking. An unplatted portion of Eames addition bisects the property adjacent to Lot 13, Block 11. This property is not owned by I1BC Investments. It is owned by Barbees. It appears to be calculated by the proposal in their square footage. LETTER FROM PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES the Iiloiler stack." Where is this fuel will be utilized? "A heat exchanger shall be installed on stack, of what configuration is it and what SUMI~ARY REMARKS ". . .due to the creation of an outstanding project design.. " " . . .the high quality resort ambiance of this project, including attractive architecture and site design, meet the needs and exceeds the standards of the" ~ Aspen community." " .. uses provided in a first class resort hotel operation." "This multi-family development provides first class hotel units in an apartment configuration for. ." "Special emphasis will be given to meet the high standards of major hotel operators. . ." These are the claims of the developer. Certainly these are the coloring remarks to persuade acceptance. Their validity however can only be determined by serious consideration of the reputation achieved by an individual submitting the remarks according to the individuals previous achievements. Aspen's reputation is built in the same way as any individual by these precepts. Certainly the rennovation of the Jerome and other buildings have brought Aspen to the level of development that builds for positive resort reputations. These are the issues . . . -, June 12, 1986 Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairperson Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Anderson, I would like this letter to be part of the public input concerning the application of Hans Cantrup proposing rezoning changes, closure of an existing street, possible 8040 Greenline changes, variances in zoning designations. I believe the parcel ID number is #2735-131-13-001 case #048A-85. I would like to go on record as opposing this develope~s application. Our families have been landowners and residents of Aspen for over 30 years and have owned property located on Juan Street with a residence at the corner of Juan and Garmisch Streets. This is a viable city street granting access to the east and especially to the ski hill and lift #1. To even pro- pose a street closure is ludicrous as it shows lack of concern for those property owners to the south and west of the street. Property values in the area of course would be affected so adversely, even the proposal of vacation of the street shows lack of integrity on the part of the applicant. This of course should be denied. I understand this case involves this one applicant tying up the next few year's worth of units alloted by the GMP. I would argue the fairness of this kind of allotment to a single developer. It prejudices the commission infavor of this developed and pre- cludes the availability to a viable developer using the allotment. For us directly, it may preclude the sale of land in the same area in the next few years which could be developed under the GMP. . Aside from concerns directly affecting the land and area property owners, the commission should be aware of the nature of the applicant's financial dealings in the very recent past. I appreciate that the commission is not into assessing the character of any applicant, at the same time it must be brought to their attention that this particular applicant filed a Chapter 11 petition on approximately March 22, 1983. Our family held a valid lien on property controlled by the applicant. This property was involved for over two years with court proceedings resulting in thousands of dollars in attorney fees to us personally. Five hundred creditors besides ourselves, many of them Aspenites, were involved in this lengthy bankruptcy proceeding. M9St of these creditors, it was noted were to receive about 60 cents to the dollar in the end. Foreclosure proceedings in Aspen, in excess of two dozen, were also involved. Quoted from the Denver Post of Friday, March 15, 1985, "There were lots of problems whenthe Chapter 11 petition was filed because of the advanced state of (the applicant's) financial deterioration." The applicant's motivations and financial irresponsibility may not be at issue here, but as the commission rules on zoning changes, street closures, greenline changes and unit allotments, these considerations do impact not only the surrounding residents but the Aspen community at large. It is hoped the commission will not allow changes applied for to be irresponsible further down the road. Track record of the applicant aside, why not let the applicant work within the already established guidelines that the Planning and Zoning Board has diligently worked out for the betterment of all of Aspen? Hoping the commission will wisely deny the application at the hearing slated for June 17, 1986. Would your office please keep me informed as to the outcome of the above hearing and as to future hearings on resubmitted applications. I can be reached by phone: (406) 587-1429. Or write to: Hallie Barbee Rugheimer 1400 Story Mill Rd. Bozeman, Montana 59715 '1Z:;~ :tfJL,;~ SCHMUEA...,GtJ ""Q l' ND AVENUE, SUITE 212 G"trN 000 SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS June 17, 1986 RE: 601 Aspen Project Mr. Steve Burstein, City Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Steve: On behalf of the City of Aspen, we were asked to offer o::l/Il1lents for the Aspen Lodge Area Special Inprovement District regarding the 601 Aspen Project. ibe following items are of interest to the district: A - We support the vacation of Juan Street. B - We support the upgrade of Garmisch Street with cul-de-sac to the Barbee Ibuse. ibe Applicant needs to consider some parking as shown in the district plan. C - The Applicant needs to ensure improvements on the right-of-way of Aspen Street follow district plans. ibis is particularly import- ant with regards to parking. D - There is a need for a mblic pedestrian right-of-way on Dean Street between Aspen and Garmisch. ibe right-of-way should be a minimum of 20 feet. ibe design the Applicant has sul::mitted is generally what the district desires. We want to ensure concur- rance of the Applicants plans with Lift One and Timber Ridge Condominiums. Final plans should be integrated into district design concepts. E - The district requires a drainage easement a minimum of 20 feet through the property for a + 72" pipe for storm waters from Aspen !'buntain. ibe easement couTd follow the Nordic Trail easement, if that easement is also secured by the Applicant through the Barbea property. Our need is to get from Aspen Street to Garmisch Street. Sincerely, ~: INC. Project Manager Rr:lc/5726 xc: Mr. Jay Hamroond, City Engineer ?.s. :c. u.;lER5 tpJJ ~ :pJ "t:- +ut4>('~- Got &w~ I "~ Aspen r9onsolidated Sanitation (j)ist1rict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele, (303) 925-2537 Tele, (303) 925-3601 D rn@ rn D~rn JR\ .13. ' '0 June 9, steve Burnstein Planning Dept. City of Aspen 120 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 RE: 601 Aspen Project Dear Mr. Burnstein, This letter is to re-confirm that Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District can service this proposed project. The applicant will eliminate the old Juan Street clay sewer line and also the existing Dean Avenue sewer line between S. Aspen and S. Garmisch Streets. In their place the applicant will install a new 8" PVC line hetween S. Aspen and S. Garmisch streets along the new Dean Avenue alignment and also in ,addition will extend the sewer line on S. Aspen St. From Juan st. to the new Dean Ave. Alignment. This will definitely be an upgrading of our system in this area. Sincerely l'I e ~ t1-- Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ASPEN.PITKh~ AEG.ONAL BUILDiNG DEPARTMENT D fI-@@ D~[fJ r~' , . iI L ~/3_J~ M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office uW FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer RE: 601 S. Aspen St. Application DATE: June 12, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- On June II, 1986, I made a physical inspection inventory of dwelling units at the "Mine Dump Apartments" on S. Aspen Street. Some units were quite large (house type) and others were just studio units. The final count here was twenty (20) dwelling units. There were also three (3) houses, two on Juan Street and one to the north. Although I did not gain entry, these were obviously dwelling units. Grand Total--twenty-three (23) dwelling units. Bedroom count is available on Mine Dumps if needed. WLD/cg cc: Peggy Seeger, Chief Zoning Official offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 .,., r"' - SOU1HPOINT CONDOMINIUM 205 EAST DURANT, #SP . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 W: Plarming and Zoning Ccmmission FRCM: Southpoint Condominium Association William F. Dunn, President Board of Managers and Officers responding on behalf of the owners Sally Glenn, secretary~ RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project June 1986 The Southpoint Condominium Association objects to the 601 Aspen project as presented. OUr major concerns are described below. 1. REQUEST FOR REZONING A PARCEL FROM R15L(PUD) W L2 would result in a higher density that would be detrimental to the neighborhocd. The increased traffic and congestion from this many units in a multi-farnilyj"first class resort hotel operation" would overwhelm the area. There are serious traffic and congestion problems now during peak holiday periods, World Cup, and on poIrler mcrnings. The City has under review major changes to the Willoughby Park area (between Mcnarch and Aspen on Dean), including buildings which would eliminate mcst of the parking =rently there. The 601 Aspen project would aggravate the congestion caused by the changes for a ski club and ski museum. If the 601 Aspen project allows any or all of its amenities, including the "dining and lounges", to be open to the public, then the problems of congestion and traffic and the adverse impact on the neighborhocd would be increased tremendously. 2. REQUEST 'II) VACATE JUAN AND DEAN STREET'S would negatively impact neighborhocd circulation. An addition of 112 units would seem to demand greater access and circulation, not less. To vacate the streets at this time also ignores the needs of any future develq:rnents in the area. 3. REQUEST FOR ALLCCATION OF GMP UNITS FROM OI'HER YEARS always requires careful eval- uation to protect the intent of the GMP and plarming process. Such future year allocations should be awarded to a developer with a proven track record of completed and in-compliance projects. Is it fair to future applicants to tie up GMP allocations for future years with a project which has problems of confused ownership and tangled legal status? Thank you for your attention. .. - CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION PROJ ECT : 601 ASPEN Date: 6/11/86 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public sy stem, its abili ty to supply water to the dev el opment ~Iithout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrad- ing. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Applicant proposes to pl ace a new waterline in the new !Lean Street from Garmisch to Aspen Street on-site and from Aspen to Monarch Streets along Dean Street off-site. Two new fire ~drants and two ungraded fire hydrants are being proposed. as well as isolation valves at each end of Juan Street. The Water Department stated that there appears to be adequate water to serve this project and the new lines will improve the carrying canacity of the system if stated improvements are made. b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary Seflers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a publ ic sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: 2 .,..." " COMMENTS: The aptllicant proposes to eliminate sewer lines in Dean Street and 01 d Juan Street. install an ei 9h t (8) inch sewer 1 ine in the proposed new Dean street alignment and replace the clay sewer line in the all ~ of Block 61. The Sanitation District Manager stated these improvement s woul d improve the qual i ty of se rv ice in the area and that there is adequate treatment capabil ity. c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop- ment wi thout system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Appl icant is committing to install drywells and reten- tion on the site to retain site runoff. Curb and 9utter alon9 portions of the propert;y will also be installed ty ing into existing catch basin. The En9ineering Department stated that these measures would help the drainage of the neighborhood. d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department or the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropri- ate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: Proximity to the fire station. provl.sl.on of two new fire h.ydrants and uograding of two existing hydrants will provide for adequate fire protection. Fire Qj'drant locations must be changed to give effective service. The new Dean Street is proposed to serve as a fire access: however. the Fire Marshall stated twent;y-five (25) feet is not adequate on this private. multi-purpose road and fort;y (40) width would be more appropriate. The proposed Garmisch Street cul-de- sac must be 50 feet in radius to meet turn radius requirements for fire engines. e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with re spe ct to visual impact, amount of paved surf ace, convenience and safety. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: 152 parkin9 spaces will be provided underground and 20 spaces will be located on the surface near the entry to the project '",- (total 172 spacesl. 112 spaces must be provided for the residential parki ng requirements and 30 spaces are required as part of the ASC Agreement. The Aspen Skiina Company spaces do not appear to fulfill Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan commitments as well as the existing parking lot that would be eliminated. The design and spaces should suff ici ently accommodate proj ect needs. Given the large underground garage. visual impacts of parking have been reduced. Nonetheless. the brick paved entry court constitutes a large continu- ous area near the Lift 1 Condominiums and along Aspen Street. f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide f or the nee ds of the proposed development without substanti ally altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The Engineering Department estimated the project would generate less than 600 one-way tr ips. amounting to a maximum 10 percent increase in traffic on Aspen. Garmisch and Durant Streets. Engineering believes the streets are adequate to handle the increase. The project will impact Aspen Street in particular. which is bURY with winter bus and auto traffic: however. RFTA stated that there would be no resultant service impacts. Applicant's estimate of 60 one-wa~ trips in winter and 108 one wa,y trips in summer seems unrealistic. Closing ,Juan Street as proposed will inconvenience a few drivers and residents. although the new Dean Street will allow for new access if it is not exclusivelv restricted to project use. Dean Street at twenty-five (251 feet is too narrow to accommodate all to its uses. and should be forty (401 feet in width according to the Engineerina Department. The status of the proposed Dean Street as a private road needs to be clarified. SUBTOTAL: 9 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each develop- ment by assigning points according to the following formula: ~,."._r""'^r_' 0 Indicates a totally deficient de ign. 1 Indicates a ma j or design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptabl e (but sta dard) design. 3 Indicates an excell ent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibil ity (maxi um three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibil ty of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and loc ,tion) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: 112.000 s.L of countabl" floor area is proposed on the 113.545 s.L site. very close to tho maximum FAR of 1:1 in the L-2 zone district. Most of the eight { } component buildings ap,pear to reach the t1Ilenty-eight (28) foot hei ht limit. The project has been concentrated in two principle rows ~ ithin the bottom portion of the site. This reduces visual impact fr( I lower in town. but makes for a density in excess of the surrounding) ift 1. Timberidge. Swiss Chalet. Holland House and single-family house. The project intrudes upon the buffer transition area from the mu ti-family/lodge district to the adj acent Shadow 140untain open space This is a major design f1 aw. Shadow s f rom the 601 Aspen proj ect mi 'i effect sol ar access of Lift 1 and Timberline and should be further. tudied. b. Site Design (maximum three [3] pc ints) . Consideration of the quality Lnd character landscaping and open space area, the extent of utilities, and the arrangement 0 improvements circulation and increased safety and privacy. of the propo se d undergrounding of for efficiency of RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The site pl an calls for a significant number of new trees along Aspen Street and in buffer al eas between Dean Street and the Lift 1 and Timberidge projects {some on Lift 1 property it appears}. Open space has been calculated to t, 40 percent of the total site. Much of the space is used for plan ings to buffer the development. Some will be for tennis courts and, seable lawn area. The entrance plaza and Dean Street will give al urban character to the site. Placing buildings adjacent to Garll isch Street will denigrate the rustic sinql e-family and open spac, quality of the Shadow Hountain hillside area. c. Energy (maximum three [3] points Consideration of the use of ins llation, passive solar orienta- tion, solar energy devices, eff. cient fireplaces and heating and COOling devices to maximize cons ,rvation of energy and use of , solar energy sources. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: Roaring Fork Energy Centl r noted that the general energy conservation techniques are very I trong commitments to maximize conservation of energy. However. in most areas. more detail is necessary before an evaluation can be made. Gas fireplaces should be incapable of burning wood. as Environ! ental Heal th stated. It ap,pears that an excellent commitment is made Any change to representations made must be considered through the G; P amendment process. d. Trails (maximum three [3] points Consideration of the provision 0 pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to ex sting parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Nordic Council state 1 the proposed nordic ski trail traversinl) the upper part of the ;ite fits well with the trail corridor along the base of Aspen ~Ioun ain. Walkways would be provided alonq Aspen Street for pedestrian :onvenience. The appl icant has committed to only provide the easeme ts for trails and not for trail construction. e. Green Space (maximum three [3] pints). Consideration of the provision proj ect site itself which is project and offers relief from surrounding developments. f vegetated, open space on the Isable by the residents of the :he density of the building and RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The appl icant commits to provide a large amount of green space on the site. 60.000 s.L or 41.6 percent of total site. some which woul d be useabl e. The area on Garmi sch Street is too small to 'Jive the adjacent residence much re'ief. The entrance plaza design should incorporate more green space. As many of the existing trees, and shrubs on the site as possible sh .uld be retained. SUBTOTAL: 8 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximu [6] points). The Commission shall consider each a lplication with respect to its proximity to publ ic transportation al d community commercial locations and shall rate each development by a signing points according to the following formula: ~~.~,<----~.~~ --""''-'. .. ... ~. a. Public Transportation (maximum thee [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further han six blocks walking distance from an existing city or cou lty bus route. 2 -- Project is located within s x blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus :oute. 3 -- Project is located within t10 blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus :oute. RATING: 3 COMMENTS: Buses run alon9 Durant :treet within two blocks of the proj ect. b. Community Commercial Facilities I naximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make wailable a map depicting the commercial facil ities in town :0 permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from the! ~ areas. 1 -- proj ect is located further :han six blocks walking distance from the commercial faciliti ~s in town. 2 -- Project is located within si K blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in to\l :1. 3 -- Project is located within b::> blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in to\l n. For purposes of this section, ( Ie block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in ; inear distance. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The project is approximate' { three (3) blocks from commer- cial facil ities. SUBTOTAL: 5 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points t each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle inlome housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and oc, upancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of S, ction 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) ::>ercent of the total development that is restricted to low incomE price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; - One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total develop- ment that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be appl ied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed) . RATING: 13 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to provide the Housing Authori~ $4.3 million as cash-in-lieu for the equivalent of 65 percent of the number of persons housed in the project. The calculation is based on provid- in\1 all low income studios for the employee housing obligation. 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: o TOTAL POINTS POINTS IN CATEGORY 1: POINTS IN CATEGORY 2: POINTS IN CATEGORY 3: POINTS IN CATEGORY 4: SUBTOTAL POINTS: BONUS POINTS: TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: SB.14 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office MEMORANDUM ~epn~!7~ ~ n J,,: ,1,-'-'" ,:...-'-'..", '-"'---, " ", .[ I" I'. "I"Cl5 1', ': ...tJI'. - J,:70~ ' \\ I .uL_.__,.""___.....J ' To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: June 4, 1986 Re: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivision/Rezoning =================================================================== After reviewing the above application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Street Vacation The east portion of Dean Avenue was vacated in to dead-end about 80' from Garmisch Street. portion of Dean Avenue is presently being used primarily for the Timberidge Condominiums. The application proposes to create a new alignment of Dean Avenue on the project's property. This "new" Dean Avenue would be a private road and would serve as the access street to the project. The proposes width of "new" Dean Avenue is 25'. 1969, causing it The un-vacated as a parking lot The application is seeking a street vacation for all of Juan Street which is the street directly south of Dean Avenue. Using Dean Avenue as the access to the project would be preferable to Juan Street. The grade of both Garmisch and Aspen streets drastically increases south of Dean. It would minimize the traffic going up the steep section of Aspen Street and would not add congestion to the skier drop-off on Aspen Street. Normally, the Engineering Department would not recommend approval of a street vacation because the City would be relinquishing the entire right-of-way. However, in this case, the applicant is creating a new street that could be used more appropriately as the connection between Garmisch and Aspen streets. Juan Street is 50' wide and 300' long for a total of 15,000 square feet. The "new" Dean Avenue is proposed to be 25' wi de and 330' long for a total of 8,250 square feet. This is not an equitable trade for the City. We feel that this project should allow more area for streets. More street area is needed at the end of Garmisch Street. If Juan Street is vacated, Garmisch will become a dead-end street. There is not sufficient room for a cul-de-sac to allow vehicles to turn around at the end of Garmisch Street. The situation is exacerbated because a portion of Garmisch Street was vacated in 1967 to the Barbee residence. We recommend that a cul-de-sac be , made from a portion of the Lots 12 and 13 of Block 6. Avenue be widened to 40'. west part of Juan Street and parts of We also recommend that the "new" Dean If the City agrees to vacate 15,000 square feet for the Juan Street right-of-way, then the applicant should provide the same amount of area for public street use. Trash The application provides a 12' x 34' area for an enclosed com- pactor. This will adequately house a 6 cubic yard compactor, which is the size recommended by BFI. The problem with the service area design is that a trash truck cannot easily access the compactor because it is located on the side of the truck bay. The design of this area could be improved by locating the compactor behind the trash truck bay. parkina A total of 142 parking spaces will be available to this 112 unit lodge. According to section 24-4.5 (c), 112 parking spaces are required for this project. The application provides another 30 parking spaces that should sufficiently accommodate cabs, limos, buses, deliveries, etc. Lodae Improvement District The applicant should commit to joining the proposed Aspen Lodge Improvement District. Cafl rrV'p. {PO (a~ ASPEN.PITKlhI REGIONAL BUILI:...;\lG iD; ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM T MY ,.- TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforce.ent Officer \ RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivision DATE: May 19, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the updated material with the applicant and my comments are mainly answers to my January 14, 1986, memo. 1. Realizing that at this stage full working drawings that could verify area and bulk requirements, F.A.R., etc. would be pre- mature, the applicant has stated he will stipulate compliance with zoning requirements. 2. Additional information and detail indicates that the 28' height limit will be met. 3. Applicant appears to be meeting the parking requirements. 4. Applicant has stated he is aware that under section 24-2.5 vacated area is excluded from the calculation of allowable density or required open space. 5. Applicant has agreed to allow me to physically verify the 20 existing units prior to the public hearing or at our request. 6. The applicant has satisfied me that he studio units meet the design and definition of studio units. 7. The applicant's open space calculations appear to be substan- tially correct. 8. Applicant has provided me with a stamped certified survey that corresponds to the unstamped one in the application. WLD/cg cc: Peggy Seeger, Chief Zoning Official offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, ColoradoB1611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado B1611 IT,.!'> r:5@[g DWlrn: ~" I, I I' " I JUN-61986 ' I, t, '; 'I II L! ',,,_, ./ MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department j~ Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department~ From: Date: June 4, 1986 Re: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivision/Rezoning ============:====================================================== After reviewing the above application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Street Vacation The east portion of Dean Avenue was vacated in to dead-end about 80' from Garmisch Street. portion of Dean Avenue is presently being used primarily for the Timberidge COndominiums. The application proposes to create a new alignment of Dean Avenue on the project's property. This "new" Dean Avenue would be a private road and would serve as the access street to the project. The proposes width of "new" Dean Avenue is 25'. 1969, causing it The un-vacated as a parking lot The application is seeking a street vacation for all of Juan Street which is the street directly south of Dean Avenue. Using Dean Avenue as the access to the project would be preferable to Juan Street. The grade of both Garmisch and Aspen streets drastically increases south of Dean. It would minimize the traffic going up the steep section of Aspen Street and would not add congestion to the skier drop-off on Aspen Street. Normally, the Engineering Department would not recommend approval of a street vacation because the City would be relinquishing the entire right-of-way. However, in this case, the applicant is creating a new street that could be used more appropriately as the connection between Garmisch and Aspen streets. Juan Street is 50' wide and 300 I long for a total of 15,000 square feet. The "new" Dean Avenue is proposed to be 25' wide and 330' long for a total of 8,250 square feet. This is not an equitable trade for the City. We feel that this project should allow more area for streets. More street area is needed at the end of Garmisch Street. If Juan Street is vacated, Garmisch will become a dead-end street. There is not sufficient room for a cul-de-sac to allow vehicles to turn around at the end of Garmisch Street. The situation is exacerbated because a portion of Garmisch Street was vacated in 1967 to the Barbee residence. We recommend that a cul-de-sac be made from a portion of the west part of Juan Street and parts of Lots 12 and 13 of Block 6. We also recommend that the .new. Dean Avenue be widened to 40'. If the City agrees to vacate 15,000 square feet for the Juan Street right-of-way, then the applicant should provide the same amount of area for public street use. Trash The application provides a 12' x 34' area for an enclosed com- pactor. This will adequately house a 6 cubic yard compactor, which is the size recommended by BFI. The problem with the service area design is that a trash truck cannot easily access the compactor because it is located on the side of the truck bay. The design of this area could be improved by locating the compactor behind the trash truck bay. parkina A total of 142 parking spaces will be available to this 112 unit lodge. According to section 24-4.5 (c), 112 parking spaces are required for this project. The application provides another 30 parking spaces that should sufficiently accommodate cabs, limos, buses, deliveries, etc. Lodae Improvement District The applicant should commit to joining the proposed Aspen Lodge Improvement District. Traffic The traffic generated by this project was analyzed by the Engineer- ing Department and reported in my memorandum of January 17, 1986. It was determined that this project would cause a 10% maximum increase in traffic on Aspen, Garmisch and Durant streets. These streets are adequate to handle the increase. The revised application has deleted all employee units which would lessen the traffic impact. Util i ties The applicant has agreed to underground all utilities which will enhance the appearance of this project. Storm Drainage Installation of drywells will enhance the historic drainage of this property. The proposed curb and gutter along Aspen Street should be tied into the catch basin on Durant Street, this would help the drainage of the neighborhood. . Construction Schedule The applicant must provide us with a complete construction schedule and phasing plan so that we can accommodate barricading, pedestrian traffic, truck traffic, excavation access, material storage, etc. " ,.,.... ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT D /E@&DW&Jm .. , 5 -iYJ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: STEVE BURSTEIN, JIM MARKALUNAS 601 S. ASPEN MAY 15, 1986 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 1,(~ ~----------------------------- We have reviewed the 601 spen residential GMP applicant and we particularly reference page 14 and 15 pertinent to water improvements to be made by the applicant in connection with the development. If the applicant agrees as promised in the applica- tion to make these improvements, the Water Department will be able to service the facilities. These improvements, as stated on pages 14 & 15 will improve the carrying capacity and reliability of the system in this partic- ular neighborhood. We also wish pertaining to time. to remind the applicant of our previous comments fire hydrants and have no further comments at this JM:ab ASPEN.PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Thomas S. Dunlop, Director /,:>)0 Environmental Health Departmen~ TO: DATE: May 9, 1986 RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Conceptual Submission ================================================================== The above-referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns: AIR POLLDTION: Solid Fuel Burnina Devices: The applicant has submitted an amendment to the April 16, 1986 proposal which is dated May 8, 1986. The amendment is a clarification to questions relative to the absence of any mention of fireplaces in the 601 project. Legal counsel for the applicant has indicated only "gas log" fireplaces will be installed in the units with con- ventional fireplaces being installed in the "lobby of each building". The gas appliance has in the past been a recom- mended alternative to solid fuel burning devices by this office. After a more careful review of gas burning devices, the following wording will be offered: This office will respond favorably to the installation of a gas fireplace, incapable of burning wood, which is vented through a four inch diameter class B vent. In reviewing the architectural drawings of a Deluxe Studio Typical Unit Plan, it appears as though a fireplace is shown along one wall. Further, in reviewing the floor area calculations and unit count in Section VI, page 34, no mention is made of a "Deluxe Studio". The exact number of fireplace units is unknown. In conclusion, it appears from the architectural drawings that two buildings will exist when the project is complete. If that is the case, two conventional fireplaces would be allowed in the lobbies. However, if the buildings are joined by a connecting parking structure or other such 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 Page Two 601 Aspen Residential GMP May 9, 1986 connection then the proj ect would be considered to be compr ised of one building. In that case, only one conventional fireplace would be allowed in one lobby. Ordinance 5, Series of 1986 will be the governing document in a final determination of this issue. UNDERGROUND PARKING: The applicant shall document a design for an air handl ing system to be installed in the underground garage. The system shall be designed and installed to exhaust contaminated air (vehicle exhaust) from the parking structure. CONSTRUCTION AIR POLLDTION: Prior to any demolition of existing buildings, the applicant shall certify through a qualified source that there is no asbestos present in those buildings. Inspection, sampl ing and analysis of any suspected asbe stos mate rial s will be required. If asbestos is present in the buildings, the applicant shall retain qualified asbestos removal personnel to remove the material. It shall be handled as a hazardous waste and disposed of in a designated landfill after the removal plan has been approved by this department and the Colorado Health Department. Colorado Air Pollution Control Laws, Regulation 8, Section 11.3.4 dictates the need for this action. Furthe r, dur ing demol i tion and construction the applicant will be required to remove any mud and dirt carry-out onto City streets by vehicle traffic from the site. This soil shall be removed by means of a mechanical street sweeper which will use a water/brush method. The soil contained within the machine shall be re-deposited on the applicant's property. Daily cleaning of the impacted streets will be the applicant's responsibility. DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION: Dur ing actual raz ing of buildings, the appl icant will be required to prevent windblown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property. This control may take the form of spraying the immediate demolition site with water. Other examples of acceptable control techniques include dust Page Three 601 Aspen Residential GMP May 9, 1986 suppression chemicals, fencing the site, shrouding the work area, etc. Contact by the project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or a fugitive dust control plan is required for both the demol i tion and construction phase of the proj ect. That determination is relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated (tons per year). Contact Mr. Scott Miller, Colorado Department of Health, 222 South 6th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or phone him at 248-7150 to inquire about Regulation 1, section III, D,2,h titled "Demolition Activities" of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards, revised March 1983. NOISE ABATEMENT: The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 2, Series of 1981, titled "Noise Abatement". All demolition and construction noise related activities shall be covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance. A project of this magnitude can be expected to generate persistent sound levels that may be annoying to the neighbor- hood. The applicant must be aware of this and be conscious of methods and approach to minimize generation of complaints to this office. Time of day, duration of specific activities and using the most technically quiet equipment are a few mitigating measures that may be involved. If complaints are received, the referenced ordinance will be the governing document used in enforcement. FOOD SERVICE: All food service establishments shall comply with Colorado rules and regulations governing such facilities. This will include all restaurants, bars and lounges. Proper licensing of these facilities through this department will be required prior to service of food to the public. Compliance with Section 11-2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Restaurant Grills" will also be required. This section addresses the type of cooking devices which can be installed and operated in new or remodeled food service establ i shment s. Page Four 601 Aspen Residential GMP May 9, 1986 SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS: Swimming pools and spas must comply with the rules and regulations governing such facilities as required by Colorado standards. CONTAMINATED SOILS: It is evident that this project will be located in an area that may contain mine tailings and mine dumps as the result of past uses of the land. During demolition, excav- a tion, and construction, if such soil types a re discovered the following will apply: All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated for Lead, Zinc, Arsenic, Cadmium and other metals commonly found in mine dumps or mine tailings. The sample analysis shall be provided to this office from a qualified laboratory for evaluation. If elevated levels of heavy metals are identified, mitigating measures will be required. Professionally competent people in the field of geology will be required to develop the mitigation plan. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Service to this project of a public sewage collection system as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is in conformance with policies of this office. This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as required by the District. WATER SUPPLY: Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by the City of Aspen Water Department is in confor- mance with policies of this office. Throughout this review reference has been made to various rules, regulations, ordinances and laws. Copies of all of them may be found in this office. It is recommended that architects under contract to this project become familiar with them during the design phase. TD/mac/60l_Aspen_Res_GMP ~ ~ ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER p.o. Box 9950 A<;P(,I1, COlorddo 81&11 om) 92'j.HBBS TO: Steve Burstein; Aspen/Pitkin Plannin FR: Steve Standiford RE: Comments on Energy Components of 601 GMP/Conceptual Subdivision/Rezoning- Case 11048A-85 ,r,',"', ~ @rnO\Y1 [g,~ I I , Ii i. ~ 11936 ". 'I"~ I U lJl I Office June 5, 1986 Aspen Street Residential The RFEC review of the energy use characteristics is based only on the letter from Pearson and Associates contained in the Appendix. Despite several phone calls to their office in Glenwood Springs, we have been unable to secure more detailed information on the project. The available specifications on the proposed structure's energy features indicates a strong interest in energy efficiency. Listed below are comments on the specific energy conservation techniques listed in the letter from Marsha Smith, Mechanical Designer. A. Insulation: Exceeding the standards by 37 percent is a very cost- effective way to conserve energy and keep utility bills lower. B. Windows: The Heat Mirror units are twice as efficient as standard glazing and will contribute greatly to the overall energy conservation strategy. C. Double Entry: These systems are recommended for all high-volume public entryways. D. Heating System: The use of intermittant pilot lights will increase the efficiency of the boiler. We need to know the specific make of boiler to be selected and the estimated overall efficiency rating before further comment. E. Computerized Energy Management System: This is another good idea for overall energy management. Again we need more details before making any comments. F. Air to Air Heat Exchangers: This is a sound idea especially if the contractor does a good job of sealing the overall building envelope. If the structure has a rating of less than one-half air change per hour, indoor air quality can be dangerous without the proper use of these heat exchangers. We need more detail on the equipment to be selected along with its specified efficiency rating. , A 8,anch of the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation - .. e ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER P.O. 8m, Y950 A"r)(,ll, Color,lrlo 81611 (303) 925.B885 G. PVC Sana Tubes: This is another good idea. But, without more detailed data we can't tell what impact it will have on the overall energy use of the building. H. Air Conditioning: Not having any air conditioning makes a lot of sense based on the local climate. I. Flow Restrictors: We need to know the proposed gallon-per-minute flow rates for these devices before passing comment. A desired range for showerheads would be between 2-3 gpm. J. Night Shading: The basic idea is great in reducing nighttime heat loss. We need to know the R-value ratings of the specific product before stating just how good this idea really is. K. Heat Exchanger: This is an excellent idea. Again, more detail is needed for commenting. L. Lighting: These recommendations will help reduce the energy load from lighting. Other Comments The level of available data on this project makes it hard to give specific comments. All of the proposed ideas sound very energy-efficient, especially the insulation and window treatments. Assuming that high- quality products are selected and installed properly, this project would deserve a very high ranking for its energy efficiency. There was no mention of using active or passive solar energy heating systems. We would be curious if this was considered and what the cost- benefit analysis revealed. We will continue to try and get more details from Pearson and Associates in order to refine these comments. , A Branch of the Colorado Office of f nergy Conservation ~ D ~@rn D~If S\, I ' L JAN I 6 1986 le/ SNOWMASS NORDIC COUNUL nt/h!! 11,",1: "1,1', ~,' I "-c.;\L, fI' :'1 Steve Burstein Aspen Plcmning Offlce 130 S. 6alena Aspen, Co 61611 January 14, 1966 Dear Steve, 1,',1 I have reviewed the initial development submission at 601 S, Aspen and find that it flts well with the trclll corridor along the base of Aspen Mountain, I w111 certainly want to review the submission as It progesses further, and make specific recommendations at the final review stage. " rt:", Sincerely, \' r ,,_, I &' tJ~ ( Craig Ward Executive Director cc: Planning and Zoning Commission Mark Danielson P.O. BOX 10815 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 303/925-4790 ,..., ....." ' '''"'\ ,/ ~ SPEN SCHOOL D5TRIG James W, Burks, Superintendent APRIL 23, 1986 MR. STEVE BURSTEIN ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, Co 81611 DEAR STEVE, THANK YOU FOR AFFORDI NG US THE OPPORTUN!TY TO REVI EW THE 601 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP. WE HAVE EXAMINED IT FOR POSSIBLE IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ON OUR STUDENT POPULATION. WE BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN WILL HAVE LITTLE OR NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR SCHOOL POPULATION OR BUDGETARY PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE. WE URGE YOU, HOWEVER, TO EXAMINE THE PLAN FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SAFETY. OUR CHILDREN MOVING THROUGH THE AREA FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO IN A SAFE MANNER. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR SUBMITTING THE PLAN TO US. SINCERELY, (,)(; ~~W:~ iJ;ES W. BURKS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT Post Office Box 300 . Aspen, Colorado 81612 . 303/925-3460 MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BCMMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: MAY 5, 1986 601 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP/CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION /REZONING RE: ISSUE: Does the payment-in-lieu meet the employee obligation for the 601 Aspen Residential project? BACKGROUND: This is the second submittal by Hans Cantrup, for 601 Aspen Residential GMP Conceptual Subdivision/Rezoning. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 free market units for short-term rental. The appl icant contends that 20 of the units are to be reconstructed (Mine Dump Apts) and therefore are exempt f rom growth management. The remaining 92 units are being requested through the growth management competition process. The applicant is also requesting approval for conceptual subdivision for the purpose of construction of the multi-family structures, a street vacation of Juan Street between Aspen and Garmisch Streets, 8040 greenline review, and rezoning of Lots 3-12 Block 11, Eames Addition from R-15 PUD (L) to L-2. The applicant represents that the employee housing obligation will be met as follows: 65% Employee housing provided as $4,300,000 CASH 92 studios x 1.25 persons = 114 = 35% Employee Housing (Per sons) 215 = 65% Total people 330 = 100% Calculation 215 = 65.15% 330 Applicable Points Earned 13 HOU SING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authori ty recom- mendation is to accept the payment-in-lieu of $4,300,000.00 with the stipulation that the payment shall be made at time of issuance of building permit for the 601 Aspen Project. I"""' '- ... "' ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGEN ASPEN, COLORADO m@mo'\Y.7fB'f':" .. I 7 1986 lW MEMORANDUM DATE: June 16, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein City/County Planning Office Bruce A. Abel ~_q)( General Manag~~ ~ FROM: RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP After reviewing the application for the above referenced project, we can offer the following thoughts: -R.F.T.A. does not operate, nor do we anticipate operating on Dean Street. Thus, the closure of Dean Street poses no problem to R.F.T.A, -We would not anticipate any unmanageable ridership increases on the City or Valley routes as a result of this project. While we might expect ridership increases on the skier shuttles, the level of service for the skier buses is deter- mined by the Aspen Skiing Company and these services are financially supported by ASC. -The importance of pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks and lights should be stressed so that guests can have a pleasant walking experience into town, Such amenities provide an incentive to walk to town, while the lack of such amenities discourages pedestrian activity and encourages guests to drive whenever possible. This causes parking problems in town and discourages the use of transit from Rubey Park. pal; t .. MEM)RANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Dept. Aspen COnsolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Fire Chief Aspen School District Zoning Enforcement Official RFTA Roaring Fork Energy Center Steve Burstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office FROM: DATE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivision/Rezon- ing - Parcel ID #2735-131-13-001 Case No. 048A-85 April 16, 1986 RE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review is a resubmittal of the 601 Aspen Residential GMP submission received by the planning Office in connection wi th the 1985 City Residential GMP competition. The appl icant, Hans Cantrup, has resubmitted his application which now consists of the following. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 free market units for short-term rental. The applicant contends that 20 of the units are to be reconstructed (Mine Dump Aptsl and therefore exempt from growth management. The remaining 92 units are being requested through the growth management competition process. The applicant is also requesting approval for conceptual subdivision for the purp::>se of construction of the multi-family structures, a street vacation of Juan Street between Aspen and Garmisch Streets, 8040 greenline review, and rezoning of Lots 3-12, Block 11, Eames Addition, from R-15 roD (Ll to L-2. The property is located at 601 S. Aspen. Please review this material and return your draft comments to Steve Burstein no later than May 19, 1986. A meeting of all the referral agencies will then be scheduled to discuss the comments and final comments are requested no later than June 6th. If you anticipate any problems meeting these deadlines, please call ASAP. Thank you. rOn f/l-c>.!:r;'..f CA- f.1~ S et<-J(~'> (3.'i 71H1. /'\,,1"[':---- L~ N':'!I ~"f t'.,....i'~t:> ~ A -, rr\-t-I'~- (; (~l....~l<-. I. ~ J:Y A'- -" I;. "'1//"--<: ""'- MEMORANDUM TO: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Ann Bowman, Housing Office Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Department Jim Markalunas, Water Department Karen McLaughlin, Assistant City Attorney Jim Wilson, Fire Marshall Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Official Bruce Abel, RFTA FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office DATE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP June 5,1986 RE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- A meeting is scheduled for 11: 00 A. M., Monday June 9, 1986 for all referral agencies on the 601 Aspen Residential GMP project and ancillary reviews at the Planning Office. Please contact me if you cannot attend this meeting. Thank you. .~ --- ",-'-'- ',< SCHMUESER & AssbclATES INC. 1512 Grand Avenue Suite 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945.5468 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE . i . Ij 'I, ", . ""i' ;,!" T i""' . .........."", I" '"'' "" i I-' ",oI:i'ic'L, ... '"" . ..... i. i"i" ' ' I" ,'I, I II 1 'e. ...oll11'[i '.............1.,';:, I ell-( , I ,e '. bnc \, i, .' i . . i'",,) , .." :, A"'''''''''''' .......... ..........". ...... \", . IT., i , \ . ,'"'' 'foG +- .f I,: ''''- ,J. h\', 'Iii 'IV."". 1,. Iii 'Ib ,1_ -+-,' , i ,T' I .""" i . ii, i \ . " i 'LA. .\,,.,,\ '\IIll~vr..,,,:0"{;k. ' ',.:, ..". . I . I ' .. :. I ' : I I ' I" ... ""r i ....... . ~ K,~. >" 1"11 C (..1",',0 d .., '., ."l,)"i,.: U), I" 1 . ( Iii,/" '" ,0 I",,' m",', , lV.("j':lJJ' c ,~L"., "ive.: /",J< rl.c:. i,-M, '_A'(C r1,"..~"""" I" I" /.,.J ';' I I i 't i .' . ..... . . . I' " ',.i i'''n'''''''" "II.' ' I I!- ,^.),/,..'\ '-.:,,,)/" "~'~,JJ (DLJ t+c", \ i +O"lJ. <, 1T' C T "" h ,G s. - I"'=" ,,"""r ' ""'~1=!' " " ,. , '1' i 1ZU'2ccIC".\+"":<'k. T,~. i=;;r;:y.';; bA , . ,,",,""" I" ,,,"" T i ,"'" , : . ,""". . i '""" ,,,""" ". I" _ '1"\':'''' err L.) ..,i," ,",~n /" H ..I:'ch),)" I" . j",,-, C)C I ~~~) ll.i r!i)llli" J~ \In r 4- J /, "'.' r / \ F-- ~1E; \),Ib I i :\hl~1 (' (')/, I,..; ",.le>GI,-<,,,() ,~,( C",.. 1111111".,....... .' . ,n' ,r, ei --. ( . II L '. 1/ ,~ I .""" T;>i s roC I r, I,.; (' c-1 '""" I '7 A ~'r n I\P,t\, (~r,.L\ .\lUI ''"~'' I. r'. -, .-i- f\ 1f'(';) .................., kll,~r) .-'U i ,c!\Yi'", ~ '<"'''''N,\1,,.\("O ....;,;.: I : ...... "" ...."' ,LiIOG..,: ,II' , : , . 1 I i' i .. T i, ,,', '. p -""J~~P u),'LI) I I.! Jtt=" Tit ,,,("b*~~L 1:!:."JJ :>kLI,? ...; ..... ......... . (""lid 4r \Li, 'L )cn. (1\ c _ d I~ ,.1 J)\. JA e.. ,\-,", ~ m+ I I ' : ,', ,('\....,1, ,. ';=' i. ,'i i .: ~,' "i' ... 8-':-7-';' ., II' 1.::'> A-.n. R. ,.---. .... +- d~" '1 .-,'1' :.-. ,,'" . ... " ,., C;<' ( 3" : 'f\.".. ,'-, .. ...).,,, ..... (. ", :"'" ,i" .." ,,' :' ... . .. . " , '" I' -... r"':) r,::;:J "-::7 L5 "::_i;; D I'V ~ "'~ I '986 I I J ' ~ . I, , ill M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning U" , , 1.I1 FROM: Jim Wilson, Building Officia19 L 601 Aspen Residential GMP Submission RE: DATE: June 11, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the Residential GMP Submission for 601 Aspen and have the following comments: Fire Protection 1) The proposed widened to 40 ft, at both curbs. fire department access at Dean Street should be to provide a minimum fire lane with cars parked 2) The cul-de-sac at the Garmisch St. termination must have a minimum radius of 50 ft. to allow fire department turnaround. 3) Access is not provided to within 150 ft. of all exterior walls, so the building must be fully fire sprinklered, with an approved standpipe system to accommodate fire fighting operations, 4) The placement of fire hydrants appears to be too close to the building. A hydrant should be no closer to a building than 40 ft. to remain effective. 5) The site is in a low hazard wildfire area, Buildins>: Code 1) Units designed for and accessible to the physically handicapped must be provided in conformance with state regulations. 2) The energy program is, without a doubt, state of the art technology but seems extremely ambitious. Automated night shading devices should not be given consideration. Their practicality and durability is questionable on a project of this nature. 3) The efficient fireplaces shall be safety tested, listed approved gas fireplace units. Gas logs are not acceptable. JW/ar NEHORANDur, To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department ~} Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department~ From: Date: January 17, 1985 Re: 601 South Aspen Residential GMP Conceptual Submission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- After reviewing the above application and making a site inspection, the Engineering Department has these comments: Utilities The applicant has agreed to underground all utilities which will enhance the appearance of this project. The applicant must also be asked to join any future improvement districts. \'later There is adequate water facilities servicing this project, the facili ties cannot be improved. However, the applicant has agreed to install 3 new fire hydrants which would improve the fire protection of the neighborhood. Sewer There is adequate sewer service to this project that cannot be improved. Storm DrainaGe Installation of drywells will enhance the historic drainage of this property. The proposed curb and gutter along Aspen Street should be tied into the catch basin on Durant Street, this would help the drainage of the neighborhood. Trash The applicant has not satisfactorily addressed the trash storage issue. We need to know the proposed dimensions for this area to determine the number and size of the dumpsters that it could accomodate. The service area of the project appears to be large enough to allow a BFI truck access to the collection area. ParkinG This project proposes to provide 184 parking spaces, 31 of these will be dedicated for use by the Aspen Skiing Company since this project will be built on the present location of the ASC parking lot. The parking lot is used by ASC employees and day skiers. When the 31 spaces are relocated to the proposed underground parking area, it will not be very accessible to day skiers. The ASC employees will know that there are underground parking spaces available to them, but the day skiers will not want to drive underground to look for parking. Signage on the 31 spaces will have to be noted that they are for ASC employees and day skiers. , A total of 153 parking spaces will be available to this 92 bedroom lodge which also will house 136 employees in dormitory units. Code requireI:1ents in the L-2 zone are for one parking space per bedroom. This leaves 61 parking spaces for 136 employees, or one space for every 2.2 employees. The code does not specif ically address the pa rking requi rements for dormitory type employee housing in the L-2 zone. Section 24-4.5(C), which refers to off street parking requireI:1ents, addresses dormitory use only in the R zone and requires t~IO parking spaces per 3 pillows upon application of a residential bonus overlay. If this criteria were applied to the L-2 zone, this project would need 91 parking spaces for employees. The L-2 zone requires four parking spaces per 1000 square feet for "all other uses." If this were applied to dormitory use, 82 parking spaces would be required. Apparently, a special review according to Section 24-4.1 is necessary to determine the adequacy of the proposed 153 parking spaces. Factors which contribute to the reduction of parking spaces incl ude the proj ect' s close proximity to town, to the bus service and to the ski lift, and the limo service provided by the proj ect. Traffic ImDact In order to accurately determine this project's traffic impact, a more complete description of the proposed "limo service" is needed. National averages for one ~Iay trips per lodge unit per day is 10.2. The Alan M. Voorhees traffic study states that this figure is 2.7 for Aspen. Again, the project's close proximity to town, to the bus service and to the ski lift reduces the need for vehicle use. This department estimates that 600 one ~Iay trips per day for this project is a viable number for calculation of traffic impact until more information is submitted. This would include service vehicles, employees, guests and limos. The access streets to this project are Durant, Aspen and Garmisch. The approximate daily averages are 5300 vehicles on Durant and 3500 on Aspen and Garmisch. The 600 trips will be divided between these three streets. \'Ie anticipate a maximum traffic increase of 10% on Aspen and Garmisch and a lesser increase on Durant. All of these streets could handle this increase. Durant and Aspen streets have a 75' right-of-way width and Garmisch has a 100 I right-of-way width from Main Street to Durant and then necks down to 40' from Durant to Juan where it ends. This project, the Barbee residence and the Timberidge Condominiums are the only developments on Garmisch past Durant. . . .... The Timberidge Condominiums use part of the east side of Garmisch for parking. Since Garmisch only has a 40' right-of-way width in this area, the parking should be eliminated to allow enough room for two way traffic that would be increased by this proj ect. This would eliminate about 8 parking spaces. This issue should be addressed by the applicant and another parking area should be found, perhaps along Dean Street. Employee Housino More information is needed form the applicant on the Kitzbuhl and Shechter to determine the adequacy of utilities, trash facilities, parking etc. A site survey vlould be particularly useful. Rioht-of-Wav The applicant is proposing to either re-open Dean Street or re-construct it on the project's property. The application is extremely vague as to the location of the "new" Dean Street. The easterly section of Dean Street, adjacent to Aspen Street was vacated and is now part of the Lift One Condominium property. Therefore, a total ore-opening" of Dean Street is impossible. The applicant is also proposing to construct a two story underground structure and above grade \~alk.vlays on Juan Street. An encroachment license must be applied for. The site plan submitted does not show the property lines making it impossible to determine setbacks, open space, encroachments, etc. A site survey is imperative for accurate evaluation. 60l.l\spen 'l'" CITY OF ASPEN .. MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN c~n \iiI.., k, To' A IAn ~i,tlfl.~ f?~: (01 AjfC" 6 irtf Afpl;c,~-tIOh ~f'ii It 5vb",;+t~1 DAk Ap',1 IV, J1p& & ~ /IJ>~ :lj, tJJ 60/ ~ ~11! r;" ~ ~ -Aj, ~ ~ itrJ 1JiJ;, 1:. 'r'M\'1 (re f",'j",ti,pe~H'f.J('fi;,"s): I. '))., '30'/0 J:j~ ~</IW ~~f~; ~.;/;J",4.0 ",\ 1~-4J .} tvPl1 ~ WU ~t'~ ~~ r'-~ v~ 0 ~ pttf'M,w. ,rt 'frt.. M ~ tJ..1w.;. W'.tc.~ ..,;1!,{,o.bj,d+llf'it". 2. Se.t,.~ ~q-II.~(jj)e.J2,;~ "i~~~~ ,.LM~) {~4lIvJR~ f'~~ju;:' ,e~M~ ~,,~- rkLJJp ~ ~~ f't';JJrn f'''6 rtJ p,<L [[J(G~,~1"",d' 'Ifl' {J;tl' ~wv~1 ) 3. (l:f~ .k~vJi ~ 2p~~~'~~"'1 J.pid(-,pWN,~ dk~ fuW,J...<J . <tRi; iJJ IN'< j . ~L ~. , 'n' ~ 'b r~Il4(.lTu.J"-f'.,~IIfl1, 'f, n ('<W' (lfYI/Jr-d ..;, ~ IltA.Wu) aIkAI ~) ttJ Jr~ ~41 t. J.< 1lA..ftrJ1. ~~ 1 jJ., ~ ~ ~ ,aJlIlft /1,.,JIOt.ts. c,L 5'. j ~ ~ -IJ, tr~". ~ ~ (HIU 14 S.4I1;lt.J ~ j M~ D~ ~ fl..""~n..) . ~ - ^"-I.~ ~,,\,-,~ U~.-~:; .." ~ ,-- Aspen/Pitk. 130 s ~, - , 'r I' '\ \ 'ft., 10 ,I ~ ,\ I t I' .Il,,~,: . . ~""ilt" 1 I . ~.\'... ''':' . .1- .. ~ ~ .. ... ni~g Office treet 81611 March 17, 1986 Mr. Doug Allen Courthouse plaza Building 530 E. Main st reet, 1st Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Doug, The purpose of this letter is to reply to your letter dated march 14, 19 B6, regarding the 601 Aspen Residential GMP proj ect. In direct response to the points you make, I submit the following: o Following the adoption of Ordinance 2, Series of 1986, the staff came to the conclusion that the regulations in effect at the time of the submittal should apply to the competition. The representative of the sunny Park proj ect did, however, request an opportunity for Council to rule on this matter, which was provided on March 10, resulting in Council'S decision to allow the requested change. Your participation in this process was evident, given the letter you wrote on this topic, which was included in Council's packet. o The planning Office was not a participant in the Council's discussion on March 10, having v iewed this decision as a purely legal matter. Therefore, since you participated in the process, we expected that you were aware that the issue had been placed on the Council agenda. The City Attorney informs us that the action Council took was by motion, and no resolution will be drafted. o The City Clerk's Office is responsible for providing materials for the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, steve was unaware of the availability of the memo you were requesting, and in any case, was not the proper source for the requested materials. o It is not possible for us to score the 601 Aspen proj ect on March 1 B. At the close of the hearing on '." .~".-----.J ".,."" ...,., .,,,, Mr. Doug Allen, Esq. March 17, 1986 Page 2 January 28, 1986, you conceded that your project would not be scored at the same time as the Sunny Park proj ect, pending a final determination of the adequacy of your submission. We were directed to renotice the public hearing for the residential development scoring session for March 18, which was accomplished for the Sunny Park proj ect, but not for your proj ect which had been rej ected by me by the time the new notice was posted. Further, no review of your project has been accomplished by staff, which is essential for an accurate review by the Planning Commission. Based on the action taken by City Council with respect to Ordinance 2, staff has reconsidered the decision of the Planning Director to reject your application. With the assistance of the City Attorney, I have evaluated the direction provided by Council at their meeting, indicating that the new rules can apply to the applications submitted on December 1, 1985 to provide for improved review criteria for the betterment of the community. The Planning Office has come to the following conclusions in this regard: 1. The application of the new scoring system and cash-in-lieu provisions to your project offers the opportunity to improve the quality of your proj ect by reducing its impacts on the neighborhood. 2. Providing you with this opportunity to apply the new rules does not prejudice any other applicant, since the same opportunity is available to the other applicant and since you have conceded the competition to the Sunny Park project. 3. This determination is a one-time only situation, due to the unusual circumstance of the City having changed its rules during the course of the review process. Normally, the City avoids this type of confusion by only amending its rules after the GMP competition is complete, but the value of these changes to the community had become so clear at the end of 1985 that we felt action was necessary immediately. Based on the above considerations, the project will be given the opportunity to avail itself of the cash-in-lieu provisions of the Code. This decision, however, does not remove the problem of your having originally proposed 112 free market units on a site which only includes 101,500 square feet, which would, if not remedied, constitute a zoning violation. We have determined that it is reasonable to argue that in your original preparation of a GMP application, you used a map prepared by the City designating the land in question as vacated. Subsequently, it was found that the land, in fact, had not been vacated, and you attempted to ",",'",", ,.., --- -" Mr. Doug Allen, Esq. March 17, 1986 Page 3 replace the land taken out of the project with an equal amount of land you indicated had been optioned. Since the original error regarding the land area appears to have been made in good faith and based on a City action, you will be permitted to reconstitute the site to 113,500 square feet. Based on the above determinations, we believe that your proj ect can be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission and need not be rejected at this time. However, given the extensive amount of time which has past since your original submission, the many conversations and letters which have taken place, and the need to review the application as per Ordinance No.2, following will be the approach to processing your submission. We are hereby providing you with a new deadline for clarification of your residential application, two weeks hence, on April 1, 1986. This application should be a comprehensive presentation of your proposal, addressing each applicable section of the Munici- pal Code, and providing clear, concise and internally consistent written and graphic materials describing your development program. Further, you must provide us with stamped, addressed envelopes listing all owners of property within 300 feet of the site, as required by Section 20-10 of the Code. Finally, you must provide us and the City Attorney with unequivocal evidence that you have a current option on the entire property in ques- tion. The Planning Office's intent is not to permit any amendments to be made to your development program but instead to allow you to take advantage of the new rules given this unique circumstance, as Council directed. The clarified submission Blust adhere to each and every representation made in the December 1st submis- sion, including the total of 112 units, the FAR not to exceed 1:1, the height to meet Code requirements, the employee housing commitment of 65 percent, the provision of 160 spaces of under- ground parking, and 24 surface spaces, the trail connection, etc. The submission would merely clarify the site design and archi- tecture, based on the meetings which were held with staff and your architects late in 1985 and early in 1986, eliminate the on- site housing and replace it with a cash-in-lieu commitment, and make the presentation more easily understood by the staff, referral agencies, the pUblic and the P&Z. Your submission package should provide us with 21 copies so that it can be sent to the referral agencies and Planning Commission. It should address all applicable reviews, including the GMP, subdivision and rezoning requests, together in one package. Please do not send us copies of earlier letters and applications with numerous cross references I instead I suggest that you put the package together so it can be easily followed. I would .-' - """'"' - Mr. Doug Allen, March 17, 1986 Page 4 Esq. st rongly recommend that you and I meet this week to review the package I feel you should prepare so that it can be as easily understood as possible. I would appreciate it if you would submit a letter to me confirm- ing your understanding of the approach to our review of this application and indicating that you are formally withdrawing your appeal to the Board of Adjustment. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ASPBR/PftKIR PLARRIRl OFFICB ~~ Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director AR:jlr ltr .11 9~ .9!'J:&k J4f~ u-C ~ ~UJe 9~ .98~. .78t1~trd ~ J~ :?Wd:?k.... ~. ~ d'/O'// (.7tl.7J .9.!S-d'd'tltl .9r~ / (.7tl.7J .9.!S-.9.7.9d' ~~CD~~ <::. March 14, 1986 (9 O:>~ ~ Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: GMP Application for "601 Aspen Project" Ladies and Gentlemen: This is to notify you that this morning, by reading the Aspen Time9, we were first advised that the City Council has now made the option available to all 1985 Residential GMP applicants, including the applicant, to elect to have the City apply the terms of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1986 of the City of Aspen to our application. The applicant was not notified of the City Council action affecting his application nor have we been able to get a copy of the resolution as it has not yet been prepared in hard copy. No one from the Planning ,Office has contacted us, so Thomas J. Kerwin, one of the attorneY9 for the applicant, at 12: 15 P. M. today by telephone advised you of the applicant's position, relying on the information in the media. We hereby notify you of our election to have the new ordinance applied to the above application in its totality as allowed by the resolution. We also authorize communications by one of Mr. Cantrup's co-counsel, Thomas J. Kerwin of Denver, Colorado, telephone number: 355-7100, in connection with these matters. The applicant was never furnished with a copy of the Memorandum from Alan Richman to the Board of Adjustment dated March 3, 1986 and, in fact, was denied it by Steve Burstein today. Mr. Allen was finally able to get a copy of it from the City Clerk's Office shortly before noon today. This memo, which you obviously have, makes 2 points on page 5, numbered as 1 and 2, both of which are now rendered moot by the action of City Council earlier this week. Our previous letter to you is correct. score the Sunny Park application at the manner as you score our application, including the provisions for cash in lieu; We do expect that you will same time and in the same under the new ordinance, that is, at the P & Z Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Planning and Zoning Commission March 14, 1986 Page Two meeting on Tuesday evening, March 18th, which time was previously designated to us by concurrence by both the Chairman and City and Attorney and Mr. Allen at the January 28, 1986 P & Z meeting. This situation IMkes moot all other previous alleged "objections" of the Planning Office as a threshold matter to our application. We remain available to work with all Planning Office and other City personnel neceesary to permit the preliminary scoring by the Planning Office by Monday, March 17th and scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission by Tuesday, March 18th. We will be at your office at about 2:00 P.M. this afternoon to answer any questions and provide any clarifications which you may require. We regret that the City personnel did not approach us earlier in the week to avoid the overtime work, but Mr. Allen's absence from the city on business and the failure of the Planning Office to initiate any contact with the applicant has made this compressed timetable essential. We are not willing to be treated any differently from any other applicant in the GMP process. Very truly yours, Hans B. Cantrup, Applicant .9(])gJ~ the ("n ( ",",., CITY OF ASFm RESIDENnAL GIDI'IH M!Ilf1GEH':Nr 1'Ll\N smMISSIOO JOINTS ~ - TNLY SHEET Project: 601 Aspen Residential GMP Project P&Z VI:7l'lNi MBK\ERS - MaJ;y. Jasmine EQger We! ton --A1- l&lYi.d Aver:a~ 1. Public Facilities and Services a. Water Serv ice --L- 2 ----2- 2 2 -2- b. SEWer Serv ice -2- 2 2 2 2 -2- c. Storm Drairage ~ 2 ----2- 1 2 --L. d. Fire Protection ~ 1 0 0 1 -.JL e. Parking Design ~ 0 1 .5 2 -.JL f. Rea ds ~ 0 .5 0 1 ---..5. sm'lUJ'AL JL 7 7.5 5.5 10 -5....5. 7.25 2. Qual ity of Design a. Neighborhood .l!- 0 0 0 1 -.JL CanlXltibility b. Site Design -L. 0 0 0.5 1 -.JL c. Energy -2- 2 2 2 2 -2..- d. Tre.il s -2- 2 --L- 1 2 -2- e. Green Space .JL 1 2 1 2 -.l.- sm'lUJ'AL -L.. 5 5 4.5 8 ---5- 5.42 3. Proximity to Supper t Services a. Publ ic 3-. --.3_ _J_. 3 3 -L. Transportation b. Canntnity Canml ~ 2 2 2 2 -2- Facilities sm'lUJ'AL ~ 5 5 5 5 ---5- 5 4. EmplCJ{ee Housing a. La~ Income 13- D 13 ~L.... D 7.22 b. Moderate Income c. Middl e In<XJme sm'lUrAL lL. 13 13 13 13 7.22 12.04 5. Bonus Points 0 0 mmL JOnm; 3L- 30 30.5 28 36 22.72 79.7 Cl'l'Y OF ASPEN RfSIIENl'IAL GlOmI Ml\Rl!G1H!'.Nr PLAN SSMISSION ronm; JIIL()(MION - 'l'J\lLy samr Project: 601 Av'll ResidentiAl (HI Project P&Z vornc Ml!leERS - ~ JAlI3IIIinP ~ Welton -Ai- t!allid IIYerAfr 1. PutUic Facilities and Services a. Water Serv ice ~ 2 2 2 2 -L- b. SaNer Service ~ 2 2 2 2 -L- c. Storm Draimge ~ 2 2 1 2 -L. d. Fire Protection ~ 1 0 0 1 -.iL e. Parking Design ~ 0 1 .5 2 -.iL f. Rood> .JL 0 .5 0 1 ~ SS'IDTAL .JL 7 7.5 5.5 10 ~ 7.25 2. Quality of Design a. Neighborhood .JL 0 0 0 1 -.iL Canp:ltibility b. Site Design ~ 0 0 0.5 1 -.iL c. Energy ~ 2 2 2 2 -L- d. Trails ~ 2 1 1 2 -L- e. Green Space .JL 1 2 1 2 ---L- SS'IDTAL ..L.- 5 5 4.5 8 -L. 5.42 3. Proximity to Support Services a. Pub! ic ..L. 3 3 3 3 -1- Transportation b. Cannuni ty Canml ~ 2 2 2 2 -L- Facilities SS'IDTAL ..L.- 5 5 5 5 -L. 5 4. Ehlplqree Housing a. Lao1 Income lL. 13 13 13 13 7.22 b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income SS'IDTAL lL. 13 13 13 13 7.22 12.04 5. Bonus Points 0 0 'IDTAL ronm; 3.L. 30 30.5 28 36 22.72 29.7 crry OF ASPEN PLANNIlI; AND ZONIR; COMMISSION EVALUATION ",oject, vDl 4;:~c:~r:e'~/7 S'b 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- proj ect requires the prov ision of new serv ices at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIR; : z- COMMENrS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIR;: ')/ COMMBI!lTS: c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RAT IN; : --z-- COMMEI!lTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of maj or equipment to an existing station. RAT IN; : --I--- COMMEI!lTS: - 2 - I"'" '-' """' ...... e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATIIC : ~ COMMERrS: f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATIIC: + COMMERrS: SUBTCfrAL: # 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - , " '~~..... , ....., 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a maj or design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibil ity (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATIK; : / f COMMENTS: b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATIK;: I COMMENTS: c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATIK; : z/" - 4 - ,'''' .......... ""'\ -,; COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATIH; : z.-..------- COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATIH; : 2-- COMMENTS: SUB'I'arAL : 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - -,', , a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATIte: ~ COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATIte: 2-- COMMENrS: SUB'l'or AL : - 6 - ,iF'., ...-........ "'..../ 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the fOllowing schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations, One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations, One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents, Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). RATI!C: ~ COMMENTS: - 7 - b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATI!G : COMMENrS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATI!G : COMMENrS: SUBTar AL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATI!G : POINrS IN CATmORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: POINrS IN CATmORY 5: ;:;0 . . TarAL POn~l's: Name of P&Z Commissionmernber: - 8 - \ . !"""..... " ,~ , " '-..-" crry OF ASPEN PLANNIte AND ZOMIte COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDBRrIAL GMP COMPftrrION Project: WI ~fE;N Date: dt;""& 1'1 ,-.B ~ 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- proj ect requires the provision of new serv ices at increased public expense. 1 -- proj ect may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIte : ~ COMMENr S : b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIte : ~ I'" '~0"" ,1'" ,-" COMMERrS : c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATIR> : ~ COMMERrS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of maj or equipment to an existing station. RATIR> : COMMERrS: - 2 - ~, e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. o COMMBNrS: c.. \a, ~\.eJ. f\~\ D1~~, ()Y\ \o€~ ~f)G Q;))\~ o.f OCWp7/Y\~ ot;-u.a. <;L II <;m.xu 0 S) l12.. ~ ~ 1 ~ \.;l)f)\ )vl ~ \~)0J6. f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). RATIIG : , Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing st reet system or the necess ity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATIIG: 0 COMMENTS: -rmff\c. ?":tt~6 i n ~ ~ IA5ll.L he', ~)~li4 ~ )1J.No..!l. V'V)L~r ttu. ~. SUBTor AL : ..., 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by aSSigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - r..... ~. 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATII<<;: 0 COMMENTS: ~)a f:vx- \i'lL 4yl )0hJ1.ot J.... ().;rl., l~ w-e M ~ rrw-.-no..I'N\\tu ~ ~~ l; ~roAJoQ- J.)f)j . b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATIN3: n ;;;' ~f)'~~!fJ1~~9) c,e,tb7~ c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RAT II<<; : '" - 4 - "'" .". COMMERrS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RAT lID : '2...- COMMERrS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RATIID: _I COMMERrS: \\-.1'- 'oDt~ ~ IX ~ 'olJi \~q'5 ~)) \-t$. a. ~ re.R.ja: ~ -4<..U ~ ~_ SUBTar AL : ..5 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - ,...., "........ ,~, -...J' a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATIR; : .3 COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RAT I R; : ')...- COMMENTS: SUBTar AL : ..5 - 6 - , , ',", "'-"""'- 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the fOllowing schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations: One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations: One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents: Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). RATI!G : \ ~ COMMENTS:.h~)~ \ \rfl~~cwnyJ 10 ~~'lrY\'IW} ~ ~ ra 1 A*"" \<:- ~1::L+tt.~ +n H..u~ ~()/'I. - 7 - ,", '\ , ~ b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATIH3 : COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATIH3 : COMMENTS: SUBTar AL : 13 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATIH3 : POINTS IN ~BGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: ~ - POINTS IN ~BGORY 5: - POINTS IN ~BGORY 6: TarAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: ~~~ 3D 71~~ - 8 - ,,,- -- crry OF ASPEN PLANNIIC AND ZONIIC COMMISSION lNALUATION RESIDERrIAL GMP COMPBTrrION proj ect : (pJl \-\ 5?''- Date: ... \u..'l\,g \::r \ 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIIC: ~ COMMENTS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIIC : ') I""" - ,..., - COMMENT S : c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATIN3 : 2- COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of maj or equipment to an existing station. RATIN3: I COMMENTS: - 2 - ,. ., .F'" "."cf'. e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATIR; : --1- COMMER!' S : f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATIR;: 0 COMMER!'S :---f\c {'C'\'\-- '" l;;>C\ (" (c\- Q c:~ c'rt.",- \'\t::' '\::x'C"V,- '1 ' \J't\J.~{, H'f\"'~N..,0 ~ C'r-J L.>{\W~J; ~(,,~s,\ ~ I,.I~\\ bl~(Ae~ f';('\.S~\-[ "".-\~.(e\~ - ?s I WlJ''h.O\ \~r-..) \ ~c." .;';{Aa,\ Sl..\S\c\.Jcrc\ '{..of ~r ~\"C \ o\\h....~ S'2~ \ SOBTor AL : '?S 2. Quality of DeSign (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by aSSigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - ,..... " ....., _# " o Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: --D COMMENTS:-iJ~,\ ('-~(t""( \:J\s. C.}..'\.\"" -2MP - ~ \. S r-\... $v <:J ,::;' , ',.::::>. \ S- '\)~\'t:.'J"Di;>I'''l J::. b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING : ---1- COMMENl'S :1) J ~ '::J?e c,,~ c?\" \" \W ~\ 61... \J~LL, (, I "',,,," ('r'-.:sJV J.~ l.v...... +u ~I.,.i "- - \ Qc 'y It\ <31-'\).('''''", \ \Y'''~ &. 0. ~{~~, Energy (maximum three [3] points). I' \::,lel, u.S/:! ~ \ f c.\C'S <;,: X Pf' " J, \{ I f?-....JS. .,~" ';CC () . . ~ C' (ff....... ,~. . D' c.:.H'c\\J1. \ c. Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: '2 - 4 - ,.... "- " COMMENTS: d. Trails (maximum three [3J points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATIR>: ? COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3J points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. COMMENTS: S?~ (" ('i'{''1"'-- '\"'I'll \;;:\..-) " o V"- RATIR> : 0 '.1- t, _ 1< l<~lU ~'S'I',f.. ,~ SUBTOlAL : 6, r"C~"~~~ i 'J ) ~- 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6J points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the fOllowing formula: - 5 - " '--,,, if a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATIlIC : '3 COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RAT IlIC : "2- COMMENI'S: SUBTar AL : 5' - 6 - - "- 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations: One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations: One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents: Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). RATI!G: -13 COMMENTS: - 7 - - . ~# ,.., ......,$. b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RAT 1M; : COMMERr S : c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RAT 1M; : COMMERrS: SUBTarAL : 5. Bonus Point s (maximum seven [7] points). RAT 1M; : POIRrS IN ~BGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: Ie I~ POIRrS IN ~BGORY 5: POIRrS IN ~BGORY 6: TarAL POIRrS: 11 Name of P&Z Commissionmember: ~ -?~~ - 8 - 1""- ',,-, CftY OF ASPEN PLANNIR; AND ZONIR; COMMISSION ElTALUATION RESIDENrIAL GMP COMPBTftION Project : &,0 ( 5fJr2A-=tJ Date: f i ,,-L ^-RC, 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- proj ect requires the provision of new serv ices at increased public expense. 1 -- Proj,ect may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIR;: Z_ COMMENI'S : b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIR;: 'J .-' ,...... - COMMERrS : c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATIlG : z.. COMMERrS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of maj or equipment to an existing station. RATIlG : COMMERrS: Pt). &JAl01C1Jn hvCvi C:;MP5~ IV I/lCuUtfZt t!)~ WL- O?~C fiJctfOL aA"?dbA-J~ /~tC"7l1S ..../?Y1-;ct) ~ f fPY;(IO~.pfi-N e:r- f) - 2 - - - ~1' , # e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATIR;: I i( I" COMMERI'S: fUL~ 5'TV,.9fO ~pFt'(:;u~?7CKJ tv/??-I jlz;.<~;(6L~ tx:o~ C;N-/~ A//c:~S W I-7ft,K"~ ~K~ /L,A.A.J ,!Yl;A:LC-'( INM~ f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. ..- RATIR;: (:) I'? COMMERI'S: t.()~thNUt9J/S . Du'/ PI V'S/ ~/NA~~ 7J!A/ { f qY;>i II} t" I);:-j i/A-IJ e;;--: /;.JILL IIJt'.p/U vdJUcc--:>>CL Hoo~ ))ejr/c:-;( S WrJ tz~'j)4V7~ /'A7ff7UJ~L C/ ,i)O,t/,uz; A7I1< ~-;;4--~.I:)( /'k#~1C '1 tv I JJ1"ef2.-- SUBTor AL : 7,~ 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - c ""'\ '-'" 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibil ity (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATIR;: () COMMENTS:;: D, &;,P/H~7-J/~ fJ<.V5 Ihu~~ (;,.u~O,,(J Af7:tfJ~>>S IUD ibfi:a? V-MlJs/77DA) ,Ibt'~ It $ I/c'""VZL) ;:j2g) M /.lIr-A-C:~1 (~l-Nq,lAU ~~). . ~b AJf)7 ~~a;e..)lv e.t>;ttUC1Ur /(C j/?L~ Ae~s It ~L- . U~ VAJ,(}gz -;;;'/;..~&z.) HTIU b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATIR; : COMMENTS:/.O. UMJAlJ.-lTS tu..;c; ef)N;L{~7JT~ 1/ if.) 2./ J1t..6 .if~s I ~-tLl6 Aees;;,C'.(, - 7lJf) ~- TI'J Au IAJADI-"'i?5-Jr'7JyWI77J77I J>i:;IW ~'-' ~ t'A;t-CMe7t:?~7" ~I 1l!A1I r::;;L. J-ti"Fy/:?y,Nxrr D c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Z- RATIR; : - 4 - - ....., """'" "- COMMEN'rS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RAT IN:> : -, COMMEN'rS: 1.0. e-ffNlI..H=-xJ-cr~ f: l r~ ~Dc~ ~.u {l/J :l Ae"'>pc::~ ~ _ I ~ Ij.JAt;:;:wq;;~'1]<I' :Jr:~C-I..k~i / r hPiJl'J'iL5S AJD /l1D e Ale:- 1J'0;: h'ft, lJ ~-:e 7)fAfL) {O.J}/,..c ~-'::;fze-;U/~ . e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the proj ect and off ers reI ief f rom the density of the building and surrounding developments. RAT IN:> : /- COMMEN'rS: SUBTorAL: < 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - " F'"", 'c-,.,J "'..... a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT 1M; : 3 COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RAT 1M; : -z-- COMMENTS: SUB'l'orAL : ~ - 6 - +,....." ""'-ci/ 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the fOllowing schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). I?:> COMMBN'l'S: ( t)EU.~ U:ivJ:tc;v~O,u of ~Tvj)ID'S '!J.eU U.00c:-L-( j},~AI.-I /::;(.'7 A I 0/2- /00 baLaM ~GZ;IC;U /wi) / ~~ ~ ;t!ftE;IIT TO W.vc;;e 71-/;5 ~IIOVLV _ /?k" etJi<-(utS5dJP k ~lEf;"uC 71/6 J)e5IC;,0eouffC(-v.L'A-~, RATIR; : - 7 - - ,. - b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). COMMENTS: RATIII;: ~ c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One twenty [20] percent housed). COMMENTS: [1] point for each RATIII;: ~ 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). /' " .- POINTS IN CATfCORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: '1, 7-r~ f<'J t'-t":':> POINTS IN CATfCORY 5: POINTS IN CATfCORY 6: TOI'AL POINTS: Liz/NI " Name of P&Z Commissionmember: - 8 - SUB'l'OI' AL : (7 o RAT III; : "30, -s-- 1) ""30 , S- . ""' '- ".-;-, " Proj ect : CITY OF ASPEN PLANNHG AND ZONIIG COMMISSION ElTALOATION RL~RnAL IMP COMPETITION 6e / /T/::', 16tj Date: 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of serv ice in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIIG : 2- COMMERI'S : b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Z-- RATIIG : - - - , , COMMENT S : c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RAT Hie : -L COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requi ring addi t i on of maj or equipment to an existing station. (:) 'fu L-- 5~O - 2 - ~".... '-.... .-.... e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). COMMENT S : Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. /! RATIR;: I!J ff 2# -I- CN/V ~ N6CzJ /Ut/Cl1-11MiE- fJ/MK/tt.ty- f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATIR; : ~5 COMMENTS: sumar AL: ~ S__S' 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a maj or design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maxim um three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. COMMENTS: ~ 7)6t.tJ 6- ~ 77HJ eN {)JW6- S/I)6-:" ;21z; r ~ Slrc / _ RATIR;: (!I UtJ~ I j r::TnJ , -- -/S-CIV~ b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). COMMENl'S: 7//C- lJWSlrf IS ~m;1u</ ?/tGS'-6vlCrJ 30 Ir ~<! IXnatwi I Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATIR;: 0 $ nlld-S W~ IS nM7 nI&- 5-1ff f/W c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RAT IR; : z - 4 - -,,-',", ., ) COMMEN'l'S : d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATIro : z COMMEN'l'S : e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. ~ RATIro: # I COMMERl'S: 7;/e C;~ SfJ/1-e6- ~II-- nl6iL ptmr/ !NdUtO //It1af- rtD If6- ~n~~ etJ 72J fit#- ftJ!6- fJ~~~v ~J.' Iii - </ ;t61J(/~~Tk- ,4M4t!tV( tf>C-- ~w M/hJtE- t./j66/9~ SUBTarAL: 54 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 5 - """' .'-" a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 proj ect is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- proj ect is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATIH> : 3 COMMENrS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. RATIH> : z COMMEHl'S: SUBTarAL : .5 - 6 - "'... '''\ """ "' 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitationsl One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitationsl One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria wh~ch shall be applied to both the restricted and non-rest~iyted un1ts: t ~- -- . ~ Studio: 1.25 residents ~ One-bedroom: 1.75 residents ~ Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residentsl Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square space. feet of unit a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] POiRATnt IfR;or:eaC~.fi2.e,I~~~~ percent housed). ~ .----, ~ clA//I/! If- ;A/ / SI/;Y?tJ d-t(;UJJ ~/N7 /, u -;-7, z)" ~S-S-S-{' X /3 :.-'f. ~b /VI? COMMBNl'S: 2- ,(6)lddN) (lJ ~#r ~ - 7 - Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] J-!~ POINTS IN CATB;ORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: 5. . .,."""" '-- b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATI!G : COMMENrS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATI!G : COMMENrS: SUBTorAL: points) . RATI!G : ~ ~S- - S;O ~ t, 22__ - :r~ 7//- I 22, 12--- '/ ~ 72~, 1'2- ~/O (J "~- -ff-(;;;;. p~Jc~r / 1 zlt-f- !~-;J1r- /lA/IrS NtJr 92 /W: ;5fhvt-IJ M-~rr.',r ev/Nt(/~ IK ,W. tlf-. POINTS IN CATB;ORY 5: POINrS IN CATB;ORY 6: TorAL POINrS: Name of P&Z Commissionmember: r J- ff III "Tt ~ - 8 - ,..... ......" '\ ) . crry OF ASPEN PLANNIlG AND ZONIlG COMMISSION INALUATION RESIDERrIAL GMP COMPBTrrION Project : 61)/ t1.5/~ Date: 6//; /g~ ( I 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: o -- proj ect requires the provision of new serv ices at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the develOp- ment without system ext ens ions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATIlG : ?-- COMMERrS: b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of the system to service the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. ---2-/ RATIlG : '" , '- ~ COMMENTS: c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. RATINO : ~ COMMENTS: d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of maj or equipment to an existing station. RATINO : -D- COMMENTS: - 2 - ,;I' -., ~~ e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off- street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATItG: (!::J 16' /1Z~.d ~ ~~. ~. (/ I CQMMERl'S: j)~ ...~iCc ~~ f. Roads (maximum two [2] points). Consideration of the capacity of maj or street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. RATItG: () ~ SUBTor AI.: 5.~ 2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: - 3 - ",. " " 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a maj or design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) . Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. RATIRO: (:J COMMElfl'S: Cf17~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ tf1- ~3 .- b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATIRO: 0, s. COMMElfl'S: /)t~ .df~/ ~~ c. Energy (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATIRO : ~ - 4 - ".~, ,""" /."'...", ,-.,.,,' COMMENrS: d. Trails (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RAT 1M; : L COMMENrS: ~r~ e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the proj ect site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. RAT IN:; : / ~ SUBTarAL: ~ 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the fOllowing formula: - 5 - !""'to -......,... / a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RAT Ill; : C::> COMMENTS: b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- proj ect is located within six blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. For purposes of this to two hundred fifty section, one block shall be equivalent (250) feet in linear distance. "2- RAT Ill; : COMMENTS: SUBTar AI. : <J - 6 - """'. "'.. y .....~ 4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points). The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total development that is restricted to low income price guide- lines and low income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total development that is restricted to moderate income price guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations; One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total development that is restricted to middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. To determine what percent of the total development is restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proj ect as a whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria which shall be applied to both the restricted and non-restricted units: Studio: 1.25 residents One-bedroom: 1.75 residents Two-bedroom: 2.25 residents Three-bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5] percent housed). RATIMO : /3 COMMENl'S: - 1 - -, . ..... b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RAT IIG : COMMENrS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATIIG : COMMENrS: SUBTarAL : 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATIIG : I ~~ 4)')- \S I~ ___ ~.b POINrS IN CATI'CORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4: U -0- POINrS IN CATI'CORY 5: POINrS IN r-II:ORY 6. .--- Name of P&Z Comrnissionmember: Zfj TarAL POINrS: - 8 - M E M 0 RAN DUM ~I, i">"" I'. ' \.i,1 I ';''S G1 0 \'g [g ~ - I JlJN I I 1986 :i~ I TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Jim Wilson, Building Officia19'L/ 601 Aspen Residential GMP Submission FROM: RE: DATE: June 11, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the Residential GMP Submission for 601 Aspen and have the following comments: Fire Protection 1) The proposed fire department access at Dean Street should be widened to 40 ft. to provide a minimum fire lane with cars parked at both curbs. 2) The cul-de-sac at the Garmisch St. termination must have a minimum radius of 50 ft. to allow fire department turnaround. 3) Access is not provided to within 150 ft. of all exterior walls, so the building must be fully fire sprinklered, with an approved standpipe system to accommodate fire fighting operations. 4) The placement of fire hydrants appears to be too close to the building. A hydrant should be no closer to a building than 40 ft. to remain effective. 5) The site is in a low hazard wildfire area. Buildin/( Code 1) Units designed for and accessible to the physically handicapped must be provided in conformance with state regulations. 2) The energy program is, without a doubt, state of the art technology but seems extremely ambitious. Automated night shading devices should not be given consideration. Their practicality and durability is questionable on a project of this nature. 3) The efficient fireplaces shall be safety tested, listed approved gas fireplace units. Gas logs are not acceptable. JW/ar r" ,- ' roBLIC NorICE RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivi- sion/Rezoning - Parcel ID .2735-131-13-001 Case No. 048A-85 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on June 17,1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. befor:e the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the r:esubmittal of the 601 Aspen Residential GMP submission received by the Planning Office in connection with the 1985 City Residential GMP competition. The applicant, Hans Cantrup, has resubmitted his a ppl ication which now consi st s of the follow ing. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 free market units for: short-term rental. The applicant <:ontends that 20 of the units are to be reconstructed (Mine Dump Apts.) and therefore exempt from growth management. The remaining 92 units are being requested througn the growth management competition process. The applicant is also requesting approval for conceptual subdivision for the purpose of construction of the multi-family structures, a street vacation of Juan Street between Aspen and Garmisch Streets, 8040 greenline review, and rezoning of Lots 3-12, Block 11, Eames Addition, from R-15 roD (L) to L-2. The property is located at 601 S. Aspen. For: further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 223. sIc. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Published in the Aspen Times on April 24, 1986. City of Aspen Account. N.26 - or to~'" i~ o -r:-- III NOf--" roOf--" S f-" :::I C'n:::J III (Jl ro w . ...... l- ::s <T C')G)"'a . o to "' III Q!!.iJ ::;: '< "' !!!! 5" 0 0- '. ::s ::;: ro !l-::g c-r 1-'" CD III f--" -a. lit ~ ::Sf--"'" :::J III C :::J ",oq S' t Ulo.::s- lCI '" . ro --> f-' Q s = Vl ro n "' CD i \~ " ~ " Ul W Ul '0 0'0 ro ro ::s (Jl ::s . 0 C "d () <T f--" 0 ::s- III f--" ::s 0 0 ::s "' III f-'. III f--" ::s 0. ro oq 0 ::s III III (J) ::s ~ (Jl 0. ey, <T .. ~ "' N ~ ro 0 ,. ro ::s <T f-" .. ::s - oq , () - 0 - S S f-'. .. Ul - Ul f-" 0 ::s ... f ~ ~ CS ~, ~ 0 rC '- , ~G~ "\- ~ ~- ---., r\ t K I~ 00 '~ -; c:, , 0 ~~ E Z 0 0 \t ~ 0' "T1 0 :>:i 0 E ~.. CJ>:::o I-L Z:>:ifT! 0- 1> 1::1-1 v..l tt:I~C 0-. rZ:>:i Z l"'1G) Z .- --<0-; r' 0;;:;00 t::1 0- 'TJl'T1(t) ....... 0" 1"'1..... :>:i Z 0- ~ EO,=" -0 I>Z fT! 00 " ,,0- t::1"T1 0 0-; r fT! j J'p, ',I 'ii i' L ' , '/.:' L I " ;1. ! H ~ ~ I: ;~I "fflllf ; \\ q l " ..J. , . ;" '6. ~ ~ .~..~ 'C - .......'-., .....,.. ...... June 12, 1986 ~,.fi",m @ rn o~" I" JIt t T too': Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairperson Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ; .' Dear Mr. Anderson, I would like this letter to be part of the public input concerning the application of Hans Cantrup proposing rezoning changes, closure of an existing street, possible 8040 Greenline changes, variances in zoning designations. I believe the parcel ID number is #2735-131-13-001 case #048A-85. I would like to go on record as opposing this developers application. Our families have been landowners and residents of Aspen for over 30 years and have owned property located on Juan Street with a residence at the corner of Juan and Garmisch Streets. This is a viable city street granting access to the east and especially to the ski hill and lift #1. To even pro- pose a street closure is ludicrous as it shows lack of concern for those property owners to the south and west of the street. Property values in the area of course would be affected so adversely, even the proposal of vacation of the street shows lack of integrity on the part of the applicant. This of course should be denied. I understand this case involves this one applicant tying up the next few year's worth of units alloted by the GMP. I would argue the fairness of this kind of allotment to a single developer. It prejudices the commission infavor of this developed and pre- cludes the availability to a viable developer using the allotment. For us directly, it may preclude the sale of land in the same area in the next few years which could be developed under the GMP. , Aside from concerns directly affecting the land and area property owners, the commission should be aware of the nature of the applicant's financial dealings in the very recent past, I appreciate that the commission is not into assessing the character of any applicant, at the same time it must be brought to their attention that this particular applicant filed a Chapter 11 petition on approximately March 22, 1983. Our family held a valid lien on property controlled by the applicant. This property was involved for over two years with court proceedings resulting in thousands of dollars in attorney fees to us personally. Five hundred creditors besides ourselves, many of them Aspenites, were involved in this lengthy bankruptcy proceeding. Most of these creditors, it was noted were to receive about 60 cents to the dollar in the end. ~ "",,'\, \"".,,,, '10../ Foreclosure proceedings in Aspen, in excess of two dozen, were also involved. Quoted from the Denver Post of Friday, March 15, 1985, "There were lots of problems whenthe Chapter 11 petition was filed because of the advanced state of (the applicant's) financial deterioration." The applicant's motivations and financial irresponsibility may not be at issue here, but as the commission rules on zoning changes, street closures, greenline changes and unit allotments, these considerations do impact not only the surrounding residents but the Aspen community at large. It is hoped the commission will not allow changes applied for to be irresponsible further down the road. Track record of the applicant aside, why not let the applicant work within the already established guidelines that the Planning and Zoning Board has diligently worked out for the betterment of all of Aspen? Hoping the commission will wisely deny the application at the hearing slated for June 17, 1986. Would your office please keep me informed as to the outcome of the above hearing and as' to future hearings on resubmitted applications. I can be reached by phone: (406) 587-1429. Or write to: Hallie Barbee Rugheimer 1400 Story Mill Rd. Bozeman, Montana 59715 ;/Z~ 8;L,~ .~ ' , CITY OF ASPEN. MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN 7~, Pavl TI1jjV..~-( R *- . f I cf" ,Ai 0 lIJ'H~)lll" tYl b 0 I A)f">1 Pr~c J Dt'il. } [ir..., !I) IqJl ~L{ Y-rJ ry {( r'k~ i\' ,eid'f,i'<~rrLr:"~ L: f J-2 '\J~v'~'Jli~ -1i1v ~;1'-t)m,J v:d~",~ 1[J'''''-<-- \l Jr _:1 v , W JJ -' , " fi iLL. r.~: (,[~'vl~-~ IV', (etv,l' t:" ,..., ,(",' " .~. ' _ , (, "-- ''';''.;' ""l' o --i- ,I', I" ck' ~~( '!'vt, i;,.-....:'Y\./I../...c-r1 ,V,!I\ -1w cf'~llrJ~ - ,:J(1I1.~ j~.,-....., , v]' {" D" q,vv - . ( " J "71" IJ" {:" ,-<..."1..1,1J1 "':. -((-'-'''1;.-1 ...., J .' c..ivfr,.tl; ~,;;t4 -f,1:;, I<Uk ~ rl.,;, I ~ 1 (i), C~l<" -Id\, 1Lt-l-( , , ' If J- -a ! 'I ' (t a111ll~ft ,r;-f tI.-~" k t,-y(.W<v[Ci~c 1t-1<..::C;, -tI...,-,{ It'", /e"0 -1 - j - ,L J I 1 J I J J /. f.r,1- f - I 2. I,,, + k /\1~'{)i}t..LL..("r<.! ,t.~tLk!Jtf U ~~ t/1..iR--I Ii ..; I, (vn~1'~~.J,c.~~l~f" ., /.:>11;.r'v;L, A; t rJ1:ij t-;'~''n...t;ti'"t , ti {w< 4.--~;}JJ! D,'j A IleA J,I/Ji;" v.l1 j,c,,,'1 < .{ f'rrJ-1-o:J; ~::'- v.-ttrtlvrh iu t).tu {t-r)1,'!.Zf.'j'v? , i1"',"", '......, MEK>RANDU M TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Dept. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Fire Chief Aspen School District Zoning Enforcement Official RFTA Roaring Fork Energy Center Steve Burstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office FROM: DATE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivision/Rezon- ing - Parcel ID '2735-13l-13-00lc."JM'i""."" April 16, 1986 RE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review is a resubmittal of the 601 Aspen Residential GMP submission received by the Planning Office in connection with the 1985 City Residential GMP competition. The applicant, Hans Cantrup, has resubmitted his application which now consists of the following. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 free market units for short-term rental. The applicant contends that 20 of the units are to be reconstructed (Mine Dump Apts) and therefore exempt from growth management. The remaining 92 units are being requested through the growth management competition process. The applicant is also requesting approval for conceptual subdivision for the purpose of construction of the multi-family structures, a street vacation of Juan Street between Aspen and Garmi sch Streets, 8040 greenline review, and rezoning of Lots 3-12, Block ll, Eames Addition, from R-15 roD (L) to L-2. The property is located at 601 S. Aspen. Please review this material and return your draft comments to Steve Burstein no later than May 19, 1986. A meeting of all the referral agencies will then be scheduled to discuss the comments and final comments are requested no later than June 6th. If you anticipate any problems meeting these deadlines, please call ASAP. Thank you. roBLIC NOTICE RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivi- sion/Rezoning - Parcel ID t 2735-131-13-001 Case No. 048A-85 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on June 17, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P. M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the resubmittal of the 601 Aspen Residential GMP submission received by the Planning Office in connection with the 1985 City Residential GMP competition. The applicant, Hans Cantrup, has resubmi tted hi s application which now consists of the following. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 free market units for short-term rental. The applicant contends that 20 of the units are to be reconstructed (Mine Dump Apts.) and therefore exemp;: from growth management. The remaining 92 units are being requested through the growth management competition process. The applicant is also requesting approval for conceptual subdivision for the purpose of construction of the multi-family structures, a street vacation of Juan Street between Aspen and Garmisch Streets, 8040 greenline review, and rezoning of Lots 3-12, Block 11, Eames Addition, from R-15 roD (L) to L-2. The property is located at 601 S. Aspen. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 223. sIc. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ================================================================= Published in the Aspen Times on April 24, 1986. City of Aspen Account. N.26 A. c:~ .~O " ''-~-~' " (,'F<'" Hamdi AI-Zahid ~':;d^. (. '\, Hayan AI-Zahid as Tr'ilstee ,'i?"" for Abdul Hadi Hassan Ali and ) __~atool Ali-Hassan ' """,-, ~, (",cia The Pines Lodge ;,,411 S., Aspen Street Asl'en, ;7'81611 ,)"'1) "",, <~I(,<..t~ :1- "'t tJ':,^ /' .,-" ~..!\ " , /, , "))' \L:: -., " '-= '1III!IlIl- ~.~ : .,~'~ __ _'.r ----......,- ," . ,~.r;:'~II~ CITY/COUNTY PLANl'{1NG OJI'FICll 130 s. ".....1 t:. A 'IlIIP'EN. COLOR"'uv 816" ^.-----.-.--.-',---...... (t(l.'~' ~~'....i~.~ . ~...".' iIA' .. ...., III , ~'ic ,: I j.~' \ </l":; 1.~' ~ '~;,i\. ;;g.~ .i-j.,-, t~" l~ .-'iI'.'oj 0 '" "...1 Uo:' g,:ij "', '::' N :?- N :: ~ ~ N <: fJ E : o lID - ~ <( . i g !! ,( . I~: ~ '~i fi : ClTY/. COUNTY. P~OJrFlCf!: ~30S.~~ . . COLc+tl'o ., 611 Vutok \(f '{Io rt\~\ ~6~ 6y~ 0c '-~ '" ~ ~ ~~J; "::1 c . , ;,,, " >; ?: ,-;" i ::r: N ::r:~ -~~ ~_ _ g 6 ~~6~~ r-@ 00 00' =h:; .~ rr ro O::E:" :; ro rr - (Jl rr\ll >'3 :; :><"..0.... -;!: 0 e;:.=? 0 :r: ~~ ,~ to C d_. C - ~ ::.:'; z-.1 c: ~~~ '0,,", t~ 1"1'(,<''1 ao O:L;?'2'I::lNl Otl/;?2/B6 m":TUF(N TO BENDEF( NO FOI~WAI'UnNG Ol'mER ON FILE - TO FORWAI:m UNABLE" Max and Jayne Prances P.O. Box 1180 Green valley, AZ 85622 . . 'j G'tl'J,,3V. 81:::'\\ . . 1I"I"I,\"Il""i,I"I,II",1l , ~. ~. 9 :.,. i i 'o! z \,0 Ul ~ '1", 'II : \0 " I'" ! ." ; )II , · I" :z I dll'1'I% o Z Z II:'. .. 0 at ... :: ... n III r-> I", ~ ' ~ ;~~." ,/ ;) \. ,. . ...-.-...';-' I' \ l" , I. j ill'ml . ~,jJJJ ~.' .~.~ :,~ .~..,.u :-~"."':;;' _' .._-,,: ',C_ . ..... . ':P ..:.-- .~.~ l' <( - .'.->~. q~"'~ ':9' ~...._. . '",.....~....I .~~..l ~ .<5. ........:4, <> at- "-L ..+ r ~ f;:: ..E:-~" ... f .,~ ~.{ \. ... _. ; ~. ~. ... .,,-< ~ ,;.'$" (rt , ; ~ ,. :!t "ft ..;.Atr I "~ i. , . " . ,..".~.-... .., '-' rRR"I"l:Fl:CA"I"E OF MA:rLDfG I hereby certify that on this ~ day of ~ ' 198L, a true and correct copy of the attached No ice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the aforementioned public notice. ~w:~ ~ Janet Lynn R~ak t .~''\ '" ...... , ... . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 601 Aspen Residential GMP/Conceptual Subdivi- sion/Rezoning - Parcel ID '2735-131-13-001 Case No. 048A-85 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on June 17, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P. M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the resubmittal of the 601 Aspen Residential GMP submission received by the Planning Office in connection with the 1985 City Residential GMP competition. The applicant, Hans cantrup, has resubmitted his application which now consists of the following. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 free market units for short-term rental. The applicant cOntends that 20 of the units are to be reconstructed (Mine Dump A~s.) and therefore exem~ from growth management. The remaining 92 units are being requested through the growth management competition process. The applicant is also requesting approval for conce~ual subdivision for the purpose of construction of the multi-family structures, a street vacation of Juan Street between Aspen and Garmisch Streets, 8040 greenline review, and rezoning of Lots 3-12, Block 11, Eames Addition, from R-15 PUD (L) to L-2. The property is located at 601 S. Aspen. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 223. sIc. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Published in the Aspen Times on April 24, 1986. Ci ty of Aspen Account. N.26 ,...-, .r-'-""", .. RE: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 3 through 20, BLOCK 11, ALL OF BLOCK 6 EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND THE "MINE DUMPS" DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "1." THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF ADJACENT LAND OWNERS AS OBTAINED FROM THE MOST CURRENT TAX ASSESSOR'S ROLL FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 1. LOTS 13-18 inclusive, BLOCK 11, EAMES ADDITION: BLOCK 6, EAMES ADDITION: Aspen Mountain Joint Venture C/O Holland & Hart 600 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 ATTN: Art Daily John H. Roberts, JR. 114 West Commerce, 3rd FLOOR San Antonio, TX 78205 John H. Roberts, Jr. P.O. Box CC Aspen, CO 81612 Commerce Savings Association 111 Soledad, Suite 1350 San Antonio, TX 78205 2. LOTS 1 and 2, BLOCK 11, EAMES ADDITION, PLUS UNPLATTED AREA: John W. Barbee, Hallie B. Rugheimer and Mary K. Barbee P.O. Box 788 Aspen, CO 81611 3A. LOTS K through 0, BLOCK 70, CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN TOWNHOUSES CENTRAL: Unit 1: Major C. and Scarlet S. Ginsberg 13345 Peyton Drive Dallas, TX 75240 Unit 2: lIetty Severy 1616 Kearney Street Denver, CO 80220 Unit 3: Philip H. Frederick 46 Bridle Path Orchard Park, NY 14127 ----CONTINUED---- . ADJACENT OWNERS' 0 PAGE 2 Unit 4: Harvey Taylor W. 301 N. 9430 Highway E. Hartland, WI 53029 Unit 5: Charles and Gayle Severy, and, Margaret Johnston 30 Dexter Street Denver, CO 80220 Unit 6: Myrtis Mixon 35554 Highway 550 Durango, CO 81300 Units 7 and 8: James R. Shenk, as Trustee of the Shenk Trust , 555 Harbor Drive Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Unit 9: Harry Uhlfelder P.O. Box 1165 Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 10: David and Geraldine Kasetsky 14 East 60th Street, Suite 902 New York, NY 10022 Unit 11: Elliott and Marcia Harris 8200 Symphony Drive Pikesville, MD 21208 3B. LOTS P and Q, BLOCK 70, CITY OF ASPEN INVERNESS LODGE: Bruce Kerr and Ray Vaughn 411 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 3C. LOTS Rand S, BLOCK 70, CITY OF ASPEN THE PINES Hamdi AI-Zahid and Hayan AI-Zahid as Trustee for Abdul Hadi Hassan Ali and Batool Ali-Hassan c/o Pines Lodge 411 S. Aspen Street Aspen, CO 81611 ----CONTINUED---- /'" . ADJACENT OWNERS' () PAGE 3 4A. LOTS K and 0, BLOCK 77, CITY OF ASPEN PINES LODGE/CARRIAGE HOUSE Ralph and Marion Melville c/o the Mountain Chalet 333 E. Durant St. Aspen, CO 81611 4B. LOTS P, Q, Rand S, BLOCK 77, CITY OF ASPEN THE ASPEN MANOR LODGE Bruce Kerr and Ray Vaughn 411 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 5. TIMBERIDGE CONDOMINIUMS: 21 UNITS Unit lA: Rupert and Elizabeth Nitschke 6701 N. Rhode Island Street Oklahoma CIty, OK 73111 Unit lB: Thomas and Maryann Larkin 315 Inlet Way Palm Beach Garden, FL 33404 Unit lC: Greg Long and Robin Riggs P.O. Box 5228 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Unit lD: Joseph Cabell c/o Chart House Hawaii, Inc. 1765 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96815 Unit lE: Mr. Strashoungent and Mr. Lefkowitz 300 South Spring Street Aspen, CO 81611 Unit IF: Alberto Hodari 690 Mullett Detroit, MI 48226 Unit lG: Dr. Gerald Zukerman 4720 Tejon Street Denver, CO 80211 Unit 2A: Ms. Kathryn R. Barnes 2020 East 38th Street Tulsa, OK 74105 ----CONTINUED---- ",_.., ADJACENT OWNERS' ~ PAGE 4 Unit 2B: Ireland, Stapleton & Pryor, P.C. 1675 Broadway, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 Attention: Stewart Frisch Unit 2C: Harold Brough 621 Ledge Mt. Drive Austin, TX 78731 Unit 2D: Dr. Don Vickery 3844 Carlile Ave. Pueblo, CO 81005 Unit 2E: George Heimann P.O. Box 1312 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 2F: David Ellis P.O. Box 3633 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 2G: Robert J. Silberstein, Jr. 935 Madison Ave. New York , NY 10021 Unit 3A: Dr. Ina Berzins and Juris Berzins 6030 East First Ave. Denver, CO 80220 Unit 3B: Dr. T. Hitchcock and Dr. K. O'Callahan 4951 West 88th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Unit 3C: Dr. Ina Berzens 6030 East First Ave. Denver, CO 80220 Unit 3D: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Czajkowski 90 La Salle Street Apt. No. l6G New York, NY 10027 Unit 3E: Heinz Wolf 1221 Myrtle Street San Diego, CA 92113 ----CONTINUED---- I"" ADJACENT OWNERS' L . ".,. PAGE 5 Unit 3F: Tom Griffin 601 E. Bleeker Sears Building Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 3G: Douglas M. Cain 1960 Hudson Street Denver, CO 80220 6. LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS: 31 UNITS Mr. David Mulkey 213 Campbell Drive Las Vegas, NV 89107 Mr. Robert T. Warstler 17421 Riverhill Dr. Dallas, TX 75252 Mr. Richard Friedman Carpenter & Company 175 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Mr. Buzz Dopkins 2112 McLaine Flats Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. George Calkins 105 S. Cherokee Denver, CO 80223 Mr. Fred Smith P.O. Box 1388 Aspen, CO 81612 Mr. John Elmore P.O. Box 1328 Wilmington, NC 28402 Mr. Stanley Anton 70 Lincoln Drive Sausalito, CA 94965 Mr. Tom McConnell 4063 Greensboro Troy, MI 48098 ----CONTINUED---- "" ADJACENT OWNERS' r() PAGE 6 H.H.G.D. c/o Gaylen L. Weaver P.O. Box 2243 Grand Junction, CO 93545 Mr. Dean Vanderwall 531 E. Post Lone Pine, CA 93545 Mr. Milton Zale 2536 N. Halstead Chicago, IL 60614 Sr. Roberto Alvarado Cf D Terrote 325-302 Lamas de Chapultepec 11000 MEXICO DF MEXICO Mr. Donald Wilson 679 Kiskatom Lane Mandeville, LA 70448 Mr. Joel Wugalter 11 Hanover Square New York, NY 10005 General B. Cassiday 5621 Kalaianaole Hwy. Honolulu, HI 96821 Mr. Robert W. O'Connor P.O. Box 1357 South Bend, IN 46627 Mrs. V. J. Knowlton 2552 E. Alameda #31 Denver, CO 80209 Mr. Roane Lacy 8001 Fish Pond Road Waco, TX 76710 Dr. C.W. Langford 1300 Todd Bridge Rd. Owensboro, KY 42301 Mr. Marvin Banton 9600 Red Gate Rd. New Orleans, LA 70123 ----CONTINUED---- -- ADJACENT OWNERS' rC PAGE 7 Mr. Ed Glickman 900 Lakeshore Drive Chicago, IL 60611 Ms. Connie Moak Lift One Partners 419 E. 57th Street, No. 3D New York, NY 10022 Dr. Shu-Yuan Chu 1357 Century Ave. Riverside, CA 92506 Mr. John Stephens 4433 AHa Road Marina Del Rey, CA 90203 Mr. Howard A. Will c/o Caldwell Company P.O. Box 6005 Rockford, IL 61109 Mr. David C. Knowlton 1655 Frant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dr. Stanley Cristol 2918 Third Street Boulder, CO 80302 Mrs. Lynn Reed 6434 Rio Grande NW Albuquerque NM 87107 Mr. Allan Lechard 1002 Buckingham Road Grosse Pt. Park, MI 46230 Mr. Edward L. Brown and Raymond D. Stuhl P.O. Box 604 Lifle, IL 60532 Mr. Raymond Dale Stuhl P.O. Box 231 Naperville, IL 60566 Mr. Peter Chingos 68-30 Burns Street #B4 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Mr. Duncan Smith 2808 Harborview #A Gig Harbor, WA 98335 ----CONTINUED---- ,'..-' ADJACENT OWNERS' tC:; PAGE 8 7. SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUMS: 29 UNITS Unit lA: Mr. Frank Hardison 1211 Emerald Bay Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Unit lB: Mr. Joe Cooper P.O. Box 9993 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit lC: Mr. Paul Walk "The Dell" Hume, VA 22639 Unit lD: Paul and Susan Penn 9505 Copley Dr. Indianapolis, IN 46260 Unit lE: Mr. Charles Baker and Ms. Barbara Pritchard 333 E. 75th New York, NY 10551 Unit IF: Mr. David Courtney Evans 199 Marlbourgh Street #201 Boston, MA 02116 Unit lG: Reverand Frank Konst 8635 Midnight Pass Rd. Bay Tree Condominiums, Apt. 104 Siesta Key, Sarasota, FL 33581 Unit lH: Terry A. Mitchell and Jay C. Schuppert 205 E. Durant Ave., No. lH Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 11: Dr. and Mrs. Philip Hershberger 2737 Club Terrace Ft. Wayne, IN 46804 Unit lJ: Ms. Norva Bray 205 E. Durant Ave., lJ Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 2A: Mr. and Mrs. C. M. Schroeder 3629 Rockbridge Rd. Columbia, SC 29206 ----CONTINUED---- ADJACENT OWNERS' PAGE 9 L"~' '"",..r Unit 2B: Frieda and Martha Fischer P.O. Box 7014 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 2C: Ms. Nancy Kullgren 205 E. Durant Ave., 2C Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 2D: Mr. and Mrs. Oliver S. Travers 106 W. Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 304 Towson, MD 21204 Unit 2E: Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Hatcher 191 Race Street Denver, CO 80206 Unit 2F: Southpoint Condominium Ass'n 205 E. Durant Ave. S.P. 2F Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 2G: Mr. and Mrs. Carl Levy 937 Dale Rd. Meadowbrook, PA 19046 Unit 2H: Arthur Stromberg and Harold Fredna 205 E. Durant, Unit 2H Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 21: Mr. and Mrs. Larry Zoller Notte 46, 633 MEXICO 15, D.F. MEXICO Unit 2J: Mr. and Mrs. Wilbert T. Woodson, Jr. P.O. Box 9708 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 3A: Richard and Ann Garrett 405 AlIens Creek Road Rochester, NY 14618 Unit 3B: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Fisher 61 Green Valley Road Pittsford, NY 14534 ----CONTINUED---- "'\ ADJACENT OWNERS' L,,,,,, PAGE 10 Unit 3C: Richard Boundy 906 W. Sugnet Road Midland MI 48640 Unit 3D: Ms. Sally Glenn 504 W. Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 3E: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Schayer 588 S. Pontiac Way Denver, CO 80224 Unit 3F: Mrs. William B. Dunn Southpoint/Summer Corp. 4828 Fort Sumner Dr. Bethesda, MD 20816 Unit 3G: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Dixon Cotton Exchange Building Dallas, TX 75201 Unit 3H: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Dixon Cotton Exchange Building Dallas, TX 75201 Unit 31: Mr. and Mrs. Karl Hefley 607 Ocean Dr., Apt. ll-K Key Biscayne, FL 33149 Unit 3J: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Con Tongeren 2000 E. 12th Avenue Denver, CO 80206 8. LOTS 7 - 9, BLOCK 6, EAMES ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN CHARTHOUSE RESTAURANT Herbert P. Balderson and Joseph B. Cabell 708 Spruce Street Aspen, CO 81611 9. BLOCK 7, EAMES ADDITION AND LOTS 1, 2 and 3, BLOCK 8, EAMES ADDITION: The City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 ----CONTINUED---- ~ ADJACENT OWNERS' LC PAGE 11 10. LOTS 6-10 inclusive, BLOCK 1, CONNORS ADDITION: LOTS 4-11 inclusive, BLOCK 8, EAMES ADDITION: John and Frank Dolinsek P.O. Box 275 Aspen, CO 81612 11. LOTS 4-11 inclusive, BLOCK 9, EAMES ADDITION: LOTS 12-14 inclusive, BLOCK 8, EAMES ADDITION: Howard B. Awrey P.O. Box 248 Aspen, CO 81612 12. LOTS 1 - 3, and 12 - 14, BLOCK 9, EAMES ADDITION: Jacobus and Johana DePagter P.O. Box 182 Aspen, CO 81612 13. LOTS 1-7 inclusive, BLOCK 12; LOTS 1-14, inclusive, BLOCK 10; LOTS 7-12 inclusive, BLOCK 11, EAMES ADDITION: Aspen Skiing Company P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 14. LOTS 21-27, BLOCK 11, EAMES ADDITION, SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE Unit 2: Unit 3: Unit 4: Unit 5: Unit 6: Coates, Reid & Waldron 720 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Attention: John Howard Doug Simmons Enstrom Candies P.O. Box 1088 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Marian and Lois Korrell 9 North 23rd Avenue Melrose Park, IL 60160 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Peacock 1112 South Home Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Patrick A, Podsaid 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Grove Prifessional Building Suite 210 Miami, FL 33133 Dr. George Burns and Dr. Christine Burns 13827 Crown Bluff San Antonio, TX 78216 ADJACENT OWNERS' LC PAGE 12 Unit 7: Dr. Alberto Hodari 690 Mullett Detroit, MI 48226 Unit 8: Mr. Tomas Kann 200 Central Park South New York, NY 10019 Unit 9: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Lyman 20430 Lakeview Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Coates, Reid & Waldron 720 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Attention: John Howard Unit 10: Dr. Samuel Hunter 1175 Orchard Place St. Paul, MN 55118 Unit 11: Dr. R.R. Klika and Yvonne Klika 32415 Burlwood Drive Solon, OH 44139 Unit 12: Mr. Dan Murray Phoenix Leasing, Inc. P.O. Box 2008 San Rafael, CA 94912 Unit 13: Mr. Brian Anderson 213 Raynor St. Iselin, NJ 08830 Unit 14: Dr. Richard Tucker 5303 Malibu Drive Edina, MN 55436 Geoffrey T. Williams P.O. Box 822 Arlington, VA 22216 Unit 15: William Seelbach, Jr. 45000 South Woodland Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Unit 16: Mark and Grace Mendel Edward Silverman Allen Fingold 1620 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 ----CONTINUED---- "" "' . ADJACENT OWNERS' LC PAGE 13 Unit 17: Daniel Ventres, Jr. 430 Marquette Avenue South Suite 410 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Unit 18: Dr. Alberto Attention: 690 Mullett Detroit, MI Rodari Gloria Kerkes 48226 Unit 19: Paul and Betty Ryan P.O. Box 1148 Janesville, WI 53545 Mrs. Nancy M. Cope 216 South Garfield Janesville, WI 53545 Unit 20: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Konstam 1212 Millsboro Road Mansfield, OR 44906 Unit 21: Alexander L. Riel 381 Lovell Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 15. LOTS 1 - 3, inclusive, CONNORS ADDITION AZTEC CONDOMINIUMS Unit 1: Fred G. Smith P.O. Box 1388 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 2: Raymond and Emily Lochhead 1018 Russell Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63104 Unit 3: Donald and Sandra Feinstein 1415 Wind rush Circle Blacklick, OR 43004 Unit 4: Raymond and Emily Lochhead 1018 Russell Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63104 ----CONTINUED---- ","'., . . JI'" ADJACENT OWNERS LI"..., PAGE 14 Unit 5: Unit 6: Patrick A. Smith P.O. Box 688 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013 Gentry Real Estate Corporation 310 Ellis Blvd. Jefferson City, MO 65101 16. LOTS 4 and 5, CONNORS ADDITION TELEMARK CONDOMINIUMS Unit 1: Unit 2: Unit 3: Unit 4: Unit 5: Unit 6: Max and Jayne Frances P.O. Box 1180 Green Valley, AZ 85622 Preston and Claudia Hill 3910 Hillcrest Drive Denver, CO 80237 Verner, Effie M. Ecklund, Trustee 221 N. Fenilworth Ave. Oak Park, IL 60302 Christopher Carwell and Stephen Berlin 2553 Dexter Street Denver, CO 80203 Margery Kleiner P.O. Box 4191 Aspen, CO 81612 John P. Kleiner 55 2nd Street Colorado Springs, CO 80906 17. LOT 11, BLOCK 1, CONNORS ADDITION Rolles, Olson, Rolles Partnership P.O. Box 10147 Aspen, CO 81612 18. LOT 13 and PART OF LOTS 12 and 14, BLOCK 1, CONNORS ADDITION Meryl Hearst c/o Hans Graminger P.O. Box 67 Aspen, CO 81612 ----CONTINUED---- . . ADJACENT OWNERS' LC PAGE 15 /....", 19. 20' OF LOT 16, LOTS 17 - 20, inclusive, CONNORS ADDITION CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS Unit 1: Unit 2: Unit 3: Unit 4: Unit 5: Unit 6: George Strawbridge, Jr. Scott Plaza II, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19113 Dorothy Wildman 2920 N. Commonwealth Chicago, IL 60606 David and Virginia Stringer 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, HI 96813 Herbert and Cheryl Towning 2100 West Loop SOuth Houston, TX 77007 James Armstrong P.O. Box 1824 Austin, TX 78767 Bert and Susan Hollet 221 E. Walton Chicago, IL 60611 20. LOT 15 and PARTS OF LOTS 14 and 16, CONNORS ADDITION SILVER SHADOW CONDOMINIUMS Unit 104: Steven S. Bush and Alan D. Bush 210 E. Hyman , No. 7 Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 204: Elizabeth Waters Boylston P.O. Box 6329 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Unit 304: Kenneth and Jeanette Chiate 20628 Park Drive Malibu, CA 90265 Unit 404: Robert Green 9840 NW 77th Avenue Hialeah, FL 33016 12/VACA3/4.9.86 That portion of the Northeast one-quarter one-quarter (Lot II of Section 13, Township West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: of the Northeast 10 South, Range 85 I I I I I I I I I E:fil'rBIT "I" 'LEGAL ~ESCRIPTION " I. MINE DUMPS: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of Lot 13, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence North 75"09'11" West 181.25 feet; thence South 14" 50'49" West 78.00 feet; thence South OT 55'43" West 164.99 feet; thence South 75" 09'11" East 150.00 feet; thence North 14" 50'49" East 240.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. also known as: Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, and 20, Block 11, EAMES ADDITION, and a tract of land being a part of Lot 1 of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 13, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence South 14"50'49" West 240.00 feet along the Westerly line of said Block 11 to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 20, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence North 03" 55'43" East 164.99 feet; thence North 14" 50'49" East 78.00 feet; thence South 75" 09'11" East 31.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ' - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - --- o ..-, ~ II II G D I f1~;;l;~ N7'~! A~ I l4-7-i~ ) 'I '1/2 ln~i'L-f&",:Ljfu-;~u7wlJo'- fDo4>u..J 1.0 ~,;;;, 1 M~ i)~~'I'rt (AP~~ 1) VI l fir' {;f.P [71J.. f lej. ~ft-'f./4 - }5'2 tJr.J rJt H+~ 6-u..i/R()JU.Jt7't~.h~ - IO~hJ(,. (<(.1/'1I4. r1~r;J)""J0'{r/;tj..'1-;;J.l,;.)",,,,,,,,'1 trl J it~ (-(II-.t., 1 . Aoiti .w-....v.11 (fr'J";,J,<.;1.-tr0, tu~t;fItUJ Ptiv !4"'~<L7J "......'tV.."" ~ Jt~d o~'" lp(l(.l ! J p.1- /vOlvry ~~';'2&~U:., ~ r1 ~~tJ""Mo (p,i) Can,T, S/\,IAvU .- t~.k."" ~y J2-H?q (f'<J) LIl~) A(e~~ 1/3,545cP 'Or"'Sf1<<": 45',C.H ('3Q,6'Z) tJ'd." Sf' 0{. ; n, m l' 'bk;J",,{~ bP;(~\, fl1"~;,^( il"d.,+'" ? l. r~tj ~~) r.<<bl1ll1j' - 7.~(.c,,'rlfl1(f A'J'Ii'''+ ,. , . -,4"ljt-..";fl,;. '~-vd",,'I/i(,J!~{,';' f-,.".:,li" (o"p<f.b,lilJIA/ff'lJ/'b.. ~F1J 1,,/,Ii.. f.." 1.'/, "7 ., fl-,.,J b ""J;. (?-I'lJ t".,; t. s, 'a- h, - L-l lOjlor^f,.i,j:ty ~I IC',,),:~ b"wv ~cf''''''Fc'<JvuI-(Itl-.t,t,>.o,J, n'JhtJ.. 71 f'''l, ).,1o>,J ~-1lt..;J.,& >,rJ.~i"', - rl..o'~/ ^'J~~ ) ;".........1 ,t, F~/kl"J (~~~) I~C'l<Jv;ti~(~fJ:vi'J - "'fr<1.. ~f,L~ l(;"J;,~v"..vVt<.~ nV"l/rt~h'<Mf"~~.-4f~) - ~ ~?.b{ (~Mt /lfe,,~ rt'.-z."~;) ~f1IA,lvJI(l) fU't)). I )".t f"."f.f4r-1- '3c cppr;:. I'IlW,: CCt~~:~ - wi ~t);4 ~ l;:,~ilx ]/1 p." t 0-61V1.{{;. 'fM,;)..:-:' 'H~"L/ 0" /,~ ... J ~T CD'"n..",t,. ,Juj fro .....re, /1..)J1, sJdv. ;. 6t'., CI)"f~-c. -- - -- ,... ~ ~ (,01 Art (L.j-7--M rev;ll) If-7--S6 H, V Aictfm. - }v'~~ st. ft'vie..,'llJ H')oI1.,1.(,itf';. ~ ,,-hu. M~ ~ lfrJ I . ~;j t1IU 4 tho} ~ ~ ,d'~ 1. ~ !';t~ ~""". if,! i,.rM'l., ;j;u;;(~ ~ fleW'-' ~o 1D e,.:-r.(.""j f,11\ wtw~ . eft/(/> 'ireV/{1. "0., ~1\.t.'"'" 0")(:,,, fVJ4;'1i ~i1"'-J~f )j4'vr~ n } h.i .Jv'!l:~ r~ J",,, -; ('\h"r,~,.t~ ~,vj,,- ( fll;.. J -f,'....) '/(0/, jo tq(yv~ - rt'nt~1 t'fJ/.",.;) r) (tv\<~ (~,io(i~ 4 Srhtfd_ l'{(", i Pl, vi,l d\j-t -- -- - - - --- -- f b' G) % 0 ~ ')$ (" r' , ~ (-' -v ~ ,. . '0 ~ r ~ ~ \ ~ \' '0 0 . JI ? -t:- ;.-- ,. ). -= r t \ ,. v ~~ r ~ , .y I $ , II --- r cr- '" "3- X" F .~ ~} p ~ r .....- r 0 .....- ,Y' ~ J\ ~ ., ~ r l ~ (' ~ -- '" = , ..,) r ( tl ,. ~ '^ , .->. 6 5 . \ ~ ~ r1; r r ;. ,. () f r ~ > C-- .-1./\ f <- <:r ~ r= r-- 'C. r > ' :; t' I' I ..", ~ <]'6 . tc~ - ~..() j\:' }." ~ r 4- Tf_ S:. rJ -6 r ~ To j'...J1 (' > 0 . ~ ~ t ip f' f' J;~ i ~ ( '" I '" l I (\. 1" ;- ,.. o f r- ~ r. -' - -- - .- R{: 6 c> I f~ ~~ (2.,~ N p....u.r ~ ~ k ~.....J.- ~ ' MRX c....J. ~~ F~ r. 6. Be/)(' /Igo C- r e.e,.u V,4 L L ... Y I A 'Z- S" s is 2-:t. )Ie t- h {.,fl.. T J C:4 d~ '1 L To Lu 10/""' 1 :2,./00 (.b~ LtSof SOl..ATh ,:::; LA. tt-c- .,Ii::: 1100 116 us -ro/U . IX. 77 ~:z 7 / ~L-d ~ / j)~ /lJt1.~ I I I I I l I I '" - ~ . I ~'!' . '\.. 0 I I m ~ z I . I I I I I I I J , '- I ~ I I $ I I I () ) ~1ro ,,<:'>" m \ \ . , , . I . I \ I I I i 1 11 . I m ~ z .... =< I ~ r- g ! OJ 1 -< \ J I . I ~ I t ! j j i -+ 1 I I . c z - .2: O. :0 o o ;: . '6 .(J;)' I I I I I I . - I ... I ~ I I' 0 0 0 ~ ,~ z ( I :n I I \ I 'i I ) . I ,'6 . ' , I cf:l I , o o z =1l I I I rd.PJ I I I I co m :II ~ m o '0 :Xl ::r:r c o :Xl . I \ ~n:;:.< I i21J RMISCH , I ... I ~, - - - -- ~'-- -, - - , " H~SI~~V~ J:. ~;- .~,t; : ,. _'I ; ...I'.1t; I ,~ k (,' , ,,".- C/) 'W '0 -c:c ,~~ . a. *;':/', ~(J)d;. ~'I' 'c/)' W' 0.... :~a: 'a:w h::)m tk.lU)~ '" coj i=., 4 ' . --...... yo-- . fl , " I I t I " W .. () - .> .~ , I I , C" I '. . r , I .", . A > ' , , ~ '- -. I I 'i. I I . , " r"l; /.'..~.:::-,:':':'I'f,"4\."\~"'.,." '," :,' .,'" F~~~~'5~t~::'~~~ ,t"iIt ~..... ........~...,.,..,~'lr... "....'. ...... '.,t' '-'1 ,...:.,'-','......,'''- '... . ',.," ',. ' ~>i:{'''~. .,' ." :.,~;:~:,::~! :.~~~~\'.~ ~ ~ .... "~' ,,' " "',"'''1 :-..,1" 'h,'" ..." , "'D;:~ ,;.'.~:~N~~::.::. \. ,. ',' ,:t~\\"'\,,\ '$,:.~:$:'~:.\.,...., ''''',,:~,',., ~ " .~ ~ .. t ',.( ,I' " . "...in.;;', ' '. '."""..... '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IJ ~ ,~ . . .'~ .___-A,.,. H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVaOPER - ASPEN SITE CONTEXT 601 S: ASPEN STREET ASPEN COLORADO . SKIDMOflE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER , ,f~~ I H! :el \ 'I ( II. k I ' II , l . I " I r.ClL~',J ~ ~/~ ~. 1 L ~~ R'i ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'I ~ L." . If! if A f~<< . ',~ ' ~ HH H' CJ llr\ LJ~I 'I ~ .iUS'!i I p~ i ~1&K~t 1.. $ . ! i 1 Aj:rt '. ~.dlH ~i il- aD): ~ I 1/ '" ~l 1I11,,,~~ ~; tJ cO i , /(/ .IO~ (~:8 ~~~l: ~nf; I~ . . . i ~~b' 'Ql_ci.~\E JI _(; p;- ~ ": .~lg-O !ll-.-'~~l-- Ii :*1 ..t5J otJO D ~lD' :LJ U I --.---) _~ ...... I: o' 0 J:1. 0 ,.., n e 0\ r \ . uu '-lJ~ ~j jiC~~'1 rJ. / l f29 ~ii ,Iri' ~i I ^t / a [j c~=-:.-=-=_..~ .Jk'J L____ CL1~'OD' 'E;;j-[. nO' I) a .._3i:'~T l' i r~~ CJ n ~ J If;, .Il '---rl C,,! .'fi' ~' "C:;I ~ ~...-i - .J:""'-'" \ l 'I . I "J r'" 5 .i T. --- '-'---... ..,,,(! '..-J I It' - { ----. . ,,;- I r-'-..,' 1 . " . , 'i.L;: \ -, ...-' ~" ~ . ,.;; - " -....- , ~ ~ 1 . . ~ i" \ E3 . 1==ltn~1 -= '1;' ~ = ~Ii~. l~~!\{,"lg !4;;1"'~~iR! lr ,t C 1'0 ... - .. .. c " .. " i ~ i 'l'f lJ ~ Q ~ 8~~~g.! f:11'P~ l!j & I ~ l' , f i ~ I f ! . .i i 1 I I I oG f ...... o [ { r ---, ('- /C) ." J I :'; i {t 7 ~ "i . i ~ , SITE CONTEXT'MAP H.B.C. INVESTMENTS 601 S: ASPEN STREET DEVaOPEl1- ASPEN ASPEN COLORADO . '. ! ~ ~ ~ i. , SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER ('"en o ..- ,,-- --C' -- . ._..~~_." ; --"z ..... _H'_~' / .'fI1" - .,1 u "~IJ 't.'(;~ ~':J:J, '" t~ "tJ ...A. .~ c: en _c..... . I ~. . i 0:01 - _.- ---- --.. i - =- I f') "I -..---.::S-- _ ~iI: ' . g_...~-~- ,l. _.--m.:'_ \.1 C.. "T\ ,.. -- -I d 0' '. -.......1 I I I . . ......1 . I I . I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I . I I I I I (') ;t- :1:0 ~.c:._ /'Il :ZOJ -I -t 01 _"H ,.~!.!! :t.Z ... + = ~=--~- _~- ~ ; .u:'.:. -1- VI l" I = {> ..... G') r CD 111 :0 -i :r: r r '" l" I'> F \)J :1 == + . \II . 0 I '" f' I l" V' .(l. o 1/1 (f) ;-l . o '^ (f) ;-l .c I' l' .J) -0 l' b: ,( ~ :St.q;K 1;0 : 1~ ~ I I ' ,I OJ \- " I ,'?O '0 ,~ Ill. ',~ W~ "'lJl ..... <:> t!J <--; Co.. OJ ..... a> .. C O.'.r'._ tUt Z 0 0) r 0 - ^ 0 )> ("l III .2;; ~ ~~ l> .:r-.!.- ,-- -... OJ U> .-- ~ U> [N :-I :-i .. " r~-" l> ~ . -0-. :E 0 t" ~ Z oJ lD '. . r- +g ,,;>:. . VlN ~. '" (f) ;-l ; ->0 :zen /'Il- z- . I . . . I I I . . . I 'HUh g. I / z I 2 -I I ZZ U cJ o Z~. :; "J>o . - r. . , 1) I I I I l"1 " 't"" o lliJ' ~j CIJ . ,-..;t. . -' I 01 ' ..... . , .~ Q : C;; ~: VI ... N "'; . ',..;, <j""" .-----. .-"---- ~,_._-_.- -, " .0 - CD 11, 0 r -I :I: 0 rn Z- '" Y < rT1 ("l ,~ 0 Z Q' 0 ~D -J~'[{J~; ,.~~ : m :t :1>. 0 ,~ >0 ' '\J .. r"-l o o r I}I ~ -J Vi N TF.l . .l.lU._ . .:1 -/''c) S~ :I. ~ \l\ ~ - VI V\ A J H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVELOPER" ASPEN ZONING MAP 601 S: ASPEN STREET ASPEN COlORADO . .~ :0 l> Z -i . T' oN I .c ,... I I -- - I I I ~- I\) I '1\)' I- I f }l 3! . .H__ Z I /'Il '^ en I I . ASPEr I llJ - . , '" 0 "tl ~.. , Z ,- /'Il . - 'en " - -- .. ;t"~ ..-. -. -->--"l ~ llz /'Il - 0 z -, :ll v> [ """ """ ......_MONAF I I I I . I . . I I . I I . . . I I I . I I I I I . I t . . I I I /- O~ ~ :I> ~.:-i ~ :U:c f' ,..~ :;t -' ." CD (,)I Mill 1 I ! ~ '-' , SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS" DENVER -----.-1 (\ :: i I l" .' _ ~rc:: , g---~~- f, _ _.--"L-_ ~ -- -t u o C ::0 )> Z -i -l: " ". r. . '~:'''':~~?;.:.~. '~"i ,/.~. .~.:~ . ., '':lr~~.1./''VJ~.\~:~~t: /~-J~;"!f :.,,~ ;" .... ~;.',..... I "'" o I\) 'I\) o ~ :!! _",_ Z \II \:l [ ASPEN I + :r. :i-:r: ...., - G> ~ Q ..,0 - - r r ~ 0 ~-o {'> en VI r' '" t" CD , ' t"" l'" 0 r /Tl ---I --' _..~._-,- --'''-C'' - r' II' (" \N ::0 l" \II F \)J _.~~.. ._.. .0..__- -i ..-.--.-.. ".--.--.- (J) ~ :: -t> :: ~ :-I == ~ I ----..- OJ z / 0 VI (J) ii \Jl (JI 0 \1\ (; VI -~. :-I en ...-.... .J) I' JJ " :-I -0 " -.J) " f - -.;,,_...~- IE ; BL.6CK 1;0 S'i dq m --I + Ol , I I (JI i- ~ 'lD ,.-- ill E t-:- - " '" 0 '0 I -1>0' - Z r'II - . -"en .. .... - '. "'" - .- - rc::': ..- ..-.~-, -1>0 JlZ r'II - 0 Z ,-- ;:0 v> '-- T1 7 (JI ...., c... C 0, z' 0 0> - ^ )> <D --l -t>. .~ )> <5 - .-... -.-..-. --- N 00 oJ' (J) (J) ;-l ;-l I\) ,MONAR r .(JI '0 D )> 0 -0-. l" 0 fT1 :::: 0 r Z l)J' );- lD 2 ,- '," +0 n ,,;0;, .' (J) VII\) Q) :-I orc::,- ()l " :co -~ ~ zen r'ZC>l I'l -IC>l r'II- -I~Q! z- :x;,Z N VI .... ; ~ l" o , 'Wr-;tJnL ~~~L4-J \ ---<.- _ .1.-_ MILL " .0 {~I~ CX> 0 ", 0 ~ -l 0 :r: 0 [1\ ...., r Ql ::0 l- 0 0, c 0 < y r" '-01 lTI z CD IT! 0 tD/Tl '" -I ,Vj z ~c-< ('> ...J \A\ ~ N zz en )> NUl 0 ' '" oz;i :-I < Ul .... d z , -I' /Tl i 0 , V J>. '0 0 r. "U 1) )> ::0 ~ :x:. ^ ," .-/-0 V\ VI \J\ rl S~ A I I lD - H,B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVaOPER - ASPEN NEIGHBORHOOD USE MAP 601 S: ASPEN STREET , , ASPEN COLORADO @. SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERnlLL AACHTECT8 ENGllEER8 - DENVER ~~ f 1 1~ MILL ~ 1 ~ ~ . .~.: I. -. :0 f . c ~ OJ co 111 ~c-< ~ }> NUl < Ul ~ 111 d '-'" -0 ~ iJ }> :0 ^ - - - .._-~- ,._-.."-- ---. ..-. --...-- ,bL=.. ( , I , + , :J: ~:c '" - G> I .e _,._0 - - r ._.... ~ _"0" r ~ ;p-O r \N OJ r . ['I. m - -{ -~' -. .~.._~.. .._~- r" \H :0 l" \11 fi _'....n._. -l -.-.-.-... -----..- (J) = 4- = ~ :-I ::: ,- .1\) VI r' l" VI = 4- o ~ Q) G fJ z :r;! z f n [.- ~ ~. r. r f '. . '1-> o ~ . -:<-- . : -/ (D o o .0 P ~ y .~ ) ) .".J~ <;? . . ., (;ARM' I-l "11 -- -; u -..::.;,- o C :0 }> Z -l L K -I o -.J o (; ;;q ::2 ...._z \1\ ~ t~~ f.~ ::z rJ\ "" :i ASPEN I . <fll. \-.... 113 0 '1l """ .... - z ". rt1 ."---cn ... -..- .:~:,:~'j-'.~ "")lZ rt1 - 0 z . ,.-. :u V> E ~~ -o,.--c-- . .....~~.. ~ .._..._---~ ;' I -.J -.J III '--- -t>- .. .MONAR .' CD OJ .NEIGHl30RHOOD USE MAP H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVaOPER - ASPEN 601 S~s~~~~~o 9TREET @_, SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHlTECT8 ENGII'lEER8 - DENVER ..j.- ........ :;; 0 en ["Tl 0 -;- 0 )> < 'J (') - ~ 0 (;' ... '" ["Tl ,", "0 en Z 6. ~ ~ ~:o N ~ 5 :;; ~ oV.oo " ~~ Vl '" to i'i ~~ ....~ tp VI C "tl )> 0 0 "'D ~ " ~ . 0 ..,:0 '" r t1 l,I) x (;'l < 1"1 <Ox m ~ g N ~ (D' ~ ~ en '" . r VI /'1'l"< ::0 m Q \Np~ (.0/ 0 O:z ,.., ["Tl ." . ~;mp~o '" ~ - ~ '" \l' 0 010 VltO 0 Z JTI OG;:K II '" q 0 0 o ~_. -< 0 a- S 0 :J -I Z 0 Q 0 z '" \ o. '"' 0 m '" Q ,. ;;; ~ '" Q) '"0 Q OJ :J "'D ::0 n r 0 )> c.. -I JTI :a () ~ N 0 575'09'11" E 150,00' r.> " 'c .. '0 . % ;. % < '0 " ;;: ,~ ,- < ,%0 '< n %0 -" .0 'II>'" c~ ',0 '<0 '''',. ;o(~ , .. ,<< Xo , i1: ;",~ ,_c ,x. < (f) G> l> ::u S (f) () :r: (f) :-i :;; . '" '" o. " " <Ox 6 '" m < is l> '"' 0 '"' l> ~ o. <00 a-Z '"'0 ;l) 0 6~ N '" < "n '.0 :"'iI: .. ." , .% <n ,"" ,;VJ> 'b~ , c" ." -0 ~. ,<" ,~:; ,~~ 00 , ~ z ,o' . .. c" ,~o eel "" , - .-, , , ~},- .}I 0 Q) l> ;: to <D ^ r , Z 0 I m 0 .. 9 ^ 0 C 0> )> ;: '" " <D ::u l> l> -l " C ;0 rn 0 l> to '" )> -l ;0 -l m l> 0 m m Z r r " '1l l> l> ;0 (f) ;0 0 c 0 m m r ~ r S '" '" '" )> '" 0, '" ::0 u. 0 0 '" -< '" 0 0 '" '" c 0 '" ft ,. ,. H- to to V> U> 9 0 0 0 ." ." ." -n :-' -l :-' -l TIMBER RIDGE UFT ONE CONDOMINiuMS PLAT 6<' PG, 40 OJ ," .', u PLAT BK 4 31 -315 . ) T " -~~ ,- I \ I I ,I -.J DEAN AVE. Z '" " '" ';'. '" <0, m '" o o o. ~, Z :;; " '" cr. '" <0, m o o " o. 300,00' UNPLATTED N750-09'-II"W 181.25' 150' ________-l - ~'- '" ' ------. ('> " z o CO " " " l> '" ('> In r ... o o c t!- '" o ." cl o o. Q ~ Q '" Q '" '" '" n p \l> l> CO '" -< Z ." l> '" ('> In r '" o o o o ,. V> P ." ,-l C~I roo ,"0 .", , , ~s,~ ~ }l l> '" r o ;. en l> :::0 ITI l> OJ l> '" l)1 In In " l> '" ('> In r (J) C ~ s: l> :::0 -< ... N ." ... '" .. '" P ." -< \ ~ ~~ ~Pi~ s\ (J) G) l> ::0 $: (J) (') :r: , I i' I ." TIMBER RIDGE PLAT BK, PG" 40 DEAN AVE. It (50' WIDE) : : .:.:.:~~~.:.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::.:;~:;:;:::.:.: ,:':':=:':':':':::.;::::.:.;:;.: RE I- LIGNMEN ~ iJ] ,-- .", '-' , :~~ "~ N 750_09'_11;"0 W :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.; DE4N AVE ,." 271.09' :::::::~~ '" n I- I 1- -~- !..:.IF: ONE CONDOMINIUMS PLAT BK 4 ~ 31 -315 ~ '-' '-' I , -1 (J) :--i l"'''''''''''r'''''''' U) ~ ~- b ~ t " '" ' O. ~: b ~ ;= ~ ::: 0$ ~ (3. * N '" ... ... :::::~':::::::':::"':. :.:.;.;.;. CIVIL AC-:IQN CASE ~O. 3982 ",,- :::::::::::::::::::;:::::::~:~ ::~';" 58,91' ~ 30' j 1"--, ~ ':;. * :u :~ _~; z - -$ b . '" o. ... ;:: l.D: ... '" <5 In ~ (PRI/ATE '" '" o < l> ('> l> ~ ;Do .. mZ ::: ....0 ~ ~~ z /"!i 0------- ::: N (~ "~"- \)''9'00 ' - J'~ :~:'I/~ . ':"':'>>>>:':':':'~:':':':~: <<.:.:.:.;.~:.:.:.:.: .... .' ...........w...... ............. ..............;.;w;.;.;.;.;.;.;.,. .-.-.....;.;.;~~-:-:.:.;.:.:.:.:-:-~ :.:.:~.x.:-:-:..-:-:~...~>>:~.:., _ _ _ - -. - -!"'S-""".II ~,,2_0'- 4/ ~ '-' ,0 l> <i' "' '" ~ )> '" 1J z;:t- ."01'.1 ~ oV)oo "," Vl -~CD~C ~ 1.0. 0 """ fT1 N n x ~ <. .." VI 0 N r- CD :t- , r- (.JI 1""1'< ::lJ ~~g;m~ -~ :J en 0 V)(Q CD o ~ ~ , :J m CD m CD ;;;; ~ ~ <i' 0 o m Q Z ? ~ :J n . t>' "" CD '" N '" N - . x.:~~~~-:->>--,:.:.:.:~.:.: :,:,:,~:,~:,:,:,:,:,:,:':':':':':-" .. b :::0 01 3:0 ~ . (J) ~3 . :r: r.' "," ? ... . '"" "," " V'J ~ LOCK '" ::; 6 ;t:ol '" JUAN 1.)~.::r"J:-..I("f\"".:I- r~ I I... I --..... 1_ '- (50'WIDS) , " ST. \/:'!... ':; :~'. 1" : .~} ~ '! _ N7~''''.l:j..3 0;;: IT! I ,: ~ I ~ I ~ ~(~J .,,,,j-=,,,_ ".:m.<.'="'m,..,i~"J - - - - "- .... --- - -- . . :.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~. ,,:,:,~~:-:~~~:,:':~-:-~X':':': .. .:.:~-.:~~.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:~......~.:..' .~ l""...~...~............. ......N. .....:~.~:~. ~.~~........~~ ~ , .. ......w.~~.....~....:.: a> BL,0GK II (D ~.y'~;~~:<< ;~~-:->>.~~:.:.:.:.:. :':'~:--":';':':'X':':':::':f~-:'-:: ::~/x.;:::xx:l;:.-::::::::~~ '. o fT1 < fT1 b -0 ~ fT1 Z -I -0 r )> -I 0) o (f) )> (f) "U (TJ Z "U ::0 o c.... (TJ () -I ~s 750_ 09'-11" E ~, ~~ ;i~ w," F. t'" I", .'" fo p" i. ~ l :~ \ \. ~. f,@ 'is>- '{.~ t- l i .:; '" , uo " ~ ,. "'- '" ... '" 'uo. " :z ~ I 300,,00' z - & ~ ~. ,0 " ." :-: o. , :::, ~ '". '''' '" . o N o o , 0 o. ~ " UNPLATTED ,0- N::; 0, N 750-09'-11" W 181.25' , ~ 150 ,-----------... " -< "---... ,. - :v VlO~; VI -:':; l] :;; ;:l () ~ z ... " ." ? ... '". '" ; ~ ~ o o o. BLOQI< II 01 ~ " ~ ::: * ~ N o X" "~. .,;.>>:~" ~A'Q~:,'*>>>>~"""'N ;. - :.:-;<<.;..-.;...'<<',.:.....--:-: 575' 09"'" E 150,,00' r,l Ci o o o. , ~: ~. ~ "1: :t C "1: C V ~ C V :t C < C 1 , V :E " TIMBER !:(IDGE PLAT BK. PG 40 DEAN AVE (50' WIOE) (]J ~.- ,', '.' .' >~~ -~:. ,- ...............,.,.,.,...,.,.,...,.;., ;.;.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.,:.:.:....... N75" 09' " .. ..............:.,.:.,.:.: :.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.~..;.;.:.:.:;:Lj .:..~:.:.:.;.;.~7,~.:.~:?' ..;.:.", D NAVE. ....................'.......;.,::::::::::::::::,:::;:::,: ,.:..... ,~ '" RE LtG MEN VI '" o g. I, ~ ~~ N '" '" C(.l r-- , - ,-, , , ~),. ~ wO "'z "0 '" <:> z /~ '" "" () at " '" U> at Z ^ r 0 '" () () 9 ^ 0 c: '" l> '" '" '0 at ::0 )> )> '0 C :0 (Tl )> VI l)1 :0 -< '" )> " '" '" z r '0 'U )> )> :0 (J) :0 " " '" C '" r r s: s: '" '" '" l> 0 !" ::0 0 0 '" -< 0 0 '" c 0 '" II- ,. " U> VI VI 0 0 P 'II ~ 'II -< '" -< N t>' .....:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.;.;.:. ................,..,....'..' .z.,-:.'.;. ~, (gi~ 0 0'> 0 0 III 0 ~ )> <i' -I VI < 6, '" ~ "0 ~ ~ Z; P:U N ~ III (f) o~ - 5 ~c ~oo '" ~r'l Vl 0_ zalVlC ~ <DO 0 .., ~ '" N n x G'l < '" -0 )> Q \Np~ lJION:t>('tl ~ 'rl,llr",< ~ {,oIoof1l ~ ::;: (f) CO:rJalZ m '" - L 0;> to-:J 0 <i' 0 III -0 s o " o ~<O " o -4_0 ~ Z 0 z " OJ JTI 0 co 0> p m co --I Z 0, N ~ ,VI OJ -0 n -0 r :::0 )> 0 --I c.. rrJ () -f '" m Vl IC>LUl.-1' b I ):> '" I ::j 0> , , , .......... .;.;.;.;.;...;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:<<.:.:.'................ 'N. _ S 750_09'_I! E" 298'.'~'~ I.J~'; ("J;"'I'" \-.,- ~ I I',.. I" I....I...);:.~) ur"'- ONE CONDOMINIUMS PLAT BK 4 3< ,3<5 I .-:l CIVIL ACION C ASE i'..) ':'982 .....;':':': 58.91' .'X '~"'>>>>X"':;:"X: ~. W~Wk;";1 '-I " -< ::: 'U ::: _~; Z " " ~(~l -~ -l ::: -< :.: [" , 30' '1 ...;.:.:...;.:-.,:~....;.~:.;.; :~ .::. ::: ,0 ~t ~ ;;: " * ~= OJ ,., :~ ~ o 0, :';';';':':'~:':';'. .::.:...:.;.;.:.:.;.;...... .-.-.'.'.'.;.;.;.;.;.;.;-,.;.;.;.;. <;; ~ , I ! , '> () ~. ~: ~; Z , ~ ~ ,0 '''' ~: 1- "', "' \5' BLOCK II N ~ o , ~ 8- , ~ -'1 ~ ~ 1 * ~ :-.-.;." ~. Gi ~ . .~;.; :0;'. ...:-. 57St ~.l 't X C 't C V " C ~ x c < c . . v .~~~. ~~ -- -'--~ ~~ .... , . . . . .... .~. ' ,.:, '0::' ., , . ".. ~ "., ... , ------------ -- ~-- ------- ~ '" -------- ------------.. -- ~~-=' ~\\-=~ "-- ---~- ~- -~ ---------, ~ ~----~' '- ~.. \ >- r UJ 'U '- m .z \T UJ -< ! --'"._---.~--- DEAN ST. ..., ~-f .....- " ... ... ~. ,1=-,,-_'" ;:.'-;':' :.:.i/ · ~ . '.. ... ( .' ; ><.~. . ' ~ .~, r ., ,:< j~ ' '. l' " . " ) . , ' DURANT \ 1\ ~ ,- H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVaOPER - ASPEN SITE DATA'MAP ~ 601 S: ASPEN STREET ASPEN COLORAOO . 32 64 ge SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHTECTS ENGINEERS - OENVER o . 128 , ,- ~- -~ --- ': '-"" "" " " \.', I "-, "- I 1 r-- --,.,;\";/....,1 . t';/ ,J- -~I "I I ,~I ,,:;;1 ~, , > .' ..:'" ~! F.:~,;ti,,;i I' "''- .it" ~ ,~)--- it'~--" '---c ..~ C/ ~cili>,~~~=----: ..f1 ;;:;:~;;:-- -~'-, ' ! I ,/ ~)-'- '<~~ /1 -! I " I " " /1 - -......... ----.--/ _ /____../1 -,/ I ------- ,- //1 'Sl~ ~//~'~ f-::'/;'.' 0-. ,'" I .,~.~" J./ -.------. ~ ~~; ~ 'J" /---", ''''--'. "7,''J!:, ,;:, // '--, \ ~ "'\" . ~~~6 / __Mf'~ .- / -, .-/...----' _-.----------\ v/ __'_ '- ~_____ .;1 .;__ -- I / , -------.'- ------ ' ______ ..J -I' I " \, '.\ ~~---~ \, // '~ --I , , , \ ------€'-8)'" \ "- "-._.~- -'- -_._-~ ./ ------ -' ../ OEAN 8T, , ,. .--r-"'- (Jl 'tl m z "'--.- m. \1 -< G) J ,. :D ~ J: .' J (JJ :z: (JJ " ... ;: o \' " '- " ,', \) '~ ......: " ' DURANT DEVELOPMENT SITE MAP H.B.C. INVESTMENTS OEVElOPEn - ASPEN 601 S: ASPEN STREET , ASPEN COLORADO 32 84 9ft 128 j SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGlIEERS - DENVER o . GJ- ~ ~~~~ ~~~~{.. .:~:>~~t.:':~' -- ----'::'7 ~ ~. :~ ~r .....,.. . ~\:~ ' ~ / / ~~' ;\~~~.~~.~< . ,,'<.~".~ ..." """ j:?::?7 ~', \' ~;~~f'~ l%':'~~':"::'~\\' .,:~ . 'I' / /, /. ~~.j ~'j{:: ~::O" yf,',}:'::;;;'; J ~ \' t\\~~ '. ~:.. ~ ~\\~ .; . ,,~:\ ~.~ -~::. / / /, "..,.' .' ;~~~t ~. . " ~~ ~ ~,"v..~., .~ . ~- ~ . '.~.:~ ----.-;- ',., .. ~ . ~ ~m:t. . ~:": >-- .. ,:.~ ~'J.l. ';c.r;. \' . , . " '. '~~, ~ " \. ". '" '. ,'~A'. ~"'jf'i( ..".. ~ . . . " f\ ~ ~~..'" .. _..L .. I. '''~''''\\'\'J"~~~,,,..i,['~''''v.,..:''.,.~\:,;'':'' ~ ~ '~~~.,~ t. i'i;",::;:,/,,-:;':.;!:;.:ifr.!.~.i",f,;:("'.,:::J::', '. ~ I' \ \~ ~~,. " . :r':""::':"",>,;J';"': ,::-:;!,,;'." :':, ~'o'':'::-\i ,:,.,..,~ ". 'i~~'~"-'~" . ,;..I"i}.;:;'~\:'I. '.'if'..;' :,.~...(.;:.:' ""j , . . ~ ~~~" . ~'I~: :;;'f!,':r/~::' .{~;: ,:.l,~~' : '~.,'" ":' ,I)!': .~, . ~. . :..; . . ~ ~ . I .:~, \, 1\ ..' '. ./., .;0' "" . \. " I '~l>.' ,... I ',:',; ')~Hir ,,::!U~ 'i;;-( <<C .:. . : . ~. ..' '. I ,:,~~" . . . . .....,., .,f,ll",: . '. . I. ~, .. ., '~!i' t,~:. :,"Y ~:'~~I i';:" . :'~'1~ ,',:;. "'~ j' ~. ...~. .. I ~" ~... ~II: :", ~:i~/.~.~j..n.,";: ;.1.. I"",:: \ '.~'. . ;I"',"",;',~"":"'.';''''':',>~' "I ,\" ~ "--'A..l(,." 'f:;' ".,':. .~h,'::"r"" ,;!,," .t. ,~ \\' ,\.:'\.' .'--1Il " .,,': ,,',,,,., ,>"" '>","','" ",'" , \\,lcW'" ""\\\.~~ - ,,: ~', ~,~.'Af;,:::;::'.,.\,,,"'~':: :.':;~;i;:':,:':'i'i",'; ~. ~~~:- '~~"', '". ~ '" j~ ,,,.'" '~':".';;' ::;~i;I'l";": t*"~ \I~ ~ :;1-I~K' ~, ~~.'. .. j'I,. ,"''', ,', ..".., ....~... _.~ , ,.\''''');'1''''1,''''''-', ~,:;... ,': ~~~~.:~... .. . .::-~ 1-;' ~ ..,; ......' .. .... '~,~--..~...,., . ," ill"' .i~. . . , . . ~-, 't. ;(/": ..00. .. I .~~ _ .,-" .,,' ,. .,,',"" . . ~ h"."" . ~~ 1...' .'" \~'" ~., ..:' :",;,~l~\;ll"~l\hl ~.~.:.:... '.' ..J ..~::~~~ , -. '1' '. ~. ., ~" '.~'w""I' it.J'l:l~1 ' ~.... .' . . ::---;:<:''"' '- ..~, .-.! :,.'r.~,',.-:, ~._: r' '~"'" ~: ,"/ .: ~ i ~ :'.;~ :~~~.' .~~.~~:.~\ __ __~- ~ .~.. ~~ fl.'" '~t ~ i ..-..' ",' .'- . ....~ .:k!~1; .... ~ ", :--.... , L" '. " . .,,"'!li .: "" ',. ;i'ai\\<iJr~~~fl.- ~:;, ,~ ' '" I~ '!t. .' ,,, . ...:. =-' ~;j_' . ,,,,..._~,.., :.~.~ , .~~.- ,.:\.....I-~~ "?::f 1'- . n~"I'-'",-' ~ ""C'...... "...,.,. '" I!!~''- : ,. , ". ~~~. -:.~.~.\"tf.j. ,. :! -, ( -"~;j. :iti~~~'~i~~~~~_ ~1$ ~._~:~;..::,..~. " -. 1-' . l-~ I.~ ~ "" t -"i(l-~'~"'~"""~'." "". . .. r,.~,.,?~)j\'lil"'~' .,>" ',,~iIi'I.~ "",..">1,.,.,.,, . . , " ~ ,," .l, .. "~'1:"s'J~~'~;' ',. ..", r........ ... . ',''1.'.".,-...'..:'.../.:- . . t :)... ':',~:, ..' ',: .'~ .'~' ;" ."!~~ -;: :,'i1.<,.-,..~. .. ~i~t;i~~.~~~.~.~. :-;<;.rl"';I'~~/';,,'~';~ . . -- ~ ~ I~,~.". t' i.~~~~fj;;',' .! '" ",\';;";~~l:tl"'~~'~'~",r~:, . ';%f~,((;;~X'.:i;, -21:. :'~'-:""~' ~,.: \ l '\: '-"'l0~ :,';~7 ).,'l'. '. . I.. _.' '. rl:'u,' l . "1l:P.,'\\~f*-~':~~~~~'~' I "~:;;";\:\lI~1:""" . -~. . i "1-- ," ","::i~ ,;~' , . ~ ! ... ::; t1.~~~l"'f1~," . T. _' "". . ,\ . ..-')" ________ - \,. :~fi~~ ~', .... 1 \' :'!\F,~,!.t~,,~ tri.'!"""",.: '.{ .:: :~!~\-,:~,;ii;.;~.I~,fi.'.. /-----.:.....~. ~ t"t,~~?,1~;~~ ,;< '. . " . .. . .. ~) ! "- ,,; '.' :- ! ~ ," .', ~...~~~ ;,':'+ :'i::>L'::':;:~<:: J. ;" .;<' iinl?... '-.l ':";'y:.'.,,,;:'-;>:)(' ..,,;:, ',,::, ~"'. :':'. " ~~d~i~I~. 'I~ ~~~I.~N.\i~ ~~r, ~. ".;t\~t; ',\ l ~;.\~.~ PARK~NG GAA'~:~ ,., . _PA"KIH~'_bA~~'OE~\. ,'\ '- ':t ~~> '.' ~'~O'~'.~'1l;;tt,:~I1il.l'>, \~I':' ' .' l~~it~', W!.' .~\;l' \~ ~,~,,' ';:~ - ,..~~,'.I>.J.2 ". ~i ,.' ~ ., . . f"'tf. ,;..., ,~, ,,' ~I.; , '.~ "-<- ~ r;' . ~;" ,~~ ~I I .~\?, ".'~ '0 -~~ i"\ ~ ~~"'. -~ ~ ,.' ~ '.i.> ,. ';:;;-'i 'H. ' ",,: ~:,~' . X..'.,'. ~ en ..('~. \~'I'" ,(Ir 'l~ ~ ,', ~ : rr.~\'\.x,. III -l ,=):i~', IUNDER ROUN P! R. tt . ~ I . , ,/ 1,~. fS-2-CARS TOTAl;; (30 A.$.C.).. ~L"'bl?l~~"':-';~fih~ I~t .;;.. ;,LF ~J\N:; ;.f..'I':-L;'I~;:f,' -L 14I''''~;k;~I:;'~j' '.r'T=f;1'l~ \'\ . '. ~. _' ..__ '.. __.'... J .... :to ,~ . _. . <' '- .... , '. .. I ~:}___~ ;3'~ ----~ . A..,' . ===----- - ?~~ - ;;.:" .... ~~. '/'~. , ... // ......, " _ ...--.-::=-~.., l.-c._~ - / ------------- --------- .~ ~ ~~'~ J f_u:'\\/_- --- ~ -- ...... .-- - -- ,~ 'i.: ------ ./ , --~ r~ ~~.\" ~ l~' I-- -- . / ---- ------- ..~-~=-- -=== " \ . rSA.____________./ ~. / ,...... ------- ~.~~_dr'~ / crrryt" ~L If. ~ ~~" ~ ../..--~" ~~ r - \~ :1--" l~ \~. if ~ '\--- /"~.- ~ > II> 'V m .z :::::::: l ~- (> {[ f DEAN ST. r .. ... ~~-- --=r --./ , /~ J l " / -~~_-1 .- '-- :kM ltft~':: ~ -1_"" ,I . --.. --~ ~'Q L . u " --' -(\ ~.Y r !' . . (e', ~ ".i~~\_.l r Gl > :D ~ ( - ~ DURANT \~ -......:::: - 1 -. PARKING PLAN 128 , (j) " H,B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVe1.0PER - ASPEN 601 S: ASPEN STREET . , o , ASPEN COLORAOO 32 84 98 SKIDMORF., OWINGS & MERRll t ARCHITECTS ENGII'oEERS - DErNER ....__,_.._...____ _.,n-'- ~~ ~ ~.~ :s\~;(" ~\\ >>l\\\\l - . '. 0:~'; " ~~," ~ '\~"~~~'~~~~'.. ,~,:,>~\~~",:,:~ . ~~," :~~.\'~,~""":,,':' r.)~ ;'. . /', "~~~ .~.:~. ~;..~,-:::. . ,,:.<~.;,,: 'h 'I:~ ~\.;.: ". ....: :", . :' ",", ir,.... '.. ,. \ \,\, , i'tzv.\\\\'\\\.I' ~ . i'. ~., '-. :;" ~. '~" ..,:;1'; ~~~':~ '.' ,~~ ;" .'. ~~:~" ~~~~'\:\)~~.. ~ '~:~.~ '~J~ ~ ~.. ~ / .,(~\,.,: j~::~' --- ~~~',.:, - \ \, ./ " ." ,. v ~~,. \\" \,,~' ~ . '\;:::'-..~~'~ \ K . I Sit . ~ ~ ,'\, ~ "" ""'V")J/:'y. JIfJ, ;, " . - I."~'f ' ~ ,\. "{;. , ~~~<" " . ", " r ,~. ~ ~ ~\: ~ . . .;::,~ ____-(''\.~ ___ \, ..' n_ .. '~~~"''\,''~''.,. ~"',' \' , .........) ~ "...... . , . ~ . -. :'\. ~,'\.,,~ .~ \.". .. .~ ---- ,-",,' . ".' ''''~'- ,'~; ~ .,.'...;,' ' _________ _~ ~_""..'''"'~~:: ,.,~""::.:"";,,,,,,; ~, .'0~"" '~_.~~. .' 44. ' ~ /~. \::t~itf"'~:;('I::{'~~\;';I:~~~ri":I.:.;~~~(r:.::'{I::', ,~,,'\..~~~ ' ~'" ~4k I. . "- d:~'~;':i(\'>ii:"":~:'II,IJ/"":'.~'" .;',':\" ~!S .-,":, ~b . I - ~~... '~ .1',.... ':"1:':/. ."1",' .;.:; "'." .'. .'"1(",,--t:-..,~~' "'. .. '- . ~ J' .:.... ..'"i. . 1:' ~.. ';~'~''''~;''('-' ,'~.~ . . . . . ~ ~ '-" _.. .~... ,~r,,;,,) '1,. ~~', '''j~:'{",,,' o!' ."'.' '" ~~"-~~" . J1*I . .~ .I, .J.-, ."'J" '~~l )"" -., ,'. t~ ~ . ~~" '''~s.... . '. , I -'0 1--'..;' >~'~;';"!;i:,~~~:\:;':i;fi':i:->"';~\',;;,(;\~: ,'~ ,t .!~'; . ~.; ,',' ~""~""~,':,' . r-;fi , .' ,,'L ..~.. ., ~"~ . ~,-t It. . . .' ." , ' . "." >'. ". " ,,' "" ;." ",' I,' . '" . . .::-. . ~ l 'l;~" '., ':.' ',)j ''\\; . :.,. 1:,' . .. .. . ., :s..... .., r:i' I~J;.: ':/j: . ~jn\ j\l\ . 'l-\\" .-:(: l'~'i. ,"l}....,,~.... .- -t ~II . I';~' ~;\; ;:;;", '/, ~::" '. 1':1 "<C '. ',~::, <Ii ~ 1 ~''\'\'\' , , ",~.-t."}...:,, -.: II ;~' h" "i.I,',;,',:' ,!,l: ,:,;', :"(!,,,,;.' \.! ,\ '\~'\'\\' . '~,,~ ~ ~ ~ ;j;t"~1~~~:''''''I''''''1 '".~~,~t'.'I~' \.' '':'~L'''~ -' :. ~'~~::,':'I,::':::'j'Jt"~~/';(::',.{.,.'~'lr;/.f:' . ~:\\: ..." 'if'" .~ __ :Iy J "~~!,,::r::'~'(."';11(;,:'n':~;":'~\~"":'~,I':' . ~'-:-Y1''\'\\.~ OJ. ~ " a. 1,~,'""":,,,!,,,,,;,;'.I::",, """;>''''';'';''iJ\~~ :~~L:~'\~"\,~ ~.." i' ; ~..,,'''' "~' . ,\.~~~v.P..." . ,~\ ..~ .;~~~~ ~,1' ,_ ".". ''f.,~{:i ";'0""\'" ,', \\\ ~., -." "I, .~~~_,1 ". ~ - _..,., ____ L J' t. ~ :~t - ':......~ ...:. . ~~~ ~ ....... _ rr-..,"" - L=l'~,,<. ,"~:;,!J"l" . ~I~" ",,>--~ :1 =d' ,,\ ",<1. '" h '" ~fi~',,~" " .' '\::Il.\~~~;W~,,'~~ ~";;----"~;. ......~~ y___ ' ,'. _,:'I.~ \- 0).' _'/ ,~l~ ,il.'r' , ': '. " , 'i," :",;;, c....! , _____~-.....::...""-.::~'. "c,,___~ ~'If I..J ~ I' ~ri. ~~ I :, 'r! ~. ,t 'i': {r~ ::~~ .~~~.\ ~- ~~.. ~rl" "";tt J)''F.!............ ___ '" ~. ".~. .~1ijlf~' ~~ !' ",! .os" "., ~,,1I::'~ :i-,'..' . -. ,.:.,; ifi.ti' ____ ~ ~ ' !1lW,-1l!~";' .:ll!., , " " " ":}.!i~ ~';,,'w'i1l ' ~;', '" .,\ . . , ~.~ , . - _ ::ti.: .,'. ,.~..,. ", . - 'iilf' "'. ~ - '~~: ',J",' ,-_~..,:":"",~,,,...-,";"" 'ff ,,' ~:i;. . ~.", :r;' ~.', ',' .' \ .'; .' ::::::::------ "hift '.' ,; n...... ;: ~~ ~ ~~~'::" ~'f91~t.\W~?, f. ~>~ : ---- 1\ - --=--- _--- I . \.' 1~~ ..t.~...,.... I' .'. ..:.,'~ ,1:.""':'" ,~tdr., . . .. ,\, '--_____ ',i.:=l. . '~n~ . iF'~M ,r '~"1~\{t~~~i;, ,,;;. ..:~. .,,~~. \ r::\?\..-. _-------------/ / "AI.' .~-IlJ,V -- \i,;.i~~)';'i:'.:'.:;,"," ".: 2~' .":.~ . \.....-~ _../ '. - -~. . - - ~ " . ; ." :i1'fi1;~!\,,;.:\;:ii;~'. ~ . . ~;-~,' MCI-M';- t 'I,..: (.', ,::IJ~f;i~~fj,i~~(..s.:, ~'-'" ______ ............... "'. ' ." YA*~~,'1T\1!L ~~ ......", ,....... '-----......___------ ~ ;;;; " .. . . . "'."k,":':~~';", ~C ' -~ ~"'~,~,,: ^" . ~ '-<. . l. .~ - ..._'-: . "" ,~ - r=iI ....-.- >- ~.... _~____'W.__ ___~~'-.'- - l~ '" . .. ." "/:<'~' \'" .. co...,, -_ ----g--- , { m '_I'} .z ;'.' \ OOMl', ~ ~ \ '..... ~. .. "". . ~. ~ ,~ 'Y I, ~.;l~---=:::- / _'\lJ\c;i.'-~ ~ ?"'\ -.~::::--: ....... \.:/~~. '- - ~~ ------------ -- ~..-- " 7 / " , 1-----= .....~( 'J.\;=~'.' \ =-~---::: y/ , .....--:::...---: ~-........ J'c1:'- --- --... :-- 1'--.._ c \[ /-- DEAN ST. I '/ : .- UI .. , -- - ~- -; .' ~ \'\ \\~ \ \ L ;,~ "- l.J -./' ,.; ~~n -. , ...--> / _~ i. ~ /] IJ .....- ---" ' I'-- , , ~- ~ , \,,' , .L. " ~Q f,.:' > /', ." .. ;c: ~..... )~ - ~ ( '.~.' "'~l~'l,~t:: ~ ' . " ~J:~~'r~~ . - ' ? ~. DURANT --....;, , .~ ' H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVELOPER - AspeN ENTRY LEVEL PLAN ~ 601 S: ASPEN STREET ASPEN COLORADO ' 32 84 98 SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGlfoEERS - OEJoNER o L. ". . > n1-..... :0 Z I\) I\) mOxm >r-(o)z >0(0)0 C/J r- -Im;:EO ~O-C/) I\)'-Im O::ro xo (0)3:>0 (0),,00 ,:"",>c..0 o~" b~ ' ">> ~- --- ~ - -- - ~ 1\)1\)(0)(0)0 OOle j< mc3:....- r- C/) 0 x C/) - -'-1 < 0 ~ :0 -< -----_/ .~ --------- ~.,- '-, .- .....-.-- '- . ----..........---- --~--......." -- 1\ _-_ ........... ---- -~-~- -----------------_/ --~-- DEAN ST. -~ -~~ H.O.C. INVESTMENTS OEVaOPER - ASPEN -. ," m -oZ ')>-i :IJ:IJ ^-< zr Ci)m < m C/) C :0 ." > o m "0 > :0 " Z " .1 > (J) ." m z (J) ... 'I'~~ J ~ " ...... DO (J) --- :I: (J) T1 ... " .,,)> )> :OC ' :0 0-1 :;;::5:0 en >m t':l C/)Z I "0-1 :0 C/) m-< -IZ . C/)> -IZ '0 >m Zx 0- -I 'TIC/) :om O~__ 5:- ,,0 >m :0> :;;::6 C/)o .../ Om Ie ~(- :0. -< ",,-, \ \, "- " ~" D UJ'lA..NL _ PARKING DESIGN S: ASPEN STREET , ASPEN COLORADO 32 6" 96 128 601 ffi -~ SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER o I. ---------- -----------~-------------- ----- ~---- --:-::~.. . . - -.- ._--_._---------~- , ------ , ~- /- - ' . - " . " -. ---d. ~=_=.==.-------" ./ -~--".-/ I : I '-" \ '-. \\ ,,'.----.----...........---.'., - ''', -'- "---- -- '" ~, ----- ---:-- --- ' -----_/ -~. -----------,- '- 'tt~V -~-_ / \ \ , ~/ -, 00 . '" ... m z '" -l , '" ~ i : -l , ',..'c---' 1. PED. TR-AII!. ' , " ,...................~.....~ . 1 ---, ~'~'_._.c_"..~'~---'~""ct!-_.,-'o'H<o~_.. ''''''''y-1'''i r." . "'f' .'. ;:- ,'. I ':~j~! '.. ~ ~,-~~((,;. '1.. ' }, :r'~~ .T(. ~~~: '}: .. """,,, ,,,,~~,,~,,,~:!:::::.'~..~~~i. --.c I .. ~__'- . . ,. . . . ----.~-- ) DEAN ST. B ~............... ..------~- .--' ,-"./ /, / .--/ (/ \ DURANT" ,~'......... "~.--' -................. -=- TRAILS H.D.C. INVESTMENTS DEVUOPER - ASPEN 601 S: ASPEN STREET ASPEN COLORADO o 32 84 ge 128 L___~. --,--- ~ SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILl.. ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER ~' -------- ,-' . ~----'--- -- -"- / ~ ----~--~ -------~ ==--- - ==------- '----- --------- .- ~------------ ~ '--\\ ~ -~~ ~~--- ., r.~---- -:---.. ~ 1\ ~, '-------'_.~...- "-_.- _.~-~~ DEAN ST. ------.-) H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVELOPER - ASPEN , , . ..,.... ~ .J . ' )> (Jl ." m z iJ> -l DO --- B -~ \ ( " -- "'-. \ \< "'-"-.' "--....~ '-- '. ,~,.,{' ~ '~""; ~ " ,~ ~ ., I \< ~.... " ~ '; ,~I., ",\':.!'f~-4' , . -, l GREEN SPAC-~-- 601 S: ASPEN S ASPEN COLORADO' TREET 32 64 9. -~~_______QU1lA1l.L o . (j) SKIDMORE OWIN ARCHlTEC~S ENGI::ES & MERRILL RS - DEI-NER 128 . -~_'_nn__ . ,~~~..--------~~==::' ~~~~"~~.~ ",~-."'J"~~~~~[,:. .:.:". '.\\' ::.' /' ,,~~~~~ ~ ''\~' ~~\~~~ . :.' \~.:~ ~ .~::::::-~-~~/~ "------'1' / ;: ~ ~ ':' ':';;:~,\~V.::~:;:..'':: , ~~~~ / ' ~.~'\ \~\\~"., )"'" ",:,,;', r---/ ;<. //~ ~.j~. "ii' ~~i;~~'",\,'.'" ,..... ~"'~ JJ/ ' - - ,~" . / / ~ ~ ~.;.:~:.~\~\ ' ~ \~''''I;:J' - --=-..__ .~.~n~ / /-:/ "'- , --. ~) . .. .... .; ~ " ~~~'~.' ' _:"; -_n.n':.../ ~, ~. .~ ~ .,(t " \' , , - +~ ------~~'I...., . ~..., .~.... " . \., . ,., ~--=~'-"----_,.:--' ./ ;,t--c,}-/7~"~" ~~~~ ". ~ .......It '. .,., '. -~- --.......... - ...-----. ---- . 1,.1,. . ~ ~ " -rc~ -'----:..-~ ;A \', . . 0 .( ~" ~~ ,..~, . '. I [ . ,,'\ "'--_.______ --_____ , \ '- /.::::~~-"-- .' , . ~ .. ",~~.. - . ......... l-- .~~ . ' \" ~ i.'\\\\\'\: . .( ~'. . ',...'-- .~ ~ /~! I ',;'- ~\i:\\." :~~ .~ _.,'" ~ ! ~~~. ~,~.~ ~l ~~ .----...........-/ ./, ~ ~ '\'/.l~ l:..~,," '~. . t 0 ~.N:.; ~'f-~~' , .:.1~~ --- ~ :;: ~ . ~'.I. "'.~ 'I, .'''' <~" ',.71- r . '''- B.~::s;. !,,~,,~-Q1- ~ -~.:,''':. "\:. ~ .,~~-.~ o ;----+ '- In ,"_",_:' "~l"V:-- '~;'; ,~ ~ r-+- -~ .U',- tI"'. ,." ., ~ : '--'i~I\~;;:~IY'.' '~"~~~:' .....,. ~ ~ " ~ ", < 171" . t ~! '" ~. . 'i-~ . ,... l'-..~'r. VW"" ,If-;.. ,~-=----- ';:~', '.Fj(' ~ )-....,}..,,," " ,E,LumI, '. r,'Ji . ,,1- ~,:\~,.. '. .~, !B ;-'\ ~". -':t ~ON~:~.,:,.~:.:.~,:,,, .::~~ -~ em~' , ,~~~~ ~~?;jT1: ....~~: ~',.' !lII!" 1111111" '.",. "I"~:-:!f' "-.' II,I~.~. 11 '1\~"" ~:"!.n ,'. :,,~,';":'l~...':;,;'~ ~'::,,'~I ::.::J~.:.~~,~'~ . :.r.;:,:;..;1S,.:::;~. __ .....~ ".,.",'~ "",:',. '. .' ., "'!\'.' . ".~." ..,~,.",S.;,. '::;'~ r-. ! ',' ,,,\' ':JI'ff, ~"\_~~ ';.""L~ . , _ .. ,. ,.,. ,,' '" .;'1, ~ ,. ~~~\!I'''''~'' "... '.G:~ \\~ ,/" -"'. ,,"'i;;~';;,:',':j~;;~';.- ~-:/'-~---__'....< : ~a<;\~;;;,:".,... tiN;' ~'~I .~ :-~....~~~:\~,' <: ,:;; ."'! '~;;r 6!,i:c'l~1.;,,:}':f;'J.:f;. htl!l., '-.1 If 4;~S~<,-.~ l-t \l Jl'~ ,t,L"'~:"""'j'" . -'t':~:';~""~ 1\.... 1'lll. \ \ ,7f 1';;, ",;.: :~>q "~ .: ' ,'".11 111l-. . ,,~..... . . , . " tiJll!l , I 7._ '"." ,"," ". "t' ". .~':, .4." ~;ii1" >- . . :.... ';;.~"'." '\~ ", _ ./ . .. .jI'("V':' ., ..', ".... 4 . . . C ~~',".l. '''I'';' ..L " ... ,....,.... , 5yl ''-'.,.---- I F dr. " \1 '#t-'. ""_ .~.~~.:.;~..~' ,~ -- '... . ._> i .1""'." . , ' , '\ ,-,,";":' ,;.!j. .--, f,"-'.....-. ...' '\...~.. cf;".j",~-,.....';';:'."; ':"'I~-'--""''''-' Ii'.' '\ " ., ......,~. *1''''~'''''-'' I., L:": "i"'~ I\i <i. ,:'> )j ," .1:,_~" . ,_::~,;. .;..:.,~" .'1: . AC RAIN SURFACE I.A:. ,n / / ,. ----- ----------.; ----------------.... ~ =~-~~~ -~ -- 1\ ..------- ~--~~'=------_./ // -- --- -......._---------- -- ~;.~~~j:::~ /------.... ~ ' ~ ~ '~J/:=': /--\ .~~~~~/ /-~-;:~~-~ - =1 / / U> ... ! DO Gl --- > f[j :u !:: - '" , :r U> -- ... , Z / -- ~ g / ::0 ,,/ en .~ C)/ C/ .2f m ::0 '... , ( . ~.:-..:..... > U> " m Z DEAN ST. / f,--,-..- .. Z i ,"-."" ~ JL '" o ~ ,-- i- ~ I" *(\-.~ -"~ I / ..../ ISTING CATCH ,'",'4'.,.-...,"",."" ".~. \;]<f""\~'''' ~"_'y"'g)' :/'. ........~i .;.;. ...;...~~~ ~.,.:; t.: '! tG.I '~, (.". "(:,,#)' ; , """..,.....".0''''1;,,-...:.' ".j~, ,,~,~..,' ...." ,,,.....,,,,,,,,,:.., ~::::'-::------- "--'''--'I --~~--:-~ ......... ~--:--- . / / / 1-. ,I. ,f" DURANT STORM DRAINAGE H.B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVELOPER. ASPEN 601 S: ASPEN $TREET o . ASPEN COlORADO 32 154 96 128 ~ SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER - ~ ~,.-,. -'--,---- ----.----- ..-'-- -- , ~'-- ~ ' ---------- -------- / "----........-- --- ~ , ~~-~------:::=:~~ / / / //: / // ~" / / \..' /'/ / / / ~ ,/ JJ/~7- ~~~ / \ --:-=-', ;/>~Z //: ;.----,--:: '/, - ...../ ~ ---- ,./.--. / / . .~-=. -:. =~ "~-~-~ -~~~ // / / .///~.DADED . -:,..// :~I . 1;-~r~HYDRANT ,_.' ./. .~~" '--'--. ','__/ . !---t,' -------.-----..-....... --------.. -- ~--, ---/ =--~----------~ '. ~~-==-- . . 'u_. \ ~,_ ~ . -~ '-" - . ----- ~. />. ~. . . . . . . . . . . . ;. > . ~ . -t ~ . "'-~ ~ ' . ----~F,I . ~,~. -- .'-, NE, , IRE AC' SS ................. I.. . . - -"'. .,,,., ~.k".__~-""~.J..J_....~~ ~~;:'1:w.,., I ~:;;)1..'..:":i.;~ , __ . ' ;" ~j.~../t;'JiL' '.' "..,#> ' . '0"",,,' ,,",,,,, -~~_"'~ "~."'~'~n.~,~,,,.j .. ~I ~_.~ . --- . .". ~. g. m ~. ~. ~..:;:::.:=:..- "oj' _____" -------- ----- '~..... " '........ '. '- - -........ -- '- &&, ' ...-~ ~=:~- .,-'-~----.....; 1\" .-=.- _....._. ~~----_.._--,---_../ ,'- ~.-._--. _./ /.cW\ ~~-~r< 1fi1 ~ DEAN ST. ........_-' , H.B,C, INVESTMENTS DeVaOPER - ASPEN . , '. , . , - . .' , ..j . . DO ------. {d .---/- ( \ '~"'''' ...// "', rq "'if'. ',. . ", . , . ~ -{ < ! l~-Z.I-;;',1 :.. ;;. ","".. "".., ,~:~L; , r~~ ,,;'\:}.l~ , " > , ," . -.", Ie , , '~"-..""-'-- .--OUR.....H FIRE PROTECTION 601 , S: ASPEN STREET , . I\SPEN COLORI\DO 32 64 9tl 128 SKIDMORE,OWINGS & MERRILL I\RCHlTECTS ENGINEERS - DEJWER o . ~ --- ~~'~~~~---------~----,""~'~," ~""" ~'~'\'~~' ~'-. . '~~^\~.: " ~; :' -.,_..4'_.:"1 -_:::.--- ,_________ ---" ~~~ ~~~'\~~'.. "- ,'. ~\\ i~",.. '. \\\\, ., ',_ ~,'J;:\'..---.,~_----------,.--,.- --......-,~~ /<'W ~, .', . ':'!".'\'ti:.. . l.\\. , ---"-~;j\c?<-=-'-- -'- - - --- ' ----------= ~ / .... ....~. . . :.. \ r ':..': \ '. , ~~~---:~,., -----'-----,' .- ------. / ' ~~f~ "~0..~ .......:' . .<~.:.,',: ~ ___ ~ ~ II; ,\ \~. " ~ , . ., ~- /~U_.. / //' ~~.4 "";ii'.: ~~::~~:,:~'.,.:: ~~ / j/~~-:-' :~~71' ,/ / /, ~~~ '..~:~.~~\~~~ ~)'~', / / / ~ . 'j-::'--~.-.---.,~ '- - '-' / /' .x\~1 t',~~ \\~\~\~ ' ,\.,;;,',~~, ~ ~' -'u. //\~ ',,-, j~:e~ \\\\\\~'\ \~~ "'''''.'': ~, ~~:c.~: _ - --j~ /~~~i~~~~':~ ~ . -,,- --- ~ .. ~\I~ ~\ \.', :, .' . ';":"~ ~) '--------. -. -- -- - ,./ / "\,' ',v'i <"- ',~ I;:;: ~ " ,(4"'" . . , ---- - - -.:=-=- --- --. -- ' ./ ;'. ,~),'~a. "'J"" v , . ..',-. ~' ~,:' '., ,," ': ~ .J _ -" " _,--------- ,~l\'/"~I,t.I"""I\'l,,.,-,.., ""r'''':i'~ "..~,,~~~,:'" :"'_'~~""" ',' ~. :-. ~ ~\ T'lf'X';.. ,.~\'r"~~J.......~::,:.f '.:- .... '" ,-" &.\,~ ll" ~_ ---' ' -'- -- -- - ---. ' ~;:'.1 ~W , .,': ' .~''''''.:.'., '\ ~",... I.. ~'-h"7, . , / ,t>',,',lJ.,:r ~." ~~'., " ~ ., ,~:~:c, ~'{, .' . ~--- ---- '''il~.\I('t~ e.,_.;r.,.. ~",-~, ::::::-.:::~'------- '--.,------' ":>.\'\,,~,"~, " " ,,,'...:. "''''~~'\''':' I ,-----______. Il\1"",:,,';'~,,.:' . ,',' ." ,~",~~; .... \ ----- """ .1:'" , .l't ' . . '. ' I :c.."-' "". --II -'~---'-I ~V ~\";~":L<;..~ :"':~I'\~\\'_"" '" -. ".~1\~' - __ -~ \~~!~['" I~ ~~ I I.jt ~ ~ ,,~~. ----- ---- - - 1". "'~' i "rl, ".\:~:",",I" ~ ,,\\\ ~ . ~~'~ ,...;. . ------'----- --- ---", ',~,' ,w, ',",\ \\\\\ ~L": ~ ~ ~ . t ~ " ~ \\ \ \~' ~ ~ I. ~,~ ---.-- - -----.. --- ---; jiq'i', . ~l~~1'\ ,:'!\'I\'; , ,\' 'l<' ~~' ;-..: ~~~ -: ~ ~i ~ -~ _/ ~',I;~,i ~" , ..'~ I ";~\ \Ijf"~ .' "-~'~'" :~~~'~ _ ' ,,\ ,:/:\,:', ~,:! ' ;; \~ "!.'J.-"y(~;;..-:'!~;-t-~-':. .; il~~~ ~~~~~. _ '. ... "..,', :'1,'. ",,~:~..,' ",_ ,'. ~ l"... \. -~\.~-~: ~ , ." ~~i(( ~~t."' ; '''::::--",,'''' L)'~~ ' , ,'(\~J', :'; \..._.:"- - ~.;:..( (,~.._ ~-."rVI'-~.n:' "" \\.,0'''' . ......::--,::..... '-- , I:, 'J' "', ";';;" . "'--" '\ : ,,;c,I'~"':1' , ,p" '~, \'!k"~ ""J~ ' \ 'IL...,.' . . ".. ~:::.",'~ - -- ____.\1..'.,'1"; .~.", ~~ " '~'\/'-'l(",f\.."",. ,'~.' " \'\. !::~1.' '." .. ....,~'~ :""1"-"- " --. - ",>', "'1'1 "', '\0.,'" \:.~~ '\1:: ".J..~' P",""', ",,~ "'l~'i'!' '- ,.... ..... ~ "....' '" ~,.\,""~' '/ . -- - "". ,,,,- '..::-":-:'1 """",. "'""%'l' .. ' ., I, ~~ .. . ~"~t1 ~'-~l.'."'J.' 'i'~f:'."')t ...........l'>~~';:~:'~.. ~!~I\:~.'''~' .. \~,It. ~r'~I: ~'\'~"~ ::--.~.. J ~ l H_illilI:111i:t'" " ''t",.~ "I'+I~ '\ ,'~'f" '1,',,\1, r"IS'I~ lYN '" l ~' . ..-~~ ~j,\:t ~"').;']\\":~,":'~ ~:~\, <<, ,."y t: ~":'~"'. . :.~ ~..'~ \ ,.f,\\~~" .N.i',~ .'\ <"~kJ\ ~ K .L ~.:-t'I~: .,~ _ ~. "'-- .- .;.:/,',:.'l;\f ~ t:-,.,;~~'~W,~:UF -:" J't- ';;~, .~'. . ~"~r. ~ -----.. '\'i(l'~!" '.';.,,;,"'ll'o,~, "',,\",.,, ~.M' .,,' , . : ';.... ..~..", . ';." '-, : ...,.- ---------z. I <.'tAI'" ", __""~<'~~Y' ','C$" "'\-:';0" '.. .- ,. ~'-. ',,_ ' " '. . --~-_________ ---- ,\' :ftJlCpl)r'" '1::~ :-lt~.- r ..e.,....:.;'.... ,~''I'' -. - ~~ ,r.~:o :..~'l~t<. " 'l')fl~?, " " '" " -,,7."". , -::.:.~ -------------.... I ik'~.ii; ,1.." ' ," . 'i:ir.rnI\n.~'11111 ' . " 111111" ~" -Y.' . ..:'.~' ,. 1\ -, . - ,~"t;~!' ' ''1:; ( ~I'" .., ~ " ,_ ' l6"~-~-=~~- ;i:;I)~~M,~; ., . ." ~ 'io:..".~:::~..~ _.- .-,---- "- j g ~;: ~!J~ f-HIHH ..__J ,_ . -... /~~------- :Q:;::::il(,;,m~~, I,:' ,: . _ /'----~""--...", : ,--- /' (-',,\ :'(',il~' " ~" / -----1'-: =W= ----~ /' ~f",i,:'. I~'; '" " ) ,- '~" --,-,/ f~-" (,1'j}I~t '1 ,,' "'". );i\~:(," '-, '., r _:' . .0 _,-- -, -' : / ,~ ,~.t~',,~. I . 'r't~ ~. .,. T ""<t. ~~.:.':t. :;.. 4.~ i_". . ,-------." ._--" , ~ ~~~~'~X'. '~:~~~' .,,~. '~~" ~4}~~~"~~ '-~ I " ;-~----' '~~-~Y)' <, 'I'- .~. ~, 4 z'~:;lf . 'h-c,~ :. ' ,!~ ill . ~~ 1'~~'" - ~ -; " / >L en :;Jr: <',I -.. IIII nm:, ';\'~t' ~bI; --~---< '---=-,~" Y~\~1l1~t' I ""!'",'I"/":; ~ . .'~ SERVI ~ / \ '.i::;jl;(_~/ -- /~S:',,\;~:,:;-, " ."-'. ,on ,''''l.,'li' ::,"l".iQOCK -/------..,-/./ '--..-.~/.../ i1:l, :,!!~:/~;~ - !.. . ,',', On \ /-'---,--.~ ;' ,,, ""',1," ' \:,i\:\ -+++., ,I ' ~ }~ /// ;~,'.: ;~'\,.\' ---,., ~\~It ' T'~:"l":, ~,I ,;.;, p' ~ ~.)~1;'; "'II. I '\ \ ." , , .. 1\ I W , .,II' '~'I " ,',' '" '\ , ',", '~~"I '\\t'~' 'I ' loff ,""~\'~\\!,~ ,_ ,,! .' , ~1 . .. - ~ tlo""l.i\ ,\ I,' \ . I ...\\ 11~~ \ 'f''';I I I ~ '-',1- ,(,~I\~'l'.~' . '", .', 11\ ~:"\ \ ~", l' "}\l" 1f ~~ "'" 'I"~ Ii", \' ~ ,,\ l' to. :::!" , t'l. "~.:$ ..,1, \ I:?-, 1, !I~\ J" \..'I'."~" I, '\"l.I.. ~. _ _ >~.",., " '\ \' ". \ \\,). , 't:~ ", \, .. .. ';1' (1. \'14 ,;,,~ ~ ': i~ 'I' ': ~ AUT()I~tffRY:),)!~rr.~' ' ,___ _ . ,_ _ ,_'. . _ 1f' AUT~Oy ;~ ~ 1/ ,I . I :' I'j' "1 ' " f... '., .~, . \ ~, . ,.,.. . .-..::. I"" n ' 1\'I;~'1'1 I,: ", I:. :',1"; ',: '~ ,'I' '; '~\ .~ 'Il', .'" :.. ":.:.liIo'....l. ". I EXIT ,~' 'I', \; ,>. 'ol\.:",~ ;.\.-. ""'':'''1.\;_;':.''', II . ~''--~ ;.c~,t~:_, ..' ---.// - /', /{~ :Ji~ .T:'~~'<"r ..,(./ l//.:~t=f-_ ~~:-u.,. : '~PRO\ /;>, '.' r-.", ' ARMISI .:'~!,., ;:jfi't--) "- "'1\ .~ ~.,T,REE 1~'1,"':rlt ~~ Wi , -- \i.,~J,.:,,;'.1;7 I " , .J ~:::;='~!~.,('.'<~3;.t}J";"IIi~~"" '..... ,,'" ,,""'~'" ':J.y...,~" :;',~. ~__\, 1.1 <<,' -' ,. '(~,..'-. ,~'\'W~,i,\ '~:.. \.':~~:~:;l~~.,,:.,:1 '~V':I."'. . '", ",~, _ ~7~:.;~."" . :"~~'!!.'~'!~~~\""\"'~ i:: :'::~ ;'~~~,\$;.. ,O.h. u ~~ '--'-.~'- ts]^1r ti1t~ :.~ " . 1\ ('.~~. , . I' '. t ~ . " "I ~,~., '::Il~:., .'_ 4~~. . .'.; DURANT :l: o , ROADS S: ASPEN STREET G? ASPEN COLORADO ' 32 64 96 12B I '" ::z: '" " -l SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER H,B.C, INVESTMENTS OEVaOPER - ASPEN 601 .------- . ----------- --.' '..' -,~ "" . ..+. --, --- . . ..''----- -._--~ ---...... .---- -----.----------. ~.- ~.. ~---- .r_' =--:::= ~.-_.----~------ --/-/~- / // ~.- / -'-: -' .- ,,/ / .~~ . ( _c!:;;(;;~:7 ) ~ \ :=-::..~.:::-:':'. /'>-y-~ /~/-'/';--~ ~_ .n_~~MU~~ ~)\_:~.:::::: .. --':~~:..' ..:~~ ---_._----~---- ----cwMPl\:SPEN~RIOtts-S'f ..---- . -~ .. .---------..- . --- ---. ..------- ---~-- , . .j .- --- ----.-----.---, 1J.~.I...~~~\~~---~:=-----. ._-=. I \ __,_ .- ,,\ --......:--- ------", '-. .~ ~ .-'-. .-"-~ I I 1\ '--- ---- L~~SPEN:vARIOu& --- / ~._.- --~. -~- ,~ . ~. .~:----~~AM?R.:;;;ir iT " O. " ,....-- . ~---, I ' ~~ , ------..". - " ' \ - '\ ".' , ' /' '--. .. -'." ~ NIN , RK'-<( ~,~ f1aJ , ~: .,,, - . \ '-'-'~~#~0 ,r VY ... "- / ./ ...........----~-- .....-/- '-_.--/ ------ \:--pEKlNGco;qNE Dr] GINNALA MAPLE ----.... ( " \[1 DEAN ST. Gl >- :Il i: / >- (J) "ll m Z tn -I - '" :t tn '-I .../- ( \ '- .._,D.U.R A.H'-L, \ ~ ' <':::::--...~, SITE DESIGN & LANDSCAPE 601 S: ASPEN $TREET (j)_' ASPEN COLORADO o 32 64 96 118 L---' SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DEt-NER H,B.C. INVESTMENTS DEVElOPER - ASPEN " ,~,,-.,~, ,I\:i"~ { '\ fl\" --..:v' ....: -co: "'... -.... ~ ~~ ~~ ~~l;(vf ~R~\~~~. .::,'\~~~~:,".::' ~~, ~~~~. ~..~~.. . ,:' '" ~~"::" ' , " . .-\ ~ ..~': ." " ~ .: .,' ... .....L_ ~. ..' t .n ....b. / ~ .\\ \\~W.' '> .'. ,:' '\... ---= ~ , . \ ~\'ff' .,'~"... " :~' , ..'.. ......-~7 / / ,J~i " ~ .;~~~ ... ",,: . J"/'\' __~~ / ~:~~:.:~..::~~~ ';~tq;", \ ~ ',~0:\\,.. \\....'\" ': , ~/ / ~,-' '-...~~~\\\\,'\I'\~~,'\'\1 ,. . -' , '~-"'- ~ / .... ~"""~\\\\',,)lt,.~~~.. ';' '\ )Cy--- jt:'>'~' ..:~ ~.~~~:\"'~~ " .. -> ' \\,\ \'\I'~ ~\\~~..".",~ 0. , . ~ ~_"0~ i~~'~ ~.. ~ ,~,", .", ~. . ",,' .... . ~ r:}' ~ \\' , . . '.' ',' -~--;- ~ ..~"' , ~' ",\~.~ ' .: : ~<~" '. ~- .. .f" ~w-; ~~~. \' . , ~ ./ --- '/ ~" . ~ ~" \. . . ./ ~: './" ./ti"'" . / _, :i\." ~ '~~ ....' ':';'. . I . . ' ~ ~v. l~~~~~ '~", ~ ',' . ~ -; j' ~1 ~',-~ ::'......b . I 7'~~~ '.' , t Yf..:::-r ~\tt \~. ';'; . ~~ ~~. ". ~J.l I ) \... .~.. ~~ "",,,,,: .' ~ rf- ft,~ 1,':'\\\ '..:,"p~"~'\~ .....,... .''',~~~,'.. ===--------==_~ -- ____1-----' V",Lo, \ :. (: '\\,\ \\~ '. ':;h:~ ~,.., I \,' - ~~. ~~\' ",' .. _ ....~ ~ ---------. ./ 't,'! ,\ ~\\ ~~:"':~~~"0~' -. ~/:' ____ .../ \.:( -1 \1' I'" v'v'.( l\lJI~ ......, \ 'lo \ ~ .' -;..;~,~~., '.. - ~ .....~ ~ ~ "'iiY ";:~" ~0 ':"1 ,\ ',.:-.' .,;~., '''}::~~''' ~~_.,:-:..~\, - _ - .J!I'~":"::' '. ,..:. ' I I '..j""......,~~ ;;. " _!;,;:. ". to ~--- ~ ~~ 'f--. , h..' "",,..':9~' " "-." ..... .,. \," "" ~M_ " .- - ~ l' " ....,." " , ~ :' ,'~. '. .~'.,-,-~ , ..~~,-..-; r,/, I ~/, .. V' t':':_ ;:-.... .~, ',~'~ ~. f"_~, r-.,' ii- ~~/,, ~;:;.~ 1"'1' '~~_ " , ,i~,' - ,-\ -.~~\~ --./ \,. "~,' - r--...i' ~ ;<~.' ,1:71~ .,:; ~.; .,F.j.'::~ ~' . I-- I...... --,-",:':.' -i!1 ..:<,' ,\".-.../,--:_ " ......' _",., ,I" "Jjo~ .. \ '. \, .', ,;" " ,~, -- - ' 1;-", ..::" . :,.::.... ., ," -:~-~. ~'lXl" ~ ..'k:.l u'1l..",;::,~ r j.;,,~: -- ~-=- ~-; 'i~ 1\ H~ J1[; . :': ::' ~ ~I"~~.:: ,.iT''''''''~~ IJ \ t;}(\ --- _ ---::" ~"l I ~11l!1 I III" I '11- I ~~}/--=--~ ,.. III"" ....... __________ I '~~/ -----..::.~ . ~~ ' -ff"' _~.oIl.: ~ 0' f\t-. J < (~" 'v.ci Q. Q cC _~I \." ~.",(". Zx "",-'''''' -":"',"',\ol"'F / -~ "-f1:~':'" $J , ': .~~ ~fj(~.~~~0:- - ~, . I f:~' '>,~ ,s?~ ~ ;1,,'!'K....I 05 l' - ' 1/'. 1 r .,11 OJ ,\.-~-- c.A r If' ,^ =.'-' J VI v..!. ._': ~ " ' . '~\ III rrr~ T TT C~- {-.------ ~ ~ f~ ~.~ 'to! ';',. .: ',;~. t..J G') T f;""" I\;~:_' .~),' "~ . '\ r- '" 1:,L-I.?9 ,.,...., ~ : -. )> . I ' I -- , I } , ' I 4 I, ' ,i i' I ~ '110 ~ ~ ,- '7 ~ .. '~. ):o~t.c\~-- -~--;-~- C#-~' G-a-- f;;;r:J-~ 5 ~ - " r-1l;T"'o:"cf'';,J'~~,'':l'r,",~r.:''",.." ~.." ',' .. v.;,,' " 1..:"'''- ,,', ,-~' oC ~~~~\~~.~ ....::: '. . . ~ 'r X L;'. ,:; ,,' ~ ,.,"...... - ~'"' s...L :Om Jl ~~~- - -- -- en-./ 1'-- ,-} . :-,.~ ~@ A ~,_ __ l).. (..)0 ..... ~ -- t;.,~"", en , 1 ~ '" . ~ ( . ~ '.,- ) .J ~~. ~~~- ---------- -,,- / :-- . -------- -~ ~TI-~ ;;~ - I .\ \ /' ----...... DEAN ST. ..;...-> // - , :>- - (f) '^'\. / ,'to i ,~~ m z lJ) 1/ -4 / ",---~'j ~ .: , / /' . '[/'" , . ..ol/l' f16w.Wr :- ~~ \. / . ..1 I- DURANT :z: ~ \ ~ ~ -..'..1....... H,B.C, INVESTMENTS DEVaOf'ER - ASPEN TYPICAL UNIT PLAN, 1 601 S: ASPEN $TREET G? ASPEN COLORADO a 32 64 96 1:18 I SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DE/oNER ~.~ I J ~, ~.~-- .. ~~~~~~ ~~\i'f~~~~t~y. <':,'\~~t ::~' ~~~~ ~~:\~. ~~~"'~'~" '.. \',:" ., .. ~ ... // ~~~.~ : ~~ ~.~ ,"\;'~ . ~: :,~~~>, ~ ~ 'l":j ,~~~..;", ,.'. ::'" . .:' \,\ ""~ ,'.),flJ,\\/,,> .'. '.... ,.\\, :" &. '. 1" 't.. \. '. ' '1' , · . , // .~', '~:,. ..~ ~~." ~ ,~, . ~:-. -:,h'\'\~': ~~t "":Y> . ~ .,,:~~ :,::;''0~~~I'\\~''\\\~~~ ~~~\~-~1, . "~~ ~i">.'\' \\ 0-~ ,V~.l... , ..~ ..... ' .... '.. <'1:...... // " . 'j ,', . it .' .. ~ /' ',' " ~- "-ib~ ~'ll'. ~~. \.' , _ ~ ---- '. 'l" ~ vI.' . / ~ M~/~ 'I -, ~'~h~~ ""~.~-;';..:. . . . . ______ I,' ~~~'\,,~",~r.-- I ~~:'~~~II<#.'" ~ '~ j ~N:;:~-~b' to;. ~~~~~~~" '. , .~ ~\t .. ..~ ~~ -..::...." .. I , ,t'9'-"<7" .J'1. 1- --0 \ ~.' " '" ,.. ,"'. I J '.' ,."t :.~'). ,''''', .~~". ' ~'\\i4- ..~,: .,~ · l'~~ . .--- . 't, .J\I~:')-\ \\~. ~\\\\\\\\' .,', ' ",~~~~:.. . " ,.. 1_ I '" -'- ,'\ - '1 \ '\ \\\\~ . ."'"~~ ~., ~ I ./ I ., I[" -[ "~' \\:lcW"~ ~"" - ~. -- ~ ______ '--'""' "".....""'\ ~'. ~~'\~.:t-I:\.' , ~ ' /' ~,-~. vv<~,\\\w "I ~ ~~~~~ ~_ ~, _ . "', ' , ' ,"'-~~" .. 'I' ~"'\'," .~~'" ~_ ~--U ',' l--.';~',,~>,,;:r,::,''', .\~... ,".,.:, " '.. ~~~ " _ i"',. ',......' ...,' ' " '.), ..,~"" -. "'" ....~, ., _ '---r-- " ..J v' '"~'. ,,',,t ....' .J," FI .~ I )\'~ ........... , . .... ~, ~ ~,t<, f\J... ' " --',i ~ ;~r ~.",; ','::.; '" '" ~'~~~'. ' ' '\~~:"~~' ~' :' ,.~ 'A\I" ~ " "'tl" '''0,'' -"~'''- c;! - ":::p, ;r.:.~, r'- ,'''.. :. .... ~,,. . lo. ~Jt.:;r~ . C-- __ ..,.;...::':~ '1-1 ",~,' ,\ . ~~., ~. \ ' ..' '. , " \, _'. ". . '0 /~ ~ ' I, ..'~ =-.L-f ~-~ -..t~', ,.~~~,;;:'~:~' ...;.:,,~,,~ _--:. " , '.01 ~ u '. y __ ___ I 1 ......~ on. -___ ",r-' l. "Tlr III III ."U' J'-------- - 'C I' ;m;; - ..llt-11.rll II 1I1~" ~J..I r ,r TF, --;l ..:~::i:~,->'o~. tJ \ - ~ -----------/ \G') III 'Ii III' . I I ,;..... ~/} !'-:=__ ",. , ~ / .' ~ I III I I I I ";/ - -.....:::., ______:0.1 ~n ....-~ tt-\-~~rY/:. ,~( .:.'1' =:i-~~.9 ';":r-I-;'{I;'ir"/;-::,~r.~l\~;''''; l~~ ( ~::.- ~.',-O r-'" I , Om ",""~J " I.'"".Y, ,. (\, Q.. Q, ) W ~t 'f 'v". .,'.... ____ ~ "'SlJ ,11/ 0:0 Ex ~ ,.; ~~.;.~U' ,. ..'" " ~";t' ,,<~,I-~r.~:,':f:,f,+,... t"t\I,1 ~ ~~ '~":~ ~ lii c::: ~~.. .;; j&lmm('.' , ~ \:';~ ./ ~'. :~r,3C' ", · rJ'~/ .../ ~../ c.)O' 1 I-- _ ,f ,. ________~ ~~, (JJ r-.l. ~ ." ,\ C . / "- l~ ~ ,i....~ \~, I G') '--1'- .... - > ,~.~~"'> ,\i~-'~' ~... , · '\" ~ Ul '" ,LJ,.~ , , ' ""T"'t', ,""<lr ...... ; ". -1---- I, - I Il-"';. m t, 1\ " i' ' 1 "TIO ;Z; i, l...__ __ __ ~ _ ___ '_ '_ ___ __ ___ --- I ~r-m ~'..' /'cari~i:lJ(~':~i,~t..~.;;~~>~.. .~~;.~( ;'Qf~":): g~ 4.F--- --- , - '~..:... """" .. ; #....'~ :0 x 0l mO. , '''',~'-"J~~~'l-~'-~'.~ ~~ , L .' ,-- I\)~.. ~,' 0 _ --.. ' ~ $10_ .l<<..'::':- ~:-- '1':'!'lIi~~ ,c.>~~ ",'" , tiiI , , d. I t-- " - i:~ E ( ~ ' ~ ~ " '- ~' ~,I' " ~ - . I' " ~.t~~ -1 ~l~~!:~','/r~_; ~ \ I '\..' I" ... -~ -- ... " -.. ,- -......: DURANT "-.. --- ""- .;.V7' ~ "J~ ~' -' \ 'i~ _~~~A~ ..... r.:;::-- -, ~ ....- , ... , /:;:? -" "1/.._' , - --- ------ ~ -~ ---- . '\: r=-=-'\\ '------ - I Cj \ / :.:-----.. ,...- DEAN ST. ~ - -A:0 t1~~ ;;F . I ~..A, ./ .', . '/ ~ " ' , _-ICn_ r, . ' tbt'~ ': , /; J / / TYPICAL'.UNIT PLAN 2 H.B,C. INVESTMENTS DEVaOPER - ASPEN 601 S: ASPEN $TREET GJ ASPEN COLORADO 3' 64 96 128 . SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS - DENVER o , o 0) Oij ..... " r ':tn 0 ... )>. z ,/j) en! .,..... -0 ' ,10.11 m:~' =i' Z;"" C ~O F2 ,en 0 ~ '....- 'V z ~;m' )> )>' r ~gZC/) m CJ)o '-I, ::! ::cO mZ m -I. ..... -en )>/\ :0- 00 ~~ '-iQ ~JJ -ifll (J)i ~O > )> :0 o :I: =i m o -i c: :0 )> r- o o z o m -0 -i o :0 ~ \ - Z G> en pl Co. ! ~ Iii Z )( ~(J) !:-t ... , \ I ~ . I . I . I , . I . I . I . I ~' . ; , lit' ".. ! , . . ~ I Ii i . I ,. I II I . . " I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . III ~ ,.. · Z I .. . 2: ! f ! i I =i . I . I . I . I . I "",. ..... : . ., -, / l ., 'I: ,:If -' ~.., Ii .. '. Ci 'J: .. 11 . . . . ,. . .. . . . .. ! '! , t-= en D' Z ~ <( ul w ,,~ p " I' ;. ,i ,~, ~, ,I . . . . I .~ . . . J II . ... . . . . ,,,! , . . . I . . . . . I . I . . . I ~' ... t-: ,i en!;; 5< Z !!l :3 i ..., iii : , . '~ o:~ dw1 0::> 0:: wZ . W ' ~~ ~,~ ..,W CJ)w (!JZ ZC; -Z S:W Q~ 'en ujl- o:@ 01-, ~s: CO _0: ~<( CJ)- \ .... -I- W W'