Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.777 Ute Ave.48A-87ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street 2737—/ •7 Aspen, Colorado 81611 5�1 � l (303) 925-2020 /v , LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL � J - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY - 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: Q• �� 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S� 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING ' 0 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING -,, G 30. QQ SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER Name:—� 0 C e� �� Addfess: _ G t i le ✓Q Check # Additional Billing: _— SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: / P /( •✓S/ PY) / C( Date: # of Hours: 0 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES ASPEN, COLORADO RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION DECEMBER 1, 1987 1 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants December 1, 1987 Mr. Alan Richman Planning and Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Shodeen Property Residential Growth Management Application Dear Alan: Attached for the Planning Office's review are twenty-one (21) copies of the referenced application and a check in the amount of $3,030.00 for payment of the application fee. Please note that, in addition to the GMP/conceptual subdivision fee, the check provides for the application's anticipated referral costs. Should additional referrals be required, please advise and we will provide the appropriate fee. Should you have any questions regarding our application, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. On behalf of Vann Associates and the project team, thank you for your assistance in the preparation of our application. Very tru yours, V ASSOCIATES, ann, AICP SV : j lr P.O Box 8485 • Aspen. Colorado 81612 •303, 925-6958 A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR THE SHODEEN PROPERTY Prepared for Kent W. Shodeen 13 South Seventh Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-8570 Prepared by VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants 210 South Galena Street, Suite 24 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6958 and CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-5590 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 A. Water System 4 B. Sewage System 5 C. Drainage System 5 D. Fire Protection 6 E. Development Data 7 F. Traffic and Par-:ing 9 G. Location 12 H. Impact on Adjacent Uses 13 I. Construction Schedule 14 J. Employee Housing Proposal 14 III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 15 A. Availability of Public Facilities 15 and Services 1. Water Supply 15 2. Sewage Disposal 16 3. Storm Drainage 16 4. Fire Protection 16 5. Parking 17 6. Roads 18 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page B. Quality of Design 18 1. Neighborhood Compatibility 19 2. Site Design 31 3. Energy Conservation 35 4. Trails 39 5. Green Space 41 C. Proximity to Support Services 42 1. Public Transportation 42 2. Community Commercial Facilities 42 D. Provision of Employee Housing 43 E. Bonus Points 43 IV. ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 43 A. Rezoning 44 B. Subdivision 45 A. Exhibit 1, Property Survey Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent B. Exhibit 1, Letter from Aspen Water Department ii Section C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit 2, Letter from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Exhibit 3, Letter from Aspen Volunteer Fire Department Exhibit 1, Letter from Aspen Alps Condominiums iii Page I I. INTRODUCTION The following application, submitted pursuant to Section 24-11.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a growth management allocation for the development of eight (8) residential units on an approximately 22,660 square foot parcel of land hereinafter referred to as the Shodeen property (see Property Survey, Appendix A, Exhibit 1). As shown on Figure 1, page 2, the property is zoned L-1, Lodge, and is located near the intersection of South Original Street and Ute Avenue. More specifically, the property consists of Lots 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The owner of the property and Applicant is Kent W. Shodeen of Geneva, Illinois (see Title Insurance Policy, Appendix A, Exhibit 2). The Applicant's representative is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants (see Permission to Represent, Appendix A, Exhibit 3). The application has been divided into three basic parts. The first part, or Section II of the application, provides a brief description of the proposed development, while Section III addresses in detail the Code's growth management review criteria. The third part, or Section IV of the application, discusses the rezoning and subdivision approvals which are also required to develop the project. 1 O6SS-S16/EOE 3NONd3l31 11918 OOVIIOIO:) N3dSV KSE %OS Od " SD3IFH3W/S31V XnW 9 33-4INNnD S31UVH:) 0 Z W Em U) W ir Wo Z Z Z O LU J J ~ J °m mN i 00VU01o3 'N3dSV S3WOHNM01 3nN3AV 31n LLL 1VN191H0 U LL1 J _ } Z F ? ccx cc — W F— as oa a0 •12..rr..�.�.�� i � r JL ''I For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., property survey, title insurance policy, utility commitments, etc.) are provided in the various appendices to the application. It should be noted that the project site, which was previously owned by Lyle D. Reeder, was the recipient of a thirty-one (31) unit lodge growth management allocation in February of 1982. Mr. Reeder subsequently amended his application in August of 1986, at which time the lodge was reduced to twenty-six (26) units and it's architectural design extensively modified. Inasmuch as growth manage- ment allocations cannot be separated from the property for which they are approved, Mr. Shodeen is now the current holder of Mr. Reeder's lodge allocation as a result of his acquisition of the property. Mr. Shodeen, however, is prepared to relinquish his lodge allocation should his residential growth management application be approved. While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Municipal Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which result in the staff's request for further information and/or clarifica- tion. To the extent required, the Applicant would be pleased to provide additional information in the course of the application's review. 3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence located on the property and to construct nine (9) new dwelling units in a multi -family configuration. The project, to be known as the 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes, will be condominiumized and offered for sale as second homes to part-time, seasonal residents. The project's employee housing requirement will be met via a cash -in -lieu payment to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A separate application for condominiumization will be submitted in the event the project receives a development allocation. A more detailed description of the Applicant's development proposal is provided below. A. Water System Water service to the project will be provided via a new eight (8) inch water main to be paid for and installed by the Applicant. The new water main will connect the existing twelve (12) inch main located at the south end of Spring Street to the six (6) inch main in Original Street near its intersection with Ute Avenue. The Aspen Water Department has indicated that the Ap- plicant's installation of the new main will provide a much needed interconnect, and that the municipal water system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project (see Appendix B, Exhibit 1). The preliminary plumbing fixture 4 I 1 count for the project is twenty-four (24) toilets, thirty- four (34) lavatories, thirty (30) bath tubs/showers, nine (9) sinks, nine (9) dishwashers, and approximately thirteen (13) hose bibs. B. Sewage System The project will be served by the existing ten (10) inch sanitary sewer located in Ute Avenue. According to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated flows can be accommodated with no improvements to existing sewer lines or to the treatment plant (see Appendix B, Exhibit 2). C. Drainage The project's storm drainage system will be designed to maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater recharge. On -site drywells and/or surface detention facilities will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas, and to control the rate of groundwater recharge. These facilities will also function to remove current peak loading conditions thereby reducing impacts upon the existing storm sewer in Original Street. A detailed drainage plan will be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer in conjunction with further subdivision review. The plan will take into account the property's 5 1 existing infiltration/percolation rates and the effect of landscape irrigation in the design of the project's detention facilities. In order to alleviate existing drainage problems in the immediate site area, the Applicant proposes to install a new storm sewer in the portion of Aspen Mountain Road which abuts the Shodeen property. The new storm sewer will intercept existing surface runoff from the upper portions of Aspen Mountain Road via a catch basin to be installed at the property's southeast corner. The recently installed, temporary catch basin located near the property's northeast corner will be relocated as required. The drainage improvements will be constructed in conjunc- tion with the Applicant's paving of Aspen Mountain Road and the installation of curb and gutter along the proper- ty's eastern and northeastern boundaries (see Section II.F. for a detailed description of the Applicant's proposed improvements to Aspen Mountain Road). D. Fire Protection Fire protection will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department. The project site is located ' approximately eight (8) blocks from the fire station, resulting in a response time of approximately three (3) to ' five (5) minutes (see Appendix B, Exhibit 3). To enhance fire protection, a new hydrant will be installed by the Applicant at the property's northeast corner. The exact I 1 I location of the new hydrant will be determined in coopera- tion with the City Engineer and Water Department. The construction of the 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes will conform to all applicable fire protection regulations of the Uniform Building Code. E. Development Data The 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project consists of nine (9) individual dwelling units contained in a single multi -family structure. More specifically, the project contains three (3) three -bedroom townhouse units, three (3) two -bedroom townhouse units, and three (3) one - bedroom flats. Eighteen (18) parking spaces, or one (1) space per bedroom will be provided subgrade. Two (2) additional guest/service vehicle spaces will also be provided adjacent to the street in conjunction with the Applicant's installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter along Ute Avenue. Each unit will have its own unique floor plan and will vary in size from approximately one thousand (1,000) square feet to thirty-four hundred (3,400) square feet. The sales prices of the units will be dictated by market conditions, but are anticipated to range from approximately $350,000 to $1,200,000. The following table summarizes site and development data for the Shodeen property and the proposed 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project. rA 11 I Table 1 BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS _ 1. Existing Zoning 2. Total Site Area (Sq. Ft.) 22,660 Lots 15B, 16 and 17 �y,I7Dto 4M-P15, 380 Lot 41 7,280 3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 20,940 3 - 3 Bdrm. Units @ 3,630 Sq. Ft./Unit-3)101V 10,890 3 - 2 Bdrm. Units @ 2,100 Sq. Ft./Unit qf,p 6,300 3 - 1 Bdrm. Units @ 1,250 Sq. Ft./Unit 3,750 4. 5. LVAA 7. 10 Maximum Allowable Bedrooms @ 1 Bdrm./1,000 Sq. Ft. Lot Area Proposed Project Bedrooms 3 - 3 Bdrm. Units 3 - 2 Bdrm. Units 3 - 1 Bdrm. Units Maximum Allowable External Floor Area @ 1:1 (Sq. Ft.) Proposed Building Area Area Attributable to FAR Area Exempt from FAR Minimum Required Open Space @ 25 Percent Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Proposed Site Coverage Building Footprint Landscaped Area Area Attributable to Open Space Minimum Required Parking @ 1 Space/Bdrm. Proposed Project Parking Spaces 22 18 9 6 22,660 28,700 14,% 19,680 9,020 5,665 2Z,666 3 2,-7 7.3 2Z, 666 , 011 6,q nz `n �� 6,270 8,9 94 (3-A,) y,5 psi 16,390 6,620 . nr� ii}? ZaK �z �)`I7 18 20 Floor area and open space calculations reflect proposed regulatory amendments. E:3 11 I I As noted previously, the Shodeen property contains an existing two -bedroom, single-family residence which the Applicant proposes to demolish and reconstruct as part of the nine (9) unit 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project. Pursuant to Section 24-11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, the reconstruction of an existing building is exempt from the City's growth management allotment procedures provided, however, there is no creation of additional dwelling units. As a result, a growth management alloca- tion for eight (8) units will be required to develop the project. In order to verify the existing dwelling unit, an application for a demolition permit will be submitted to the Building Department upon receipt of a development allocation. F. Traffic and Parking t 7 Jq)i, The proposed project should have no significa ,P_0 ollO impact upon the existing street system, as the City's Engineering Department has indicated that both South Original Street and Ute Avenue are currently functioning below allowable capacity levels in the immediate site area. Inasmuch as the units are to be marketed primarily as second homes to seasonal residents, and given the lli proximity of the project to the commercial core, Aspen Mountain and the City's public transportation routes, traffic increases on area streets should be minimal. As Figure 2, page 10 illustrates, all municipal bus routes L' I J \ LEGEND 0 ALL ROUTES EXCEPT HUNTER CRK) MioqN00000000>0�0o00000>00000�oopo00C�o00000O(�O00000 00000�0o0000U 0000p BUILDING \ SITE FIRE I 'r PEDESTRIAN STATION - - MALL PEDESTRIAN iii 4 2 Y. CIRCULATION 0 ° ° o °> BUS ROUTE FKIPKWS O} AV O OZ HOPKINS AV o O I.. . ... Y,' . )UJ i O o :f� g > 0 — p // /, ° YM4N AV p 00 0000(DOO� j i f HYMAN AV CD0 PEDESTRIAN 0MALL 1' i a , o CpOFf o R °- AIzr4 I;: / -/ COOPER / AV O O O O O O O O °� O ' 0 MT . VALLE I o� s; o ! r ' WAGNER. PARK.f h CITY MARKET cb .LPARK r I�AN817 0 01) o ° °° -00 o PUK4AFT- ADURAO AV� i e 1 ,r. i • -r� i i• t} i . ASPEN MOUNTAIN 1/ ! SKI ' AREA c i or C: CIRCULATION GLORY HOLE PARK PR PERTY LO ATION currently pass within two (2) blocks of the property and ' the Rubey Park Transit Center is located approximately four (4) blocks to the northwest. In order to enhance traffic circulation in the ' immediate site area, the Applicant proposes to maze significant improvements to both Ute Avenue and Aspen ' ay '► Mountain Road. The portion of Ute Avenue which abuts the S11Q site's northeastern property line has been redesigned toly ,'O�, rv�j ��enYHw-14'tl incorporate curb and gutter, a much needed sidewalk, and �,�� P`►('1JO h� ' two ( 2 ) parallel�f parking spaces, all of which will be t �•t<���n�.n��,, ul.. ilfv Awt_ ' installed at the Applicant's expense. Similarly, the Applicant proposes to increase the existing six (6) foot ' Aspen Mountain Road easement which traverses the proper- ty's eastern boundary to ten (10) feet, and to install a ' (16) foot sixteen paved road surface. The Applicant will ' also install curb and gutter along one side of the Road and, as noted previously, a new storm sewer. The proposed improvements will greatly improve the condition, safety and quality of both Ute Avenue and Aspen Mountain Road. With respect to parking, the applicable Code ' requirement for the L-1, Lodge zone district is one (1) ' space per bedroom. Eighteen (18) parking spaces, all of which are located subgrade, will be provided on -site for ' the project s residents. Two ( 2 ) additional spaces will be provided adjacent to Ute Avenue for guest/service parking purposes. Given the second home character of the 11 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes, the proposed parking should be ' more than adequate for a project of this scope. The subgrade parking garage will be accessed at the end of Ute Avenue, thereby eliminating the need for a curb cut on ' Aspen Mountain Road, the more intensely utilized of the two potential access points. As a result, traffic ' circulation in the immediate site area should not be adversely affected. 1 G. Location The Shodeen property is located in the heart of ' Aspen's eastend lodge/condominium district. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area is located within one (1) block walking ' distance northwest of the property, and the City's commer- cial core area, a block further to the north. Similarly, City Market is conveniently located approximately two and one-half (2-1/2) blocks north of the property while Rubey Park, the hub of the City's mass transportation system, is ' located approximately four (4) blocks to the northwest. Original Street, which abuts the property, provides convenient access via Main Street and State Highway 82 to ' Aspen Valley Hospital and the Pitkin County Airport. As discussed in Section II.F., all municipal bus routes ' currently utilize Durant Avenue, which is located within ' two (2) blocks of the property. In summary, the Shodeen property enjoys an excellent location relative to the ' City's various public facilities and commercial areas. 1 12 1 Given the size of the proposed project, and its second home, seasonal character, no significant impact upon these facilities is anticipated. H. Impact on Adjacent Uses The Shodeen property is zoned L-1, Lodge as are the adjacent properties to the north, south and west. The area east of the property is zoned R-6, Residential and P, Public. Existing land uses in the immediate site area include the Aspen Alps Condominiums which essentially surround the property to the north, west and southwest; the Ajax Condominiums located adjacent to the property's southwestern boundary; Glory Hole Park and the Clarendon Condominiums to the east; and several single-family/duplex residential structures to the northeast and southeast. The immediate site area is essentially fully developed, although the older residential structures to the southeast of the property can be considered targets for redevelopment, given the condition of the structures and the value of the property which they occupy. The project is consistent with the intent of the proposed L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential zone district (see Section Rr7oV%)Aj cnn,<rn> G�y° IV.A., Rezoning) and is compatible with surrounding land uses. As a result, the functional character of this area of the City's lodge/condominium district will be unaf- fected by the Applicant's proposal. In fact, it can be argued that the redevelopment of the Shodeen property as 13 proposed will not only eliminate a existing unsightly and non -conforming land use, but will greatly enhance this area of the City, thereby positively impacting the property's adjacent land uses. I. Construction Schedule The target date for commencement of construction is the Spring of 1988, with completion of the project anticipated by the end of the year. Phased construction of the project is not animated at this time. J. Employee Housing Proposal The Applicant proposes to satisfy the employee housing requirement of Section 24-11.4(c) of the Municipal Code via the payment of an employee housing dedication fee which will be based on the formula for such fees contained in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's 1987 Employee Guidelines. More specifically, the Applicant proposes to pay a dedication fee which is equivalent to housing twelve and one-half (12-1/2) low income employees, or forty (40) percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole. The above dedication fee is estimated to be approximately $250,000. The exact amount, however, will be determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. The payment of the fee will comply with all applicable guidelines. 14 III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following section addresses the various review criteria against which the proposed project will be evaluated. The information contained herein represents the Applicant's best effort at compliance with both the letter and intent of the criteria. We believe that in every category the proposed project meets or exceeds the minimum applicable standard. Based on our understanding of the various criteria, and the project's compliance therewith, we have taken the liberty of requesting what we believe to be an appropriate score in each review cate- gory. Please reference as necessary the appropriate headings in Section II of this application for detailed information in support of the Applicant's representations and commitments. A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services The proposed project's impact upon public facilities and services is described below. 1. Water Supply. The project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the immediate site area. The Aspen Water Department has indicated that the Applicant's installation of a new eight (8) inch intercon- nect in Ute Avenue will not only provide for the needs of the proposed project but will "definitely upgrade water service for the surrounding neighborhood." 15 Requested Score: 2 Points 2. Sewage Disposal. The project may be handled by the existing level of service in the area. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated that the existing ten (10) inch line located in Ute Avenue is adequate to serve the project and that system upgrades will not be required. Requested Score: 1 Point 3. Storm Drainage. The project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the immediate site area. The project will maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater recharge, thereby complying with the storm drainage design h✓�'rPus dr, wr li s requirements of the City's Engineering Department. The proposed stormwater drainage system will reduce peak condition impacts on the existing storm sewer system while the installation of a new storm sewer in Aspen Mountain Road will help eliminate a substantial drainage problem which currently exists in the area. Requested Score: 2 Points 4. Fire Protection. The project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the immediate site area. The Shodeen property is located approximately eight (8) blocks from the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, resulting in a response time of approximately three (3) to 16 five (5) minutes. Although an existing fire hydrant is located approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet from the site on Ute Avenue, an additional hydrant will be provided by the Applicant at the northeast corner of the property. The provision of an additional fire hydrant will significantly improve fire protection in the sur- rounding neighborhood. Requested Score: 2 Points 5. Parking. As discussed in Section II.F. , JnOw"'11� the project will contain a total of eighteen ( 18 ) on -site Goo6 ftc�v� parking spaces, all of which will be provided in a subgrade parking garage. The parking to be provided is in compliance with the requirements of Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code, and should be more than adequate given the second home, seasonal nature of the project. While the two ( 2 ) proposed spaces to be provided adjacent to Ute s � enaujk Avenue cannot technically be counted for parking purposes, ""d6,,,".,a pf� PDX they will nonetheless provide additional safe and con- venience parking for guest/service vehicles. The Ap- plicant's installation of two (2) new parallel parking spaces along Ute Avenue represents a substantial improve- ment to the area's existing parking situation. The project's individual parking spaces comply with all applicable design standards and are conveniently accessed via Ute Avenue. The subgrade parking garage will be paved, drained and snowmelted where appropriate to 17 I� 1 ensure safe ingress and egress. The Applicant's location of all required parking below grade will enhance safety, provide added convenience to the project's residents, and virtually eliminate visual impact upon adjacent property owners and users of the public street system. Requested Score: 2 Points 6. Roads. The project in and of itself improves the quality of service in the immediate site area. The Engineering Department has indicated that the adjacent street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Nonetheless, the Applicant proposes to significantly upgrade both Ute Avenue and the Aspen Mountain Road. As discussed in Section II.F., the existing Aspen Mountain Road easement across the property will be increased and the Road paved along the property's eastern boundary. Curb and gutter will be installed along portions of both streets and the public right-of-way landscaped. These improvements will not only enhance the appearance of the streetscape but will significantly improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and circulation in the immediate site area. B. Quality of Design Requested Score: 2 Points ' The quality of the project's design is discussed below. Please note that the Shodeen property is located 18 I I I outside of the City's Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. As a result, Historic Preservation Commission review and approval of the project's architecture is not required. 1. Neighborhood Compatibility. The 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes have been designed to be compatible with existing neighboring development and to reflect the transitional nature of the Shodeen property. Given the diverse architectural character of the immediate site area, considerable emphasis has been placed upon creating a vocabulary of forms and materials that will fit in comfortably with surrounding structures. As Figure 3, page 20 illustrates, advantage has been taken of the site's corner lot configuration by locating the project's single building against the property's northwest and southwest setbacks. The result- ing "L" shaped building footprint permits the maximum retention of open space which is visible from both Ute Avenue and Aspen Mountain Road, and concentrates the bulk of the building to the rear of the site where it is significantly less obtrusive. To reduce apparent height and enhance compatibility with the scale of the surround- '4�t1�Vv ing neighborhood, the first level of the three ( 3 ) story 6'tome -- ) r�Mg4 IDWtrINp building has been set slightly below natural grade. The unit modules, however, step up with the site, which rises approximately six (6) feet from north to south. 19 �ddyat„ s 9e s rflenwooa nd design h+T /el.e 10' TBAC ,a,.j artnership 4e s spdngs Co aleol �1 I � CCCWWW P ZZ I _ B; F SERY E V �0 �,� Fy ,eL ,eo.� b TER! re l [ENCN s' TBAC O ` fs 1 ia° 6�/ o EOLL�RD r O. OLIONT�/OM } OL % CIO //�' ■IRE RACK A l �� W O �� \\•1VVy I 1 � 0 ... APP'' o cc D> taa Z JO r 5ri,{�4..�►, rW��ftj o o v Ih ntlr l Ltvrt — `,#w6 J ° o R".P W tl;s �Al 6%11)16 / � - - '—�-- - -- — ; z J J w W �➢ 10'S ETBACK x Q - W BENCN L r— Z / CL W U) IR[NYDRRMi / �104'R.H� !T EETLIOONI a tFa DROP-OFF �•tl/////��2S.rfs srREETLIcrlr � U � /wn o/f � --- �, o S9�1Pw,�k / oE - UTE AVENUE / SITE PLAN 0 5 Io 20 EFiSTING 3 .Ew REP TRAIL m RED. IRAiL I IEEIl TING 1REE5 I r 11 I 1 In addition to the vertical stepping of the unit modules, the building's Ute Avenue facade has been deeply articulated by orienting the interior living areas towards Glory Hole Park which is located across the street to the east. The roofscape has been given further visual interest by alternating flat and pitched roof forms which are complimentary to the area's surrounding buildings. The building's balcony and entry elements utilize tradi- tional forms and project from the main facade in order to further reduce perceived bulk and to enhance the project's residential scale. The project's architecture is depicted in Figures 4 through 12. Shingle siding will be used on the building's lower two floors with a projecting horizontal band of wood trim at the base of the third floor to articulate the change of material to stucco and shingles above, thus contributing to the project's low visual scale.. Window treatment at the building's larger glass areas has been divided into smaller scale components which creates a pattern and scale in keeping with the area's residential character. The color scheme will consist of various shades of natural earth tones that will quietly compliment the neighborhood. ' Sloping roof surfaces will be standing seam metal with a permanent, non -glare surface in combination ' with skylights where appropriate for interior daylighting. 21 MECH.VEN -- - — BLDG. STOR./ WORKSHOP o, .1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 \ / Y S � MECHANICAL PARKING GARAGE .� \\\ E MECH. �u VENTS Z Z \\ 9 8 7 6� 5 4 3 2 1 • �+ \ ELEV. RAMP UP N EQUIP. N I _ ELEV 111 Q Q o \ \ OWNER STORAGE :J.I \ Z Q \ --- - — -- -- - - Z UJ a cn � � a BASEMENT LEVEL v 0 5 f0 20 4 ------- -' ---- PATIQ -- ---------- -- --- ---- A L � PATIO �'- '�� PATIO B.R. _ BATH C31 PATIO, B.R. B.R. H B.R. LIVING Y I UNIT 3 vyci� O m / CL. O UNIT 9 C CL. TH UNIT 2 � . FAM. RM. tl j _ Z ` B. R. ENTRY ENTRY EN E CL up OP U 7 UNIT 5 r UP UNIT 4 ENTRY ENTRY W LIVING uvlNa 1 1 --- E TRY f TRY TRASH 8 it METER ROOM Cw O ------ _ '__�-__ -1 0 IZ ELEV. ? = O ♦ Z J 3 0 ON 0 1 ENTRY _LLI Z \ UNIT 1 UJ Q FAM. RM. e. R. W PATIO a ' ` r• In RAMP DOWN -------------- FIRST LEVEL E, // 5 B.R. t c i I N B.R. O BATFP� B. R. BATH B. R. O UNIT G t► 'i s _ BA B.R. RD 0 0��j(7Jjj pppm BAT .i >" uM CL. BAT O Y.B.R. C� BATH ATM CL. - lurp UNIT 9 It% cL__ 7 Ys.R, r uv UP DN tr °P UNIT 8 _ UNIT 7 i UNIT 2 M B.R. g N M.B.R. CL. V O � _ .' B.R.• W BAT N W O 2 ° EOUW. O ¢ \ O = OJ i�l BATH 3 UP v O F- OPEN CL." W UNIT 1 Z W M.B.R. B.R. CLOS. Q W BATH Z a % a SECOND LEVEL v a 5 ,a 20 � G Iy� � L P OQ O � LIVING BRKFST 10 P KIT DO �rr o KIT. BRKF KI_ ^ BRKF . UNIT 6 S DN P KIT. DINING DINING m P LIVING ON ON UNIT 9 tl DINING DN w LIVING UNIT 8 UNIT 7 I�Li DINING Z DN 7 UNIT 2 DINING P LIVING LIVING N P u ° (11 - KIT. (A Ill 0 C � KFST BR 0 cc _ 2 Z J 3 ° U KIT. 0 P W ON or 2 1 LIVING UNIT w sTuor Q W DINING Z � W E;7 a I� a n THIRD LEVEL ,, � E"7 0 5 10 20 Ell METAL ROOFING MEMBRANE ROOFING I{`� n 6 -SKYLIGHTSNO < tl _ z \ � 7 W O �o O cr =o z o 3 0 W LU _ a - -- w F- z a U) ROOF PLAN kx Z 8 b � V 2 z z V N _ W o o cc z o z o o W z W a w ~ z a cn n a n EAST ELEVATION 0 5 10 20 I Z � N xS � c i .�' I Ch w G E7 0 O 3 0 0 w D z w a w F- z w a r (n 1� Q NORTHEAST ELEVATION _ 0 5 10 10 S � r V 2 Si 0 r .... ir1 Ql�0 _- n®® - w o z o U O F- W n Z W Q W a � Q n NORTHWEST ELEVATION 0 5 10 20 1• Z � XXXS � �QJa ' � O V ® w a F W m Z W Q W f' Z � w a n SOUTHWEST ELEVATION zo —-- 12 In addition to visual interest, the alternating flat and ' pitched roofs have been strategically arranged to control roof drainage and prevent snow from sliding onto the project's usable open space areas and pedestrian circula- tion system. ' The project is located in an area of Aspen that is rapidly evolving into a high quality residential ' neighborhood. By removing the embarrassing eyesore of a rundown building which is currently located on the property and its attendant automobile graveyard, and U1 J4�� enhancing all of the inherent advantages of this location, � o�c the 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes will provide an important ' link in the architectural upgrading of the community. ' Requested Score: 3 Points ' 2. Site Design. The basic design concept for the project site has been dictated by the limitations ' which are inherent in the development of a uniquely shaped parcel such as the Shodeen property. Although the f/I (Q gn„1T ' property contains a total of 22,660 square feet, ap- proximately 7,280 square feet (i.e. Lot 41), or 32 percent of the project site, is essentially undevelopable. This ' limitation in conjunction with the area and bulk require- ments of the L-1, Lodge zone district and the need to ' maximize usable open space, results in a building envelope which provides little flexibility for innovation site design. The problem is further exacerbated by the need to ' 31 achieve as close to the allowable floor area ratio as possible in order to offset land and development costs. vn✓�rGl.h�„i�s�� These limitations notwithstanding, we believe that the 771 1'n lot . Ute Avenue Townhomes project not only meets but exceeds the criteria of this scoring category. As discussed under the preceding heading, the building's "L" shaped footprint has been located to the 'Jtw���"re) rear of the property and away from the Original Street/Ute Avenue intersection. This design concept retains the maximum amount of visible site area for landscaping purposes, thereby enhancing the residential character of the surrounding area and providing a perceived extension of the adjacent Glory Hole Park. An extensive internal sidewalk system -:ill provide convenient access to the project's individual units and to the elevator and stairs which lead to the subgrade parking garage. The sidewalk system and the individual unit pedestrian spaces have been located in close proximity to the building in order to maintain as large arl_ qperL_ ace--b fer as po ible between the project and neighboring development. 7 �G%­fr%4,1 The proposed sidewalks and each unit' s entry area will be surfaced with concrete and/or unitized pavers. All entry areas and sidewalks will be attractive- ly illuminated with low level lighting and all on -site s„r �hr 1 utilities will be placed underground. Site furnishings�"4` will include benches, a bicycle rack and two (2) tradi- 32 tional street lamps to be installed within the public ' right-of-way. A handicap ramp will be provided in conjunction with the new curb and gutter to be installed on Ute Avenue should the City's Engineering Department ' consider one necessary. ' Although no trash area is specifically required in the L-1 zone district, the project has been designed to ' include an approximately two hundred and fifty (250) square foot enclosed trash/utility area on the building's 20 illustrates, the area ground floor. As Figure 3, page ' can be conveniently accessed k:;- collection/service vehicles via the Aspen Alps driveway (see letter from vlt,,;,; ' Aspen Alps Condominiums, Appendix C, Exhibit 1). The trash area is separated from the Alps driveway by a sliding_ overhead door and is more than adequate to )vAY114r accommodate the single two (2) cubic yard dumpster which For 9vo v will be required to handle anticipated trash generation. 2<1'),4i)L;) ' As shown on Figure 13, p�ge 34, the site has ' been designed to maximize both the quality and quantity of the project's landscaping and open space areas. Ap- proximately 16,390 square feet of site area, or seventy- ' two (72) percent of the Shodeen property will be landscap- ed for the benefit of both residents and the general ' public. Landscape planters located adjacent to the individual unit e_,trances will be extensively planted with ' medium to low shrubbery, ground covers and seasonal 1 33 C06) 4 0 �eta)A k WAII 7 the land design partnership GlGnwood Spdngg Co 81W1 LA o C11- :2 u 0 o Q c/) w 0 LEGEND 0 0 cc fl m 0 z _j 0 L WN o 0 • NWOOD • o LAW LU A PEN LAW M z RABAPPLE uj SPRUCE •LLJ BRISTILECONE PINE ui SHRUBS GROUND COVER 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN o 5 to 20 13 1 9 o A 1c 1 tV 71 ft API �ff 1 6 NP 750 flowering plants. Plantings in the landscape beds created ' by the retaining walls at the rear of the building will be planted in similar fashion except spruce, bristlecone pine ' and aspen will be included to soften the building's scale ' and to provide shade for the outdoor patios. Shrubs anticipated at this time include Mugho Pine, Juniper ' varieties, Peking and Rock Cottoneaster, Potentilla, Compact Winged Euonymus and Frieboldi Spirea. The remainder of the project's open space will ' be gently graded, sodded with Kentucky Bluegrass, and intensely planted with Aspen, Spruce, Bristlecone Pine and ' Narrowleaf Cottonwood. The undevelo area to the ' southwest of the building (i.e., Lot 41) will be cleaned up and revegetated with native grasses. Some limited oWti plantings of Spruce, Aspen and Cottonwood are also' i;,n✓ — 5,7 toi proposed to expand the influence of this area as a buffer between adjacent development and to naturalize a previous- ly ignored tract of land. The minimum tree sizes to be utilized in the project's landscaping will be as follows: Cottonwood, three (3) inch caliper; Aspen, two (2) inch ' caliper; Spruce, ten (10) foot high; and Bristlecone Pine, leight (8) foot high. ' Requested Score: 3 Points ' 3. Energy Conservation. The 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes will be designed to maximize benefits in energy ' conservation and operating costs while minimizing initial expenditures and system complexity. Energy conservation efforts will be directed toward the selection and design of systems which have proven performance over extended periods of time. All energy conserving devices will be simple to understand, operate, adjust and maintain so that efficiencies achieved can be reasonably maintained over the effective life of the building systems. The following specific conservation features will be incorporated in the detailed design of the project. a) Insulation. The greatest opportunity for energy conservation occurs in the types of materials specified in the construction of the building envelope. An infiltration barrier wrap such as "Tyvek" will be installed around the entire building exterior which will significantly reduce infiltration. All penetrations of the wrap will be carefully caulked and sealed to further enhance the effectiveness of the barrier. High quality windows and doors with state-of-the-art closures and gasketing methods will be specified throughout, and bat and rigid insulation specifications will exceed minimum standards. Insulation values for the project's walls and roof will be R-19 and R- 3 8 _or better. � h In addition to the exterior barrier wrap af . n and internal bat/rigid insulation, an interior vapor`J�'� barrier will be provided. This vinyl vapor barrier will not only further decrease infiltration but will tend to 36 0 hold interior humidity levels at least ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent higher than exterior levels resulting in a greater degree of occupant comfort at lower room tempera- tures. All penetrations of the vinyl vapor barrier at wall switches, outlets, etc will be sealed. With the individual units envelopes sealed and insulated, an air- to-air heat exchanger will be used to control the indoor air environment while significantly reducing energy losses. b) Mechanical Systems. Comfort heating will be provided utilizing high efficiency, state -of -the- art mechanical systems. Consideration will be gin to integrated systems which provide optimum efficiency in the production of both comfort level heating and domestic water heating. The use of individual temperature controls for major occupancy areas will be maximized to the greatest extent possible so that building energy inputs can be matched to the occupants daily use patterns. Although initial installation cost for high efficiency systems may be slightly higher than conventional systems, the long range effectiveness and efficiency in operation will be the governing selection criteria. Primary heating systems will also be selected and designed to incremental- ly match the seasonal and daily demands of each unit. c) Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures and fittings will be of a low flow, low water consumption 37 type. Faucet aerators and shower heads will be selected ' to provide the maximum apparent flow at relatively low ' actual flows. All plumbing will be fully insulated to prevent excessive water usage at the point of use while ' waiting for adequate temperatures to be achieved. Domestic water heater design will incorporate the latest ' technology and may be integrated with heat recovery from ' the heating system. Should the final selection be a stand-alone water heater, it will incorporate all of the ' current pilot, flue, and flame efficiency designs as well as high efficiency storage tank insulation. , d) Glazing. All of the glazing in this lvw will be selected with the highest "R" value IVe,;F"b�c project practical. Glazing located within -six (E L feetof--the "E" floor will be low type to enhance the warmth radiating between occupant and glazing. The use of low "E" glass will permit a significant improvement in the occupant's sense of comfort because of its effectiveness in reradiat- ing interior warmth. The selection of interior finishes colorMDoti'i { ' and colors, particularly in those rooms wlth east, south g'"A 50�Ar AtIfU ' and west facing glazing, will carefully consider the advantages of radiant absorption and mass heating. While the specific design intent is not to create a perfect passive environment, the design team will utilize proven techniques in enhancing the natural solar heating capabil- ities within the finished interiors. 38 11 ej Lighting. Both interior and exterior lighting will be specified utilizing the latest in energy efficient bulbs. Whether incandescent or fluorescent, high lumen output/low wattage input bulbs will be specif- ied. In addition to using high efficiency bulbs, multiple coMrnm�rl.l,t switching within each space will be designed to closely �•►�►ri�ro,.r! approximate task lighting based on probable furniture layouts while maintaining sufficient flexibility to focus on task lighting arrangements as the house is occupied. After these efficiencies have been maximized, daylighting will be considered for additional efficiencies. Careful selection and location of glazing materials will permit minimum energy inputs during daylight hours while avoiding the use of shading devices to minimize glare. Any skylights to be utilized will employ high "R" value glazing and will be strategically located to permit maximum natural light penetration into the unit interiors with minimum total glazing area. Requested Score: 3 Points 4. Trails. As discussed in Section III.B.2., the project site '-ias been designed to provide convenient pedestrian circulation. The entrance to each dwelling unit is readily accessible from both Ute Avenue and the ' parking garage via the project's internal sidewalk system. For increased convenience, the sidewalk system has been designed to require a minimum number of steps, and will be 39 both lighted and snowmelted to further enhance pedestrian safety. In order to improve pedestrian circulation and safety in the immediate site area, the Applicant has redesigned the portion of Ute Avenue which abuts the property to accommodate a new sidewalk along its northern edge. This sidewalk, which will link Glory Hole Park and the project site to the existing pedestrian trail through the Aspen Alps Condominium complex, will be paid for and installed by the Applicant. Should the City's Engineering Department object to the new sidewalk, the Applicant proposes to contribute a sum of money, equivalent to the cost of the proposed sidewalk, which could be used either for much needed repairs to the existing Ute Avenue trail or applied towards acquisition of the missing trail right- of-way in the vicinity of the Clarendon Condominiums. Inasmuch as the Municipal Code appears to require only that the Applicant commit to join a sidewalk improvement district in the event one is formed, the installation of the proposed sidewalk at this time repre- sents a substantial public benefit. In view of this benefit, and the quality of the project's internal pedestrian circulation system, we believe that the Applicant should be awarded the maximum score available in this category. Requested Score: 3 Points 40 ' 5. Green Space. As Table 1, page 8 depicts, approximately 6,620 square feet, or twenty-nine (29) percent of the project site, may "technically" be con- An 9,770 square feet, sidered as open space. additional ' however, while not countable for open space purposes, will also remain undeveloped. In all, approximately 16,390 ' square feet of site area, or seventy-two (72) percent of the entire Shodeen property will be landscaped for the ' the It benefit of both residents and general public. ' should be noted that none of the 6,620 square feet of countable open space is located on Lot 41, and that the project's open space constitutes approximately forty-three (43) percent of the actual building site (i.e., Lots 15B, 16 and 17). Given the urban character of the site, and its ' inherent development limitations, the preservation of such a substantial amount of green space is a noteworthy ac- landscaping complishment. While the project's extensive ' is provided primarily for the benefit of the project's residents, it will also help to reduce the public's ' perception of the project's bulk as well as offer con- siderable relief from the visual impact of surrounding be development. This perception of open space will I' f N t'C �° S pTro l/teAVJ4 further enhanced as a result of the project's substantial ' setback from Ute Avenue. �►�nr�h�s la��z Requested Score: 3 Points c Dn tern ' 41 C. Proximity to Support Services The project's proximity to public transportation I and community commercial facilities is described below. 1 1. Public Transportation. As Figure 2, page 10 illustrates, all municipal bus routes currently utilize ' Durant Avenue which is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of the Shodeen property. The project, ' therefore, is entitled to the maximum number of points I available in this scoring category. ' Requested Score: 3 Points 2. Community Commercial Facilities. As Figure ' 2 also illustrates, the Shodeen property is located within ' two (2) blocks walking distance of the City's commercial core. The project, therefore, is also entitled to the maximum number of points available in this scoring ' category. Requested Score: 3 Points D. Provision of Employee Housing u As discussed in Section II.J., the Applicant ' proposes to pay an employee housing dedication fee which is the equivalent of hoilsing twelve and one-half (12-1/2) 1 low income employees, or forty (40) percent of the total number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole. Based on the Applicant's proposal, and the provisions of ' 42 11 Section 24-11.4(b)(4) of the Municipal Code, the project is entitled to eight (8) points, calculated as follows. 40 Percent Total Project Housed 5 Percent Housing Factor x 1 Point = 8 Points Requested Score: 8 Points E. Bonus Points The Applicant believes that the proposed project has exceeded the minimum review criteria of the City's residential growth management regulations in numerous categories and, as a result, has achieved an outstanding overall design meriting the award of additional bonus points. Specific areas in which we believe the project excels include building and site design, energy conserva- tion, water, fire protection, storm drainage, parking and roads. Detailed discussions of the project's merits in each of these areas are provided under the appropriate headings in Section III of this application. IV. ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIRrS ' In addition to a residential growth management allocation, both rezoning and subdivision approval will be ' required in order to develop the proposed project. Each of these additional approvals is discussed below. 43 11 A. Rezoning Inasmuch as multi -family dwelling units are a prohibited use in the L-1 z -e district, the Applicant requests that the property be rezoned to an appropriate category which will permit development of the project. While L-2, Lodge would appear to be such a category given surrounding land uses, it should be noted that both the Planning Office staff and the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion have recommended, and the City Council has concep- tually agreed, _ merge the L-1/L-2 zone districts into a new category referred to as L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residen- tial. The stated purpose of this new district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construc- tion of tourist -oriented detached, duplex and multi -family residential dwellings." Were the new L/TR zone district to be in place as of the deadline for the submission of this application, no request for rezoning would be required. Unfortunately, implementation of the new district is scheduled to occur after the first of the year and concurrent with the adoption of the City's revised land use code. As a result, application for rezoning to L-2, Lodge is hereby made pursuant to Section 24-12.5 of the Municipal Code. Inasmuch as the L/TR district will most likely be in place 44 prior to completion of the project's subdivision review, ' thereby rendering moot the requested rezoning, a detailed ' discussion of the proposed rezoning's compliance with the review criteria of Section 24 12.5(a) of the Code has not ' been included in this application. Should the Planning office determine that a rezoning rationale be demonstrat- ed, the Applicant will provide such additional information ' as may be required. B. Subdivision Pursuant to Section 20-3(s) of the Municipal ' Code, a tract of land to be used for multiple dwelling ' units is by definition a "subdivision" and, therefore, subject to the City's review and approval. Inasmuch as ' the proposed project does not involve the creation of separate lots, but rather the development of a single, ' multi -family structure, no significant benefit would ' appear to be derived by either the Applicant or the City from full subdivision review. IAmple opportunity will be available for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to consider the proposed "subdivision" concurrent with their ' review of the Applicant's growth management submission. As a result, the Applicant respectfully requests that the ' 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes be excepted, pursuant to Section 20-19(a) of the Code, from the strict application of the 45 ' City's subdivision procedures. The specific submission ' requirements of conceptual subdivision review are ad- dressed in Section II of this application. 46 1� � APPENDIX A 1 m w�+L. ,u.wo�Jr rn (asaana r4W YaU .wAx - .`!Y Vr, e+ri u+l rrY �� v,•.� ,.auYe wrn.J rr w. UTE ADDITION, ANALYSIS PROPERTY SURVEY 771 UTE AVE. LOTS 158,16,17 UTE ADDITION TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND LOT 41, SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. I Or_ ` UTE ADDITION a,.W MwIJh> LOT I6 L01 i19 LDT:SA 1 ,ash Lor.J 11 1 1 _ r ICINITY MAP CERTIFICATION I , p,J�o W N�OcigL, wGctn.( —Y TN,T >JveaJ�a uJ~Pew aereh vx a sJe✓ey y4R'. wx.r_ ny wa�Jr1 r,•Y 1,66 iv .br I,e•J o,✓.o W. Nop4oL �> ib�� LEGEND • r[[ovnary roeJe.e o >ewei RLb, w� r/�,v + Woo GCJct i.�JL -�� o✓«wGao NOTES ( ) �Jsacu„r�oJ ase., rwt .ec, ✓,s„+, r�,r or rwt .xt Aoo.ne.� C ] iJana.„r•cJ rsv..1 Y I,s, ocal",� r,av w ru—Y < ) ✓Y u�N a-,w,WT iJ rosa,anwr, erovw rw, �ti t+t, r�rr.J re eacesva (C b ,Jroa+„r�wl •<u✓1 r �., mf W en,ev..e r:..laJJ s rue_ .,Ay C _Ic ih W aor> it br � .•14eo�iirb 4 � 5oa s�e.e �Tw ytso. Y o^ r� e.�eJ,r�oJa. Act e+4xo aJ 4J c.oJTo.�t IJTE _✓4[b Eq J4r- owlL/Wr Ta�> Nov w4> vR.e..sY¢1n W- 4 —H. J, xo T,Ta.e-. �Js✓pw Pr awl iwL �lWYE��iT .� �Jt.x4Jr.E coLl cNG JO rLyZN-G6 rea 4ve�� i[. rw i, eiL. 4u. �OTEb Jr.[ ro ecoSS 4 P,Agc> AFL QG.LO/.DLO 4r rat o,TE .oe xa x[PAx EO e �7 Aspen Survey Fnq;neers, Inc �� yy� nunx;a-su. •c. SCALE 1"-2d b ,rT�er �soea -••I,"I1E11:,"I'A I ON C1,1111111AL 1 Pohcv Number 4 Pohcy Amount 7 Elteco-e Date S ONLY AND IS NOT A PART _ 2 Property Tvpe 5 Premium 8 SurveyAmendment OF THE POLICY 3 County 6 Rate Rule 9 Additional Chains 85 I EXHIBIT 2 I ' Ig*1ers Zltle Insurance Orporatlon OWNER'S POLICY Schedule A CASE NUMRER DAfE OF POLIf:Y AMOUNT OF INSURANCE 1l)LI1 t THE POLICY NUMRER SHOWN ---- — PCT-283-86 JULY 16, 1987 $700,000.00 ON THIS SCHEDULE MUSr 2: IS P.M. AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED 85-00-674093 NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEE T ' 1 Name of Insured: KENT W. SHODEEN 2 The estate or Interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: IN FEE SIMPLE '3 The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: KENT W. SHODEEN 14 The land referred to In this policy is described as follows. ' PARCEL A: LOT 15B, ' UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, as shown on the Replat of Lot 15, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, recorded in Plat Book 10 at Page 91, and LOTS 16 AND 17, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ' PARCEL B: LOT 4 1 , acoording to the Dependent Resurvey and Survey Plat of the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dated February 14, 1980 Located in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. ' ALL IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. PITKIN �OUNY TI'f�, 7C% IffmMMON Pitkin County Title, Inc. 601 E. Hopkins (303)925-1766 Aspen, Colorado 61611 15we,l ai Ituc it Tnl P'lll•'v 85 fl:v 2. 79) III's Polwv is mvil;'d IvIlf!SS [tie rover "lii I'1 Form N-1 035.0 085-00 3 .lied Schitdul•• R - .Inached ALTA Owners Policy Form B 1970 (Rev. 10. 17.70 and 1.0-1 7.84) EXHIBIT 3 December 1, 1987 Mr. Alan Richman Planning and Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Mr. Richman: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent me in the processing of a residential growth management application for the development of my property which is located at 771 Ute Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on my behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Kent W. Shodeen 11 APPENDIX B CITE 130 asp November 19, 1987 Mr. Sunny Vann VANN ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes I Dear Sunny, PEN eet 611 EXHIBIT 1 Per our discussion of November 17, and in response to your letter ' of the 18th, the Water Department concurs with you that the proposed eight inch (or twelve inch) interconnect between South Spring Street and Original Street along Ute Avenue will most definitely upgrade water service for the surrounding neighbor- hood. In fact, the interconnect will provide an ultimate feed to the southeast area of Aspen, providing additional pressure to the Aspen Alps area from storage located on Aspen Mountain. It was ' for this reason that we had recommended that the previous applicant, the Lodge of Aspen, install such an interconnect. With such an interconnect in place, water will be available in ' sufficient Should your quantities project be to service your proposed approved, I will recommend development. that the city participate in upsizing the proposed interconnect from an eight inch to a twelve inch. We will also attempt to continue the ' referenced interconnect easterly to intercept the twelve inch main on Ute Avenue. ' Please feel free to contact me should you need any additional information. ' incerely, ' m Markalunas Director, Water Department ' JM/pdm Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District EXHIBIT 2 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537 November 19,1987 Sunny Vann Vann Associates P. 0. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Sunny, This letter is to inform you that the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District can service the proposed townhomes at 771 Ute Avenue. There is sufficient capacity in the 10 inch line nearby and the District's plant also has this capacity to handle this proposed project. Sincerely Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District EXHIBIT 3 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5532 TO: SUNNY VAN & ASSOCIATES FROM: PETER WIRTH� ' RE: FIRE PROTECTION ON UTE AVE & ORIGINAL DATE: NOV"EMBER 23, 1987 ' DEAR SUNNY, PER OUR CONVERSATION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1987, I FIND NO PROBLEM IN PROVIDING FIRE PROTECTION TO THE PROPOSED ' DEVELOPMENT ON UTE AVENUE & ORIGINAL. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 8 BLOCKS FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AND OUR RESPONSE ' TIME TO THAT LOCATION WOULD BE BETWEEN 3 - 5 MINUTES. IT IS MY ' UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL INSTALL A FIRE HYDRANT ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER. OF THE PROPERTY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ' PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL. APPENDIX C ASPEN ALPS CON DON I N I U N1 ASSOCIATION November 30,1987 Mr. Kent Shodeen 13 South 7th Street Geneva, Illinois 60134 Re: Shodeen Residential Growth Management Application EXHIBIT 1 ' Dear Mr. Shodeen, The purpose of this letter is to confirm my understanding of the agreement to be entered into between the Aspen Alps Condominium ' Association and Kent Shodeen with regard to the proposed development of your property located at 771 Ute Avenue. As we discussed, the Association agrees in principal to allow you to utilize the Aspen Alps' driveway for purposes of accessing your proposed condominium proiect's trash area and to permit you ' to landocated adjacent to your northwestern property line, subject to the Association's review and approval of the landscaping plan. It is understood ' that a formal agreement pertaining to these matters and to such other mutually beneficial issues will be prepared and executed by the parties thereto upon the project's receipt of development ' approval from the City. A preliminary agreement has been reached regarding the use of certain Aspen Alps Condominium Association amenities by the owner or owners of the property. The amenities consist of tennis courts, swimming pool, jacuzzi, conference room, etc. If our understanding of the nature of your proposed agreement is ' correct, please sign in the space provided below. It is expressly understood that this letter will be used solely for the ' purpose of seeking development the parties may amend, modify approval for or otherwise your project and that renegotiate the terms of the agreement to be entered into by the parties. Box 1228, Aspen, Colorado Q25-7820 Mr. Kent Shodeen November 30,1987 Page Two Should you have any further questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Gerald G. Hewey General Manager GGH:pmc Kent W. Shodeen Date: j; / S� • is CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: O " DATE COMPLETE' PROJECT NAME : -�-4 Project Address: APPLICANT: Applicant REPRESENTA Representa PAID: UYE NO AMOUNT: D�• 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: l�TEP: CC-,, 2 STEP: N Kv • �ii •� 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z V CC NEARING DATE' W' /'-> VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: P&Z CC ( N/A DATE REFERRED:Y - - 0 y INITIALS: �t Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: Staff Approval: Paid: Consent Agenda: Date: =_____________ REFE�2�.S-______________ Attorney School District Mtn. Bell y Engineer s Housing Dir. Parks Dept. Holy Cross Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief B1dg:Zon/Inspect Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINA ROUTING: -----------_—____+_ DATE ROUTED: 9 0�0 �8 INITIAL: / 7 City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. n Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: • • E CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET 777 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES On September 12, 1988 the City Council approved the 777 Ute Avenue Townhomes Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney shall review and approve the Subdivision Improvements Agreement language. 2. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall reflect that the landscape financial guarantees shall only be required for those improvements in the public R.O.W. 3. The following engineering concerns shall be adequately addressed prior to the signature of the Final Plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement: a. The Plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be modified as follows: Ch.777Caseload 1. The applicant shall participate in the extention of the south east storm sewer inlet to intercept the spring across the road to the south at the source of the spring. The Engineering Department and the applicant shall work together to determine the extent of the applicants participation. This shall be determined to the Engineering Departments satisfaction and included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement prior to the recordation of Final Plat. 2. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement language on page 5 shall read as follows: "which estimated cost, as approved by the City Engineer",... 3. The Plat shall indicate handicap ramps on sidewalks as appropriate. r + � _ CZTY OF ASPEN IZIESIC0117-AL Qom; MANAGEMEt?r PLAN SUBMISSION POI WS T J (X=ON - TAI LY SH= Project: 771 Ute Avenue (Scored 1/26/88) P&Z VOTING MEMBERS a Welton Jasmine Roger Ram na David Mari Mi Jim Avexage sr 1. Public Facilities ` and Services (12 pts) a. Water Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 b. Sewer Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2 _- 2 e. Parking Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 f. Road 2 1.5 1.5 2 2 1.5 _ 2 SUBTOTAL 11 10.5 10.5 11 11 10.5 11 10.8 2. Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood 2 0 2 3 2 2 2.5 Compatibility _ b. Site Design 2.5 1 2 3 2 2 2.5 c. Energy 3 2.5 2.5 2 3 2.5 _ 3 d. Trails 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ 3 e. Green Space 1.5 0 1.5 3 2 1 _ 2 SUBTOTAL 12 6.5 11 13 12 10.5 13 11.14 3. Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public 2.5 2 2.5 3 3 2 2.5 Transportation b. Community Comml 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Facilities SUBIOfAL 5.5 5 5.5 6 6 5 5.5 5.5 4. Employee Housing (20 pts) a. Low Income 8 5 8 10 8 8 8 b. Moderate Income _ c. Middle Income SUBTOTAL 8 5 8 10 8 8 8 7.86 SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1-4 36.5 27 35 40 37 34 37.5 35.29 5. Bonus points (5.3 pts) 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 .71 TOTAL POINTS 1-5 36.5 27 35 42 37 34 40.5 36.0 M � • � IF` 04 0611191010 am VA IMM6.7A I a I I [9J ID ' WR mg! N i 1 • • • / • •I• • Y• I III ?Mject: 925 E. Durant Avenue (Scored 1/26/88) Welton Jasmine Fier Ramona David Mari Jim Average public Facilities and Services (12 pts) Water Service 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 "Sewer Service 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 W•' c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 - 2 - d. Fire Protection 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 e, Parking Design 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 f. Road 1.5 1 1.5 2 1.75 1 1.5 SUBTOTAL 8.5 7 8.5 12 8.75 8 8.5 8.75 Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood 3 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 - Compatibility b. Site Design 2.5 1 2.5 3 2.5 2 2.25 Energy 2.5 2 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 'd Trails 2.5 3 2 2 2.5 2 2 ei Green Space 3 0.5 2 2 2 2.5 2 r, tl-SUBIUTAL 13.5 6.5 11 12 12.5 11.5 11.25 11.18 is Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Transportation b• Can =ity Comml 2.5 2 2.5 3 3 2 3 - Facilities SUBTOTAL 5.5 5 5.5 6 6 5 6 5.57 FtPloyee Housing (20 pts) a• Low Income 10.4 8.4 10.4 10 10.4 10.4 10.4 _ b• Moderate Income C. Middle Income - - SUBTOTAL 10.4 8.4 10.4 10 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.06 SUBTOTAL CAT=RIES 1-4 37.9 26.9 35.4 40 37.65 34.9 36.15 35.56 AA, BXRIS Points (5.3 pts) 4 0 2 0 2 1 1 1.43 TOTAL P0117I5 1-5 41.9 26.9 37.4 40 39.65 35.9 37.15 37.0 ip tf 1 / CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED:Z2 % PARCH ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2`31 - 2 �7 / 1 j� (�, �J ,, STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: Z "T 1 (J! K� 77 U�% ]� t,ES d �.n{� a l Cg#w Project.) Address: APPLIC�PTI �%) Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE:�U I II I y V v1 I I J Representative Address/Phone ------- -- PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z CC 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: °P&Z cc N/A n ' DATE REFERRED: -16 -I INITIALS: v ffl REFERRALS: _ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. �— Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water ✓ Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief B1dg:Zon/Inspect Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork �— Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty �_ City Engineer Bldg. Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: i CASE DISPOSITION 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOUSES: REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, GMP, AND CASH IN LIEU 1. Rezoning: On January 19, 1988 P&Z recommended approval of the requested rezoning of Lots 15B, 16 and 17 of the Ute Addition and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10, Range 84 West, City of Aspen from the L-1 zone district to the L-2 zone district. 2. Subdivision: On January 19, 1988 P&Z gave preliminary subdivision approval for the 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses multi -family project subject to conditions that follow: a. A Final Plat application shall be submitted according to the requirements of Sections 20-11 and 20-12 of the Municipal Code including: 1. A detailed storm drainage plan shall be submitted. 2. Survey corrected with regard to the location and ownership of the Aspen Mountain Road and lot area. 3. Site/landscape plan showing site improvements • described in the 771 Ute Avenue GMP application, including but not limited to vegetation to be planted, irrigation system, pedestrian areas, bike rack, benches, and landscape and walkway lighting. b. A statement of subdivision and improvements agreement shall be submitted as part of final plat. Included in this document shall be a development schedule and appropriate financial guarantee for all site improve- ments and off -site improvements described in the 771 Ute Avenue GMP application including but not limited to storm sewer, pavement of part of Aspen Mountain Road, curb and gutter, and fire hydrant. Also included shall be agreement to join any improvement district formed that encompasses this property. C. An agreement for emergency access to this project through the Aspen Alps drive -through from S. Spring St. to Ute Ave. shall be submitted. d. The applicant will estimate the value of installing the 70 feet long 6 foot wide sidewalk opposite the project on Ute Avenue and agree to contribute this sum to the City for pavement of this sidewalk, repairs to the Ute 00 0�0 Avenue trail or acquisition of a missing trail right- of-way along the Ute Avenue trail. This sum of money will be given to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and will be held in an interest bearing account until the City formally commences that project which the City determined is most needed from the alternatives stated. If no such project is begun after ten (10) years after the submis- sion of the application, then the original contribution and interest payments will be returned to the appli- cant. e. Allocation of eight residential units from the Growth Management Quota must be granted by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval, or final plat shall not be approved. f. If the project is condominiumized the applicant shall identify a management plan for the complex within the condomiumization documents. 3. Employee Housing: The P&Z recommended on January 19, 1988 acceptance of the cash -in -lieu payment for the equivalent of 12 low income employees, as calculated at the time of building permit application, and shall be paid to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of any building permit. • 4. GMP Scoring: On January 26, 1988 P&Z scored 771 Ute Avenue 36.0 points, exceeding the threshold and placing third among the three residential competitors. 5. GMP Quota Allocation: City Council adopted Resolution No. 8 (Series of 1988) on March 14, 1988 allocating sufficient quota for all three projects competing in the 1987 residential competition. In the Resolution (attached) allocation to the 771 Ute Avenue project were subject to the following conditions: - Upon receipt of final plat approval, the 26 unit allotment to the Lodge at Aspen project shall expire; - The project shall be built in phases, with two (2) units being built in 1988 and six (6) units being built in 1989. 771memo.2 �� 2 6 A 9 Ce 09 RESOLUTION NO. 8 (SERIES OF 1988) A RESOLUTION GRANTING TWELVE (12) RESIDENTIAL FROM THE 1987 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA, EIGHT (8) EXCESS ALLOTMENTS AND SIX (6) ALLOTMENTS FROM THE 1989 RESIDENTIAL QUOTA WHEREAS, the annual residential growth management quota within the City of Aspen is established by Section 24-11.1(a) of the Municipal Code at thirty-nine (39) residential units; and WHEREAS, as a result of deductions from the quota due to growth management quota exemptions, as finally and correctly calculated pursuant to Section 24-11.2 of the Municipal Code, the residential quota available for allocation in 1987 was twelve (12) units; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.4(a) of the Municipal Code, December 1st of each year is established as a deadline for submission. of applications for residential develop- ment allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, a total of three applications were submitted for evaluation in the residential competition, listed as follows: ; and Project GMP Allotments Requested 1. 700 E. Main 14 units 2. 925 E. Durant Townhouses 4 units 3. 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses 8 units WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on January 26, 1988 to consider and score the residential GMP applications, all three projects met the minimum threshold of 0 • 10• 31.8 points, as tabulated below: Project 1. 700 E. Main 2. 925 E. Durant Townhouses 3. 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Total Points Given by P&Z (average)* 40.6 points 37.0 points 36.0 points * Projects which meet the threshold are able to be ranked with bonus points included and are shown above in this manner. ; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by the applicants in scoring these projects, attached conditions of approval to the subdivision reviews for all three projects, and recommended to the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council") that the two top scoring projects, 700 E. Main and 925 E. Durant Townhouses, be granted their requested allotments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11.3 (a) of the Municipal Code, City Council is given discretion to grant up to eight excess residential allotments during any year and pursuant to Section 24-11.3 (b) is given discretion to grant future years' allotments to a project which is phased over more than one year; and WHEREAS, Council reviewed the Commission's scoring, recommendations for conceptual approvals and recommendation for future year allocation on February 22, 1988; and WHEREAS, Council determined that all three projects should be granted their requested allotments since they do not adversely effect Aspen's growth rate and provide desirable community benefits. a2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, >lorado that the available twelve units of the 1987 residential quota and six excess allotments be allocated to the 700 E. Main and 925 E. Durant Townhouses projects. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Council that the remaining two excess allotments, along with six allotments from the 1989 quota be granted to the 771 Ute Avenue project, on the conditions that upon receipt of final plat approval, the 26 unit allotment to the Lodge at Aspen project shall expire and that the project shall be built in phases, with two units being built in 1988 and six units being built in 1989. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Council that the above allocations shall expire pursuant to Section 2.4-11.7(a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans, specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the proposed residential buildings are not submitted on or before December 1, 1990.-- William L. Stirling, Mayo I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting to be held on the �"T day of 1988. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk gmp.quota. 1987 �46 3 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED:_/�///YX PARCEpp ID ANDCASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2--131 - l -7 1, / STAFF MEMBER: Z PROJECT NAME: Z 7I U 1(, Proj ec Address : APPLIC de n Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE:?i��%� V��n Representative Address/Phone? d -------------- �a ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---- ---------------- PAID: YE NO AMOUNT: Cc 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: / 1 STEP: 2 STEP: v 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z CC 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: r. wtIP. WA, -1,..JS p-T-Al ° "� '1 P&Z *°►-z CC Qq N/A n , DATE REFERRED: 0,,ej 'il/ INITIALS: v REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas �— Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) —� Aspen Water ✓ Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief B1dg:Zon/Inspect Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork '�L Roaring Fork �— Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes - Rezoning, Conceptual Subdivision, and Acceptance of Cash -in -lieu for Employee Housing DATE: January 19, 1988 LOCATION: 771 Ute Avenue, Lots 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10, Range 84 West, City of Aspen. CURRENT ZONING: L-1 Lodge. PROPOSED ZONING: L-2 Lodge. PROPERTY SIZE: 22,660 square feet. APPLICANT: Kent W. Shodeen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests rezoning from L-1 to L-2. He is also requesting conceptual subdivision approval and to be excepted from Preliminary Plat review for construction of a nine (9) unit townhome project on the site. Sunny Vann, the applicant's representative, proposes that if staff or P&Z identify any subdivision issues at the conceptual stage requiring further P&Z review, the applicant will consent to completing preliminary plat procedures. Eight (8) units are subject to GMP quota allocation; reconstruction of one (1) unit is exempt from GMP. As part of the GMP application, acceptance of a cash contribution for the equivalent of twelve (12) low-income employees is proposed. BACKGROUND ON SITE: The Lodge at Aspen project received alloca- tion for 31 lodge units on this site in 1981. A GMP amendment for the lodge project was approved in 1986 entailing a decrease in the number of lodge units from 31 to 26 and changes in architec- tural design, building materials, on -site employee configuration, and site design. The lodge GMP allocation expires in March, 1988. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: In a memorandum dated January 15, 1988 from Jay Hammond the following comments were 1 • • made as pertain to subdivision review: a. A plat will be required pursuant to Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code. b. The applicant shall agree to join future improve- ment districts pursuant to language available from the City Attorney's Office. C. The Engineering Department would not support a requirement for a full cul-de-sac, but would support amending any agreement with Aspen alps to provide emergency access through the Alps' property. d. The Engineering Department defers to the City Attorney on the issue of the size of Aspen Mountain Road right-of-way. 2. Water Department: Jim Markalunas stated in his December 15, 1987 memorandum that the Water Department endorses the proposed eight inch diameter interconnect to be installed by the applicant along Ute Avenue. He further states that the City hopes to contribute to increasing the size of this line to twelve inch diameter. 3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation district: Heiko Kuhn stated that the proposed project can be served by the Sanitation District from the Ute Avenue sewer line. 4. Environmental Health: Tom Dunlop commented in his December 23, 1987 memorandum with regard to air quality that the project is entitled and limited to one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove. Regard- ing construction, a fugitive dust control plan will be required. Demolition of the existing house on the site can only be done in accordance with the State's regulation on removal and disposal of asbestos. The applicant is advised to contact Environmental Health if mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encoun- tered during excavation. 5. Housing Authority: Ann Phillips reported in her January 4, 1988 memorandum that the Housing Authority recom- mended approval of the proposed cash -in -lieu payment of $240,000 due at the time of issuance of a building permit. B. Planning Office Comments: 1. Rezoning: The request to rezone this property from L-1 to L-2 has been reviewed according to the rezoning 2 0 criteria in Section 24-12.5(d) of the Municipal Code as follows: Criterion 1: Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neigh- borhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk requirements, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on -site characteristics. Response: The only difference between the present L-1 zone district and the proposed L-2 zone district is that the latter allows multi -family, single family and duplex residences. It should be noted that the current proposal in the code revision under way is to combine the L-1 and L-2 zone districts into a single "Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district," allowing residential uses. We agree with the applicant that this specific rezoning proposal is consistent with the surrounding land uses in the vicinity. There are presently lodge and residential uses in the neighbor- hood. The applicable area and bulk requirements are the same in both zones. The flat portion of the site is, in our opinion, as well suited for a relatively small multi -family residential project as for a small lodge. Criterion 2: Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability of on - and off-street parking and ability to provide utility service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment of the fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed rezoning. Response: Expected traffic generation is typically higher from a residential project than a lodge project, as confirmed in the Transportation Plan Element and embodied in the proposed Code Rewrite parking require- ments. 18 spaces would be required at one space per residential bedroom, compared to 18.2 spaces at .7 spaces per lodge bedroom for a 26 unit lodge. Impacts on utility services are probably quite similar for comparably sized projects. Criterion 3: Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water quality in the vicinity of the site. Response: The allowance of one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove is the same for a residen- tial structure as for a lodge. There appears to be no difference in impacts. Criterion 4: Analysis of the community need for the • 0 proposed rezoning and assessment of the relationship of the rezoning proposal to the goal of overall community balance. Response: We believe that the tourist -oriented residen- tial units are probably as much in need by the com- munity as is construction and renovation of lodges. One may argue that the townhome serves a typically more affluent market than the lodge unit. Staff does not believe that there is a significant difference between the effect of a lodge project and that of a multi- family project located here pertaining to the overall community balance. Criterion 5: Compatibility with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended. Response: The area requested for rezoning is within the "Mixed Residential" future land use category in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. The intent and purpose of this category is: "To allow for a mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodation uses in areas where these conditions presently exist. Only existing lodges should be considered for expansion in order to provide additional guest rooms and new professional offices should be of the type that do not generate frequent client visits." Essentially, this intent does not well fit the area as it has developed to date, nor would appear to be now appropriate. This is one principal reason staff has recommended the L/TR designation for the area. Regard- ing this site, L-2 allowing residential uses is at least as appropriate as L-1 excluding residential uses. Criterion 6: Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors to Aspen. Response: Both zone districts promote Aspen's health, safety and welfare equally well, in staff's opinion. 2. Subdivision Review: A multi -family residential unit is considered a subdivision according to the defini- tion of Subdivision in Section 20-3(s)(2) of the Municipal Code. This review is for the purpose of giving the City the opportunity to assure that such projects meet the basic criteria of suitability of the land for such purpose and the standards for development in the Subdivision Regulations. 4 • 0 Section 20-9 of the Subdivision Regulations state the criteria for "suitability of land for subdivision." Our comments in response to this criteria follow. Criterion a: Whether findings are made that the land is unsuitable for subdivision by reason of flooding, bad drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or other potential natural hazards. Response: There is no indication that such natural hazards would prevent development of this site. The drainage issue has been thus far addressed in a fashion to satisfy the Engineering Department that problems can be mitigated. Criterion b: The Planning Commission may deem land premature for subdivision when subdivision approval would create growth patterns of such physical form and size that governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens may result from providing the extension of public services, and planned support facilities cannot be accomplished in a planned, ordered or efficient manner. Response: The development appears to not place any unusual or unmanageable governmental inefficiencies or duplication of facilities. In a general way, we believe that there is a public cost in creating a structure that appears to be too large for the buildable site area and possessing such limited usable open space. It will create additional bulk of structures, density and use of public open spaces. Modifications to the plan decreasing the building size and increasing open space would be more appropriate, in staff's opinion. Following are additional comments regarding the project's compliance with subdivision regulations: 1. Project Improvements: The applicant has shown in his conceptual presentation numerous landscaping improve- ments, installation of a new storm sewer, water line extension, paving, curb and gutter, a hew fire hydrant, and extension of a trail/sidewalk off the site. Greater detail on these commitments should be shown at subse- quent levels of review. Irrigation has not yet been presented, but should be in a future preliminary or final plat submittal. An improvements agreement and guarantee should be prepared following the requirements of Section 20-16(c)(1) of the Municipal Code. 101 • 2. Evaluating whether there is an adverse effect upon the surrounding area: Section 20-12(1) of the Preliminary Plat -Contents requires submission of "such preliminary information as may be required by the City Planning Office or other reviewing agency in order to adequately describe proposed utility system drainage plans, surface improvements, or other construction projects contemplated within the area to be subdivided in order to assure that the subdivision is capable of being constructed without an adverse effect upon the sur- rounding area." We are concerned that the proposed design does have some adverse effect upon the surrounding area in its size in relation to usable area and lack of usable green space. Even though the residential project does not exceed allowed bulk or density (bedrooms per lot area), it is larger than surrounding multi -family projects and considerably larger than single-family and duplex residences to the east. We note that histor- ically the community has been more accepting of large lodge projects than large residential projects filling up their lots. See Table 1 below for comparative information. One characteristic that decreases the influence of the size of this development upon future development and redevelopment on Ute Avenue is that directly east of the site begins the R-6(PUD) zone district. We suggest that this residential project could better mitigate its impacts on the neighborhood if bulk were reduced to an effective FAR of 1:1 excluding the unbuildable hillside from calculation. This should also make more open space available. The density of 18 bedrooms in 9 units is not inappropriate on this site so close to the Gondola, in our opinion. Table 1 Site, Area and Bulk Characteristics of 771 Ute Avenue and Vicinity 771 Ute Avenue Total Lot Area: 22,660 s.f. Lot Area without Lot 41 or Aspen Mt. Rd:14,148 s.f. Proposed Floor Area: 19,689 s.f. (.87:1 FAR) Maximum Floor Building Area: 22,660 s.f. (1:1 FAR) 1986 Amended Lodge Project Floor Area: 22,660 s.f. (1:1 FAR) 1981 Original Lodge Project Floor Area: 14,758 s.f. (1:1 FAR*) Proposed Open Space: 6,620 s.f. Minimum Required Open Space (25%) 5,665 s.f. R Site Coverage including Lot 41: 29% Site Coverage excluding Lot 41 and AMR: 41% Estimated Floor Area of Aspen Alps**: 134,000 s.f. (.47:1 FAR) * The 1981 project did not contain Lot 41 (7, 280 s . f .) . For comparison purposes, FAR including Lot 41 would have been .65:1. **Estimated FAR of the Aspen Alps is based on preliminary calculations that the property contains a total of 6.5 acres (283,140 s.f.) and 134,000 s.f. of floor area in the 78 condomin- ium units. Prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, January, 1988. 3. Plating: A plat must be submitted according to the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code and meeting the requirements of the Engineering Department. An issue has arisen about the ownership status of the Aspen Mountain Road that should be resolved as part of the platting process. Staff recently received a copy of a civil court decree from 1968, known as Civil Action No. 3912. Judge Fulghum made a finding that "the lower part of this road (Aspen Mountain Road) has been declared by this Court to be a public highway... That the road has an approximate width of 22 feet and a maximum grade of 13 degrees." Subsequently, replating of Lot 15, Ute Addition was filed creating Lots 15A and 15B. On this plat the road is should as a private access easement. Through consultation with the City Attorney, staff's preliminary determination is that the private access easement across Lot 15A as well as Lot 15B of the Ute Addition is a public road. The width is 22 feet. If so, the plat for Shodeen's property should be corrected and the lot area calculation should be revised. 3. Cash -in -lieu for Employee Housing: The applicant proposes to meet the project's employee housing commitment in the GMP process through payment for the equivalent for 12 low-income employees, or $240,000 under current Housing Authority guidelines. City Council has discretion in accepting cash - in -lieu, or turning down cash -in -lieu in favor of on -site affordable housing or off -site deed restrictions. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this issue on January 12, 1988 as part of the public hearing on revising the zoning code and arrived at general ideas for evaluating alternatives. 7 In assessing the desirability of the cash proposal, staff has considered several factors of location and affordable housing needs associated with the project. No adopted plan shows affordable housing planned for the 771 Ute Avenue location. Location of employee housing within the lodge district seems to be somewhat out of character with the tourist orientation; however, the existing house which would be demolished appears to be affordable housing now. The site is well suited for development of affordable housing consi- dering availability of services, proximity to community facilities and environmental constraints. However, the size of the project may make production of employee housing by the applicant infeasible. In addition, the project does not itself require the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. Arrangements with the Alps next door have been considered to utilize their management. Staff concurs with the Housing Authority that the signifi- cant cash contribution would appear to appropriately off -set employee housing impacts of the 771 Ute Avenue project. The contribution will enable the Housing Authority to produce employee housing off site hopefully at the time impacts of this development will be experienced by the community. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Rezoning: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of Lots 15B, 16 and 17 of the Ute Addition and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10, Range 84 West, City of Aspen from the L-1 zone district to the L-2 zone district. 2. Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend approval of the requested conceptual subdivision for the 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses multi -family project subject to conditions that follow. If P&Z decides that it will not request reduction in the size of the structure or revisions of the site plan proposed in condition 2.a. below then we recommend that this project be excepted from Preliminary Plat requirements. In this case, "final plat' should be replaced wherever "preliminary plat" is stated. a. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the structure to approximately 14-15,000 square feet so to improve compatibility on the buildable portion of the property and to adjacent development and revise the site design so to increase open space and usable green space in the site plan to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat application. b. A Preliminary Plat application shall be submitted according to the requirements of Sections 20-11 and 20- E3 12 of the Municipal Code including: 1. A detailed storm drainage plan shall be submitted. 2. Survey corrected with regard to the location and ownership of the Aspen Mountain Road and lot area. 3. Site/landscape plan showing site improvements described in the 771 Ute Avenue GMP application, including but not limited to vegetation to be planted, irrigation system, pedestrian areas, bike rack, benches, and landscape and walkway lighting. C. A statement of subdivision and improvements agreement shall be submitted as part of final plat. Included in this document shall be a development schedule and appropriate financial guarantee for all site improve- ments and off -site improvements described in the 771 Ute Avenue GMP application including but not limited to storm sewer, pavement of part of Aspen Mountain Road, curb and gutter, and fire hydrant. Also included shall be agreement to join any improvement district formed that encompasses this property. d. An agreement for emergency access to this project through the Aspen Alps drive -through from S. Spring St. to Ute Ave. shall be submitted. e. The applicant will estimate the value of installing the 70 feet long 6 foot wide sidewalk opposite the project on Ute Avenue and agree to contribute this sum to the City for pavement of this sidewalk, repairs to the Ute Avenue trail or acquisition of a missing trail right- of-way along the Ute Avenue trail. This sum of money will be given to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and will be held in an interest bearing account until the City formally commences that project which the City determined is most needed from the alternatives stated. If no such project is begun after ten (10) years after the submis- sion of the application, then the original contribution and interest payments will be returned to the appli- cant. f. Allocation of eight residential units from the Growth Management Quota must be granted by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval, or final plat shall not be approved. 3. Employee Housing: The Planning Office and Housing Authority recommend P&Z to recommend acceptance of the cash -in -lieu x • • payment for the equivalent of 12 low income employees, as calculated at the time of building permit application, and shall be paid to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of any building permit. 771memo 10 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: January 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The applicant agrees to provide an 8^ line from Sprin Street to near Original Street along Ute Avenue. The Water Department considers this an improvement to water services for the surrounding neighborhood. While agreeing this is an improve- ment, Mr. Markalunas intends for the City to participate in increasing the size of this line from 8^ to 12^. 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. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: No system improvements are proposed. The Sanitation District stated the proposed project can be handled by the existing ten (1011) inch sanitary sewer line in Ute Avenue. 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. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The City Engineer noted that the project will deal with storm drainage pursuant to standard practice (i.e., drywells) and in addition will be improving the drainage along Aspen Mountain Road through installation of a new storm sewer. The new storm sewer will better accommodate surface run-off from Aspen Mountain which is currently a problem. 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 major equipment to an existing station. RATING: 2 COMMENTS:The Fire Marshal stated installation of a fire hydrant on the northeast corner of the property will improve quality of service in the area. Response time of 3-5 minutes from the Fire Station was considered adequate. 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. RATING: 2 COMMENTS:Eiahteen parking spaces will be located underground and out of sight, meeting the one space/bedroom requirement. We view the undergrounding to be an excellent design feature. Two parking spaces will be located along Ute Avenue and should serve for drop-off and short-term visitor parking. - 2 - 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. RATING: 1.5 COMMENTS: The applicant commits to increasing the easement width of Aspen Mountain Road from 6' to 101, pave its portion of that road and add curb and gutter along both Aspen Mountain Road and Ute Avenue. These are improvements to the current level of services in the area. Traffic can be safely handled by existing surrounding roads; however, the "turn -around" for visitors and service vehicles is narrow (32' from curb to curb) and will at times cause congestion in the dead-end of Ute Avenue which also serves Aspen Alps egress. SUBTOTAL: 10.5 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: 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. RATING: 1.5 0 COMMENTS: The 9 townhouse L-shaped structure is 31 feet high (to roof ridge) across the gently sloped portion of the site at the base of the mountain. It contains 19,680 sq. ft. (counted in FAR), somewhat smaller than the prior approved lodge project as - 3 - amended at 22,666_sq. ft. Surroundinq development consists of Aspen Alps, Ajax Apartments and a single-family house. We find the basic design features to be pleasing, but find the building bulk is greater than the surrounding development with too little land to give setting and visual relief. Without the Lot 41 hillside or land under Aspen Mountain Road, FAR is estimated at 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: 2 COMMENTS:As pointed out by the applicant, approximately 7,280 sq.ft. or 32% of the site, is essentially undevelopable hill- side. The 1,230 sq. ft. under Aspen Mountain Road further decreases open space area. The applicant has committed to undertake extensive landscaping of a few small areas on the site including more trees on the hillside. However, the buffer area towards the Alps (northwest) is minimal, and the plaza paving in front of the building leaves very limited green space compared to the abundantly vegetated Alps site. The character of the proposed open space area becomes rather radically urbanized in comparison to the Aspen Alps and the relatively rustic character of Ute Avenue with its back drop of north facing forest on Aspen Mountain. Undergrounding of utilities, trash pick-up arranged with access through the Alps, efficient pedestrian circulation as well as the generally appropriate location of the building to the rear of the property, are acceptable site features. 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. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The applicant commits to a standard level of wall and ceiling insulation, an infiltration barrier wrap, low "E" type glazing in windows within 6 feet of the floor, and high lumen output/low wattage light bulbs. The infiltration barrier wrap, lighting and air to air heat exchanger were commended by the Roaring Fork Energy Center to indicate excellence. However, solar gain is minimal for the site because the mountain blocks - 4 - 0 • the sun. We note that the extensive east and northeast facin glazing appear to have little solar gain and significant heat loss. It was not possible for RFEC to give an assessment of excellence for solar energy design. Snowmelt within the parking garage entry is an energy intensive heating device. No verifi- able commitments are made regarding mechanical systems or for efficient fireplaces beyond code regulations. 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. RATING: 3 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to construct a trail link (approximately 70 feet long) on the northerly edge of Ute Avenue opposite the project. The sidewalk provides a public benefit in creating a logical link from the trail passing through the Aspen Alps and the trail east of Glory Hole Park. As an alternative, the applicant will contribute the equivalent sum of money for repairs to the Ute Avenue trail or aquisition of a missing trail right-of-way. e. Green Space (maximum three [3] 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. Ithummerts COMMENTS:The applicant states, in total, approximately 16,390 sq. ft. of the site will be landscaped. Some 50 aspen, cotton- wood, spruce, and crab apple trees are shown on the landscape plan. Please note that 7,280 sq.ft. is in Lot 41 on the hillside and a large portion of the building site will be paved side- walk/courtyard area. Vegetated open space on the site is limited to rather small areas carved out on the edge of the building area and within the front courtyard area. At least 1/4 of the front green space is in the public right-of-way and cannot be included in this scoring category. While this urban yard space would be attractive if located in a higher density urban setting, in our opinion, the design does not create the type of usable open space (i.e., recreational or natural area incorporated into a project) now found in the multi-family/lodge projects in this "edge" portion of the neighborhood. The proposed green space does not provide significant relief from the Alps project or Ajax Apart- ment Building. - 5 - SUBTOTAL: 9.5 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: Based on measurements using the Cooper Aerial maps, the Durant Street bus route is approximately 560 feet, or slightly over 2 blocks (500 ft.) from the project along the Alps foot trail. The City Engineer measured 515 feet distances to the southerly right-of-way of Durant Street. 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 -- Project 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. RATING: 3 COMMENTS:The project is located within 500 feet walking distance of the Commercial Core of Aspen. 6 • SUBTOTAL: 5 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 project 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). RATING: 8 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to provide the cash equivalent for 40% of the project in low income employee housing. After reconstruction credit for the existing 3 bedroom house has been deducted, as corrected in Sunny Vann's December 21, 1987 letter based on Building Department verification, the program consists of cash -in -lieu for 12 low income employees, or $240,000 under current Housing Authority guidelines. The Housing Authority recommends approval of this program. - 7 - SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 10.5 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 9.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 5 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 8 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 33 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Aspenf Pitkin Planning Office MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning a FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineerin DATE: January 15, 1988 RE: 771 Ute Subdivision Exception Per your request, I am supplying additional comments regarding the 771 Ute Avenue project subdivision exception. As I understand it, 771 Ute is subject to subdivision criteria as a multi -family project. Pertinent concerns from Engineering include: 1. The applicant shall be required to submit a subdivision plat pursuant to Aspen Municipal code Section 20-15 prior to building permit issuance. 2. The applicant shall agree to join future improvement districts pursuant to language available from the City Attorney's office. 3. Concerns have been raised regarding circulation and the "dead-end" configuration of adjacent Ute Avenue. While this office would not support a requirement that the applicant provide property for a cul-de-sac or turnaround, we would support amending any agreement with the Aspen Alps to provide for emergency access. 4. The applicant shall be required to replace all property monumentation subsequent to construction and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. Finally, we will defer to the City Attorney on the question of the size of the right-of-way along Aspen Mountain Road. One additional reference identified by the applicant is a plat recorded at book 10 page 91 denoting a 12 foot right-of-way. JH/co/Memol2.88 cc: Chuck Roth 49 s DEC 1 6 !�. , � CITY OF ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office FROM: Jim Markalunas SUBJECT: 771 Ute Avenue Townhome DATE_ -----December 15, 1987 --------------- --�== -- ,��-------- The Water Department has rev'ew d the applicant's proposal, in particular Section A - Water S s em, Page 4, pertaining to a proposed eight inch interconnect o be installed by the applicant along Ute Avenue between South Spring Street and Original Street. This interconnect has been advocated by the water department for many years, and has been a condition for providing water service to prior proposed projects in the area since said interconnect would enhance and upgrade supply from storage on Aspen Mountain to the Ute Avenue area and easterly towards the Aspen Club. Since the applicant has committed to construct the interconnect, the water department endorses the project and would provide water in adequate quantities to service the project. Should the project be approved and in the event funds were made available to the water department, the water department would recommend upsizing the eight inch interconnect to a twelve inch main and extending this interconnect easterly from Original Street to a connecting point with the existing 12 inch steel main now located in Ute Avenue in the vicinity of The Gant. cc: Van and Associates ASPEN46PITKIN ENVIROkENTAL HEALTH DEPART NT MEMORANDUM 2CQS2% To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office,/ �1 Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director Environmental Health Dept. Date: December 23, 1987 Re: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers." ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Asoen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system." AIR OUALITY: Woodburning: There is no mention of installation of any solid fuel burning devices in this submittal. However, in talking to Mr. Sunny Vann, he indicated that there will probably be one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove installed in the building. The application describes "nine (9) individual dwelling units contained in a single multi -family structure." After a review of the architects rendering of the building it is concluded by this office that the project is, in fact, entitled and limited to one fireplace and one certified woodburning stove. This requirement is described in City of Aspen Ordinance 86-5 which defines type and number of woodburning devices allowed in the City. 130 South, Galena Street; Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/5325-2030 771 Ute Ave. Residential GMP Submission December 23, 1987 Page 2 Construction: The applicant will be required to submit to this office a fugitive dust control plan. Included should be a description of the methods proposed to prevent windblown dust from leaving the project property. This may take the form of dust suppressant chemicals, fencing, watering or other forms of control. Also, the applicant shall develop a method of removing dirt and mud carryout from City streets. This should include picking up dirt and mud that has been deposited on City streets by mechanical means that will not create more dust (eg. mechanical sweeper that uses water). The dust control plan should contain a revegetation plan to address disturbed soil areas after construction is complete. Regulation 1 of the Colorado Air Ouality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Ouality Standards is the governing document requiring the dust control plan. Demolition: There is an existing structure on the property that is scheduled to be demolished. Regulation 8 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards, titled "The Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants" requires specific caution in removing asbestos containing materials. The owner of this project shall survey the building for asbestos containing materials. If any are found the above regulation will apply concerning removal and disposal. NOISE• This project will be regulated by Chapter 16, Aspen Municipal Code, titled "Noise Abatement". Should complaints be received by this office, investigations will be made using Chapter 16 as the enforcement instrument. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: Not applicable to this submittal. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. 771 Ute Ave. Residential GMP Submission December 23, 1987 Page 3 This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER a 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 January 5, 1988 TO: Steve Burstein; Cindy Houben, Planning Office JAN 6 FR: Steve Standiford, Director RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Review comments on energy related aspects of the 771 Ute Avenue Submission ENERGY CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION DETAILS The project has specified a very cost-effective level of insulation for the walls and ceilings. Their attention to details with reducing unwanted air infiltration in encouraging. Using good doors and windows will help contribute to this overall goal. The use of an air-to-air heat exchanger will help maintain good indoor air quality while helping save energy. This attention to detail goes beyond most proposals we have reviewed. SOLAR ENERGY The availability of solar energy is limited by the building site's location. Without a detailed site analysis we cannot define the total solar contribution for space heating. Using low-E, Heat Mirror or other energy - efficient glazing will be very important to maintaining interior comfort levels and minimizing heat loss. The ack of solar access will limit the "natural solar heating capabilities." Wit little direct sunlight into the living spaces, the amount of thermal storage or interior colors becomes a moot issue. LIGHTING Although lighting represents a small part of the total energy use, we are glad to see it being considered. Specifying energy efficient lighting makes good sense and should be commended. WATER CONSERVATION The low -flow fixtures mentioned sound appropriate though a gallons -per - minute specification would be more definitive. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS There is a strong intent stated in this section to use a high -efficiency heating system. All of the wording sounds good but is is hard to tell just how efficient the system will be. Their stated intent and proposed selection criteria could result in a very energy -efficient heating system. M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN PHILLIPS, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 4, 1988 RE: 771 UTE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION PROJECT..... The applicant proposes to develop nine residential units and demolish an existing single-family residence. The project, to be known as the 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes, will be condominiumized and offered for sale as second homes to part- time, seasonal residents. The project's employee housing requirement will be met via a cash -in -lieu payment. A separate application for condominiumization will be submitted in the event the project receives a development allocation. The applicant is requesting credit for the three bedroom single family unit existing. He is proposing to build three 3-bedroom units three 2-bedroom units and three 1-bedroom units. 3 x 3 bdrms. = 9 3 x 2 .2 5 bdrms. = 6.75 3 x 1.75 bdrms. = 5.25 total 21 bdrms credit for 3 bdrms in existing unit Total 18 bedrms. The formula is 18 divided by 60% of the project for 40% credit or 30 total bedrms. Subtract the free market 18 and 12 are the employees generated. A cash -in -lieu payment for low income is $20,000 per emp. or a total of $240,000 for the payment. HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approve cash -in -lieu payment of $240,000. due at time of issuance of building permit. i ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT December 17. 1987 Sunny Van P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Sunny: This letter is to confirm the inspection of the Lyle Ruders residence at 771 Ute Avenue. The inspection verifies the existence of three (3) bedrooms, one bath, one kitchen and a living room (a single family dwell- ing). Plumbing fixtures are: 1 kitchen sink, 1 dishwasher, 1 clothes washer, one bathtub with shower, 1 water closet, 1 lavatory. Have a Merry Christmas! PN/tw ruders.pn cc: Steve Burstein, Bill Drueding offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sincerely, Pat y Newbury, \ Acting Zoning Official Planning 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 u 6 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Environmental Health FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Application: Additional Information DATE: December 23, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an addendum letter from the 771 Ute Avenue applicant clarifying the project's employee housing proposal, request for subdivison exception and request for rezoning. Please note that the residential GMP applications are still scheduled for January 19, 1988 and referral comments should be returned to the Planning Office no later than January 7, 1988. If you have any questions, please do not hesitiate to let us know. Thank you. DEC 2 21987 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants December 21, 1987 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Shodeen Property Residential GMP Application/Request for Additional Information Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to technically clarify certain aspects of the Shodeen project's employee housing proposal and to address ,your request for additional information with regard to the subdivision and rezoning portions of our GMP application. Employee Housing As we discussed last week, the Building Department's site inspection of the property indicates that the existing single-family structure contains three (3) bedrooms as opposed to two (2) bedrooms as represented in our applica- tion (see letter from Patsy Newbury attached hereto). While the Applicant's commitment to house forty (40) percent of the total project population remains unchanged, the actual number of employees to be housed, and the resulting cash -in -lieu estimate, has been reduced as a result of the increase in bedroom credits. These reduc- tions, however, have no effect on the number of employee points for which the project is entitled and, therefore, should be considered as a technical clarification. Based on the Applicant's belief that the existing struc- ture contained only two (2) bedrooms, the project's free market population was originally calculated to be eighteen and one-half (18 1/2) persons. If we now claim credit for a three (3) bedroom structure, the free market population is reduced to eighteen (18) persons, and the project's P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612.303/925-6958 9 • Mr. Steve Burstein December 21, 1987 Page 2 employee population is reduced to twelve (12). As a result, the proposed cash -in -lieu contribution is reduced to approximately $240,000 as opposed to our original estimate of approximately $250,000. Subdivision Exception The Applicant requests that the project be excepted from the preliminary plat procedures of Section 20-11 of the Municipal Code. As noted in our application, we believe that ample opportunity will exist for both P&Z and Council review of the proposed subdivision. The subdivision is relatively simple as it involves the construction of a single, multi -family structure and no new lots are to be created. Any plat related conditions which the P&Z might wish to recommend could be addressed by the Council at the final plat stage of review. Should the staff or P&Z identify any subdivision issues at the conceptual stage which would require further P&Z review, the Applicant will consent to completing preliminary plat procedures. With respect to the basis for our request, we believe that no significant benefit would be derived by either the Applicant or the City from full subdivision review if no issues are identified which merit completion of prelimi- nary plat procedures. A requirement to complete this step in the absence of any demonstrable benefit would be redundant, serve no public purpose and represent a significant hardship to the Applicant. Furthermore, the granting of the exception would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the immediate site area and ample precedence for such a request readily exists. The project's final plat will comply with all applicable subdivision requirements. Rezoning As you know, Section 24-12.5(d) sets forth various criteria which the P&Z shall consider, to the extent that they are applicable, in reviewing a request for rezoning. Summarized below are our comments with respect to those criteria we believe to be applicable to the rezoning request in question. 1. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan depicts the project site as "Recreation/Accommodations", a land use category which is intended to "allow for recreation and accommoda- Mr. Steve Burstein December 21, 1987 Page 3 tion needs ... in an area that is especially suited...". A portion of the site also appears to be within the "Recrea- tion/Accommodations Transition" category which allows similar uses but of a more limited scale. The intent of the requested L-2 zone district is consistent with both of these land use categories and, therefore, with the City's adopted land use plan. 2. Existing land uses in the immediate site area, while consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan, are inconsistent with underlying zoning. For example, the adjacent Aspen Alps Condominiums are multi -family struc- tures which are routinely short -termed in the accommoda- tions market. The Alps property, however, is presently zoned L-1, a category which prohibits multi -family structures. 3. The Applicant's proposed multi -family project is consistent with surrounding condominium land uses and the neighborhood's general characteristics. 4. The applicable area and bulk requirements of the proposed L-2 zone district are identical to those of the property's existing L-1 classification. In fact, the only significant difference in the two zone district clas- sifications is in the area of permitted uses. Single- family, duplex and multi -family residences are permitted in L-2 and prohibited in L-1. 5. The project site is, we believe, more ap- propriately suited for residential development than for a lodge. The Applicant's proposed multi -family structure is more consistent with the character and scale of surround- ing development and provides a "transitional" between the more intense lodge development to the northwest and the detached, residential properties to the east. 6. The proposed rezoning will not increase traffic generation, reduce the availability of on -street parking or adversely affect the availability of utilities in the immediate site area. Similarly, rezoning of the property will not adversely affect air and water quality. In fact, implementation of the Applicant's project subsequent to rezoning will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City (e.g., see discussion of the numerous improvements to be under- taken by the Applicant in our GMP application). Mr. Steve Burstein December 21, 1987 Page 4 As we noted in our application, the Planning Office staff has recommended, and both the P&Z and Council have conceptually agreed, to merge the L-1/L-2 zone districts to form a new category referred to as L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential. Inasmuch as this new category incorporates the permitted land uses of both existing zone districts, it is reasonable to assume that both the staff and officials have concluded that the L-1/L-2 districts are consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan and that the uses they allow are appropriate for the property in question. Should you have any questions, or require further informa- tion, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, SV:cwv Attachment 9 . ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT December 17. 1987 Sunny Van P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Sunny: This letter is to confirm the inspection of the Lyle Ruders residence at 771 Ute Avenue. The inspection verifies the existence of three (3) bedrooms, one bath, one kitchen and a living room (a single family dwell-- ing). Plumbing fixtures are: 1 kitchen sink, 1 dishwasher, 1 clothes washer, one bathtub with shower, 1 water closet, 1 lavatory. Have a Merry Christmas! PN/tw ruders.pn cc: Steve Burstein, Bill Drueding offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sincerely, 1. Pat y Newbury, Acting Zoning Official Planning 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 January 26, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 816ll Re: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes Aspen, Colorado Dear Steve, CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. As we discussed at our meeting today, the Owner Mr. Kent Shodeen, has expressed his intention to commit to the additional energy conserving measures listed in the attached letter from our mechanical/electrical consultants, Yoder Engineering Consultants. These will be incorporated into the Construction documents and constructed accordingly. In addition, Mr. Shodeen will commit to the deletion of all wood burning devices from this project. This will further enhance the net energy conservation of the project as well as contribute to the air quality objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. We believe these commitments should satisfactorily address your expressed concerns in the G.M.P. Memorandum dated January 19, 1988, under Category 2, Quality of Design, C. Energy Should you have any further concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly L yours, (3J.- Charles L. Cunniffe, +AA CLC/arh encI. J HIV G_� 00 J_J- l._i I iJULfC LI'11Zl1lLl1..Li ) 1 . YODER Engineering Consultants, lnc. January 25, 1988 Charles Cunni,ffe Charles Cunniffe & Associates P.O. Box 3534 Aspen., CO 81612 • RE: Shodeen To�-mhomes Additional Systems lnfOrmation Dear_ Charles: T talked to Stelre Standeford of the Roaring Fork Energy Center concerning the type of information which would be most effective for obtaining a full point value in the Aspen Planning Department evaluation of proposed systems. Simply stated, he felt it would be to our advantage to not only discuss the state-of-the-art • systems as we did, but to put a quantifying value on them. in reviewing each of the categories, my percentage improvement on the decrease in nonrenewable energy sources will be compared to the standard of construction in a typical area where environmen- tal concerns are minimal. For example, we, on the Shodeen project, are proposing lighting fixtures and lighting design which not only utilizes the latest in high efficiency lighting, but recognize the value of task lighting rather than having high overall lighting levels. For example, most state-of-the-art fluorescent light bulbs currently available not only have wattage decreases for the same 1wierls in the neighborhood of 20 to 35;!,, but by utilizing the color correc- ted bulbs, even greater perceived brightness can be obtained. If we were to compare our design for this project to a typical tract residence in Denver, our design will. save a miniraum of 20% in annual lighting energy utili:.ation. In discussing the building envelope, we talked about the use of Tyvek as an exterior infiltration barrier. The drarnatic reduc- tion in infiltration which can be attributed to Tyvek, based on our personal experience, is at least a 40%. The infiltration component of the typical residence can be as much as 60% of the building heat loss. The use of Tyvek alone should provide an • expected decrease in annual heating requirements by 25%. Because Bettrmark Plana, Suite 307 PO, Box 5740, Avon, Colorado 81620 303-949-1191.1-800-332.3259 CO Only • infiltration is such a high component of a building's heat loss, the use of quality windows and doors and tho gital_ity hardware associated with them provides at least a 10% reduction in annual energy usage not. only when the structure is new but over an ex- tended period of use. Other building envelope requirements for this project include extreme concern to see that any breaks in the envelope for win- dows, doors, duplex outlets, light switches, etc. are sealed. While I don't wish to pub: a percentage on it, the regular review during construction that we intend to perform will at least push the possibility of energy savings in the right direction. In simply stating the .insulation or► the building will be R19 walls and R38 roofs, we ignore again the attention to detail.. It becomes quite obvious that the care used by the installer can dramatically effect hoer cor►sistent the design 1R values are to the real. R values. While I don't feel we should try to quantify savings related to care and workmanship our .intent to carefully review the project during construction will again push the over- all energy utilization in the right direction toward savings. 1 didn't detail the mechanical systems efficienci.os numerically. If you compare a modular gas fired boiler system, which we are proposing, to a conventional large single boiler, the proven • savings are a minimum of 10%. Our intent is to use primary/ secondary pumping so that standby losses on any of tho boiler modulars which are not firing will be minimized and is worth an additional savings of at least 5% so the projected annual energy savings of our proposed modular system compared to a conventional large boiler system is a minimum of 15`6). When you consider that the standard gravity fired boIlet is operating at an annual efficiency at elevation of about 60/o1 our system will be In the 11eJ gh.borhood of about 75%p Without any un- usual or high maintenance items. We can obviously utilize SOTue of the new condensing boilers with listed efficiencies approaching the 90% area but we are reluctant to do that for several reasons. In the first place, the condensing boilers have liquid condensate waste which can be highly acidic; and require special. considerations for their disposal. tie feel this will negatively impact the environment from a waste standpoint and thus the true efficiency of a condensing boiler or furnace on a macro environmental. evaluation must be lass. Secondly, a careful analysis of the system components going into high efficiency boilers indicates that they are typically not cast iron and ha'vo- many components which are subject to failure. On a long ranee basis with minimal maintenance, we would project a modular boiler system with very basic components to have an "ignorance to main- tenance" efficiency increase over a c:o:mple.% boiler system of at 0 2 • least 10%. And if we were to add that to our expected annual efficiency of 75% with our proposed system we are really within the 85% range with minimum environmental pollution. When we talked about plumbing we talked about "low -flow" fix- tures. We know there are low flow shower heads for example which will provide a good rinsing flow of wator at two and half gallons per minute. We think anything less than that will subject the shower heads to tampering and eventual replacement which defeats the whole intent of low flow heads. We also intend to use 3 gpm flow restrictors on all lavatory and sink faucets. Again by using aerator faucets, we feel that we can obtain the low flow on a consistent basis without the possibility of tampering and re- placement. We stated that when considering glazing we were going to use the low E glass for all glass within. 6' of the floor. Most tests indicate that a low E glass R value is at least a 30% improvement over conventional thermal pane. It is more difficult to evaluate the sense of warmth that low E provides. We know that low E glass will permit people adjacent to it to still feel comfortable at a lower room temperature. But for the sake of argument, let's only claim that the low E glass annual enLxgy savings is 30% over conventional. glass. • Finally, we made a general continent concerning overall system components being selected for efficiency. There are many some- what "hidden" ways to obtain improved efficiencies. The selec- tion of pumps for example. The careful selection of a pump to operate within its maximum efficiency range has long range impli- cations. Rather than rule of thumb selection methods, careful calculation of pipe fkr ction losses means the pumps on this pro- ject should be at least 20% more efficient than generically selected circulation pumps. I hope these comments will clarify the intent of our original comments and quantify them in a manner which can be evaluated on a less subjective basis. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. S'-cerely C avid L. Yodbr cc: Steve Standeford, Roaring Fork Energy Center DLY:dje 3 • L� 1. TOTAL SITE 2. 3. 4. 5. m 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES FLOOR AREA Lots 15A 16 and 17 Lot 41 Total ACTUAL BUIDING SITE Lots 15A 16 and 17 Part of Lot 41 Total 15,380 sq. ft. 7,280 sq. ft. 22,660 sq. ft. 15,380 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. 16,280 sq.ft. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA @ 1:1 Total Site 22,660 sq. ft. Actual Building Site 16,280 sq. ft. PROPOSED BUILDING SIZE 19,680 sq. ft. i CODE FLOOR AREA RATIOS Total Site 0.86:1 Actual Building Site 1.20:1 EXCLUSIONS AND ADDITIONS Actual Building Site 16,280 sq. ft. Aspen Mountain Road 1,230 sq. ft. Ute Avenue Right -of -Way 900 sq. ft. Net Total 15,950 sq. ft. ACTUAL FLOOR AREA RATIO 1.23:1 APPROVED LODGE PROJECT Actual Building Site * 15,380 sq. ft. Approved Building Size 22,660 sq. ft. Code Floor Area Ratio 1:1 Actual Floor Area Ratio 1.60:1 * Note: Lot 15, 16 and 17 less Aspen Mtn. Road 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES OPEN/GREEN SPACE 1. TOTAL SITE Lots 15, 16 and 17 15,380 sq. ft. Lot 41 7,280 sq. ft. Total 22,660 sq. ft. 2. ACTUAL BUIDING SITE Lots 15, 16 and 17 15,380 sq. ft. Part of Lot 41 900 sq. ft. Total 16,280 sq.ft. 3. PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT 6,270 sq. ft. 4. ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD 1,230 sq. ft. 4. UNDEVELOPED/LANDSCAPE Total Site 15,160 sq. ft./66o Actual Building Site 8,780 sq. ft./53% 5. COUNTABLE OPEN SPACE 6,620 sq. ft. Actual Building Site 430 6. MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE 250 7. PERCENT EXCEEDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 72% 0 0 1 111E AVENUE TnWN�+oMES N LnAF�tE. NIZE�, bUILDIN(-q F007PPNI pdvED i&�RE4 DRIVE Ww Y 611,EEu �PacE I S 11 2 . 5 SQ .FT 37.6 L �• � .,f, ^ `'• x ' _'LE #i.qFa e. S t • X x 7939.E . . `` 7940.9 x _ x K � I ' 7940.E x - x x � I x 941.0 --- / ' 41.7 cu u i W. L. 7941.2 x7941.4 , x7936. \ Poo I ' x7941.5 3040 x 7942.7 7943.5 x i 795,0 \ f 4L� r E VISION 0 n /06.3 LITE AVENUE SITE PLAN 0 5 10 20 Ioz ios oa ro3.e 10' SETBAC 101.3 /03.-6 Z. 3 l�o.g 10 O j i FIRE HYDRANT STREETLIGHT 0 SERVICE 7 I TEPS I BENCH LVS�TBACK BENCH DROP-OFF NEW PED. TRAIL �(�''C;I b W-` EXISTING TREES STREETLIIGGHT the land design partnership Glenwood Springs CO 81601 CD (71 Ln W Lr) _ r M O W z 0 i W � n1 V 00 8 Old 0 LL U Z Z z w w V r'!1 x m V O CL L1J 0 -� Q 0 cc 0 Z 0 U 0 H LLI Z LLI Lu 1 Z a r (` (� a EXISTING PED. TRAIL DRAWING JOB NO DATE SHEET NO 3 SHEET OF MECH. VENTS BASEMENT LEVEL 0 5 10 20 7 L` W Ln �n cr1 T i V \1- rrl o M W vi O ui J x �- nl V V 00 8 o L_L V Z Z Z CL V � W "' r, _J X O m V W 0 0 cc = 0 Z 0 U 0 H W m Z W a w F— z a r to ti a pRAW ING JOB NO DATE SHEET NO 4 SHEET OF F EV ISION O` W Lr) nl I O` m fY'1 V o rm w O F— ui _J LLJ F- N_ �O 00 8 od o le o U. V Z Z w CL V � V, M X O m V cl� v / W v O cc = O Z 9 U O W Z W W I-- Z m r C/) � a DRAWING JOB NO OAT E SHEET NO 5 SHEET OF REVISION W ll1 Lr, nl O� I V � rY1 o LU w H O i J LU - �V �O 00 8 o u zLIJ u &A Ul m m O m V b W O = O Z O U O W M Z W Q W F— z a U) ti a ti DRAWING JOB NO OAT E SECOND LEVEL 0 5 10 20 REVISION THIRD LEVEL 0 5 10 20 L! 1 Lr) `W ni O` � I m V o rm w O LLJ LU nl 00 8 o LL u Z Z w � V Ln m X O m V O Y W O O oac = Z O p v O W Z W Q W H Z a � a ti ORAW ING JOB NO DATE :.j 7 t SHEET OF AE VISION Jl�mi�t� ROOF PLAN 0 5 10 20 Ln Ln 6 lf1 W Lr) " 1-1 _ M V 0 rn w Z 0 i J g Lli 00 0 0 W_ V Z Z w Z a � V �r m w x 6 m uCL VV W O � Q O oc � z U O F- LU M Z W Q W H- z a r ti Cl) a ti DRAWING JOB NO OAT E ::.j SHEET NO SHEET OF u1{ A 11G 1 a v (I13f/ours EAST ELEVATION 0 5 10 20 Vhl`� nr•�nu qR/Z d v7 17 q 1/3Trf'»�S \ �-- ��., St►r� eb�I�v�1Vh 7 O` Lf1 W T U-) V 0 m w O F- LU _J LU H- u /� v f_V "_O 8 a O o . �L V z Z W CL V H v m m X O m V O W O - _ O cc � Z O V O H W Z W Q W H- z a r I` Cl) a DRAWING JOB NO GATE SHEET NO 9 SHEET OF REVISION NORTHEAST ELEVATION 0 5 10 20 O` W Ln � rN _ V rn r m 0 m w LA O LU J W N cc 2 a o Z Z z w Cl.- � V W Ln m .J X m V CL V W O � Q O OC � Z O U O H W Z W Q W F- z a ti a ti DRAWING JOB NO DATE '- -"EFT NO 10 SHEET OF r.E V ISION 41 NORTHWEST ELEVATION 0 5 10 20 Cl0 Ln W U1 � N O` Ir'rl V o w z � O J w f- 8 a te O o U. V Z z w w V H W � J) n, J X m V O CL W O O oQc = O Z p U O F— W M Z W Q W I— z a r r4l*_ cn Q ti DRAWING JOB NO DATE SHEET NO 11 SHEET OF F 77 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION Mow 0 5 10 20 U' Ul W Ll 01 C 01 I � M V � M W Q %" 1 Lu ___I W �O 00 S 0 o LL V Z CL V M x 6 m V � L 1, W O O Z O V 0 F- uu z W Q W E- z a r I` Cl) a O FiAW I NG JOB NO DATE SHEET NO 12 SHEET OF the design iership 'ings CO 81601 W Ln V r, rn m w Z Vf x uw J w � V co 8 te 0 0 _W u Z Z z LLJ u 14 W ry= n'l m J X 0 m V CL W 0 O cc = 0 Z p U O H W Z W Q W F— z � a r tl� Q DRAW7 JOB NO PATE LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 5 10 20 • r,-q D-e (-, I I J)� �-� ut{ Apt. Wn ~ sjzt JtrJc*Jrt S +fe ou� 70 +„(rAA$' V31AWf4, vu� nn7trluf+n} st�+5 fhb+, /� L +1� L,nhl��M 1�aMNvt�i D( 1.0/I 1,'r"+Mr+� ,r�tyll/1t n Jl A -Ali rfovW,�t,/!Y� Pq�ln�, Y,�Ir� U 4✓1�Y, T+K f1���n� LJ J�f r+ J VC S-e hDtil � n.*r e��ena�T'^ �� fr41�f - Lok pV;r t� �l�ro -fib✓� ,��(�,Sr�r�.tP,,, 6271).D o,;w l fs g 4� ✓�d .� ,�L.fi 1 6,(-�. fP. (r s s l �, 5 ^ 3 % °ib l Ste' l• Vv�, �irWti+ ��l V �` ^" � W t 1./ �>ti, � \ `J �' zy 6 Iti'180-123�..'t = l`17.d��� dsr,l�lr�;tt �' J9�bp��(f'AR�=1`}1`17,6-1,39 FAR X. 'i 01 1 5-Je A Or,� Q�I1( e6w,t,t{ticf'� 1 771 1f 1 Jqw �„l Vi�►N�� Lot Arty Arty witl,w� L�i41 ti,l►>i.l a4st44 Iy, I`i$,.i Pro tseo av,ld;n Ayer ►q, 104 Ai" LIAR� rro�� au1lA'q��rf� , `�� D b ► �� 2� IQl1 Ori�ih�l l,rf,� Prj -7 S7 FAR rkfi'vohar{.,w,-4,�iLd41nArf v011; 1.3� i : i F14Ro„ "6a")J,,L4'rcg;I.(eif' d I`f,)4ps.f S ire Cov-eive— h, Lot41 : ) Q II it �y iyVlr�r ex C1►,�,N) � 4l y l // a irk 141) jrbjd 1 /1rt -mf4)'h L or1�Aa� if' � 7, Zoo f,�.).�-or La",% fv pIs wt % �,� I Nit i y d u b ,j L -i j, y l tr l. i ' l l A�mj PA.W.", ri '41104f l w, A"' t�* kVYN Pk) OvnfW G if+ p 6.� ( 211,)y0 s P.) sd 01 ODD s,f I �Ior i.,u i6 +k —7� c riw� vN, -h - Ii'j. t-1 trwo) Hoto;44 Pts �a N �10 0ID 4 �r��ecl I rCS�.�tMts�fOTclf'rtt-M�r��4� 4vt / 0 res ol�r,'F, U /o r% crc),+ - recoNst+���►n, tir •Yenyf,-• Tor � �Wviarr• {�DUsQ 'Ap or!��.��I/ r �`�.� �rh�l•�e+s ��o,Doi/lor�i.�•n�.����e'viv��n�l`h errrl�= LSD �Do Pro4VIW I -rYs ►d4vit �}of,►I flrr� -1Nnr kYa) I g rt,;Jmis \ f 04-rhI+cd C 3 resdent: 6rP)if— re(anslrrr�rr, e,cin, ►.. 3 rn• v,-,,,41J by05,Olt is e►11p1p7�?S �tD v/rJ% rD, Y 11 92-0,00v/.�, ^' c�,�eq�►��Io�f�'r� #1�0) 0 Cc; C� � \�:? Ali JAN 2 6 P88 (; i CITY OF ASPEN, I u - Jv 130 south. galena street aspen, colorado - 81611 303-925.-2020 January 26, 1988 Mr. Sunny Vann Vann Associates P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: Street Improvements on Ute Avenue Dear Sunny: In follow-up to our discussions of yesterday, I am writing regarding our recommended score of 2 points for road improvements in the vicinity of the proposed 771 Ute Avenue project. The Engineering Department is generally pleased with the provision of an easement along the Aspen Mountain Road as well as proposed paving and landscaping improvements along the Aspen Mountain Road and Ute Avenue frontages. There are apparently continuing problems regarding the design of the Ute Avenue dead-end segment adjacent to the property. The Engineering Department, views the proposed design as adequate and advantageous in several ways: 1. The design would allow for turn around movements of passenger vehicles and small delivery vehicles (A.A.S.H.O. designation "P") by utilizing the driveway entry and backing out into Ute Avenue. Width is not available within the existing right-of-way to increase the turnaround capability to handle larger standard vehicles. 2. The configuration of the existing right-of-way was defined by the City in leasing the "mall" area to the Alps. It would be inappropriate to extract additional right-of-way for a cul-de-sac from this applicant. 3. The street does not function as access to any other properties. It does function as egress only for the small volumes of traffic from the adjacent Alps Condominium. The majority of whatever traffic may enter this area would probably be entering the 771 Ute project. Further, the dead-end configuration will be entirely visible from the Original/Ute intersection which may discourage inadvertent entry by drivers seeking other properties. 4. The proposed design will improve several existing conditions Page Two January 26, 1988 Street Improvements on Ute Avenue including: a. Paved width. The existing paved area is about 14 feet wide. b. Sight distances. The design will remove a fence and bushes which currently obstruct the sight of vehicles existing the Alps property. In conclusion, the Engineering Department finds the proposed design for Ute Avenue beneficial within the confines of the existing right-of-way. Anticipated traffic volumes are sufficiently minor that we would anticipate no particular impacts of congestion or conflict and we would continue to support a recommended GMP score of 2 points for roads. Very Truly Yours, y W. Hammond Director of Public Services JH/co/Letter.17.88 cc: Chuck Roth Steve Burstein ASPEN6PITKIN *EGIONAL BUILDIA DEPARTMENT DEC 18 1987 December 17. 1987 Sunny Van P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Sunny: This letter is to confirm the inspection of the Lyle Ruders residence at 771 Ute Avenue. The inspection verifies the existence of three (3) bedrooms, one bath, one kitchen and a living room (a single family dwell- ing). Plumbing fixtures are: 1 kitchen sink, 1 dishwasher, 1 clothes washer, one bathtub with shower, 1 water closet, 1 lavatory. Have a Merry Christmas! PN/tw ruders.pn cc: Steve Burstein, Bill Drueding offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sincerely, P*aty Newbury, Acting Zoning Official Planning 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 9 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Environmental Health FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Application: Additional Information DATE: December 23, 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an addendum letter from the 771 Ute Avenue applicant clarifying the project's employee housing proposal, request for subdivison exception and request for rezoning. Please note that the residential GMP applications are still scheduled for January 19, 1988 and referral comments should be returned to the Planning Office no later than January 7, 1988. If you have any questions, please do not hesitiate to let us know. Thank you. T/H/ 5 PA a Jre l-i S? L �1 t- 1� F_ S rc... i e r� T h►E /�SPp�-. Ca�.s��.�nnrtr� sA�-•r�r�••.. 7�isT.t�c,— AS/1Bir GO/..51�4/AATr' �— MEMORANDUM i DEC 2 21987 TO: City Attorney ---� City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center Parks Department* Roaring Fork Transit Agency* FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009 700 Main Residential GMP Submission* Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-61-003 DATE: December 7, 1987 Attached for your review and comments are the 1987 City of Aspen Residential GMP applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the applications follows: The requests by the four applicants for allotments are as follows: 771 Ute Avenue = 8 units 700 Main = 14 units 925 Durant Townhomes = 4 units Hearings for these 3 residential GMP applications have been scheduled on January 19, 1988. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than January 7, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. We also have requested clarification from all three applicants to provide us with additional information that you may find missing from the applications. If you have any comments on this, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you. % HCS C Preovost►> '�M-••-Norris c.A�-- 1� P_ SAS-jv,^r4ro— Pi3Thrcr. Ran j;A S FF#c.1gr TY i ex -e n f3 Y 7W x As Ar— Cv.G �ft^ra fa A s A s .; I JAN I MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Cindy Houben, Planning FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: January 7, 1988 RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Attached is a recommended scoring sheet for the 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP submission department review. Scores of particular note include: 1. Water Service (2 points). Provision of the interconnect on Ute Avenue will serve to upgrade service and looping within the neighborhood. As indicated in the Markalunas letter, the City is interested in participating in upsizing of the interconnect to a 12 inch diameter line. 2. Storm Drainage (2 points). The project will deal with on - site drainage pursuant to standard practice and in addition will be improving off -site drainage along the Aspen Mountain Road. Detailed design of both on and off -site drainage should be completed by a registered engineer and reviewed by this office prior to construction. 3. Parking (2 points). The design of 771 Ute Avenue includes parking at one space per bedroom located entirely underground and out of sight. 4. Roads (2 points). The design of 771 Ute Avenue improves the public roadways along two frontages, providing an easement for increased width along the Aspen Mountain Road as well as curb, gutter and paving along the Aspen Mountain Road and Ute Avenue frontages. 5. Site Design (3 points). The design serves to underground all on -site utilities, provides extensive landscaping and numerous right-of-way amenities including benches and lighting. 6. Trails (3 points). The project proposes to construct a trail link on the northerly edge of Ute Avenue opposite the project. The sidewalk will provide the most logical link to the trail passing the Aspen Alps and the trail east of Glory Hole Park. 7. Proximity to Public Transportation (2.9 points). This is a difficult category with respect to this project. Technically, the project measures about 515 feet from the southerly right-of- Page Two 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission January 7, 1987 way line of Durant Avenue. This amounts to 15 feet over the two block requirement. We are reluctant to penalize an entire point over 15 feet, but are unclear regarding the ability to grant a partial point. For all intents and proposes, the project is two blocks from the bus route. 8. Bonus Points (1.1). Ten percent of the points scored by this application in pertinent areas of review where we would consider the design outstanding. JH/co/Memo5.88 Enclosure • • Revised 12/ 87 CITY OF ASPEN CITY ENGINEERING EVALUATION 1 /� RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION QCLP-V\ MUNI CODE SEC. 24-11.4 pg.1508.12 c'),,1i1i C�c Project: - Alt+W Date: rz - 3 r - 9 7- 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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 development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. m COMMENTS: RATING: z. 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 0 • overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. 0 COMMENTS: RAT II NG : 71-'� l f %, mac` ,. .A-Q 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 f ormula: 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. Site Design (maximum three (3) points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 3 b. 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. RATING: COMMENTS: 0 • extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: I 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. RATING: z COMMENTS: MA !E>.`+Q omp-Lt tQ d. `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. RATING: ?— COMMENTS: 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 46 • 0 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. 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 from an existing City or County bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing City or County bus route. p RATING: -I t COMMENTS: 46 b. Community cftmercial facilities (maximum 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 -within six (6) blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two (2) 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. RATING: COMMENTS: �X-); 4. Bonus points (maximum 2.2 points). Bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under scoring categories may be granted if the project has exceeded the provisions of the subsections and has achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. (See Muni Code Section 24-11.4 (5) p. 1508.18) . RATING: I. COMMENTS: 10 /o o +' S-j� "V\. 3 • • 151Q13C93RA�i�Illui TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Ave. and Lodge at Aspen Applications DATE: March 10, 1988 As requested at the February 22, 1988 meeting, attached for your review are the applications for the 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses residential project and the prior approved Lodge at Aspen lodge project for the same site. VANN ASSOCIATES February 11, 1988 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Alan Richman Planning and Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes Dear Alan: FEB I I The purpose of this letter is to confirm the course of action which Mr. Kent Shodeen proposes to follow with respect to the development of his property at 771 Ute Avenue. As we discussed last week, Mr. Shodeen does not intend to appeal the P&Z's scoring of his 1987 residential GMP application. He does, however, intend to appeal to Council for sufficient quota to allow the project to continue, and has submitted a letter in support of his request to Steve Burstein. As you know, the GMP allocation for the previously approved Lodge at Aspen will expire on March 3, 1988. Given the uncertainty of Mr. Shodeen receiving a residen- tial allocation and/or a GMP extension, he has no choice but to proceed with perfecting his lodge approval. Cunniffe & Associates is presently preparing construction documents for the project and will submit them to the Building Department on or before March 3, thereby comply- ing with the provisions of Section 24-11.7 of the Code. Similarly, all conditions of GMP approval are also being addressed and will be met as required. While we expect to be able to meet the March deadline, it may be necessary to request a slight extension in order to fully complete the construction documents. As you suggested, however, we will not file such a request until PO.P • • Mr. Alan Richman February 11, 1988 Page 2 it is determined that an extension is in fact required. The effort expended by Mr. Shodeen between now and March 3 will constitute in. part the diligence that must be demonstrated in order to be eligible for an extension. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, VANN ASSOCIATES, Sunny Vje�efi, AICP SV:c cc: Kent Shodeen Steve Burstein. �• � •v • v is Project: 771 Late Avenue (Scored 1/26/88) P&Z VOTING NH14EII2S Welton Jasmine hex Ramona David Mari Mi- Jim Average 1. Public Facilities and Services (12 pts) a. Water Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 b. Sewer Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 e. Parking Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 f. Road 2 1.5 1.5 2 2 1.5 2 SUBTOTAL 11 10.5 10.5 11 11 10.5 11 10.8 2. Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood 2 0 2 3 2 2 2.5 Compatibility b. Site Design 2.5 1 2 3 2 2 2.5 c. Energy 3 2.5 2.5 2 3 2.5 3 d. Trails 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ e. Green Space 1.5 0 1.5 3 2 1 2 SUBTOTAL 12 6.5 11 13 12 10.5 13 11.14 3. Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public 2.5 2 2.5 3 3 2 2.5 Transportation b. Community Comml 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Facilities SUBTOTAL 5.5 5 5.5 6 6 5 5.5 5.5 4. Employee Housing (20 pts) a. Low Income 8 5 8 10 8 8 8 b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income SUBTOTAL, 8 5 8 10 8 8 8 7.86 SUBTOTAL CATDCOR-EES 1-4 36.5 27 35 40 37 34 37.5 35.29 5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 .71 TOTAL POINTS 1-5 36.5 27 35 42 37 34 40.5 36.0 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: 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. RATING: • • 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. RATING: 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 major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: 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. _Z_ RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 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: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: - 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. RATING: ' 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. COMMENTS: - 4 - RATING: 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. RATING: WiW[al"-*M e. Green Space (maximum three (3] 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: - 5 - RATING: SUBTOTAL: ` Z 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: 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 -- Project 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. 3 RATING: COMMENTS: - 6 - 0 u SUBTOTAL: 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 project 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). RATING: 6 COMMENTS: - 7 - 0 b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: U 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS l� 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 / 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 S 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 3�1 Name of P&Z Commission Member: ( N d-h— ��A� • • TA 5 'M'— CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: I'i 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. RATING: 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. RATING: 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 major equipment to an existing station. RATING: 2- COMMENTS: 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. COMMENTS: - 2 - RATING: 2- • 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. COMMENTS: RATING: / 5 SUBTOTAL: D. 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: 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. RATING: U COMMENTS :40,0/ 70' -H-tQ- �%i�P) P,l cat 5 i S St" a by/' '�� a'."Prts 40 41 .�A,4-_D -/(kC 4Qr0_A_(2. 1- )00 r 7" 61� - 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. RATING: COMMENTS : / �S 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. COMMENTS: - 4 - RATING: 2.5 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. RATING: J COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] 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: - 5 - RATING: D SUBTOTAL: �) 11 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: 17— 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 -- Project 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. COMMENTS: L 0� RATING: SUBTOTAL: G 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 project 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). RATING: COMMENTS: / e4-t-4 - � ' � •' � : �� - � it '�u�.:� - 7 - 0 0 b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD SUBTOTAL: I0A 10 WeF POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 In, 5 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 �' S So 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 `� d MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 Name of P&Z Commission Member: % - 8 - CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: 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. RATING: 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. RATING: ` 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 major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: 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. COMMENTS: - 2 - RATING: 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. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: I o' 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: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: �t� • 0 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: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: - 4 - 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. RATING: e. Green space (maximum three [3] 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: �1= RATING: SUBTOTAL: � D' 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. __ RATING: 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 -- Project 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. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: (`) 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 project 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). RATING: COMMENTS: - 7 - • P b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten (10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 c 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 Name of P&Z Commission Member: • CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: �. 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. RATING: • • 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. RATING: 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 major equipment to an existing station. RATING: c"--�_- COMMENTS: 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. COMMENTS: - 2 - r) RATING: 1 11 • PAN 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. COMMENTS: RATING: SUBTOTAL: // 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: 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. COMMENTS: - 3 - RATING: • • 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: 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. COMMENTS: - 4 - RATING: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] 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: - 5 - RATING: 3 SUBTOTAL: 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: -� C • ulu �► i1F.�l 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 -- Project 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. COMMENTS: - 6 - RATING: • • SUBTOTAL: c< 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 project 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). RATING: COMMENTS: - 7 - CJ • b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: p 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 oC�; 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 3 h Name of P&Z Commission Member: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: Z_ 14161aVVID14,00F 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. RATING: / 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. RATING: 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 major equipment to an existing station. J RATING: L� Z0 UVWIDi►HRE 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. RATING: COMMENTS: • 0 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._ RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: // 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: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: - 3 - 10 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: L� 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. S: - 4 - RATING: 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. 3 RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] 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: - 5 - RATING: 0 0 SUBTOTAL: 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: =� 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 -- Project 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. RATING: COMMENTS: - 6 - • 0 4. L� SUBTOTAL: 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 project 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). RATING: COMMENTS: ` em�i - 7 - 0 b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7) points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 ILA 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.85 C.r. 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 C MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: - 31 Name of P&Z Commission Member: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: 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. RATING: I 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. RATING: 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 major equipment to an existing station. Y� RATING: /— COMMENTS: 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. COMMENTS: - 2 - RATING: �- 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. RATING: / COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 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: 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. RATING: COMMENTS: - 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. RATING: -- 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. COMMENTS: - 4 - RATING: 00 0 0 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. RATING: COMMENTS: e. Green space (maximum three (3] 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. RATING: COMMENTS: �1—Dr�l% ���� Ci - v o r I— VC T �-c--L f `cyvY - 5 - 0 • SUBTOTAL: 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. l� RATING: 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 -- Project 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. COMMENTS: - 6 - RATING: 7 SUBTOTAL: 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 project 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). RATING:_ COMMENTS: - 7 - b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 `34 Name of P&Z Commission Member: =:M CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses Date: Jan. 19, 1988 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: 0 -- 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 -- 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. RATING: COMMENTS: ---7/ /�'r�'i12�j /lu ilk-01- I-S -lo 6;ill 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. RATING: / 0 • COMMENTS: / " �� � � y 'n 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. RATING: 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 major equipment to an existing station. RATING: COMMENTS: 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. RATING: �`S' COMMENTS: 2 - w 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. RATING: COMMENTS: i SUBTOTAL r"_ 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: 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. � V AMTMrr • 44N5 COMMENTS: - 3 - 9 • 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: 4 '� 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. COMMENTS: - 4 - RATING: 3- 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. RATING: 'J COMMENTS: e. Green Space (maximum three [3] 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: - 5 - RATING: SUBTOTAL: 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: 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 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. RATING: COMMENTS: `1-s- 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 -- Project 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. COMMENTS: - 6 - RATING: ? SUBTOTAL: 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 project 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). RATING: A COMMENTS: - 7 - b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten [10] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each twenty [20] percent housed). RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 i 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING Z 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 Name of P&Z Commission Member: 4111u� l le47a)-- 6 i MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Civil Action No. 3912-John F. Coughenour, Jr. and James W. Stalder Vs. Roger D. Mahnke, The Building Inspector of the City of Aspen, et al. DATE: January 12, 1988 On August 1, 1968, Judge Carl W. Fulghum made a finding that the road extending from Ute Avenue through and beyond Coughenours' property(Aspen Mountain Road)is a "public road". The road has an approximate width of 22 feet and a maximum grade of 130. (Finding #2, see pages 1, 2, and 3 attached.) The 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Application shows the Aspen Mountain Road as a private easement across Shodeen's property. As part of the application, the road easement would be widened to 10 feet and the applicant would pave the road. The applicant is using the area under the road easement as part of the lot area for the purpose of calculating FAR. Do you agree that Aspen Mountain Road appears to be a public road rather than a private easement? If so, the survey and lot area calculations should be corrected. sb.771 IN T17.:!. DISTI'l-'UT CUUl?T I.N AND FUR THE l":(?tJl`1171,'. OF PITKIN AND :aT,iTF. CI' COLORADO Civil Action No. 3912 JU11N F . C,)UU't1LN0LTR, Jit. , and JAMES W. STALDER, Plaintiffs, -vs- RCYGER 1). MAHNkE, the Building Inspector c T= the Ci cy ...,f A pen, THE B0.0d) OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN; IRWIN IiARLAND , "TEEN GANTZEL , FRANC I::- WHITAKER, DONALD SWALES, HEATHER 'TI-IAIRP, thq members thereof; THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN a nf; i OBERT &kRNARD, JOEL T. HARTME ISTI,''R , YVAN TACHE , GEORGE HEMgEGKV,`!, FRANCIS ITHITAKF.R, WILLIiiX E. THARP, JOHN G. BENNINGHOFF, the members t-he,. eof , De Cendan i:s . ) i FINDINGS, JUDGMENT AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action to compel they Building Inspector of Aspen to issue a building permit for the construction of a 19-unit condominium which was to be built by the plaintiff Stalder upon land owned by the plaintiff Coughenour. The plaintiffs alleged that the building plans and specifications for their pro- ject meet substantially all lawful requirements of the building and zoning ordinances of the City of Aspen and that plaintiffs are entitled to be issued a building permit. Plaintiffs further allege that the building permit was rejected because of the action taken by Lhe Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and that the building inspector acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the exercise of his discretion, and tIl& _. he his abused his discretion in the performance of the duties of his office. There was a further allegation that the defenda,-,t:s ill the exercise of their official functions have exceeded their jurisdiction and have abused their discretion in refi,si_rag to issue a percrlit, and that by reason of said acts or. 0111 s5 Wns on the part of the defendants the plaintiffs have uo p l? 11=-1, speedy and adequate remedy ar ?ay. The defendants in their ran: vex deny these allegations and as an affirmative defense state that Ole build:i n- inspector denied the pea-rait;, "-hnt the City of HHpen has adopted a major street plan, and that ;=lie r0QsOn the building inspector denied tale permit i.s that the ;It -p(!t 11egQd to y;3z►<� �Ieci�ss to tile building lot is not open or ac�-c-2pted and does not. hr re the legal sta'Ws of a public street; and do, -Is not c-orresporlda �I.Tey ,4Creet S14own on the official master plari or with a street or subdivision plat approved by the Planning Co"mission or with a street on a mip platted by and adopted by the co-=tssion or with a Ot)-eet= adopted by the council after submis.^,ion t(_� the Planning Co-%niasloll. The t^ri,zl was 71a.d to the t'�a«rt.,, and tile Court being now well infovm cl t'_ie .facts to Uc 1:; ft:Zld�c�s 1. it•�t t:l c plaintiff Colighenour is thn ovlier o£ the land described In the complaint. , That t:heze is a road e xO^,-ond;_ -,g from Ute .avenue ill Aspen, C:aloxudo, to proper-t -,I cn#ncd by the plaintiff: Coughenour a"d that the rod oft<!n,3s thrr u,,h br y and said property. That the lower part of tilts road has boen dgelazed uy this Court to be a public hicthwzzy, th a:. said ru.Jci Ix:.la i>t�en 11sed by the public for more zl%an _111-cZY Yeal_3 for h2tili.n;i, or.e and i:o.- motor vehicle travel 2 :1 to the ton of Aspen Mount; No one has protested the use of said road except a man who owned adjoining property where said road ieaves UtF Avenue, and His -.'(�W-; ted in this Court adjudging that the road through the land of a man named Billings is a public highway. Viat~ toe road has an approximate width of 22 feet and a max:imuia grade 13°. That the plaintiff Coughenour proposed to h(_tit ::.i (-i .road ic1 the winter time to melt off snow and ice. That said roar; serves other properly 5e;;i.das the property involved in thin action. 3. 'T'h;At'. thP- plaix-►r_ ifs oracle application for a building permit to 11i; ld y .1.7..,in1.t cot►('cm1.°_,-Ii.um can the described land and fit:�cl ti►.:: ii::;li,.:z'_i.�n for pPxm;t with the ?building inspector. Th-at'. Vie plaint -if Vs ►►.ac' Several conversations with the buil.ditI6 i_r1r_�F�t�:r, at which time access: and >>tilities were discussed. That preli.mi.nary plans were shown to the building inspector, that the buildi:t` illsFectot• had no objection to the proposed construction, but on ti:c- contrary stated that the city would favor such location as it caa,. located out of the core area. That working plans were shown to Lhe building inspector, and there were no objections. That at this _*I rat ►neeting before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission the commt_I,;3;.•;;I p, ;,:,cl a 'r►otion not to review the plans. This motion carried, and the vlaas were returned to the building inspector. That a hearing was then held before the i0ity of Aspen Board of Adjustment on Jude 21, 1968, in which alt questions concerning the proposed building permit and the ttse of the property were gone into and no defl,yi%e actiU►, was taken at, that time as the board decided to await- Uie receipt of a Legal 01_)inion. an June 28, 1968, the board having received a legal op inf on, t+►e Board of Adjustment determined that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter. In between the two meetings of the Board of Adjustment, on June 25 there was another meeting before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, and again the matter of the building permit was taken up and discussed with the result that a motion to recommend dis- approval to the building inspector of plans submitted for con- struction of this particular condominium was passed and adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. That the plaintiffs in this cause exhausted all admin- istrative procedures before having resort to court action. 6. On the 16th day of May, 1966, the'Aspen City Council adopted a master plan as recommended by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. This in reality was an adoption of what has been termed the Aspen Area General Plan Final Report, 1966, intro- duced in this cause as Defendants' Exhibit No. 6. On page 4 appears a map of the General Plan, Aspen Urban Area, which shows no road extending from Ute Avenue across the face of Aspen Mountain, but does indicate there is somewhere across the face of the mountain a horseback trail that goes across the face of the mountain and then back down ..to the -City of Aspen. But no road is shown going across the face of Aspen Mountain and to the top of said mountain, although such road has existed for over thirty years. Pages 5 and 6 show a general plan of the Aspen area and again no road or highway is shown across Aspen Mountain. Pago 22 shows a map of the circu- lation in the Aspen area, and again no road is shown across Aspen Mountain, but there is a horseback trail as shown on page 4 of this report. Whether this road was left off the map by design, ignorance or accident is not known to this Court. The circulation -4- t • plan of the Aspen Area Genn ra.l. Plan was never approved by the County Commissioners of Pitkin County, but as to that part of the plan it was taken under advisement as requiring additional study and investigation. This is of importance because at the time that the General Plan was adopted by the City Council the road or high- way in question was not within the limits of the City of Aspen. 7. After the adoption of the General Plan and prior to the filing of the application for a building permit by the plain- tiffs, the City of Aspen accomplished the annexation of the terri- tory known as South Annexation. This territory includes the lands owned by the plaintiffs and also includes the road which is in question in this matter. So far as this Court is informed, after the annexation nothing was done by the City of Aspen relative to the streets and roads included within such annexation, but the City Engineer, who is also the Building Inspector of the City of Aspen, prepared a map of the South Annexation which was introduced herein as Pla ntiffs' Exhibit B-16. On this map the City Engineer did make a drawing of a road which ire the road in question here, showing its extension from the edge of Lot 15 up to the lands of the plaintiffs. The City Engineer, who testified as a witness, stated that he did know that such a road existed and extended to the top of Aspen Mountain, as he had traveled the road himself and that this highway was open to use by the public and was used without permission of any person. The City Engineer when testifying as a witness, and he also testified as Building Inspector, stated that he thought the road was a private road because it went over private land, but when questioned as to why he applied that test he was unable to explain why it had necessarily followed that a -5- road passing over private lands had to be a private road. The map prepared by the City Engineer was never filed with the County Clerk and Recorder. 8. The Court finds that the road extending from the lands owned by Dean Billings to the lands owned by the plaintiff Coughenour is a public road and is as of the date of this hearing in general use by the public without opposition or interference by any person. The Court further finds that this particular piece of road had the status of a public highway or road for many years prior to the time of the filing of the application for a building permit herein. Further, that a portion of this read or highway was declared by this Court to be a public road or highway prior to the time of the filing of the application for a building permit herein, and that the particular road in question in this suit is an extension of that road or highway heretofore declared by this Court to be a public highway. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The City building Inspector stated that his sole reason for rejecting the application for the building permit was because a major street plan had been adopted for the territory within the corporate limits of Aspen and that no building could be erected on any lot within such territory and no building permit could be issued therefor unless the street giving access to the lot on which this building is proposed to be placed shall have been accepted or opened as, or shall otherwise have received the legal status of, a public street prior to that time. Colorado Revised Statutes, 1963, Section 139-59-18, states that after the time when a planning commission shall have adopted a major street plan of the territory i E -6- j • • within the corporate limits of said municipality, no building shall be erected on any lot within such territory or part, nor shall a building permit be issued therefor, unless the street giving access to the lot upon which such building is proposed to be placed shell have been accepted or opened as or shall otherwise have received the legal status of a public street prior to that tims. This particular parcel of land and the road was not within the corporate limits of the municipality when the major street plan of the territory was adopted, and the plan was not approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. So far as the Court is informed, no action has ever been taken by the City of Aspen to include this road within the major street plan or to exclude it. But regardless of that, the City of Aspen was on notice that there existed such a road and highway through a part of the territory to be annexed, as the road was visible on the ground and was used by the public generally and at least by one city official. If the view is taken that this road was subject to the major street plan, then we must consider the exception in sub -paragraph (b) of Section 139-59-18 quoted above, and this road falls within that exception. There is no question but what this was a public road prior to the time of the adoption of the major street plan, and the adoption of the major street plan did not in any way change or alter the character or use of this;.particular road. The continued use of the public without interruption and without any protest of any kind for a period of over thirty years had given to this road they legal status of a public street or road, and prior to the time that the major street plan was adopted. Therefore, this road is not within the provisions of Section -7- 139-59-18. 2. The Building Inspector of the City of Aspen was in error in relying upon the provisions of said Section 139-59-18, but his error might be excused because of the fact that a legal determination of the nature of the street had not at that time been made, although the street had all the qualifications for such and was in fact a public street or road. The Court wishes to call attention to the facet that although the statute uses the term "public street," that under the definition of terms in 139-59-1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes of 1963, the term "streets" includes roads and other ways of. travel. It cannot be said that the determination that this is a public road came after the application for the building permit and, therefore, Section 139-59- 18 applied as of the time of the filing of the application for a building permit, as the legal status of thin road had extended for a long period of time prior to that time and the finding of the Court in this case merely confirms what had been the legal stratus of this road over a long period of time before the filing of the application for a building permit. The Court concludes as a matter of law that as of this time there has been nothing shown to this Court which Would lead the Court to the conclusion that a granting of the permit to build would in any way be a violation of any statute of the State of Colorado or of the building and toning codes of the City of Aspen, Colorado. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THE COURT that the Building Inspector of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do forthwith issue to the plaintiffs a building permit as applied for. -8- Done in Open Court this dap of t� 1968. -�lRC- W, FrVR-3111_Ii1d Judge -9- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to be, able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. JC. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion ,. Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 SFfj : "Eg FORWARD ORDER EXPIR Real Properties, Ltd. Matterhorn Properties, Ltd Bear Properties, Ltd. 7251-K Garden Grove Blvd. Garden Grove, CA 82r%111 1 r f PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on. Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to be,,, able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 �. 'aal�iia n, CO.81611 i "_'hredp S dison P.O. d_5b No 1 Platte , lebraska QNS rrPICAI, 19 8 9 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GNP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to be, able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street,. Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion .� Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 1.1 Plaripmg 6 ;901 S. Gcckana CC 01511 1"PA 92 0 1. / 0 6/oa Gerald S. & Annett= C. Krans Box 1592 Aspen, CO 81612 (0 0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to bey„ able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s1C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion K Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 • Joseph T. Verdesca 1250 Majesty Dallas, Texas 78247 s o � 9 III! I11!dIIII IIAIIII MIIAIII r-. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to be able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 b-I I 3.. gA- Eeyoree Three Partnershin c/o Hunter March NOi 18 Dooesbury Driv L IV ERA B LE S -crin, TX 78758 jhv AM AS )RE ISSE Dl' iD n,:-, JAN 11 REP A TO SENDER E: Ll C A PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to bey„ able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 A$pen/Pl*in Planning Office 130 S. GAO Aspen, CO 81611 40 F?onai91 ;C57 C.ol- 55),2'"Lake ivz Lisle, L, 60532 I` 1.70949N1 RETURN N(l f70RWARD:ING UNABLE: 01/08/88 -1.0 SENDER ORDER ON FILE '1,0 F ()RWARD CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certity that on this 4 " " day of 198 � , a true and correct copy of the attached tice o Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case Nancy Caeti (0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO to consider an application to build a nine (9) unit multi -family project on Lot 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition and BLM Lot 41 south of the intersection of Original Street and Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting residential growth management quota allocation for eight (8) dwelling units and replacement of an existing unit on site and rezoning from the L-1 zone district to L-2 zone district in order to bey„ able to build a residential project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit- ted in the L-2. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen Account. ph12.29.2 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 801 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 DATE: N O V E M B E R 25, 19 8 7 (303) 925-1766 - KENT W. SHODEEN ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tar. Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION KENT W. SHODEEN 13 SOUTH 7th STREET GENEVA, ILL. 60134 DARCI LYNN CHANDLER P.O. BOX 2605 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 MACO STEWART C/O WOOD BRANCH OFFICE'PARK 11931 WICKCHESTER LANE SUITE 302 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77043 FRANKLIN FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF WILKES— BARRE, C/O CSB MORTGAGE CORP. P.O. BOX 16570 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 29236 AJAX UNIT #2 PARTNERSHIP 513 SOUTH BROADHEAD ROAD ALIQUIPPA, PENNSYLVANNIA 15001 EEYORE FIVE PARTNERSHIP C/O HUNTER MARCH 1218 DOONESBURY DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 EEYOREE THREE PARTNERSHIP C/O HUNTER MARCH 1218 DOONESBURY DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 MARGARET R. SPENCER 1011 NASHVILLE AVENUE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70115 SUBJECT PARCEL UNIT 9, AJAX CONDO UNITS 4,5,6, AJAX CONDO AND UNITS 2, 11, ASPEN ALPS WEST CONDO UNIT 1, AJAX CONDO UNIT 2, AJAX CONDO UNIT 7, AJAX CONDO UNIT 8, AJAX CONDO UNIT 3, AJAX CONDO • • PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc, Title Inauranna Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION (NO ADDRESS GIVEN ) HOWARD ABRAHAM 1340 ASTOR STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610 BLACK SWAN HALL ASSOCIATES C/O T.F. STONE COMPANIES, INC. STE. 500 LIBERTY PLAZA 5055 KELLER SPRINGS DALLAS, TEXAS 75248 EUGENE GOLUB 625 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 BERNARD SACKS 2424 S. WABASH AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60616 BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO ASSOCIATION (NO ADDRESS GIVEN) GUILLERMO OSUNA DORIS OSUNA 234 PARK AVENUE DEL RIO, TEXAS 78840 SHIRLEY H. TAYLOR W-LAZY T RANCH BUSBY, MONTANA 59016 JOSEPH T. VERDESCA 1250 MAJESTY - DALLAS, TEXAS 78247 REAL PROPERTIES, LTD MATTERHORN PROPERTIES, LTD. BEAR PROPERTIES, LTD. 7251-K GARDEN GROVE BLVD. GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92641 LILIA F. HEMPHILL APARTADO POSTAL 51-9 GUADALAJARA JALISC.O, MEXICO 450.O BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMON AREA UNIT B, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO UNIT D, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO UNIT I A, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO UNIT C, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO COMMON AREA UNIT 15, ASPEN ALPS WEST UNIT 16, ASPEN ALPS WEST UNIT 4, ASPEN ALPS WEST UNIT 1, ASPEN ALPS WEST UNIT 8, ASPEN ALPS WEST • 0 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION JAIME PARIS UNIT 5, ASPEN ALPS WEST NO. 3615 2021 SANTA MONICA BLVD. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406 ROBERT E. FOWLER UNIT 7, ASPEN ALPS WEST 4837 PRICLEY PEAR LANE SCOTTSDALE ARIZONA 85253 ALVIN DWORMAN UNIT 14, ASPEN ALPS WEST 645 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10022 i BASLO, A CO -PARTNERSHIP UNIT 10, ASPEN ALPS WEST C/O MR. W.D. EBERLE C/O TERTIARY 53 MOUNT VERNON STREET' BASTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 i RONYRA REALTY N.V. UNIT 6, ASPEN ALPS WEST C/O ASPEN ALPS P.O. BOX 1228 ; ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 DELIASON, INC. UNIT 9, ASPEN ALPS WEST C/O FRED S. THOMSON P.O. BOX 190 COLTON, CALIFORNIA 92324 MARJORIE S. RHODES UNIT 13, ASPEN ALPS WEST 1401 AVOVADO AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 CONSTANCE HARVEY UNIT 12, ASPEN ALPS WEST C/O ROBERT WOLF, ESQ. " C/O JOSEPH KATZ 200 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10166 THREDE S. EDISON UNIT 17, ASPEN ALPS WEST P.O. BOX 456 NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA 69101 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA ' P.O.BOX 1228 ' ASPEN, COLORADO. 81.612 , i CITY OF ASPEN i GLORY HOLE PARK 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • • PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurantn Company 601 E. Hopklns Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NArir.a ANu AUUKESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION JAMES S. DU BOSE UNIT 4, CLARENDON CONDO P.O. BOX 2990 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76113 LEE GLADSTONE UNIT 8, CLARENDON CONDO GERTRUDE F. GLADSTONE 1212 LAKE SHORE DRIVE 23 A.S. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610 DEAN L. GREENBERG' '. UNIT 6, CLARENDON CONDO P.O. BOX 129 ` NEWPORT, MINNESOTA 55055 EDGAR STANTON JR. �, UNIT 15, CLARENDON CONDO ROSAMOND B. STANTON 2320 CAMINO LUSTRE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85718 RICHARD F. KAUFMAN UNIT 5, CLARENDON CONDO SYLVIA C. KAUFMAN 740 LAKE DRIVE NORTH MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN 49445 DONALD E. KOLMER UNIT 3, CLARENDON CONDO 1614 WEST LAFAYETTE JACKSONVILLE, ILLINOIS 60160 LOWELL MEYER ELEANOR MEYER 1010 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 JAMES A. SHIRK LINDA S. SHIRK C/O BEER NUTS, INC. 103 NORTH ROBINSON STREET P.O. BOX 1327 BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS 61700 EARL M. LATTERMAN MARILYN S. LATTERMAN 1230 SQUIRREL HILL AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANNIA 15217 ROBERT N. NOYCE ANN S. BOWERS 690 LOYOLA DRIVE LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 UNIT 11, CLARENDON CONDO UNIT 10, CLARENDON CONDO UNIT 12, CLARENDON CONDO UNIT 1, CLARENDON CONDO Ll 11 • PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. YHIe Insuranca Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SAMUEL LEHRMAN UNIT 9, CLARENDON CONDO C/O KAUFMAN, EISENBERG & CO., INC. " 1201 ALTA LOMA ROAD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90069 C. L. EQUITIES, INC. UNIT 13, CLARENDON CONDO 1833 KALAKAUA, SUITE 500 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96815I CLARENCE A. HERBST JR. UNIT 2, CLARENDON CONDO C/O NANCY UNGER 1439 GILPIN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80218 LARRY FUTERFAS UNIT14, CLARENDON CONDO 3705 PRINCETON DALLAS, TEXAS 75225 BRIAN WILSON UNIT 7, CLARENDON CONDO 1938 COLDWATER CANYON BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA C/O JOANNE ASPEN REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES 709 E. DURANT STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BROXTON MOODY, III I UNIT 806,'ASPEN ALPS NORTH P.O. BOX 1311 CROWLEY. LOUISIANA 70526 and WILLIAM I. TROTTER, II SUITE 212 2601 HALLEN STREET METAIRIE, LOUISIANA 70002 ALBERT H. SMALL SHIRLEY S. SMALL SUITE 444, WASHINGTON SQUARE 1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W.j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 HELEN ROGAL LANDE. . 147 DUNBAR ROAD PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480 ARTHOR ROCK 1635 RUSS BLDG. SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 UNIT 808, ASPEN ALPS NORTH UNIT 804, ASPEN ALPS NORTH UNIT 809, CLARENDON CONDO PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 11110 Insurenco Cormony 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS EDWARD M. O'HERRON JR. 6525 MORRISON BLVD. SUITE 500 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINE 28211 HENRY P. MC INTOSH, IV C/O MC INTOSH ENTERPRISES P.O. BOX 308 LAQUAN SECA RANCH MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PETER G. MC GUIRE SUITE 530 TWO TURTLE CREEK VILLAGE DALLAS, TEXAS 75219 NOLAN K. BUSHNELL NANCY N. BUSHNELL 3860 WOODSIDE ROAD WOODSIDE, CALIFORNIA 94062 TERRY TURKAT 130 N. BEVERLY GLEN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90052 DAVID R. EDGERTON BETTY G. AMOS SUITE 107, CORAL REEF MEDICAL PARK II 92752 CORAL REEF DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33157 BURT SUGARMAN C/O WYMAN, BAUTZER, ROTHMAN ETAL 14th FLOOR 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 MAUREEN M. ROIN 1225 WESTMOOR ROAD WINNETKA, ILLINOIS 60093 MARJORIE FISCHMAN SHUSHAN APARTMENT 701, ASPEN ALPS SQ. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOHN F. RIDDELL JR. JOHN M.P. THATCHER.; JR. P.O. BOX 231 SEA ISLAND, GEORGIA 31561 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION UNIT 803, ASPEN ALPS NORTH UNIT 802, ASPEN ALPS NORTH � � I UNIT 807. ASPEN ALPS NORTH I I • UNIT 805, ASPEN ALPS NORTH UNIT 801, ASPEN ALPS NORTH UNIT 709, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 710, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 703, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS. SO. UNIT 701, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 708, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopklns Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS LEON C. HIRSCH TURI L. H. HIRSCH 150 GLOVER DRIVE NORWALK, CONNECTICUT 06850 JOSEPH C. HARRIS NANCY M. HARRIS 386 SOUTH MISSISSIPPI RIVER RD. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 JAMES M. TROOTTER, III 5414 BEL AIR DRIVE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70124 H.A. BORNEFELD, JR. 5237 CEDAR CREEK DRIVE HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 JOHN H. FIGI, JR. M & I, MARSHALL & ISLEY BANK CO -TRUSTEES OF THE FIGI TRUST 901 SOUTH ADAMS AVENUE MARSHFIELD, WISCONSIN 54449 HERBERT M. GELFAND 9171 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 610 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 BERTELINE BAIER DALE APT 17T 5555 COLLINS AVENUE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33140 DON M. SIMECHECK 741 WEST CREEKSIDE DRIVE HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 SAMUEL C. SILVERSTEIN JO ANN SILVERSTEIN 325 EAST 79th STREET N0. 6B NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10021 MAX J. PINCUS 1780 HAMMOND COURT BLOOMFILED HILLS, MICHIGAN 48013 C.C. CHANG ILING S. CHANG C/O CHRIS SIEH 2775 GLENDOWER AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90027 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION UNIT 700, BLDG 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 707, BLDG 700 ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 702, 706, BLDG 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT SPACE A, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 705, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 704, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. UNIT 8, ASPEN ALPS UNIT I; ASPEN ALPS UNIT 4, ASPEN ALPS UNIT 7, ASPEN ALPS UNIT 1, ASPEN ALPS PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 'flue Inwranco Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAPIES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION BARBARA MORRIS UNIT 2, ASPEN ALPS 924 FRANKLIN AVENUE RIVER FOREST, ILLINOIS 60305 ROBERT W. PAULIN UNIT 5, ASPEN ALPS MARY T. PAULIN 4930 EAST OAKMONT DRIVE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85718 i • LOUIS MARCUS UNIT 13,fASPEN ALPS 601 OLD CROSSINGS DRIVE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21208 DOWNHILL ASSOCIATES i UNIT 3, ASPEN ALPS C/O JOHN A. ELMORE, II P.O. BOX 1328 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402 KENT W. SHODEEN I UNIT 9, ASPEN ALPS 13 SOUTH 7th STREET GENEVA, ILLINOIS 60134 DR. R. VERNON COLPITTS, I.D. UNIT 15, ASPEN ALPS SUITE 480 7515 SOUTH MAIN HOUSTON, TEXAS 77030 ALEXANDER B. SLATER UNIT 12, ASPEN ALPS P.O. BOX 491 LOCUST VALLEY LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11560 LANE N. MELTZER UNIT 6, ASPEN ALPS 316 SOUTH RAMPART STREET NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112 DAVID FAIN UNIT 10, ASPEN ALPS RUTH FAIN C/O ASPEN ALPS P.O. BOX 1228 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 A & L RANCH UNIT 14, ASPEN ALPS TWO THOUSAND CHESSMAN 2000 EAST 12th AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80206 RESORT HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, INC. LOTS A, K, L; M, N, 0, P, Q, WOODSTONE ASSOCIATES NO. 50 feet., LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 107 709 EAST DURANT AVENUE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 �J PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Tills Inwranco Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS LEVANT AMERICA, S.A. DERBYSAVINGS BANK C/O COLONIAL NAVIGATION CO., INC. 17 BATTERY PLACE NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10004' K. BRENT WALDRON CONSTANCE K. WALDRON 720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GERALD S. KRANS ANNETTE C. KRANS P.O. BOX 1592 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 RONALD C. COLLEN 5512 LAKE DRIVE LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532 CARL C. LUHNOW 15080 BOONES WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 LESTER A. LUHNOW 15080 BOONES WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 WILLIAM C. HERSHMAN 11140 DEERFIELD ROAD CINCINNATI, OHIO 45242 PHILIP OLIVA 11035 WEST 26th PLACE LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215 GLORY HOLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION (NO ADDRESS GIVEN) ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 GEORGE P. MITCHELL CYNTHIA W. MITCHELt SUITE 260 2002 TIMBERLOCH PLACE THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SO. 50 ft. LOTS R & S BLOCK 107, CITY AND TOWNSITE ASPEN CONDO UNIT E, GLORY HOLE CONDO UNIT'B, GLORY HOLE ;CONDO UNIT D, GLORY HOLE CONDO UNIT F, GLORY HOLE CONDO UNIT G, GLORY HOLE CONDO UNIT C, GLORY HOLE CONDO UNIT A, GLORY HOLE COMMON AREA BLOCK 102, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN METES AND BOUNDS, AND SKI AREA METES AND'BOUNDS PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Inwranco Company 601 E. Hopklns Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMMb AnU AUUKESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRTPTTnm H.A. BORNEFILED JR. GEORGE P. MITCHELL 5237 CEDAR CREEK DRIVE HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 GEORGE C. HOUSTON 1510 WICHITA PLACE BOX 638 WICHITA, KANSAS 67201 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE 806 W. HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 50629 HIWAY 6 & 24 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 MARY ANN HYDE P.O. BOX 1557 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 UTE CHALET, INC. P.O. BOX 1284 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 DEANE BILLINGS #3, 831 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS' WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST LANDS BLM LAND BORDERING U.S. FOREST LANDS METES AND BOUNDS LOT 11, UTE ADDITION LOT 14, LOT 15A, UTE ADDITION PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 EXIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 17, 16, ISB, UTE ADDITION , AND GOVT. LOT 41, S 17, T 10 S, R 84 W. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 0 0 Sunny Vann P. O. Box 8485 Aspen, CO 81612 December 7, 1987 RE: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes Dear Sunny: This letter is in regard to your 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes GMP application. While the GMP portion of your application is complete, and has been scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 19, 1988, additional information is requested with regard to the following associated reviews: * You must address the rezoning criteria if the property is to be rezoned from L-1 to L-2. We cannot assume that the proposed L/TR zone district will be adopted. * It is unclear on what basis you request subdivision exception, as well as which steps you wish to skip. Please clarify and address criteria of Chapter 20 which apply. Please provide this office with 21 copies of this additional information as soon as possible, so that we can complete all of our reviews in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Steve Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office SB:nec MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center Parks Department* Roaring Fork Transit Agency* FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office RE: 771 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009 700 Main Residential GMP Submission* Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Parcel ID# 2737-182-61-003 DATE: December 7, 1987 Attached for your review and comments are the 1987 City of Aspen Residential GMP applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the applications follows: The requests by the four applicants for allotments are as follows: 771 Ute Avenue = 8 units 700 Main = 14 units 925 Durant Townhomes = 4 units Hearings for these 3 residential GMP applications have been scheduled on January 19, 1988. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than January 7, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. We also have requested clarification from all three applicants to provide us with additional information that you may find missing from the applications. If you have any comments on this, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you. • 0 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date: P� C'. R E : V 4<_ Aye . \.., Dear e ., ,^y This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT complete6.�CP4_9__-V---k `% C*--�``�' Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tion Response to list of items ( below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ A. Your application is complete and we have scheduled it for review by the on 'r K'>-� k 9 . We will call you if we need any additional information prior to that date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call CA - the planner assigned to your case. a. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE \S- �� VL"t 1 is :-i',`Q wa�1 &e L C�A . G a-1- 331-N U ¢ J } Q Q W } W O K Z } ¢ !1 Y W ON 4h- J _ I Z PROPERTY SURVEY THE LODGE AT ASPEN of LOTS 15 8,16,17 UTE ADDITION TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND LOT 41, SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. 10 SOUTH, S� SEWeit LII.(F- R1M �a� UTE AVE(,-TH ✓ARaE�i) __ — - .i' ��-ELT2AL y�LF,t-11oIJE � G4� -�- T V. PaL�- 0 2 Q OI- �-:_ O Z Z f H - W > W U' U W ¢ Z W 0 O owz2 ¢ W OO ZO U YUl {� Q Q F W o O W Z w I W F- O 1L I ¢ 0. W o w Z D O V S UTE ADDITION ANALYSIS SGALf-�- 1i1=-z--' 10 t.aT GALtAJI-A-rt0NS NOTES irJPCIWATIOIJ FRAM TML 6uba1✓:41oIJ PLAT of T4E UTt AGDii,t-rJ [ ] i4k7A-rAAT1on1 GKV1A TNt IA5" oFFtL1AL MAP or- TH4 GIT� c* A�p,--IJ i 1 JFvQMAi1o1.� FPf�M 1L4r UnL-%7Y EAt-r_MErjT ;t&-uwe.r Pvow- Z�lo PACaE Zv4� PrroeitJ c00tt Y REtr+RDS , �( )� JFoeMgTIOIJ FKoM 1149- PtrA-, of TI4E- GLAI►\ Ga W. L. NIArtPL: "OK/0 AS TIE M i Lov& Fae>. 1gTN I`3°t1, 1�F 094 A 1100 FKPI� -rV4e- oEPe-�jVEw-r oiP s�✓eY OF T t0 S e_ ¢}' W . of T4 e- /o T41 F. M . C, 4 1 -11!'o. EL;✓AT,o1.J5 AK-f- t546or.J AIJ APttslrv-AR,Y T. CAM. troOo � GOIJToI�v. 11�-rGa-✓a�.� �u�a:� ��L ter. �.e .,. Go117oJZ MITER-1/41 5 GQJAL FI✓E FEe-T. -r is MAP WAS %lmg A coMM ITMCI T Pofz TITLe In15J(rgnkz Fr-oM LAWS &i -2 TITLE 00 PLT 7�3-Sht APRI� Ford i'18V ;��i_,.J:�-rE5 a�v�K.tl.iq I ,v 5r�� Only Pacgr� AVf- Al ,IFf FlrlctN Govn+'C-+-.-Kx An10 tu�ILoEo L)-eIL,N L11.1?=, 11,O-e- Aaa Q-D7iIn.�A'{� LEGEND CERTIFICATION QSP 4`PS w'`�"t�t'M5 Fbu�1D R.�P�AK WILAP 11 D4�ID VI. McPoR1DEt 44Ei'E�( GE2TIF1 Tu4T TI;t. 11.1 / 1V O MAP I,�: P2d,, � r" F iE.LD 6c7iF1=- of r; `"t%K-vF_:y �.' ••'�tyi[k •.;' + SL�(I JET( colt rZor_ Po. �I f MAne: ur-Ivr-_.re rA�� ��JPE��/I Sl ear- DJ�II �C-��• • 16129 OSEk/Ee M41Jt{oL� MAC 1-te& �� •:�'►0 pVi�:•Cl f- WC>op FP�JGE t-IIJE C 9l '....P Co �Li 1/Ip �. MCi�JV-1 C7E Lo�-o. Q.ECs�. 1--/-1 �1D SJ�/E`prL L.S. ((cl Z� � PwPF�TY L1w.1� I-cT ZO LOT lq FoUr.117 I1toIJ PIPL 4bPF�+.( -raW/rJsIT� GoP-w1r�- AID. q >3As15 of � — O 1� ws N - t10 R-fRTIE CLGTAI/JIrJc+l WALL,1J7r FIELD LOt 4TFP 41 -4z W 99 53 PrLO?EKTY LIn1&- FRoM i-4o; C-1JODNAl lum MAP or- ASPIE�.1 gLPS IJD�TA f3ooK �- PA[a� 353 co LOT 41 1 1(04& 1 .741 y v 1� Fleq8 AT- 9 I t lbz . o I AT -I V - = W 1J o RF-{'�fiV W/ PLA�I L G4P � 5 Z=i�►(c / / FovlJo pte�64tt I.lo GtkP Jlj P v"A*j- i �uT of �I �Ji1CJl.i Q r.l 49- S45 E o.Sel 1az I \ 1 '>..'7. 1 o�:TOfL.Y WDDD Z.o MAsoIJA�Y NotJSE d '55.81 0 UTE o LOT 17 I/ I � rZlF-rar+IL w� PLA 1 IL LJiP L5 23'7 o✓T of P071 1 oIJ © h (o l�5•{-'E o.51' �•R.TIE RTAItJ111�4/WALL —Lj I l_T7 1 -j 7 -.2 C, U) 2 U DDITION LOT 16 -foTAL AeF-4 wT5 17, 1 c, 1sb 15138 -'+SQ. FT. GA-c- WOG7G VVA"W- 4A.4Z WOOD I SNPiD 1W LOT I l03 I\ M 3 I -t R.oA o e45EMEr- T PLAT took t o PA&\E. -11 . V101 UTILfjJ PAG-r_7 2foQ-. a� i � �AI�G- R✓ILL1r\�% � 1 t i-! ' ,_� o 1 ` 11 1 1 ' 1 � 1 <g3D.5oi (830.38� 1 O • 'S�I'Si3' 4Z" 5'7 ' 21.''F J C5 3°I�SV' 'S4„E� COUND �j �r}I Iq5•}- PSR-qFJ� c�AP �ASPF�J ToM11.16tTE �F-n1�R nlb 1 41oQ t . cc -I.Hlmx,L rui #,J� K3��' V 0 5' 10" PREPARED BY Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S. GALENA ST. P.O. BOX 2506 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 (303) 925-3816 FoUIJD IJO L-';'A- r-ouav ir,"4-W/C-A? (,0reB- DATE JOB NO. I to U 9 F-