HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.777 Ute Ave.48A-87
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
?JCff ID AN~ CAS~ NO.
.;n -I .1:JtJ -00 'q PI n)g g
STAFF MEMBE : C H
PROJECT NAME: 717 U~JvL.; --1'/JJM--- f1 Jt.f:
Project Address:
(J,
~-~-gf
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative A ress/Ph ne:
____~_~_________________qr-----~~------------~:bJl~~--___
~~i~~-~ --;~---~~~~--- ~OO~Uv ------------------ - -----
APPLICANT:
Applicant Addre
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION:
~EP: Gu
2 STEP:
2)
IF 1
STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
~ CC
P&Z
I
___ HEARING
DATE:~' /d
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO L---
3)
PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
CC
? ~/()-( r
~
P&Z
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
'--It! C
.
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
Paid:
Date:
Staff Approval:
Consent Agenda:
~,F~
. Attorney
. . y Engineer
~~{ Housing Dir.
t-<>f' ~ Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consolo
S.D.
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Bldg:Zon/Inspect
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
Other
DATE ROUTED: CI/r90/?8' INITIAL: K::3r-
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
Roaring Fork
Transit
FINAj/ROUTING:
./ City Atty
j
City Engineer
Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~ ~~
.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
777 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES
."';o.~.
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:
1.
The applicant shall participate in the
extent ion 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.
Ch.777Caseload
-
r
;it
I
f 17-/;! f{L6
!
<<
, ;
Cl'lY OF ASaN
RESIDENl'IAL GlUm! MANI\GI;MNl' PIAN SU!MISSICfi
IDINl'S ALIDCATICfi - TAIn' SHEET
Project:
771 ute Avenue (Scored 1/26/88)
P&Z VOl'ING ME}ffiERS Welton Jasmine ~ RaIIDna David Marl Mickey Jim Av~.,
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water service
b. Sewer service
c. sto:rm Drainage
d. Fire Protection
e. Parking Design
f. Road
SUBIUrAL
2. Quality of Design
a. Neighborhood
Compatibility
b. site Design
c. Energy
d. Trails
e. Green Space
SUBIUrAL
3. Proximity to SUpport
Services (6 pts)
a. Public
Transportation
b. Community Comml
Facilities
SUBIUrAL
-L-- 2 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
--1-- 1 --1-- --1-- --1-- ~ --1--
-L-- 2 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
-L-- 2 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
-L-- 2 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
-L-- 1.5 --L..:L -L-- -L-- -L.2 -L--
--1L 10.5 10.5 --1L --1L 10.5 --1L 10.8
(15 pts)
-L--
~
~
~
--L..:L
1
2.5
3
o
12 6.5
~
~ 2
~ 3
~ 5
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income ~ 5
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBIUrAL
~ 5
SUBIUrAL CA'IB:DRIES 1-4 36.5 27
5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) ~ 0
'IOl'AL IDINl'S 1-5
36.5 27
o
-L-- ~ -L-- --L.... ~
-L-- ~ -L-- --L- ~
~-L-- ~~~
~~ ~~~
--L..:L ~ -L-- ~ -L--
~ --1L 12 10.5 13
'. --;-;- ~ \17
11.14
~ ~ ~ --L- --.b2
~~ ~~----L-
~ --L- --L- ~ ~
5.5
~ ~ ~ --.!L ---1L-
~ ~ ~ --.!L ---1L-
7.86
~ -1L ~ JL 37.5
35.29
~-L-- ~~~
.71
~ -1L ~ JL 40.5
36.0
......
.
. '
,'.
,"""
"~.'""
I "
'.. ,
... ,
Cl'lY OF ASPEN
RESIDENl'IAL GlUm! MANI\GI;MNl' PIAN sum:rssICfi
IDINl'S ALIDCATICfi - TAIn' SHEET
/[l1ject:
925 E. Durant Avenue (Scored 1/26/88)
,~ ME}ffiERS Welton Jasmine ~ RaIlcna D'lVid Mad Jim _ Averaqe
iiiFf'
~/!'_"
;l\lblic Facilities
am Services (12 pts)
la,',Wa, ter Serv~ce
:'sewer Serv1ce
',c ,,'sto:rm Drainage
"'d';': Fire Protection
e. Parking Design
f. Road
SUB.lUTI\L
--1-- 1 --1-- -L-- --1-- ~ --1--
--1-- 1 --1-- -L-- --1-- ~ --1--
-L-- 2 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
--1-- 1 --1-- -L-- --1-- ~ ~
-L-- 1 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- --L-
--L..:L 1 --L..:L -L-- 1. 75 ~ --L..:L
~ 7 ~~ 8.75 --.!L ~ 8.75
~
2.5
~
~
13.5
~
~
~ 5
0 ~~ ~ 2.5~
1 ~~ ~ -L-- 2.25
2 --L- ~ ~ 2.5~
3 --L- -L-- ~ --L- --L-
0.5 --L- --L- -L-- 2.5--L-
6.5 ~~ 12.5 11.5 11.25 - 11.18
3
2
7~,:
~loyee Housing (20 pts)
a.. Low Income 10.4 8.4
b;' Moderate Income
C>i: Middle Income
,
"i~'
~~IUUmL
Quality of Design (15 pts)
a:' Neighborhood ~
~, Canpatibility
I5iSign
1=
~ty to SUpport
Selvices (6 pts)
a; Public
. Transportation
b. Community Comml
Facilities
j';,,<>Utf.LumL 10.4 8.4
'~.
&lw.ul:AL CA'IB:DRIES 1-4 37.9 26.9
If,'. -
~ Points (5.3 pts) --L- 0
'iI,
~ IDINl'S 1-5 41.9 26.9
~~ ~----L-~
~~ ~---L-~
~ --L- --L- ~ --L-
5.57
10.4 ~ 10.4 10.4 10.4 _
-- ----
-- --- -
10.4 ~ 10.4 10.4 10.4 _ 10.06 I
35.4 -1L 37.65 34.9 36.15 _ 35.56 iI
,
--L- ~ ---L- --L ---L - 1.43
37.4 -1L ~
39.65 35.9 37.15 _ 37.0
~.
f
'k
I
.-.-. ...... . ..--
\
.
\
)
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
/,;2/;/8'7
PARC:&J.. ID AND ~E NO.
2131-lll/--QIi-()07. ~7
STAFF MEMBER:
U^'5IdpnIlO / C9.mY
PROJECT NAME: '1-1-1 Li L lhJu
:~:1..ti?.0;dfLn -' ~ tl If IT ilJ;J' t; . 'i
Applicant Address:_e?<1. en) If .. ,U)(I/T' 1)" ()I,~ .
REPRESENTATIVE:.JU nn V V1Jn n I f 3t --/-, #" .'
Representative Address/Phone y;Jj U (J ,60 { e It}, K0{)j Ii .f:D u (PI/
I 5-6~hY
============================5a==================================
PAID: ~ NO AMOUNT: YL ,'~. 0.30,00
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 STEP:
2 STEP:
./
2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
P&Z
CC
(e
3)
PUBLIC
"''-'1>,...........
O^'-,,\
HEARING IS BEFORE:
...a....>~t.........
P&Z ~ ....,'wio,.., cc
N/A
INITIALS ';-11J C-/
DATE REFERRED:
~ .1-,lq~
REFERRALS :
vi'
/
,/
./:
v
v
,,/
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Conso1.
S.D.
./
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
Roaring Fork
Transit
v
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
B1dg:Zon/Inspect
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
Other
FINAL ROUTING:
I
City Atty
DATE ROUTED:
J City Engineer
INITIAL:
Bldg. Dept.
Other:
l. FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: r.~ (fJ..LJt-/
.' "r~
. t
r/
Ie
.
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:
subdivision
mUlti-family
1988 P&Z gave preliminary
771 Ute Avenue Townhouses
conditions that follow:
On January 19,
approval for the
project subject to
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
1
'.
,~
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
acceptance of the cash-in-lieu payment for
12 low income employees, as calculated
building permit application, and shall
Housing Authority prior to issuance of any
January 19, 1988
the equivalent of
at the time of
be paid to the
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
I
/
....
.
'11
~_.
C',","
<;: ....'
~:~~Ig: ~i8~;~~;'Z},'" ':;:'~:\~",
A RESOLUTION GRANTING TWELVE (12l RESID~ ~"...i~,;P"r'
FROM THE 1987 GROWTH MANAGEME!ft QUOTA. BIGB'.r (8l EXc:BSS8.,
ALLOTMENTS AND SIX (6) ALLOTMB!ftS FROM THE
1989 RESIDBNTIAL QUOTA
WHEREAS. the annual residential growth management quota
within the City of Aspen is established by Section 24-l1.1(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-ll.4(a) of the
.
Municipal Code, December lst of each year is established as a
deadline for submission, of applications for residential develop-
I
~
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:
Project
GNP Allotments
Requested
1. 700 E. Main
2. 925 E. Durant Townhouses
3. 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses
l4 units
4 units
8 units
: and
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
I
I.
I,
r
.
'.
i.
3l.8 points, as tabulated below:
project
Total Points Given
by P&Z (average)*
40.6 points
37.0 points
36.0 points
1. 700 E. Main
2. 925 E. Durant Townhouses
3. 77l ute Avenue Townhouses
" 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-ll.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-l1.3(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.
2
.
(
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado 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 77l 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 24-l1.7 (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 l,
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 ~day of ~ , 1988.
Kathry
~
gmp.quota.l987
(,
3
\,
)
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
/,;;2./;/J77
PARCF;J, ID AND ~NO.
2?,~:1-1 K;;. -q~ - ()f)7. -8"-7
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: 1-1/ f) L ffuu &/5ldffJlra / c;n'l-f
::X"Mt;dM.--. ~ tI \I; El :D::I' to ' 'i
Applicant Address:-0<::? tYl).t!. ..fJ)f." f1" ()J,~
REPRESENTATIVE:.JU {\fl Y 'an n , I '3t ..,(., .cL,' ,.
Representative AddresS/PhonedlO (j ,GOlbtJ. .K'J()jf) .co U{P//
I 5-,5'7hr'
===========================-~==================================
PAID: ~ NO AMOUNT: "IL. ...~. 0.30, DrJ
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 STEP:
2 STEP:
./
2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
P&Z
CC
3)
PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
,,""'.,...... ........0;'_
O~"'''\ P&Z ... "'"""1\.40... CC
DATE REFERRED: ~ . '1-.lq~
N/A
INITIALS ~C-/
: ~
REFERRALS :
./
/
,/
./:
,/
v'
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
state Hwy Dept(GJ)
Bldg:ZonjInspect
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
other
,/
,/-
city Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol.
S.D.
./
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Fire Qief
Roaring Fork
Transit
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
City Atty
city Engineer
Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
'n."
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE:
771 ute Avenue
Subdivision, and
Employee Housing
Townhomes
Acceptance
Rezoning, Conceptual
of Cash-in-lieu for
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 wiil 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
Attorney on the issue of
Mountain Road right-of-way.
defers to
the size
the
of
City
Aspen
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
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
certified woodburning stove is the same for a
tial structure as for a lodge. There appears
difference in impacts.
and one
residen-
to be no
criterion 4: Analysis of the community need for the
3
,,-'t. '~
., m"~'
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: liTo 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 I 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
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.
5
'.
,<.""
2. Evaluating whether there is an adverse effect upon the
surrounding area: section 20-12 (l) 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 proj ects
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:
Maximum Floor Building Area:
19,689 s.f. (.87:1 FAR)
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:
Minimum Required Open Space (25%)
6,620 s.f.
5,665 s.f.
6
r,
/
.....'...,
-
site Coverage including Lot 41:
site Coverage excluding Lot 41 and AMR:
Estimated Floor Area of Aspen Alps**:
29%
41%
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
calculations
(283,140 s.f.)
ium units.
FAR of the Aspen Alps is based on preliminary
that the property contains a total of 6.5 acres
and 134,000 s.f. of floor area in the 78 condomin-
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 proj ect ' 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-
8
,
....,
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
through the Aspen Alps drive-through from
to ute Ave. shall be submitted.
this project
S. Spring st.
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
9
/'"",
'<-".""~
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: Januarv 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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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 aqrees to provide an 8" line from Sprinq
Street to near Oriqinal Street alonq ute Avenue. The Water
Department considers this an improvement to water services for
the surroundinq neiqhborhood. While aqreeinq this is an improve-
ment. Mr. Markalunas intends for the citv to participate in
increasinq 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 svstem imorovements are proposed. The Sanitation
District stated the proposed pro;ect can be handled bv the
existinq ten (10") inch sanitarv 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 Enqineer noted that the pro;ect will deal with
storm drainaqe pursuant to standard practice (i.e.. drvwells) and
in addition will be improvinq the drainaqe alonq ASDen Mountain
Road throuqh installation of a new stora 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 hvdrant
on the northeast corner of the property will imDrove 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:Eiqhteen parkinq spaces will be located underaround and
out of siqht. meetinq the one space/bedroom requirement. We view
the underqroundinq to be an excellent desiqn feature. Two
Darkinq spaces will be located alonq ute Avenue and should serve
for droD-off and short-term visitor Darkinq.
- 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 increasina the easement width
of Aspen Mountain Road from 6' to 10'. pave its portion of that
road and add curb and autter alona both Aspen Mountain Road and
ute Avenue. These are imProvements to the current level of
services in the area. Traffic can be safelv handled bv existina
surroundina roads: however. the "turn-around" for visitors and
service vehicles is narrow (32' from curb to curb) and will at
times cause conaestion in the dead-end of ute Avenue which also
serves Aspen Alps earess.
SUBTOTAL: 10.5
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
RATING: 1.5
o
COMMENTS: The 9 townhouse L-shaped structure is 31 feet hiah (to
roof ridae) across the aentlv sloped portion of the site at the
base of the mountain. It contains 19.680 sa. ft. (counted in
FAR). somewhat smaller than the prior approved lodae pro;ect as
- 3 -
amended at 22.666 sa. ft. Surroundina development consists of
Aspen Alps. A;ax Apartments and a sina1e-familv house. We find
the basic desian features to be pleasina. but find the buildina
bulk is areater than the surroundina develooment with too little
land to aive settina and visual relief. Without the Lot 41
hillside or land under Aspen Mountain Road. FAR is estimated at
1.4:1.
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 bv the applicant. approximatelY 7.280
sa. ft. or 32% of the site. is essentially undevelopable hill-
side. The 1.230 sa. ft. under Aspen Mountain Road further
decreases open space area. The applicant has committed to
undertake extensive landscapina of a few small areas on the site.
includina more trees on the hillside. However. the buffer area
towards the Alps (northwest) is minimal. and the plaza pavina in
front of the buildina leaves verY limited areen space. compared
to the abundantlv veaetated Alps site. The character of the
proposed open space area becomes rather radicall v urbanized in
comparison to the Aspen Alps and the relativelv rustic character
of ute Avenue with its back drop of north facina forest on Aspen
Mountain. Underaroundina of utilities. trash pick-up arranaed
with access throuah the Alps. efficient pedestrian circulation.
as well as the aenerallv appropriate location of the buildina to
the rear of the propertv. 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
ceilina insulation. an infiltration barrier wrap. low "En tVDe
alazina in windows within 6 feet of the floor. and hiah lumen
output/low wattaae liaht bulbs. The infiltration barrier wrap.
liahtina and air to air heat exchanaer were commended bv the
Roarina Fork Enerav Center to indicate excellence. However.
solar aain is minimal for the site because the mountain blocks
- 4 -
,
..'-,~
the sun. We note that the extensive east and northeast facina
alazina aDDear to have little solar aain and sianificant heat
loss. It was not DOssible for RFEC to aive an assessment of
excellence for solar enerav desian. Snowmelt within the Darkina
aaraae entry is an enerav intensive heatina device. No verifi-
able commitments are made reaardina mechanical svstems or for
efficient fireD1aces beyond code reaulations.
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the prov1s10n of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The aDDlicant DrODOses to construct a trail link
(aDDroximatelv 70 feet lona) on the northerlY edae of ute Avenue
oDDosite the Dro;ect. The sidewalk Drovides a Dublic benefit in
creatina a loaical link from the trail Dassina throuah the ASDen
AIDS and the trail east of Glorv Hole Park. As an alternative.
the aDDlicant will contribute the equivalent sum of monev for
reDairs to the ute Avenue trail or aauisition of a missina trail
riaht-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.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:The aDDlicant states. in total. aDDroximatelv 16.390 sa.
ft. of the site will be landscaDed. Some 50 aSDen. cotton-
wood. sDruce. and crab aDDle trees are shown on the landscaDe
Dlan. Please note that 7.280 sa.ft. is in Lot 41 on the hillside
and a larae Dortion of the buildina site will be Daved side-
walk/courtyard area. Veaetated ODen SDace on the site is limited
to rather small areas carved out on the edae of the bui1dina area
and within the front courtyard area. At least 1/4 of the front
areen SDace is in the Dublic riaht-of-way and cannot be included
in this scorina cateaorv. While this urban vard SDace would be
attractive if located in a hiaher densitv urban settina. in our
oDinion. the desian does not create the tVDe of usable ODen SDace
(i.e.. recreational or natural area incorDorated into a Dro;ect)
now found in the multi-family/lodae Dro;ects in this "edae"
Dortion of the neiahborhood. The DroDosed areen SDace does not
Drovide sianificant relief from the AIDS Dro;ect or A;ax ADart-
ment Buildina.
- 5 -
.. .'\
"'",j"
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 usina the CooDer Aerial maDS. the
Durant Street bus route is aDDroximatelY 560 feet. or sliahtlv
over 2 blocks (500 ft.) from the Dro;ect alona the AlDs foot
trail. The city Enaineer measured 515 feet distances to the
southerlv riaht-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 Dro;ect is located within 500 feet walkina distance
of the Commercial Core of ASDen.
- 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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome 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 ann1icant nrODQses to nrovide the cash eauiva1ent
for 40% of the nro;ect in low income emnloyee housinq. After
reconstruction credit for the existinq 3 bedroom house has been
deducted. as corrected in Sunnv Vann's December 21. 1987 letter
based on Buildinq Denartment verification. the nroqram consists
of cash-in-lieu for 12 low income emDlovees. or $240.000 under
current Housinq Authority auidelines. The Housinq Authority
recommends aDDroval of this Droaram.
- 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
l.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:
3l.8
33
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
Asoen/Pitkin Planninq Office
- 8 -
J.II~':J%:
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Steve Burstein, Planning ()ij
Jay Hammond, City Engineerin~'
January l5, 1988
eI
FROM:
DATE:
RE: 77l Ute Subdivision Exception
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Per your request, I am supplying additional comments regarding
the 77l Ute Avenue project subdivision exception. As I
understand it, 77l Ute is subject to subdivision criteria as a
multi-family project. Pertinent concerns from Engineering
inc1 ude:
l. The applicant shall be required to submit a subdivision plat
pursuant to Aspen Municipal code Section 20-l5 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
ftdead-endn 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 lO page 9l denoting a l2 foot right-of-way.
JH/co/Memol2.88
cc: Chuck Roth
"
.;
DEe I 6 !~C(
CITY OF ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning Office
Jim Markal unas
771 Ute Avenue Townhome
December 15, 1987
------------------------------- - ~~~~--------
The Water Department has rev'ew d the applicant's proposal, in
particular Section A - Water Page 4, pertaining to a
proposed eight inch interconnect 0 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
ASPEN.PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTr,..ENT
To:
MEMORANDUM
Steve Burstein, Planning Office /
Cindy Houben, Planning Office
Thomas S. Dunlop, Director \S'\,))I--L
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 23, 1987
DEG 2 4 !?3T
From:
Re: 77l 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 'l"REATMEN'I' AND COLLEC'.fION:
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 Countv Regul ations On
Individual Sewage Disoosal 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."
t
ADEOUATE 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 Municioal Code requiring
such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system."
AIR OUALI'l"Y:
Woodburning:
There is no mention of inf!tallation 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 appl ication descr ibes "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 S6u~h. G~leria S't;r.eet.
Aspen. C~l~ado ~1&1"
3D3/51l;!S-20l!!O
77l 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 Quality Control Re2ulations and
Ambient Air Quality Standards is the governing document requiring
the dust control plan.
Demol i tion:
There is an existing structure on the property that is scheduled
to be demolished. Regulation 8 of the Colorado Air Quality
Control Reaulations 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 l6, AsDen Municipal
~, 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.
-
77l 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 · 242 MAIN STREET. CARBONDALE, CO 81623 · (303)963-0311
January 5, 1988
TO: Steve Burstein; Cindy Rouben, 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."
with 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-nf 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 defini ti ve.
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.
r'....
,.."
,~/
JAN 5
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
PLANNING OFFICE
FROM:
ANN PHILLIPS, PROPERTY MANAGER
JANUARY 4, 1988
DATE:
RE:
77l 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 77l 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 l-bedroom units.
3 x 3 bdrms. = 9
3 x 2.25 bdrms. = 6.75
3 x l.75 bdrms. = 5.25
total 21 bdrms
credit for 3 bdrms in existing unit
Total l8 bedrms.
The formula is l8 divided by 60% of the project for 40% credit
or 30 total bedrms. Subtract the free market l8 and l2 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.
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, I dishwasher, I
clothes washer, one bathtub with shower, I water closet, 1
lavatory.
Have a Merry Christmas!
Sincerely,
~ N..b..y,
Acting Zoning Official
PN/tw
ruders.pn
cc: Steve Burstein, Planning
Bill Drueding
offices:
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado B1611
303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, ColoradoB1611
I<
I ~ I ~
1!~,Il-
lei 19-.
~
r
-,j
to
+>
~ I\)
.~
"
-,j
to
+>
o
o in
~
x
!
!
~
+>
o~
CD
I)
;'.t
x
,,;.l;!
.;'itl,
,
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 I 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.
/
/-
'--...-<
:>
DEe 2 2 1981
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
December 21, 1987
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
l30 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll
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 l/2) persons. If we now claim credit for
a three (3) bedroom structure, the free market population
is reduced to eighteen (l8) persons, and the project's
PO Box 8485 . Aspen, Colorado 81612' 303/925-6958
:)
Mr. Steve Burstein
December 2l, 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-ll 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-l2.5(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.
site as
which is
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan depicts the project
"Recreation/Accommodations", a land use category
intended to "allow for recreation and accommoda-
'"
'.....,I
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-l, 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-l 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-l.
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 2l, 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-l/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-l/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,
VANN ASSOCI~
SV:cwv
Attachment
,,"",\
..... """
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!
Sincerely,
~ H..bo".
Acting Zoning Official
PN/tw
ruders.pn
cc: Steve Burstein, Planning
Bill Drueding
offices:
517 Eest Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Coloredo 81611
303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS
P.o. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590
CHARLES L CUNNIFFE, A.IA.
Janua,-y 26, 1988
Mr. Steve Burstein
Planning Office
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Steve,
As we discussed at our meeting today, the Owner Mr.
Kent Shodeen, has expressed his intention to commit to
the additio11al 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.
all wood burning
further enhance
project as well
objectIves of the
Shodeen WIll commit to the deletion of
devices from this project. This will
the net energy conservatIon of the
as contrIbute to the air quality
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
We belIeve these commItments should satisfactorily
address your expressed concerns In the (i.M.P.
Memorandum dated January 19, 1988, under Category 2,
Quality of Design, C. Energy
Stlould you have any further concerns
please do not hesitate to contact us.
or questions,
Very truly yours,
~.~.~
CLC/arh
encl.
..'I-1I"~ c:.:) "bb l;.).l..;::' 'fl.),i)i:J< t.1'~'~..L,"~.:....:..;\1, 1'..:0
r.,-, <...
,.,.-.' .,~
",<
".,,-
YOBER'il
Engineering Consultants, Inc.
January 25, 1988
Charles Cunniffe
Charles Cunniffe & Associates
P.O. Box 3534
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Shodeen Townhomes Additional Systems Info~~ation
Dear Charles:
I talked to Steve 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 ~umens 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 minimruu of 20% in
annual lighting energy utilization.
Xn discussing the building enve~ope, we talked about the use of
Tyvek as an exterior infiltration barrier. The dramatic 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
I Benchmark Plaza, Suite 3D?
Po. Box 5740., Avon, Colorado 81620.
303-949-1191.1-80.0.,332,3259 CD Only
, ,
''''~''''
-
infiltration is such a high component of a building's heat loss,
the use of quality windows and doors and the quality 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 put 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 on 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 cah
dramatically effect how consistent the design R 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.
I didn't detail the mechanical systems efficiencies 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 anr Of the 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%.
When you consider that the standard gravity fired boiler is
operating at an annual efficiency at elevation of about 60%, our
system will be in the neighborhood of about 75% without any un-
usual or high maintenance items. We can obviOUSly utilize some
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. We feel this will
negatively impact the environment from a waste standpoint and
thus the true efficiency of a condensing hoiler or furnace on a
macro environmental evaluation must be less. Secondly, a careful
analysis of the system components going into high efficiency
boilers indicates that they are typically not cast iron and have
many components which are subject to failure. On a long range
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 complex hoiler system Of at
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 water 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 tha't 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 YJ10W 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 energy savings is 30% over
conventional glass.
Finally, we made a general comment 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 ~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 ~hich can be evaluated on
a less SUbjective basis. If :l"ou have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Steve Standeford, Roaring Fork Energy Center
DLY:dje
3
'-
....,
-...,I
,
771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES
FLOOR AREA
l. TOTAL SITE
Lots l~ l6 and 17
Lot 4l
Total
l5,380 sq. ft.
7,280 sq. ft.
22,660 sq. ft.
2.
ACTUAL BUIDING SITE
Lots 15~ l6 and l7
Part of Lot 4l
Total
l5,380 sq. ft.
900 sq. ft.
16,280 sq.ft.
3. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA @ 1:l
Total Site
Actual Building Site
22,660 sq. ft.
l6,280 sq. ft.
Jl9,680 sq. ft. l
0.86:1
1. 20: 1 <--
Total Site
Actual Building site
4. PROPOSED BUILDING SIZE
5. CODE FLOOR AREA RATIOS
6. EXCLUSIONS AND ADDITIONS
Actual Building Site
Aspen Mountain Road
Ute Avenue Right-of-Way
l6,280 sq. ft.
l,230 sq. ft.
900 sq. ft.
l5,950 sq. ft.
1. 23: 1
Net Total
7. ACTUAL FLOOR AREA RATIO
8. APPROVED LODGE PROJECT
Code Floor Area Ratio
15,380 sq. ft.
22,660 sq. ft.
1:1
Actual Building Site *
Approved Building Size
Actual Floor Area Ratio
1. 60: 1
* Note: Lot l5~ 16 and 17 less Aspen Mtn. Road
771 UTE AVENUE 'l'OWNHOMES
OPEN/GREEN SPACE
l. TOTAL SITE
Lots l5, l6 and l7
Lot 4l
Total
2. ACTUAL BUIDING SITE
3.
4.
Lots l5, 16 and l7
Part of Lot 41
Total
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT
ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD
4. UNDEVELOPED/LANDSCAPE
Total Site
Actual Building Site
5.
COUNTABLE OPEN SPACE
Actual Building Site
6.
7.
MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
PERCENT EXCEEDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
,.....,
.""....,.J
l5,380 sq. ft.
7,280 sq. ft.
22,660 sq. ft.
l5,380 sq. ft.
900 sq. ft.
l6,280 sq.ft.
6,270 sq. ft.
l,230 sq. ft.
l5,l60 sq. ft./66%
8,780 sq. ft./53%
6,620 sq. ft.
43%
25%
72%
III UTE. ~\IEJWt 10WN\4oME)
f.>\ LD~ P:>Lt ~ ~t:.A
\1;11'2. .S
f;,UILDlt-.I~ F001?RI~1
u.Zlo . 0
p~VE.D "'REf>,
DRIVE w ~ '(
cq~E E.ll ~PI1 C.l
~140. ~
14 t;. 0
St;ll.t;
')Q.fT .
..
.
..
..
o
<>
rJ---J.
U]-e c.1 \ J \11f)
'ill Ut, A~c
.I.,.J "'\~ i-l~ \iJ
vfi'iJ~ fl'{lit<;\"''Jr
s ' t, ~ 'To ,,(".,~ "!I.bl, '(WI" "'t"'^',
s vb) ,VI) ',,,,, i JlvfJ
- Sl<'~ 1.:.tdthV{ J
- f,~ "'. SJ;."" 'I ,t"..""'"''I' r1... ""Ai"} ,,7,\ f..f," 4 (,1j LlI~,~<Jy
1:"'(\\'1tMt\ ~ ~
~ ,-.<"i,J j" ~
or J,./".""i"'f" ",t,i1..t,~ '1;o.N ,t,y""',,';lY) r~';^)' f,VV'~ ~ ftf<" r,'~ ~;I)q"t
w..~r !,V\i.
~('e5~t'ro.l/U, 11"~(, e~iQn);J".'1, fy(,1,
---
fl~ t
iA
j7 ..c.qrre-1 ~ ).~ LJ\\ ft'-.. jJ"I',\10 4,~ ;"'
q>t< 'h )~;^ ,('.,; t"lJ1\h3 _Rj,h~IIj().j.I-I"'71'
6,,1&1.1. 1rf1 jifc.:J~17'.)
(".111"1 ./,,;,;1 6171),0
f~..4 ''-' j I" p. f
/),iw"".1/ l,ff
,.,...fr'U Ii f/7. f
~3.,~
^ \\ rftrtlf"'il'},,-,,,) fM \ ~ ~ )1.wJ 1,
c 0'r114r.,,1V\~r...j )~'I)'
"';0",i;6'1 5~.Jt~ )1.,\01"
f bf (. ,[. fV'l\r f~ 1'If(D ~ J 1 f/"lJ fl J
"'''~
-0n-r ~,j
~ ~'1 '-p'1'~
.k' #~ "I'~
~5 {
~Pf
~ /~.r,
:,&
A Ill) LJ;J ; ^" 4 ~ v,,;i
s-hv,' 1~..A)'<"y'<h71 L(}\ Y\
I
,;l.".. \~~ ~ .o/\,tl,\< ~u "'" ~\'_%l
~'l, ~
F ~ ~ - orl, Ipl MtiI OIl. "tl>.....,J' 6~. o~
"~-. 6
1'1')'')..; IlLIO' ;.,.;Jt~< I?~~
If'HO-I'l1,..i" li.JY7.b<P1 oIl,,41,,:t<. ~ '"Jb1V'P(F4f)71'iln6<1,'Yl
fAil
-
.........
o
o
ToLl, I
),le,~ A,,, .", tl./I< d~..J(I;(t", 1 771 V1't A..... f/J Vi.;;.t,
L,1 ArO ~ , 2.'2, '~b ..(
A" I v;....t L 0+41 h, /I.I.l ~~'t" J\1f, f/f . 14 ,I'! ~ J, f,
PrOrCJe~ Bv,IL) Au.~. .l~ :.f}jK) : JqJ (.10J.( (bf.J. (4(1)
M.~ Alh"'" ~"~'\'J/1~4 '4 61 f J,( ~,,: l~.tn)
1-A.F1 RJ.-t~. L" :'17
~ 1m A,}ot.,l./ LIIl' r (ojd ~.;IJi"JAtl~.~ 21) ~ , t (I: 1 FA R.)
Ibl o(;,r,,; l./,' P"jJ. ~.,IJi..}hJitt I'I} 7 P I 1:1 rAR).j(.:
FA (l r~t;..~ at',. ~.-l~VJ LA 41 /l A,,,.,'M.q,; 1.'3~ \
~
t: 1 J='A R o. 'bv:/J.LI. .r', . (tIt:.../,):
I~J )~1 d.
ftVfllS..../ Of<<~ 5fa c'< ;
25% /.1;"',,..v/>> ~"'l'i....lOf'H(...."
6P'0,,(
,) ~ & \' J, f.
/
J ~ 1 '.f
) ,1" CDV.tqJ~ ;~,lv i':J Lot ~J: , I.
51ff ('HII.,. eJ-dJil1) tJ..t'll: 41 '1/
~)(.
Es-L,,1d fAR 11kf" Alp>: O,Y7 FA fl.
III
-'* tJ.. 11f~) ('flyJ ~:tirjh.t ..A~;" L 0+ '+/ f 7,2]0 ,J..).r" l''''(AYifl'r- fWfO'}H
~ ,1,J.t..,f _ )
/oX ~~u< ~n!l. ;"/./'''j L.t~411. t... ,l>:/
~)(.I:li',fft~tll f4Rj W (l.,pl,/i.......i <.I,,'~t;,..J tA'7 t~ lI'f"r'ltJlJ" rr'vt.; ~ ~ MJ1
6,) rv.- (t1'l)40~. P) W p'ij ODD J.f 1 (h,r IAJA i, t~ 7D ,~v.,'1; .
-
-
~
r\
--.,
o
I
~rfli,.-t;,~ t.1'n(1 '!.( ~Dllli'l P',VII)\.,
/1.'5' ''''pIOYl'U 40';" 1 f,ojtj
11 rtliJt~t.(~oMf(t<-r.A(II<,1 (). ~
J 'i .7'1 rt \; )",,,i, b 0 0/, 1 f''lj.J
1.~,S n:,iJ'l\ts Cf<J.t- r"o.,t,,,h'l\, &/'1r IJI.f~t:", rO(!~hOOH -il,,,~;..llj~
l'l,r ~/lIr'I'I#l ~ '.o,DOl} 1~;vI,"l).c.\~{>fviv.4-i~ mr'OoJ~~ ~ .150, 000
(on..1J t""IHIA HDVSi^\ Proll'''''
'1/-rfJ;JlYlt \t,t^1 f(f.,-nwkyl)
) '1 rt);Jtni~ (f"~<(-Ih,Ju1 '/,If' for q J"'flli"j ,,;t.) 6 () ~ 1 frt').J
'3 '<I).nt, (rpH - rWI\~i(.i'I"", '(\If €tf'hr;"" f ~~ ~ . k ""LI bj ~IJ~,O"ft
11 eYnrll"lW '-to 0/'1 f'D)f,1
/1 -<Yilfllj.u. @ ~lOJOO~ / 14w~ c-.J, efvi).,\-f ~ ~ -: H'HO, 000
~
~
- .
JAN26
CITY. OF ASPEN
130 south, gale',la,street
aspen,colo,r,ado.81611
303~~9t5.-2020
January 26, 1988
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 8l6l2
RE: Street Improvements on Ute Avenue
Dear Sunny:
?li
'.
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:
l. The design would allow.for turn around movements of passenger
vehicles and small delivery'vehicles (A.A.S.B.O. designation WPW)
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 capabil ity to handle larger standard
vehicles.
2. The configuration of the existing right-of-way was defined by
the City in leasing the wmallw 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
<, ....
..J
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,
Iili
(}A~7JlJ/!1ftW7~ ~
~-tI. Hammona!1/
Director of Public Services
JH/co/Letter.17.88
cc: Chuck Roth
Steve Burstein
ASPEN.PITKIN ~'EGIONAL BUILDlreA DEPARTMENT
Ute I 8
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!
Sincerely,
'& Nowb.",
Acting Zoning Official
PN/tw
ruders.pn
cc: Steve Burstein, Planning
Bill Drueding
offices:
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81S11
303/925-5973
",ail address:
50S East Main Street
Aspen. Colorado 81S11
.............
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.
,HIS ~1l1).re<-T >'''tu.<- C1\1- p"p- <;,a/C....,<-I!J:>
^Spe.... cO~$oo/.,,.,..r..D .s~1-17"^'rl.- 7>/~r~lC.r
f':. 'I J~E.
L I. .(. _ A---- P
,~ ~
AS"6/- c-O....$."'..'f'>AT.OO:'
$.1\....,...."..... (>,.,.,.II>'C'-
l""f"I-"~--
MEMORANDUM
,', '12 'CP,-{
Ud': L ',K
TO:
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
....peI\COnl1011b~,ianitation Distridt
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 AVeDQ, ~i~ential GKP Submission ,i
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.
iH~se 'ItGI'OSlH':> T'o......-NG,.,'s ,,"'-
C""I- SO""b""'~" .s,...,r"'Tlo- PI!.'Ir.,>:: r. ,Nt!
I\..() H" s S"FF",~..r c.A,."c....y
l?>e "e.",... n\' 7'"I..JE. AH'r....
'-'J"4 .4".IS /-''''~ IS Jwt!t"Ir.f'Jy.
,~ r:;/-
Af)'rz... C.J ,....s 0....., t),.."tt.. I).
........,,:'" H~AC..
JAN 1 I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Steve Burstein, Planning
Cindy Houben, Planning
Jay Hammond, City Engineering~
January 7, 1988
DATE:
RE:
77l ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is a recommended scoring sheet for the 77l
Residential GMP submission department review.
particular note include:
Ute Avenue
Scores of
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
l2 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).
parking at one space per
out of sight.
4. Roads (2 points). The design of 77l 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.
The design of 771 Ute Avenue includes
bedroom located entirely underground and
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
difficul t category with respect to this project. Technically,
the project measures about 515 feet from the southerly right-of-
Page Two
77l Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission
January 7, 1987
way line of Durant Avenue. This amounts to l5 feet ~ the two
block requirement. We are reluctant to penalize an entire point
over l5 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 (l.l).
application in pertinent
the design outstanding.
Ten percent of the points scored by this
areas of review where we would consider
JH/co/Mem05.88
Enclosure
Rev ised l2/ 87
CITY OF ASPEN
CITY ENGINEERING EVALUATION
~ RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
MUNI CODE SEC. 24-ll.4 pg.l508.12
Jc.....'" r
Clh\o\." ~ i-o(.
~!...e~ ?I'^-~\.(
Project: '"1'1-1 lk ~e ,---ro:.,. ~Q ~
Date: /Z-}{-ij.
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve (12)
points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
"
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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 wjthout system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENTS:
"6" m~...+'
C.i-f ~. (~.~p , ""
,.M~'r
(7~
RATING: Z
U~
-
b. Sewe~ 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
,
overloading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING: G
~.
~(
~
-
Q.Il. "'O_GAoI~ ~
-AM.~ .
C ~l (., . fl\..<\')""T
COMMENTS:
.c......A.k~.Q.b
Quality of Design (maximum fifteen
2.
(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:
~
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. 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.
COMMENTS: tJiI. ~ sk r,L~l..(.tQJ\
0. .&M.OA,~L........h ~ ~-
RATING: ~
( ~ ~r-/Lo~A r\J I e)C...r,~,ll Q...( t-
\"ONJ'UO.b. (~rl^k .qJe.
I
b. Trails (maximum three (3) points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian anQ bicycle
wayS and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
..s
COMMENTS: 7~-.~^- ~r s..~~ (k: \~.-.\-t-QA lJ.1A~
~l\rl> (~ 1" (q~-;-. ~(W'n(k ~ ~k~ C ~--0
pL I ~ ~ ~ J_ J n.. ',""w' f--
5rn{'f.;,/~~' ~
l
.
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
COMMENTS:
~ ~ ~Il -I- ~ u,:{k ClJH }'(s.b[ Q
RATING:
~A: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.
COMMENTS: Or' ~{Q ,
-f:\ u<-, \"..Jl\1^~ ~
6^.J..-". eA. t
~~'A~ ~'( ~
d. arking Design (maximum two (2) points).
z,
f!~"(lo""'.\. -k ~dOJo.A. fftld}to
ill.s~ C~~ (l(~i ~
RATING:
iW'M~~ ~f
CE ~{.
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: ~o~~~_
RATING: Z,
n.\llM1~~MA~
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
6
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.
RATING:
e...
~l~
r~fiWl. -b .
Community c ercial
b.
facilities (maximum 3 points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluat~on of
the distance of the project from these areas.
.c",-,,~ ~
1 -- Project is located.Jti-1;.Mn-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 (2Sn) feet in linear distance.
RATING: .3
kI~~ d! l~~~(
COMMENTS: ~ ~ht\. ~~
~(f:JPA ~
~
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-ll.4 (5) p.
l508.l8) .
COMMENTS:
RATING:
I~r or ~ ~krM'A (~o/~\
I. (
s(~ ~~ .>
(0~oIU1.. Z-
5~ L.
?~k~\ Z-
~
12~ z..-
1\
-
c
~"
"""
MEMORANDUM
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.
,
:>
'-'"
V ANN ASSOCIATES
FEB II
f ) I ; 11", ! ~ ' ~ l' J "I ~' ; f. : ~
February 1l, 1988
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll
Re: 77l Ute Avenue Townhomes
Dear Alan:
The purpose
action which
respect to
Avenue.
of this letter is to confirm the course of
Mr. Kent Shodeen proposes to follow with
the development of his property at 771 Ute
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 receiv1ng 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-ll.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
P ("1 [_1:,.>, ,.
..
I . l~)'-;
.
,-'"
~
-'
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,
, AICP
SV: cwv
cc: Kent Shodeen /
Steve Burstein /
<" '~,
,""'"
......,.
ClTl( OF ASaN
RESIDENl'IAL GlUm{ ~ PIAN SUIlfiSSICIf
IDINl'S AUDCATICIf - TAIn' SHEET
Project: 771 ute Avenue (Scored 1/26/88)
P&Z VOl'ING ME2mERS Welten Jasmine ~ RaIlcna David Marl Mickev Jim Averaoe
1. Public Facilities
and services (12 pts)
a. Water service -L-- 2 --L- --L- -L-- --L- --L-
b. Sewer service --1-- 1 --1-- --1-- --1-- ~ --1--
c. sto:rm Drainage -L-- 2 --L- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
d. Fire Protection -L-- 2 --L- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
e. Parking Design -L-- 2 -L-- -L-- -L-- --L- -L--
f. Road -L-- 1.5 --L..:L -L-- -L-- 1.5-L--
SUBlOTII.L --1L 10.5 10.5 --1L --1L 10.5 --1L 10.8
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood -L-- 0 --L- ~ -L-- --L- ~
Compatibility
b. site Design ~ 1 -L-- ~ -L-- --L- ~
c. Energy ~ 2.5 ~ -L-- ~ 2.5~
d. Trails ~ 3 ~~ ~~~
e. Green Space --L..:L 0 --L..:L ~ -L-- ~ -L--
SUBIUrAL ~ 6.5 ~ --1L ~ 10.5 --1L 11.14
3. Proximity to S\.1WOrt
services (6 pts)
a. Public ~ 2 ~~ ~ --L- --.b2
Transportation
b. Community Comml ~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ ----L-
Facilities
SUBIUrAL ~ 5 ~ --L- --L- ~ ~ 5.5
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income ~ 5 ~~ ~ --.!L ---1L-
b. Moderate Income -- ---
c. Middle Income -- ---
SUBlOTII.L ~ 5 ~~ ~ --.!L ---1L- 7.86
SUBlOTII.L CA'I'BDUES 1-4 36.5 27 ~-1L ~ 24.... 37.5 35.29
5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) ~ 0 ~ -L-- ~~~ .71
'lOI'AL IDINl'S 1-5 36.5 27 -1L -1L ~ JL 40.5 36.0
"
rr.\ I~ (\'\
. .
,........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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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:
-t
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:
.z
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:
'2--
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
""
..."I
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:
-z.-
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: --II-
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
,
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent deslgn.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
RATING:
t-
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.
L'~
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:
3
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:
!I(~
'"
COMMENTS:
- 5 -
,
,<'" "
",..f
..........
SUBTOTAL:
/7-
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 -
, "
",-,,"
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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent ,?f the
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
total
price
~
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:
- 7 -
.....,./
,.......
........1
~,. "
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:
e::.
SUBTOTAL: <J
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
II
/V
~5
(j
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
L8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8 ~
{jJ Ii J.. Q..-
,
36,~
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
'.
J,,(V1.......
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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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:
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.
RATING:
2--
COMMENTS:
- 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: l S
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: 10,5
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
RATING: 0
COMMENTS;Je.oP;..Je-~ fJ.N'J2/ (ft.!....!'"; 5 J' nJm;OU3 FIjR Cd CU/c:r-/cn'S.;
~ is S~ a.. bv;'/~ 100 /2rr~ p;~ >-rim.. /~/lRcJtUE.
~ cu. /))' fn Lfft;yts -10 Pi JIVe ~ jt1.(~.Q { --r()(/f~ (w r
(Junnn'1" VnLIJuY~ ~ ~?() hullb..VJ
- 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: '1h..<A h tZ.- 7Yth-J'?sliiCYI~ '""h.f.A'rfhbtJ'rh:J()cf} IAJ/y-k
~;;~":/:i~2n~ I&=_"~'<s
~ a.... ,'trn~ a./Y7"().ifYl1 (')1 fri/YJ/Y1 j nJ /r;h 4 UCj
.~~A~.
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:
2.5
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:
3
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: 0
~
COMMENTS:~ c.rD71~ tun~ ~'*- ~/fn-
(
- 5 -
SUBTOTAL:
b.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:
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:
- 6 -
..'......
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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome 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).
s-
COMKKNd ~ ~~ ~~r~
~~ Vvl/ I 0. ~ ~ .
/0 4-nn-C-o'1<'Lc., ~ : ~ ~/ - l,of- jt'Y'" €P-CtA.- 5 ~i-
RATING:
- 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
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
I{),S
(;,.5
So
So
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8
J~
74S/'f-.
D
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
If U !VI
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVAWATION
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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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....
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:
-z.-
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:
L-
.
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:
t.-
COMMENTS:
- 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:
~
/.')
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
10,S
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
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:
-z..-.
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:
r
f-(J
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
r-,
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:
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:
,r
(,)
.
COMMENTS:
- 5 -
/.......
SUBTOTAL:
GY
~
/O,'J
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:
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 -
SUBTOTAL:
.- ~
"j (J
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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome 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
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
10(~
/0" ~ (/1
<j,~
~
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
3ffi
);U;
3Y,;-
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
,,,,"',
f -,
(Z. r.,r, ,
.
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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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
!,",'",""
,
0./
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:
:2..
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment'to an existing station.
.
RATING:
t?L
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:
n
0<..
COMMENTS:
- 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: c2-
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: / I
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
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
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
RATING:
/Xl
R(fI1P11I1~;)
{Iv 110<."7 '3
~
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.
RATING: .,1
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
r
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the prov1s10n 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 densi~y of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: ---3
.
COMMENTS:
- 5 -
,'..C.,
SUBTOTAL:
;if
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 -- proj ect 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:
.3
COMMENTS:
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- 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 -
SUBTOTAL:
b
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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome 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: 10
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
r'-"
""...",
.
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:
/0
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
.:<.
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
/I
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
;7'
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
~
Jf)
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
,;C
TOTAL POINTS:
~ 5:
'___ c--,~==A'--~~-~ ~ ~.//._ . < -'
, ..
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
[) ^' ; II
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:
o -- project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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:
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.
I
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:
Z-
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:
J.
COMMENTS:
- 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.
2-
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
II
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
RATING:
z
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
fI"--'-
/-.,,-"
""'~,;
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:
3
C~NTS:
CNt'JA/l1d:t/t
A- ~&11 Cl77IfttJ /:f {;(/Ct,L-
/
- 4 -
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the provision
ways and the provisions of links
systems, whenever feasible.
of pedestrian and bicycle
to existing parks and trail
RATING:
3
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:
- 5 -
SUBTOTAL:
I~
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:
~3
COMMENTS:
b.
Community commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- 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: .5
COMMENTS:
- 6 -
."
SUBTOTAL:
fa
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.l0 of
the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (l) point for
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome 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:
B
COMMENTS:
)
/
&nn Ut:{ 7V sa' ~/~t tbJiAl{---- dN SI?C' .
- 7 -
f"'"
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[lO] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [l] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
I ,
IZr
to
B
l. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
~
3L
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
. .
I'" ~,<
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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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:
1-
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.
1.
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:
0-
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
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of
proposed development and considering the design of
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of
surface, convenience and safety.
off-
the
said
paved
RATING:
0-
COMMENTS:
- 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.
/. -S
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
-
/0. ~
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
~
2 Indicates an acceptable tbut standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of th~ proposed building
location) with existing
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.
RATING:
,/
g,~
COMMENTS:
- 4 -
"'---""
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the prov1s1on 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:
J.
~
...;---.., 'L
COMMENTS: ~ "-,,
~ rDL. r-\ lc.cA
\).f' ~(' ~~ I
'o~"\ ~
\
~"':> ~
\ C'fVJ.. s c <=--f'~ ~
'\.
c:r~lA. ~---* -\~~
S~J-,- ~I
,
- 5 -
,r"
SUBTOTAL:
'Ot~
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:
ry-
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 -
,"'"
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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the
restricted to low income price
occupancy limitations;
total
guide-
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle 1ncome 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 -
""
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
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
10.5
,/-
lo.~
5
<6
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: 31.8
~. (~ "- -
Name of P&Z Commission Member: _________ ~~~
1
3~
- 8 -
-
\vi. l \ VII]
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:
o -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- 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.
COMMENTS:
~LJ~
,
RATING:
i ~ -S?~
2.
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.
I
RATING:
.#',
COMMENTS:
NO
J#/ f~
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:
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
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of
proposed development and considering the design of
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of
surface, convenience and safety.
off-
the
said
paved
COMMENTS:
RATING:
~ .S"
- 2 -
~ /; /'h.Jt
J",v~ t )
C~t. I' '. </'''''';' "-I'
,JDry >0 I."
"'~
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:
d-
COMMENTS:
2.
Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15]
5O~TAL@
points) .
The Commission
the site design
development by
formula:
shall consider each application with respect to
and amenities of each project and shall rate each
assigning points according to the following
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the compatibility
(in terms of size, height and
neighboring developments.
of the proposed building
location) with existing
COMMENTS:
-r /nfJl1~ ffZ!t1
RATING: c2.-5
Cf'l?rvNrd /J :{q
- 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 privycy.
RATING: c9.,~
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:
3
COMMENTS:
AJtJ
W{)()~ tftt/P/ /f/~
j?//-{ p~
,.
- 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:
~
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:
c:Q
.
COMMENTS:
- 5 -
@
~~)
SUBTOTAL:~
Proximity to Support services (maximum [6] points).
".'......
.-"
3 .
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:
d~
COMMENTS:
5 IS /I
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 -
, ,
, ,
.
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
development that is
lines and low income
each five (5) percent of the total
restricted to low income price guide-
occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
development that is restricted to moderate income
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
total
price
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:
- 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:
8
3
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
/'
II.)
Iv
--S.S-
~
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8
1-/0?dh-
3
q{)
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
/J1u4
- 8 -
~
, ,
,
" .'
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 I
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 I 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
"
~
..
,It",
........l.--..
""",,'
,..".~
;'
J
.....'.
"
,',
~
IN TliE DISTK~CT CUURT IN AND FOR
~
"-:P
THE COU~ITY OF PITKIN AND
STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 3912
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ROGER D. MAHNKE, the Building Inspector )
of the City 0f Aspen, THE BOIUtO OF )
ADJUSTMENr OF THE CITY OF ASPEN; IRWIN )
HARLAND, STEEN GANTZEL, FRANCIS )
WHITAKER. DONALD SWALES, HEATHER )
THARP, th~ merr~crs thereof; THE PLA~~ING )
AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF )
ASPEN and ROBERT BARNARD, JOEL T. )
HARTMEIS'rER. YVAN TACHE. GEORGE )
liENNEGHAN. FRANCIS mUTAKER, WILLIAI1 )
E. THARP, JOHN G. BENNI!I;HOFF. the )
members thereof, )
)
)
JOliN }'. COUGHENOUR, JR., and
JAMES W. STALDER,
Plaintiffs,
-V8-
Defendants.
..~
-?~
FINDINGS. JUDGMENT
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs. brought this action to compel the 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 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Coum1ssion and that the
building inspector acted arbit~arily and capriciously in the
~
,.
," ".
", ,~
exercise of his discretion. and that he has abused his discretion
in the performance of the duties of his office. There was a further
allegation that the defendants in the exercise of thair official
functions have exceeded their jurisdiction and have abused their
discretion in refusing to issue a permit. and that by reason of
said acts or omiBsions on the part of the defendants the plaintiffs
have 110 pLdn. speedy and adequate remedy at law.
The defendants in their. an~wer deny these allegations and as
an affirmative defense state that the building i.nspector denied
the permit, that the City of Aspen has adopted a major street plan.
and that ~he reason the building inspector denied the permit is
that the street .alleged to give HCCf'S8 to th~ bllilding lot is not
open or accepted and does not hnva the legal status of a public
street and do{~s not correspond ",ith Ilny 8treet shown on the official
master plan or with a street or subdivision plat approved by the
Planning Commission or with a street on a map platted by and adopted
by the co~~ission or with a street adopted by the council after
submission to the Planning Commission.
The tri.d was had ,to the Court, and the Court being now well
,
informed finds the facts to be as follows:
1. That the plaintiff Coughenour is the owner of the land
described in the complaint.
2. That there is 11 road extending from Ute Avenue in
Aspen, Colorado, to the propert.y owned by the plaintiff Coughenour
and that the road extends through and beyond said property. That
the lower part of this road hall been declared by this Court to be
a public highway, that said road has h.:en used by the public for
more Cnan thirty ye.elIs for hauling ora and fa): motor vehicle travel
2'
~ -
-- -----~---,---
!
1
~"
"
.",",
to the top of Aspen Mountain. No one has protested the use of said
road except a man who owned adjoining property where said road
leaves Ut~ Avenue. and this "-eRulted in this Court 'adjudging that
the road through the land of a man named Billing8 is a public
highway. That the road has an approximate width of 22 feet and
a maximl~ grade of 130. That the plaintiff Coughenour proposed
to hent ",lid rQaQ in the w:l.nter time to melt off snow and ice.
That said road serves other property besides the property involved
in thiu action.
3. That the plaintiffs made application for a building
permit to build a 19-un1t cOlldOln~,n:l."'-m on the described land and
filed this applica!:ion for peX"mit with the builcling inspector.
4. That th~ plaintiffs had Beveral conversations with the
building insp<'~tor. at tolhich time a~cess and utilities t.ere discussed.
That preli.m1.nary plans were shown to the building inspector. that
the building inspector had no objection to the proposed construction.
but on the contrary stated that the city would favor such location
as it was 10cated out of the core area. That working plans were
shown to the building inspector. and there were no objections. That
at this f'-nt meeting berore the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
the commis~i0n pas3~d a m~otion not to review the plana. This motion
carried. and the plans were returned to the building inapector.
That a hearing waa then held before the City of Aspen Board of
Adjustment on June 21. 1968. in which all questions concerning the
propoalild building permit and the llse of the proplilrty were gone into
and no defInite aclion was taken at that time as the board decided
to awail: the receipt of a legal opinion. On June 28. 1968. the
board having received a legal opinion. the Board of Adjustment
-3-
i
,
f
.
,
J
.
.
i
l
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 frOlD Ute Avenue acroas the face of Aspen Mountain. but
, "
does indicate there i8 somewhere across the face of the mountain
a horseback trail that goes across the face of the mountain and
then back down ,to,the_Clty of Aspen. But no road is 4iJhown going
across the face of Aspen Mountain and to the top of said mountain.
although such road has existed for over thirty years. Pages S and
6 show a general plan of the Aspen area and again no road or highway
18 shown across Aspen Mountain. PagQ 22 shows a map of the circu-
lation 1n the Aspen area. and again no road is shown across Aspen
Mountain. but there is a horsebeck trail as shown on page 4 of
thi. report. Whether this road was left off the map by d..iIR.
igRorance or accident is not known to this Court. The clrcu1at1on
I
---------.,~--_...., .._- ---- ":j
J
-4-
~
<',., ...~ .... ,. ,.., -- .,. . --...,.,:.- ,.--','.
,."
/' ....
1
,
.
......
,",,'0 '
plan of the Aspen Area General 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 4S South Annexation. This territory includes the land.
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 Plaintiffs' Exhibit B-16. On this map the City Engineer
di,d make a drawing of a road which is the road in question here,
showing its extension from the edge of Lot IS 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 vas unable to explain why it had necessarily followed that a
-5-
~
j
l
,
1
j
.'.---, ----~~'------~-----
.'11'
.
!
,
~'
,''''-
-'
;".
~",'"
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 tbe
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 road 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 hereln, and that
the particular road in question in this suit i. an extension of
that road or highway heretofore declared by this Court to be a
public highway.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The City Building Inspector stated that hi. .ole 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 wheo a planniol
commission shall have adopted a major street plan of the territory
-6-
-- _.~--~--------_. >-_..
"
..
Il
a -
~~
\ ~
~
"
~
1
:.
,
I
.
i
t
~
.
/' y--,
/' ''\...' '\
"""'~'"
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 1s 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 tbat time.
This particular parcel of land and the road was not within
the corporate l1mits of the muniCipality when the major street
plan of the territory was adopted, and the plan was not appcoved
by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado.
So far as the Court i8 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 A.pen
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 offic1al. If the view 1s 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 with1n 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 thiscparticular
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 the 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-
Ii
J
-,-....... _..
r
"
'.
139-59-18.
I I
, I
,
r'~ I
I
)
2. Tbe Building Inspector of tbe City of Aspen was in
error in relying upon the provisions of said Section 139-59-18.
but bis error might be excused because of the fact that a legal
determination of tbe 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 fact that although the statute uses the term
"public street." that under the definition of terms in 139-59-1
of tbe Colorado Revised Statutes of 1963, the term "streets"
includes roads and other ways of travel. It cannot be said that
the determination that thia ia 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 tbe application for a
building permit, as the legal status of this 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 status
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 8S 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 zoning
codes of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
IT IS. ntEREFORE, 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 a8 applied
for.
-8-
- '-"--~-"'--'--"-' -----
',,-
--". '.' .~'" ",",,- '.
.
.
I
,r..,'.
,
.
!
i
I
I
Done in Open Court thia /41- da.y of
{f7e/ I 1968.
1
~.
" "W FULGllUill
v.J.\R\..l', ~
Judge
-9-
-- ,- '- "-'---..---
(
c
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 d1str1ct 1n order to b~ able to bU1ld a res1dent1al
project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit-
ted in the L-2.
For further information, contact the Aspen/pitkin
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
ext. 223.
Planning
925-2020,
sIC. 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
"
iI"'.::~"" ,. _I".~(-~ 0,' ~:.'~,
/?'f:~~U~ P~~lihL~j >..- ~~.~
',-' ~ >, ~
L'~~,~",~L
-,~
'~\Z""')):I !;'9',<0 \ rn'
" ,) ;
I. " ~ 'yr.""," i if \')
FOFlWARD O~DiR ;~jR~-./\\\I\~
R,-=:a:: Proper~J_es, Ltd.
Matternorn Properties. Ltd.
Bear Prop2Yties LTd. .
72~1-K Garden Greve Blv~.
!," \ \
,JM\'-~
GaY'(jen Gr0V:::-. C;..
x':> i::,.i
..
11,\" ,,\.I, II"II!!, II!!" ,11,1
(
c
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, 19'88 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 b~'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
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
ext. 223.
Planning
925-2020,
sIC. 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
~,'
.f
,'~;CJ,\' "'\;','"
~' ,....,
'~ "'t <;-, ,,'Ii'fR',\,'
't ' JI";~ "'"~;l''lf''' . ";'C
.~'7.. "l~ fj iuh u~Qu t..iL,,'';.;.JAI
j,'Gal~a
]~@, CO 8'1511
i
~
,
,:
12 ().
Nor:,
.IAN \ I
(
(
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 rezoningv-om the L-1 zone district to
L-2 zone district in order to bs,.'ab1e to build a residential
project which is prohibited in the L-l zone district and permit-
ted in the L-2.
For further
Office, 130
ext. 223.
information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin
S. Galena Street" Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
Planning
925-2020,
sIC. 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
. _ .:"~2r~ P~artnl!ig a!fj~~
r :.c\'j 1 '~1f'1
l!,.~t,:,,~'j~~~,
f'J'> tT:,,".-4~
,,~}tj C:'~J~t
I<RA 9;! 2COC>cJf"i::l
I{I~ANS
o l/06/ElB
RETlJf~N TO SEN[)EF~
I,:OX CLeJ!3ED
Gera.ld S. & Annet~ C', ~l'~ns
Box _L59,:;;
;:\snen 1_'0 ;::,1612
JAN "7 ,-
"
't' '... ~ -
L..'"_-___.~_--.-- ..."
(
(
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 b~'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
Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
ext. 223.
Planning
925-2020,
sIC. 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
-
-
C:,~i~';~,';' . "r;':-:;3 :Ei-r:
,.,.{~ "7l,~,,-..f,""
t,-., LC";'it
/
A'O-flJ. ~,_",.,>.
~ [5'<\
r.f'a (:"'i ,,' \
A'1'''Yc;, ~~;;O'/"'i'"
-"Q 0 " ,
~ ~" <<','/'
.>~<J~~ ~@ /
.J"sE'nh 'T'. \!erdeS~
1/50 !>1:1 ~esLv
Dal AS. Tpxas 78247
j1\l-I \ 9
~~,.',...... """)
11,,,11,,\,,,1,\,1,,11,,,1,,1,11
('
(
.... I 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~om the L-1 zone district to
L-2 zone district in order to b~"ab1e 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
Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
ext. 223.
Planning
925-2020,
siC. 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
" F.,t~:o. , '>r" ""'-'::'_'1
r>._ _ ..;.H~~~.~J w~~J.~Q
;"" 0;-"r:,~~',1
.. ',"' ';':'.'",',,,3
(..;--!, :'":.-.-I,..../l~
, ""J~~ v~'J~ ~
..' l/OH/H\3
,,~'" \,\1 0
"""C,' 1.\3 ,3~~{lI:U'\ '3'30\30)(' _\..~\\)fJ':'., f'
I""" .. l\3 .. .. ~.o b .~\~ O~I 1"1......-
C\:..'< 11':.'\,\ I cC' \~
.... \:.:.f.'.i\>I' Of.:,O',.I: "'rAAI'.:.\)
". 1'.:.01,\,\G. 0 rOI'-
co"'W'i \"'1'.: i.
\,\0 ," ll\'\A .;.,..''-
NO
r~lre.e p~,"~~":,~~.rs"":;l ....."
JAN i 4
rEl"""LE
liS i' )RESSED~.
PHi ;'{ TO SENDER
\\...I!..I,!..,\.I.I.\,,\..!.\,I
(
(
JAN I 5
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 771 UTE AVENUE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wil1 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. Ga1ena st., Aspen CO to
consider an application to build a nine (9) unit mu1ti-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 residentia1 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 b~'ab1e 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
Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
ext. 223.
Planning
925-2020,
sIC. We1ton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion
=============================================================
""
Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
ph12.29.2
Aspen/PUllIn Planning ottice
130 S. Galena
A.spen, CO 81611
'-15
,,'- ~-,-....-...~,-'"'--'"
- ---- '
~:,l)1_2
t-!}~ S)J'
COl. 1.2
1.711\3"t9N1 111/1l\3/88
Ronalg
NO
RETURN TO SENDER., "
For'WARDING ORDER ON f. .ru,
... LlNAEILE TO FORWARD
'-""',
~
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
/
I, hereby certity that on this ~ day of {}t2t/~
198f :' a true and correct copy of the attached tice 0 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 adj acent property owners which was suppl ied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named'on the public notice. ~-
~Jct{ ('ad ~
Nancy Caeti
.
C'
(
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 d1str1ct 1n order to b~ able to bU1ld a res1dent1al
project which is prohibited in the L-1 zone district and permit-
ted in the L-2.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin
Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)
ext. 223.
Planning
925-2020,
sIC. 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 nTLE, Inc.
TItle Ineuranee Company
801 e, Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.1766
DATE: NOVEMBER 25. 1987
. 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 Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADDRESS
KENT W. SHODEEN
13 SOUTH 7th STREET
GENEVA, ILL. 60134
,I
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SUBJECT PARCEL
DARCI LYNN CHANDLER
P.O. BOX 2605
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
UNIT 9, AJAX CONDO
MACO STEWART ,
C/O WOOD BRANCH OFFICE'PARK
11931 WICKCHESTER LANE
SUITE 302
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77043
UNITS 4,5,6, AJAX CONDO
AND UNITS 2, II, ASPEN ALPS WEST COND(
FRANKLIN FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF WILKES-
BARRE, C/O CSB MORTGAGE CORP.
P.O. BOX 16570
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 29236
UNIT I, AJAX CONDO
AJAX UNIT #2 PARTNERSHIP
513 SOUTH BROADHEAD ROAD
ALIQUIPPA, PENNSYLVANNIA 15001
UNIT 2, AJAX CONDO
EEYORE FIVE PARTNERSHIP
C/O HUNTER MARCH
1218 DOONESBURY DRIVE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758
UNIT 7, AJAX CONDO
EEYOREE THREE PARTNERSHIP
C/O HUNTER MARCH
1218 DOONESBURY DRIVE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758
UNIT 8, AJAX CONDO
MARGARET R. SPENCER
1011 NASHVILLE AVENUE
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70115
UNIT 3, AJAX CONDO
,',
,.<.,...."
"'-'
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Tille In.llrMoll CClrllpany
601 E, Hopkins
Aspen. Colorado 81611
(303) 925.1766
NAm:s AND ADDRESS
AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
(NO ADDRESS GIVEN )
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMON AREA
HOWARD ABRAHAM
1340 ASTOR STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610
UNIT B, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO
BLACK SWAN HALL ASSOCIATES
C/O T.F. STONE COMPANIES, INC.
STE. 500 LIBERTY PLAZA '!
5055 KELLER SPRINGS
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248
UNIT D, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO
, ,
,
. : i
"I,'
'I "
., ,
EUGENE GOLUB
625 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE
CHICAGO~ ILLINOIS 60611
, ,
UNIT A,BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO
BERNARD SACKS
2424 S. WABASH AVENUE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60616
UNIT C, BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO
, i
I '
BLACK SWAN HALL CONDO ASSOCIATION
(NO ADDRESS GIVEN)
COMMON AREA
GUILLERMO OSUNA
DORIS OSUNA
234 PARK AVENUE
DEL RIO, TEXAS 78840
UNIT 15, ASPEN ALPS WEST
SHIRLEY H. TAYLOR
W-LAZY T RANCH
BUSBY, MONTANA 590\6
UNIT 16, ASPEN ALPS WEST
JOSEPH T. VERDESCA
\250 MAJESTY
DALLAS, TEXAS 78247
UNIT 4, ASPEN ALPS WEST
REAL PROPERTIES, LTD
MATTERHORN PROPERTIES, LTD.
BEAR PROPERTIES, LTD.
725\-K GARDEN GROVE BLVD.
GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 9264\
UNIT I, ASPEN ALPS WEST
LILIA F. HEMPHILL
APARTADO POSTAL :fI-9
GUADALAJARA JALISGO,
"
"
UNIT 8, ASPEN ALPS WEST
MEXICO 450~0
f'",\
""""'-
"--
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
TIUalnluranco Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.1766
NMIES AND ADDRESS
JAIME PARIS
NO. 3615
2021 SANTA MONICA BLVD.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
UNIT 5, ASPEN ALPS WEST
90406
,
ROBERT E. FOWLER
4837 PRICLEY PEAR LANE
SCOTTSDALE ARIZONA 85253
UNIT 7, ASPEN ALPS WEST
..i
ALVIN DWORMAN
645 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10022
UNIT 14, ASPEN ALPS WEST
BASLO, A CO-PARTNERSHIP
C/O MR. W.D. EBERLE
C/O TERTIARY
53 MOUNT VERNON STREET: ,
BASTON, MASSACHUSETTS b2108
!
UNIT 10, ASPEN ALPS WEST
RONYRA REALTY N.V.
C/O ASPEN ALPS
P.O. BOX 1228
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
UNIT 6, ASPEN ALPS WEST
DELIASON, INC.
C/O FRED S. THOMSON
P.O. BOX 190
COLTON, CALIFORNIA 92324
UNIT 9, ASPEN ALPS WEST
MARJORIE S. RHODES
1401 AVOVADO AVENUE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
UNIT 13, ASPEN ALPS WEST
,
CONSTANCE HARVEY , I
C/O ROBERT WOLF, ESQ.
C/O JOSEPH KATZ
200 PARK AVENUE
'NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10166
UNIT 12, AS~EN ALPS WEST
THREDE S. EDISON
P.O. BOX 456
NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA 6910.1
ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
P.O.BOX 1228
ASPEN, COLORADO, 8 1.,6 1 i :
UNIT 17, ASPEN ALPS WEST
COMMON AREA
I I
: i
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
i
,I
GLORY HOLE PARK
"
'........,..
"
" #
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
T1t1.It\,urone~ Company
601 e, Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 61611
(303) 925-1766
NMIES AND ADDRESS
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
JAMES S. DU BOSE
P.O. BOX 2990
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76113
UNIT 4, CLARENDON CONDO
DEAN L. GREENBERG'
P.O. BOX 129
NEWPORT, MINNESOTA 55055
i,
i
I
i;
I.
I,
UNIT 8, CLARENDON CONDO
i
, UIlIT 6, CLARENDON CONDO
,
'"'I,.
" , ...i
U1'lIT 15, CLARENDON CONDO
LEE GLADSTONE
GERTRUDE F. GLADSTONE
1212 LAKE SHORE DRIVE 23 A.S.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610
EDGAR STANTON JR.
ROSAMOND B. STANTON
2320 CAMINO LUSTRE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85718
RICHARD F. KAUFMAN
SYLVIA C. KAUFMAN
740 LAKE DRIVE
NORTH MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN 49445
UNIT 5, CLARENDON CONDO
i:
DONALD E. KOLMER
1614 WEST LAFAYETTE
JACKSONVILLE, ILLINOIS 60160
UNIT 3, CLARENDON CONDO
LOWELL MEYER
ELEANOR MEYER
1010 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
UNIT II, CLARENDON CONDO
, ,
JAMES A. SHIRK
LINDA S. SHIRK
C/O BEER NUTS, INC.
103 NORTH ROBINSON STREET
P.O. BOX 1327
BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS 61700
'UNIT 10, CLARENDON CONDO
EARL M. LATTERMAN
MARILYN S. LATTERMAN
1230 SQUIRREL HILL AVENUE
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANNIA '15217
UNIT 12, CLARENDON CONDO
ROBERT N. NOYCE
ANN S. BOWERS
690 LOYOLA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022
UNIT I, CLARE,NDON CONDO
.
/''',
.....,
1',.,,,,,\
'-.,""
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. Inc.
Till, In.uronco Company
601 E, Hopkins
Aspen. Colorado 81611
(303) 925.1766
NMlf:S AND ADDRESS
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SAMUEL LEHRMAN
C/O KAUFMAN, EISENBERG & CO., INC.
1201 ALTA LOMA ROAD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90069
UNIT 9, CLARENDON CONDO
C. L. EQUITIES, INC.
1833 KALAKAUA, SUITE 500
HONOLULU, HAWAII 968151
CLARENCE A. HERBST JR. '
C/O NANCY UNGER
1439 GILPIN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80218
,UNIT 13, CLARENDON CONDO
UNIT 2, CLARENDON CONDO
LARRY FUTERFAS
3705 PRINCETON
DALLAS, TEXAS 75225
UNITI4, CLARENDON CONDO
BRIAN WILSON
1938 COLDWATER CANYON
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
UNIT 7, CLARENDON CONDO
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O JOANNE
ASPEN REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES
709 E. DURANT STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COMMON AREA
BROXTON MOODY, III
P .0. BOX 1 3 I I
CROWLEY. LOUISIANA 70526
and
WILLIAM I. TROTTER, II
SUITE 212
2601 HALLEN STREET
METAIRIE, LOUISIANA 70002
i
UNIT 806,- ASPEN ALPS NORTH
ALBERT H. SMALL
SHIRLEY S. SMALL :
SUITE 444, WASHINGTON SQUARE
1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. ',20036
HELEN ROGAL LANDE"
147 DUNBAR ROAD
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480
UNIT 808, ASPEN ALPS NORTH
UNIT 804, ASPEN ALPS NORTH
",
ARTHUR ROCK
1635 RUSS BLDG.
SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
UNIT 809, CLARENDON CONDO
.
i'
,.,
......
..-"',,",
,,.,
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Tltla In.uranco Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen. Colorado 81811
(303) 925-1788
NAMES AND ADDRESS
EDWARD M. O'HERRON JR.
6525 MORRISON BLVD.
SUITE 500
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINE 2821 I
HENRY P. MC INTOSH, IV
C/O MC INTOSH ENTERPRISES
P.O. BOX 308
LAQUAN SECA RANCH
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
"
,I
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. RaIN
1225 WESTMOOR ROAD
WINNETKA, ILLINOIS 60093
MARJORIE FISCHMAN SHUSHAN
APARTMENT 701, ASPEN ALPS SQ.
ASPEN, COLORADO 8i611
JOHN F. RIDDELL JR.
JOHN M.P. THATCHER;
P.O. BOX 231
SEA ISLAND, GEORGIA
JR.
,
31561
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
UNIT 803, ASPEN ALPS NORTH
UNIT 802, ASPEN ALPS NORTH
,
, " . ,
'.
UNIT 807. ~SPEN ALPS NORTH
UNIT 805; ASPEN ALPS NORTH
I
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 70 J, BLOG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO,
UNIT 708, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO.
,
-.
""
.......
'0"'"
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. Inc.
TItle Inlurnnco Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 61611
(303) 925.1766
NMI~;S AND ADDRESS
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEON C. HIRSCH
TURI L. H. HIRSCH
150 GLOVER DRIVE
NORWALK, CONNECTICUT 06850
UNIT 700, BLDG 700, ASPEN ALPS SO.
JOSEPH C. HARRIS
NANCY M. HARRIS
386 SOUTH MISSISSIPPI RIVER RD.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
UNIT 707, BLDG 700 ASPEN ALPS SO.
JAMES M. TROOTTER, III
5414 BEL AIR DRIVE
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70124
UNIT 702, 706, BLDG 700, ASPEN ALPS SO.
H.A. BORNEFELD, JR.
5237 CEDAR CREEK DRIVE
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056
1
UNIT SPACE A, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO.
JOHN H. FIGI, JR.
M & I, MARSHALL & ISLEY BANK
CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FIGI TRUST
901 SOUTH ADAMS AVENUE
MARSHFIELD, WISCONSIN 54449
UNIT 705, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO.
HERBERT M. GELFAND
9171 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 610
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
UNIT 704, BLDG. 700, ASPEN ALPS SO. i I
BERTELINE BAIER DALE
APT I 7T
5555 COLLINS AVENUE
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33140
UNIT 8, ASPEN ALPS
DON M. SIMECHECK
741 WEST CREEKSIDE DRIVE
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024
UNIT 11; ASPEN ALPS
SAMUEL C. SILVERSTEIN
JO ANN SILVERSTEIN
325 EAST 79th STREET NO. 6B
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10021
UNIT 4, ASPEN ALPS
MAX J. PINCUS
1780 HAMMOND COURT
BLOOMFILED HILLS, MICHIGAN 48013
UNIT 7, ASPJj;N ALPS
UNIT I, ASPEN ALPS
i '..
.1
C.C. CHANG
ILING S. CHANG
C/O CHRIS SIEH
2775 GLENDOWER AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90027
r'"
...........
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
T111.lnluranco ComllMy
. 601 E, Hopkins
Aspen, Coloredo 81611
(303) 925-1766
~
NANES ANO ADDRESS
BARBARA MORRIS
924 FRANKLIN AVENUE
RIVER FOREST, ILLINOIS 60305
ROBERT W. PAULIN
MARY T. PAULIN
4930 EAST OAKMONT DRIVE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85718
, LOUIS MARCUS
601 OLD CROSSINGS DRIVE
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21208
DOWNHILL ASSOCIATES
C/O JOHN A. ELMORE, II
P.O. BOX 1328
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402
.
KENT W. SHODEEN
13 SOUTH 7th STREET
GENEVA, ILLINOIS 60134
DR. R. VERNON COLPITTS,
SUITE 480
7515 SOUTH MAIN
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77030
\'1.0. '
,
ALEXANDER B. SLATER
P.O. BOX 491
LOCUST VALLEY
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11560
LANE N. MELTZER
316 SOUTH RAMPART STREET
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112
DAVID FAIN
RUTH FAIN
C/O ASPEN ALPS
P.O. BOX 1228
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
A & L RANCH
TWO THOUSAND CHESSMAN
2000 EAST 12th AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
RESORT HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WOODS TONE ASSOCIATES
709 EAST DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 816,11
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
UNIT 2, ASPEN ALPS
UNIT 5, ASPEN ALPS
"
,
I',
,
UNIT I~, 'ASPEN ALPS
UNIT 3, ASPEN ALPS
UNIT 9, ASPEN ALPS
U~IT IS, ASPEN ALPS
UNIT 12, ASPEN ALPS
, UNIT 6, ASPEN ALPS
UNIT 10, ASPEN ALPS
UNIT 14, ASPEN ALPS
LOTS A, K, Li M, N, 0, P, Q,
NO. 50 feet. LOTS RAND S, BLOCK 107
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
,;",;
...."
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
TIII.ln.uroI1CII Company
601 E, Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.1768
NMIES AND ADDRESS
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SO. 50 ft. LOTS R & S
BLOCK 107, CITY AND TOWNSITE
ASPEN
LEVANT AMERICA, S.A.
DERBYSAVINGS BANK
C/O COLONIAL NAVIGATION CO., INC.
17 BATTERY PLACE
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10004 i
K. BRENT WALDRON
CONSTANCE K. WALDRON
720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CONDO UNIT E, GLORY HOLE
GERALD S. KRANS
ANNETTE C. KRANS
P.O. BOX 1592
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
CONDO UNIT 'B, GLORY HOLE
RONALD C. COLLEN
5512 LAKE DRIVE
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532
,CONDO VNIT D, GLORY HOLE
, 'I
I
CARL C. LUHNOW
15080 BOONES WAY
LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034
CONDO UNIT F, GLORY HOLE
LESTER A. LUHNOW
15080 BOONES WAY
LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034
CONDO UNIT G, GLORY HOLE
WILLIAM C. HERSHMAN
11140 DEERFIELD ROAD
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45242
CONDO UNIT C, GLORY HOLE
PHILIP OLIVA
11035 WEST 26th PLACE
LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215
, CONDO UNIT A, GLORY HOLE
GLORY HOLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
(NO ADDRESS GIVEN)
COMMON AREA
ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 1248
ASPEN, COLORADO 816)2
BLOCK 102, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
METES AND BOUNDS, AND SKI AREA
,
, ,
GEORGE P. MITCHELL
CYNTHIA W. MITCHELL'
SUITE 260
2002 TIMBERLOCH PLACE
I
THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380
METES AND 'BOUNDS
'"
'""."
-
,,~ .<
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Till. In.uranco Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1766 .
NAHES AND ADDRESS
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
METES AND BOUNDS
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
II
METES AND BOUNDS '
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
FOREST SERVICE
806 W. HALLAM STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I
OF AGRICULTURE
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST LANDS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
50629 HIWAY 6 & 24
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
BLM LAND BORDERING U.S. FOREST LANDS
MARY ANN HYDE
P.O, BOX 1557
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
METES AND BOUNDS
UTE CHALET, INC.
P.O. BOX 1284
ASPEN, COLOP~DO 81612
LOT II, UTE ADDITION
DEANE BILLINGS
#3, 831 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LOT 14, LOT 15A, UTE ADDITION
.'\
.'"
I"~,
-'
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Tille Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1766
EXIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 17, 16, 15B, UTE ADDITION. AND
GOVT. LOT 41, S 17, T 10 S, R 84 W.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
,.....
'-'"
,
~
-,
--
December 7, 1987
Sunny Vann
P. O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: 77l 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 2l 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.
",.'.......
f''"'
'~,
-
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2020
Date:
.c:::;-O/\,,,,,,,,,, Vo..,^,,,,,,
~o'" 'is'\,~$'
~I""'" Co
RE:
<;2slb \").
"1 ')" \f k A oJC ""%v...l,.~
Dear
Sv..Y\"\,",\
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined
that your appl ication IS H6'F compl ete, (!,~ ~ ,4,...-1. ,_"'o"'_~~ '.. "'"""\.......,W.
Addi tional i terns required include:
/
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adj acent property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one co py)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (Il.LLud,,::d/below) demonstrating
compl iance wi th the applicable policies and regula tions of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of $
A. Your applicatiop is, compl:~te and we have scheduled it for
review by the e'.~-, Vo__ ,.,h._ on -r~-"'l \, . We will
call yo u if we need any addi tio nal info rma tion prior to tha t
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
the planner assigned to your case.
s~ (2"",-IU,~,:",
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
\. ,\0""' ---,l.; ~\S ~ ~"U>M~ LJ.~" \1'- ~"'~\., ~ ~ 4..'t."vJ\.. '
........_ \.._\ -+..i..-'1., \NL '-...~~.~ ......~...- ~'-"-\ Ll.,-/t ~.\\ ~ ~t~.
~. ~ ,c;. "'-<-\~M. Q- ....\..,..\ ~ ,,\0'" :"'"\......"l ....-....~,"'\,.~ ~,.<-~f+--~. *" ~'-\l
"'" ...\..~\.. ...\u..... ......... ~,,\... \.. ,.\f.....~. ~ ......... ~'-.....a..,~'1 A~ M~.','> ~.....,..
'""
-
-
-
-
-
-
771 UTE AVENUE
TOWNHOMES
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
11M
ASPEN, COLORADO
...
11M
"'"
ill
"'"
..
"'"
i.
...
i.
l"'
i.
~
~
C
E
RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION
DECEMBER 1, 1987
{,Iecofy
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
December I, 1987
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Shodeen Property
Application
Residential
Growth Management
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
or if we can be of any further
hesitate to call. On behalf
project team, thank you for
preparation of our application.
regarding our application,
assistance, please do not
of Vann Associates and the
your assistance in the
.....
ASSOCIATES,
Very
SV:jlr
...
-
...
POBox 8485 . Aspen Colorado 8 < 612 . 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
-
..
-
-
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.
II.
III.
-
....
-
-
-
....
H.
J.
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.
Water System
B.
Sewage System
c.
Drainage System
D.
Fire Protection
E.
Development Data
F.
Traffic and Parking
G.
Location
Impact on Adjacent Uses
1.
construction Schedule
Employee Housing Proposal
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
A. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
l. Water Supply
2. Sewage Disposal
3. Storm Drainage
4. Fire Protection
5. Parking
6. Roads
i
1
4
4
5
5
6
7
9
12
13
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
18
section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
"~
IV.
-
-
-
-
-
B.
Quality of Design
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Site Design
Energy Conservation
Trails
Green Space
C.
Proximity to Support Services
1.
2.
Public Transportation
Community Commercial Facilities
D.
provision of Employee Housing
E.
Bonus Points
ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A.
Rezoning
B.
Subdivision
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Property Survey
Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy
Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent
B.
Exhibit 1, Letter from Aspen
Water Department
ii
18
19
31
35
39
41
42
42
42
43
43
43
44
45
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
~H
-.
-
-
Exhibit 2, Letter from Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation
District
Exhibit 3, Letter from Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department
C. Exhibit 1, Letter from Aspen
Alps Condominiums
Hi
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 I).
-
As shown on Figure I, page 2, the property is zoned
L-I, 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 Applicantts 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
-
-
-
DO
Q
Z
w
Cl
w
-'
<fl
W
w~
zZ
08
N",
"
Z
Ow
-'I-
300
'"
<fl
-'
-'
..
'"
:16<;SSZ6/EOf JNOK:1,Hi {191~ cx:r,,<'f(:l1O) N3dW ~,5E: X08 Od
001l1l010:J
~
LJ
'N3dS1I
SD3JJH.)W'!S3J.V1JOSSV , ~INNro S31II\ttoO
S311\10HNMO.l 3nN3No' 3.ln ~LL
It I?Sl
.~, ~
711N19/liO
>z
"'0
a:_
li!tt
00
~ ......7I1NI9oitJO -._._._0-'_. ".
._._._.~ iSI
\' ' '" '
j , '
I 0
.........
r
.."." j
."'."""'.--15 ....-.-.-.
" (;.
.
~
~
.--[
0,
Z."
J----,.--
!
I
i ' ~
ie' ;;:'1
i : ,I / I
.j . ? ..J ' .
iL './ ./.
i['-'-'-' .lf~~,' :.; ,
(J~ ./ .,,-,~._._,~.~-
'" ,,0.. /
, 'J(JJ'
\ I ~'
.J .-.j" "',,,.. "f-----.
- ._.~ " ~ I < tnl
. f .....
. . l .
" ,w~~u
t......~_._~~--~-~
..J I ''''.:\. "----:.'
'\ ""'1'" --.....' '-0'
(J.. '. .' '\/ ' '. -,' .~.~..-.;..,
>
.
,..
I
o
>
.
...f'
o
>
.
;','
-'~ ' \
-'-lS .'-'-.-'~31NnH _._._.~._._........,
ti31M1H
!
,
i
-.-.j
,
..-...,
i
i
..,-j
.:-r
\ ,
1S
IT
,_.
~
z_._o
Q
w!;;
e:;...
..'"
1S
: ,'"';"~. .
_.~.-'-HO}jI1NOW
.,1;._'
"
-.-'-.-'-.-."'\15
-
-
6i, ~ i
s/l~
r
1
j
i
"""t9dSt"
0..
r.
(' ,~
,
,',
~
"
Q
~
~
i ~
~
.,;-,
"
;'t,'
~~,"'.'"
VN31'<19
(J)
~o
c
.!J
771/'V
i I'
i
i
.\O' _=-,-
. \1 '1 ~ n.-t~ . t--:
. I j ,_7 i
::1 \,::~ I
J)
;.'1'.
1"-.
1''-',''''-';'
. ;.:.;."';.~
~
--;--=1
I ~
~- -~
,~ '
, .,-
': ',\' //
~'~~~~4~-: o.
r ",__', .
,,',"....,1 ,
~--I
:
,- \
,/
-'
.,
"I
10
,\
~..l,iJ~. I
I . ...a.- -~~)
i,~-t
.' '\_.-
.". ....-
.'..~,~~~ (
..:;;;........
'. 0.. .
1:...._.1."
o ._~ ~.~. ~
.
'I
~'
>
.
>
.
~
--;-......~~
Id') E
",1- ,
~ 0 ..iJ
-.-.,
c:-- ~J j-
',*'
. . . ~-
'-'-'
!
II " \
'\
:i ,11'\ I
,ti ,I, \
T' "~,./,.,, '-4
ii, 1,1 1-.".
, J I \ ( '.' '. ' , ,'-
'i , I ,,--J. > .--',1"",' "
\~.-\ ilfi r~ ;,,~.,;i!r
~ .
L\
~;(
~
Z
Z
o
~
Z
o
-
~
o
9
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
staffts 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-
plicantts 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 I). The preliminary plumbing fixture
4
-
-
'~
-
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
-
-
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
propertyts 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
6
-
-
-
-
-
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
",I
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.
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
1.
2.
3.
4.
,~,
Table 1
BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS
Existing Zoning
v J ' ~
, ~")<'
~b J"I';\
L-I
Total Site Area (Sq. Ft.)
-1"
, ,
22,660
'~,170'*'''h4~.Ri5, 380
7,280
h-16 ~
7,qJ
Lots 15B, 16 and 17
Lot 41
Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
20,940
3 - 3
3 - 2
3 - 1
Ft. /Uni t
Ft./Unit'
Ft./Unit
2b1oly
1 fmf',
31/'Lr
'-/ ffojJ,
Units
Units
Units
@ 3,630
@ 2,100
@ 1,250
10,890
6,300
3,750
Bdrm.
Bdrm.
Bdrm.
Sq.
Sq.
Sq.
Maximum Allowable Bedrooms
@ 1 Bdrm./1,000 Sq. Ft. Lot Area
22
18
9
6
3
22,660 n,bb.
'J.3,OH 28,700 'Jnn
,
I Y,7,i 19,680 j, 6&,
p,'J) t) 9,020 f f)1}17
5,665
.~
5. Proposed Project Bedrooms
.,:1'O/'5,J1J \1.'\''''~\'J.
,'i ·
-" l.1\tJ} 51\( t~'{{'l\O.
-~', '4'
Lv I ~ 'A ",\i' L--~'
,
'I "(1",,,\ 11. . Proposed Project Parking Spaces
-~~),''1'
\J;\I:.:::~/\
-'~/'~',-"/, Cly\ N,ote:
- ~., '-\\ '~'"
\1 j. vc 1'" \~ '
- ,~" ,\", ,
,
- ------------------
,..
I"~;
)" \
l,,'L
6.
1- 't
....
7.
......
....
8.
-
9.
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
r cJ Co, i 01
\:>/' -
6,270 J,~71,IJ)I/i
16, 390 '~CC-'1"-j\
[6;62~'!C('''J, }!
\'2q"'j . ,
-,. II!
18
Open Space
- .:; 1 y
j,
Minimum Required Parking
@ I Space/Bdrm.
20
Floor area and open space calculations reflect
proposed regulatory amendments.
8
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-ll.2(a) of the Municipal
Code, the reconstruction of an existing building is exempt
from the Cityts 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
The proposed
project should have n~
,ta y..,t,
I ft, (,. ~ 0
significa~ ~p_ q "iI1,1
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 markete~rimarily
as
second
homes
to seasonal residents, and given the , "IJ il,jl,e
Vv"j \,
to the commercial core, Aspen f.,~ ~"",TI
ci ty' s public transportation routes, 1l'h /.,,)_1"'"
proximity of the project
Mountain
and
the
-
traffic increases on area streets should be minimal. As
-
-
Figure 2, page 10 illustrates, all municipal bus routes
-
9
-
D.> D Ob~55l6!toE3NOHd3131'L918CXJV/K)l(J)I\;3d'i..-~fStX090d
S03.UH.JW/S3J.VlJOSSV , ~INNro 53"JW'toO
OOIt~OlOO
'N3dSlt
liN :1
S311\10HNMOl 3nN3^,o' 31n ~.I.L
~ ~~ W
0-
CJ a: <<!;;( :>
z In::j Ins 0 ....
i5w '" w
0 ~o- l!i'" ~li '" '"
z 500 w:E' w_ :> II:
w al 0. 0.0 al ..
fil '6' ::!i
.... II ~ >
I 0 ....
I 0 U
I 0 I
I
I 0
~
15 7I/N/9it/iO I 7t1N/9IJ:iO
j\
,
iIT " ,
Wg _ --HI
SO ,~ LJ
",0 0
0-
::jO ~!c
<CO _,t-O
1} ...'"
o is )1331::1::> l::I lNnH
00 0000
o
o
o
-$
0" ;,~(,
o 0 .-_ .....,.1
o _~..::
o
\,g.:":':_-', .;.
o IiJtittNOI'I
o
o
o
o
o 1.._
i;p
%
o
o
o
o
=--~'_.: 1,
___J' 0"
,:..., ~ I
''.,,' '""
-----, ,
o
o 'i ,.-
a I'.
o I
o
-~
'"'0
50 '..:.-
o '
150
!zo
~%
1;:0
wO
\/0
wO
-~
~
o
o
o
o
.
'y
-
-
-
-
...
,
'" f-
L.-
oodoo 00
...--
" ", r
,
,
q ,
q
'--
- ~
ti31NnH 1:J31NnH 0
0
i'
I'
~
~ ~, ~
~ ~
,
,
tfN31't9 0
0
,
I.
00
r"
""
-:.r
>
q
15
t.
'"
5 '.
i~~
,.
15
o
I
"
,
~
~""I
w'" ,
0"
A3',V^ 'NlW
o
o
o
o
o
1} -,
o
o . 15
o
0' ',"
,. NO
'I
'~Ii'-
"'\"""":'--
- ~'--. ..,-
>
q
. .)
i
<i
.'C1 ,
- l-'~f~
.. o.f-
, ..
\
~"\
q
-,-1--
~ -;'--
1;'-:
c
-)'1
..:~
f'
i'1
, ! !
,
o '
GO_Q 00 .Qoo!P8~tt 00
! I -'1' - ',,gt\:,,,~ e,
'.. '. - " .' ,
- - ,= " ~:;-..,o
~ \)' ~ I <- "tiit " -- ;_Jcr',- t
1\.', "i("l~~_'o:..'h'~
/\ -
(
....
"
,,';':I-~
>z
i<Q
~
~
CO:
,..
h
,."
>,
z
o
~
...I
::J
U
a:
U
:/
~' "
,:
.-;
'---;..!J!:
z
~
z"
w
,l~'
-ffi~
0..'"
!fl
'.
.>
y;w>
----- " /' .~
_,...--'1"-; ,
,
,
1 '{
--.---.""
,<"~i'\,
l ,l
-- - C>..._
':,
\./
,',
,
"
N..
.'
"""
:_, ,i ; j
v/~--'-:;'''''-''''
,',--
" ., '~." ,
~?
"'-
" -,\
~
,
'i
j,
0,
t:~_~: Q
~iG':
\:_:~ .
".' ,',--
-1 ,-;...-:;:~
~~'-,.~ (
.....,......
'--' '-A' (r"J, -,
. "",' '
.- "', ,',,' "
. , , ' .
~>'~c~...;;1;.:
" 'I' /,
'I I' ,
I".,: 'i'I,' r
1/ !'"
Ii" . 1
1'\---'-- " '
\\:"\ II r>
~
I',
"
"
,J
:1 (7 ii,
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 make
'1'1'",\ /\ ,
JR .lj:i ~l~'~ \\\'
",Il
I
significant improvements to both Ute Avenue and Aspen
\ ii}
Mountain Road.
The portion of Ute Avenue which abuts the
two (2) parallel parking
spaces,
all
of
1"-,,,..11
. tld')--tO
redes1gned to HI ""
./ I,"
________ e 1'11/1 1,1I II .
~ and ,AI, :"'I~,r,
, I""" 'r ,,)...1
which will be t 'ITf ,."~,".tt
I~ -f.rf
f,1.Mjv1-r Aw,
Similarly, the
site's northeastern property line
has been
incorporate curb
and gutter,
a much needed
installed
at
the
Applicantts
expense.
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
sixteen (16) foot 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-I, 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
t..;\..y" """I) ol\u..
jO"!' p~' 1< 7
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
"1,,J!!.J~"ill., ~~ IN')I ",.)
[t.f~,t n, /ltf I1vfn',"'f"....,M"",
jPl1iIT,h'"jllfJ,ti,f'" (~hle
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.
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 (I) 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.
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
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-l, 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
IV.A., Rezoning) and is compatible with surrounding land
((rtO"IVlJ
t:Pnl-rrl'l > t:'~P'
-
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 anticipated 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 Authorityts 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 Applicantts 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 projectts impact
facilities and services is described below.
upon public
-
-
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."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IS
-
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 (IO) 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
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
I.
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
,.
10~
~",.
hlillV,'vJ
JY:ilol,il!
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., I. "Ii,
U"",','
total of eighteen (18) on-site &,,1 f~\t'M
the project will contain a
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
1
two (2) proposed spaces to be provided adj acent to Ute 1s ~ ""Wj h ,
Avenue cannot technically be counted for parking purposes, w~J,.,.JJ plf
f4>1< .
they will nonetheless provide additional safe and con-
venience parking for guest/service vehicles.
The Ap-
-
plicantts 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 s~bwmelted where appropriate to
I~,
-
17
-
-
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
1,IiII
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 paveq
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.
Requested Score:
2 Points
-
B. Quality of Design
-
-
The quality of the project's design is discussed
-
below.
Please note that the Shodeen property is located
-
18
-
-
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
-
ing neighborhood, the first level of
the three
surround-
1',(..1 J\.yv
( 3) story ^ ''''''f )
IDWI';'J f;.;\\
9'rade. The 5 rd."
-
building has
been set
slightly below natural
---------
step up with the site,
which rises
-
unit modules, however,
-
-
approximately six (6) feet from north to south.
-
19
-
-
DO
~ 5J.Q.. !
....ill~ 8
~~ j
c: 0 ~
J:l a. J
o
ObSS-Sl6/.Of 3NOHd31li ll9lEl 00YIl01O) N3dSY >>:Sf)(08 Od
S03JJHJW'/S3LVlXlSSV , id:JINNnJ ~
L
" ~ "
~? ;?...~}
t.-., ';--~.~~'i
<.:t ,>-. ~ -\" c-....;:
"'~~ ~ \? e 'i;l
'.
-
D~ .~i
"'-I
~~
~~
-..'
~-i!
......
"
OllYIl010:l
~p
llilllillI DJ
'N3dSY
S3WOHNM01 3nN3^" 31n ~LL
I
I
J
%]
~ ~
..
,.
.-
AYM3^Il:lO
.
o~
.
Q
.
.
-
.
'"
"
. ,
l;~
. 1 '
i; '"
~ .
"" '
,S I.
i'\ i
'~j
,~ ~ "-
"'''' -:. '
~ ~ -fj ~
::~ l
~ I :'S
o 1 '"
"-I
~
"
,"
,S
,
/
.
.
---t~)
(~~~
.\
"..\
.
Z
<C
..J
a. 0
w
0 W
z
w ...
>
. Ul
w 0
-
0
-
] ':'0
:< ""]
- ~
3 "3
..
- 1<.
~ -
~
- ..
"" ~
l?~~ ~J
- ~ '"
" ~ ..
-.c
- U- "
,., . ..
~ -"
- ~ < cO
)-1 .- ,~
"i 20 t,
.
~ <~
<:s"
-
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 buildingts 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
d
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 abo~e, thus
low visual scale.~ Window
contributing to the project's
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
ral 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
-
0,; D Q6S<;<;lblEOE 3NOHd3131li918CJCMK)lO) N~SY ~mxoa Od 00"1::t010:) 'N3dS'd
SLJiJJH:lIIV/mVlJOSSV , ....'NNIO S3'1lMO S3WOHNMOl 3nN3^" 31n ~LL
~
'0
:.
U:
Ww
h
1
I
I
,
"
~
M
~
.
.
w
Cl
"
a:
"
Cl
Cl
Z
'"
a:
It
.
I
~
~
.
.
-
/
/ //-/ I
/;//.//1
/
/ ///
////
------ ~ /
r=------~
.
"
.
g
.
.~
,---
-
-
-
-
...
-
22
T
II
,.P
nLJ
~
.../
W
>
W
.../ ~
I-
Z
w
::E ·
W
1Il .
c(
lD c
-
0', D 0&55 Sl6lmf: ~NOHo'~llllI918()(J"o'1jQl()) N~SY VfSE xoe Od OOVl::t0100 'N3dS'tf
SDiWH;)w/WVI:K>SSV " iU"lINNItl S3'1lMO S3WOHNMO.L 3nN3^" 3.Ln ~LL
( I
\ \ \
.~ ~
\
:'
, '.
, ,
I.."
-
Ii
Ii
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
~R
lIU.lillW lL.:J
~
I~
I g
.
2
.
.
I
"
Ii
I~
-
-
-
.... .
- w
>
w
- '" .... 2
'" I-
en .
a:
u:: 0
-
..
.
I
23
-
0" D ObSSSl6/E0E3NOHd3T31{1918ClCJV1jQlOJN:JdSYI>ESfxoeOd
SL.)WHJW'/SiJ.VI:JO$SV , ~INNIU S3"1IfVKl
00'1110100
'N3dS'I
~R
IllilliJ 0
S3WOHNM01. 30N3^\f 31.0 ~LL
~
oJ
W
> ~
w
oJ
Q
- Z .
0
U
- w
l/)
-
-
-
-
-
24
-
D., D ObSSSl6ll:()(3NOHd3131lI918ClCJ\11O'O)N3dSV\PfSfXOElOd
W:a.&JHJW'/WVI:x)$SV , 3:I:IINNro S31HWO
OOY~O'O:)
'N3dSY
IDlE]
! 1 "
I Ii j j
S3WOHNM01 30N3^" 310 ~ll
~
.
... 2
W
>
W
...
- .
Q
a:
:t
~ .
...
...
...
...
25
D.. D ObS55l6lfQ(3MJf.Jd3l31lI9te~1O)N3dS'o'l>f5,)(080d
- WWHJW/S3J.VlJOS'SV" 3:WINNl1J S31WH:)
00'111010:)
'N3dS'I
S3WOHNMO.L 3nN3^" 3.Ln ~LL
~
~
,
a
..
-
-
-
-
-
26
~R
llUlllI 0
~
2
z
<
..J
Q.
II.
o
o
a;;
.
.
D.> D 06SSSl6/tOf 3NOHd3131 mll~~lO) N3dSV l>f5, X08 Od OaVtt010:l 'N3dSV
- W3lJHJlN/m\llJOSSV , ""NNn:> Si1lMO S3WOHNM01 30N3Nlf 310 ~L.I:
-
.-
-
I
!
j
i
- z
0
~ ~
>
- w
...
w .
l-
I/)
- <I:
W
~.
27
J.. :1
D,>, D ObSSSl6/fot3NOHd313i{l9IeOO~1O)N3dSYl>fS[)(0lI0d
W3JJH)WlS3J.VlXJS5V 'I 3:WINNf'D mlM-O
001111010:)
'N3dSl1
j S2 ;1
S3WOHNMOJ. 3nN3^" 3J.n ~LL
,,'
z
0
i=
::;
- w
...
w
~ ~
CIl
,,- Cl:
w
:t: g
~
a: .
0
- Z 0
-
-
-
-
28
0' D ObSSS16/EOE 3NOHcl3131[t918()(J'w'/j()lOJ N3dSY 10m X08 Od Oa'9't:tOl0:) 'N3dS'9'
. <D3lJH:>lIV/WVlJOSSV , ....'NNrD S3'1lMO S3WOHNMO.L 3nN3^" 3.Ln ~ll
_0='
, 9.; ;
i in! I
,.
z
0
~
:>
w
...
W
I- "
(I)
w
~
;,'IM J: .
I-
er
0
z
'II'"
-
-
-
-
-
29
-
D" D 06~SSl6/,{)f:lr\OHd:ll31lI918~lOJN3dWPf5fXOllOd
WlUlHJllV/WVI:xJSW' """NN/tl snMO
00\111010::>
'N3dS\I
! I
i 1,
l i i
, 0
,
GN'
~ ... .
I i
S3INOHNMOl 3nN3^V 31n ~Ll
-
,",.j
",il
-
-
Z
0
- i=
~
w
-'
w
-
l- e
III
w
~
- ::t .
I-
:J
0
III
-
-
-
30
'\, 4 Ii
V1\u ~'>\,'
l~f ..
e....'" 1 \ if ~l"'
,~~Q \-",>
\N 'j \ '
......<.J\
"'0"
, \l \ ,I"
,
-
-
-
-
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
enhancing all of the inherent advantages of this location,
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 VJ(e)~,,"t
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
\."y,t~.t ,I
possible in order to offset land and development costs. v~,)J,,,-<,,I\\),I.
These limitations notwithstanding, we believe that the 771 "".rh.v' ",t
~h 'lo'f,ll.t.
Ute Avenue Townhomes project not only meets but exceeds
the criteria of this scoring category.
....I
As discussed under the preceding heading, the
building's "L" shaped footprint has been located to the 'J,,,..,,\l!j'rf''r'
J~q}il\..
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 will 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 a~ larqe gn-
the project and neighboring
fer as po
7
development. ,
ible between
-
,
J),\1\i'(\'{" 1
SU (\ Ii 1-(
The proposed sidewalks and each unit's entry
..
p"I;IJo,j,(,d"i,.
area will be surfaced with concrete and/or unitized
,Jr,,1I :; Jr'
pavers. All entry areas and sidewalks will be attractive- "'~r. .itt../ n,
. flfl.ffAlJ~
ly illuminated with low level lighting and all on-s~te ;v'~/Y;
1"""141,
utilities will be placed underground. Site furnishings
will include benches, a bicycle rack and two (2) tradi-
..
-
-
32
..
-
tional s~ps to be installed within the public
right-of-way.
A handicap ramp
---------
the new curb and
will be
provided in
'?
be installed
conjunction with
gutter to
on Ute Avenue should the City's Engineering Department
consider one necessary.
Although no trash area is specifically required
in the L-I zone district, the project has been designed to
include an approximately two hundred and fifty (250)
>...t
square foot enclosed trash/utility area on the building's
ground floor. As Figure 3, page 20 illustrates, the area
can
be
conveniently
accessed by collection/service
vehicles via the Aspen Alps driveway (see letter from/jvi!
Aspen Alps Condominiums, Appendix C, Exhibi t 1). The
trash area is separated from the Alps driveway by a
slidi~ overhead door and is more
accommodate the single two (2) cubic
than adequate to
I j'"'f,tN
yard dumpster which f Q t?
Jr -, Vnl J .
trash generation. '2'<)/;'/";
will be required to handle anticipated
As shown on Figure 13, page 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 entrances will be extensively planted with
-
-
medium to low shrubbery, ground covers and seasonal
-
33
-
-
DO
~tg. ii
..... ~ ~
~ f
'" t:: i
c:<,)
~ a..
06~S'Sl6jfOf :JNOHd3l31 (I'IIE! 00'91!O1O) N3dSY 1>",)(08 Od
OOI>'IlOlO:l
'N3dSI>'
_0
! ! I'Y\ '
~ ~"....
i ~ i i i
W3JJHJW'/S3LVlXlSSV , ~NNro S3'W\+tJ
S3WOHNMO.L 3nN3^" 3.Ln ~LL
--t
~
-~
~
..
3
I
1
I
"'I
;-.
~I
,
"')1
, I
'i!.
1
,
,-
J~~
'4- +-
Ck ,:-:.
0->
~
.
.
-
'..
"'"
I'" ~
. .
... .
..,
-<
.
-
.
\j-
-
-
Z
<C
...
Do.
W 2
Do.
<C
<.J
1Il .
Q
Z
. <C
z
. ... 0
.
z
-
-
-
-
34
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
.m.,,1
and aspen will be included to soften the building's scale
and to provide shade for the outdoor patios. Shrubs
.,.,,,j
anticipated at this time include Mugho Pine, Juniper
varieties, Peking
and Rock Cottoneaster, Potentilla,
".,
Compact Winged Euonymus and Frieboldi Spirea.
~lIIoll
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 undeveloped area to the Lot ~ :
--
southwest of the building (i.e., Lot 41) will
--------
be cleaned
plantings
Cottonwood
Some limited
,!"vII iQ., l h.""
are also . L .
5,to..~
as a buffer
revegetated with native
~ ---------
of ~pruce, Aspen and
-------
grasses.
up and
~
proposed to expand the influence of this area
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:
51111
Cottonwood, three (3) inch caliper; Aspen, two (2) inch
caliper; Spruce, ten (10) foot high; and Bristlecone Pine,
\eight (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
ill!
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-38 or better. I
i\--t, n"J
--..-.--~..,-
\ ~,./'-i
.'
In addition to the exterior barrier wrap
and
internal bat/rigid
insulation,
an
interior
I ' .o~,
vapor ,"(
(,'
-
barrier will be provided.
This vinyl vapor barrier will
-
.-.~-
-
not only further decrease infiltration but will tend to
36
-
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.
. .' L.
will be provided utilizing high efficiency, state-of -the- :IiU'\"~
--- ----. --------------------
art mechanical systems. consideration will be given to
b)
Mechanical Systems.
Comfort heating
integrated systems which provide optimum efficiency in the
"...j
production of both comfort level heating and domestic
'i_
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 II': t'
. !;~o\h\"iiJ1'l'.l. I'
I ~ . \,J;.,-t l' '
highest "R" value w;\".I<
t. i\(l [
project
will
be
selected
with the
practical.
......__.....u_.__.________
Glazing located within six(-6.1f~e_~_().f.the
.,
floor will be l~ 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-
,-,.
lit.
ing interior warmth.
The selection of interior finishes
l;llhr MOOt;,j'(
j""\"~ ~"
so\"" .qi'~\_G\tl
ili.
and colors, particularly in those rooms with east, south
,-
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
..
e)
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
switching within each space will be designed to closely
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 has 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
_.
S\.,.\\~"t
(O""~,,,^.l.u
c.'~~\\Ito'~+ .
both lighted and snowmelted to further enhance pedestrian
safety.
",.;I
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.
-----J
;.",,"
-
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:
40
3 Points
-
.,
,-
-
-
S {tb ;;0"( . <"
J
- ij,.!;,.d:~i""-
5.
As Table 1, page 8 depicts,
Green Space.
approximately 6,620 square feet, or twenty-nine (29)
percent of the project site, may "technically" be con-
sidered as open space. An additional 9,770 square feet,
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
benefit of both residents and the general public. It
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 l5B,
l6 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-
complishment.
While the project's extensive landscaping
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
development.
This perception of open space will be
further enhanced as a result of the project's substantial
setback from Ute Avenue.
/ f.;, tL 'lJ"i lv1iZ
._ fV/.~ ('",1 -- . .
r, . _/' ~,(: fT-:,..f;J <i(!f~,1)
';>,'(,,/. 'I I
-
-
3 Points
Requested Score:
41
C. Proximity to Support Services
The project's proximity to public transportation
and community commercial facilities is described below.
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
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 hoJsing 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.
Based on the Applicant's proposal, and the provisions of
42
Section 24-ll.4(b)(4) of the Municipal Code, the project
is entitled to eight (8) points, calculated as follows.
40 Percent Total Proiect 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 REQUIREMENTS
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
A. Rezoning
,~"oI
Inasmuch as multi-family dwelling units are a
prohibited use in the L-l zr~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, t~ merge the L-l/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-l2.5(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.
Ample 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-l9(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
-
-
-
-
APPENDIX A
-
..
., . 1111
IN
Ill.
llli
Illl
'n
llll
1111
INl
j11,}
lllII
>
~,
11
,
~ ~;
\-~! ~
b-~ ~
t~ ~ ~
~ li ~
~ ~! j
!' i
~ g~i j
i= "-" ~
~ ~ ~{ ~
~ ~~~"
i= ;'5' 2
~ i;j1
.1,
...
..Q.z
zi:c
~!29
en~O:
co~
...I-~
Oaj,.j
...-if
!::~u
w !2f3!:
> ~lJlIE
<( .....:%
.....1-
~I-~
W 09::;
~t""Q%
_ zzt-
_ OClLl.
t=oo
_ cOli;
,.... c:1.IJ ORIGIN"'I.. ST.
I'- "'o~
1&J5"-
~UCD
....>~
-I-Z
ciZC
_::>0:
tOO ~
~U~
z::>
~~~
Ot:O
-'Q.-
>-
~
::>
en
>-1
.1-
0:
...
i!;
IE
, \
\
,
~ ~ .I
~ -;- ! 1 J
~ ~ ~ 1
C ~ t ~ i J
Z ~ ~ . l. '>- ~
I.Ll ~ 1/ ;: ~ ~ ~
C) ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
... l ' lol ~ l. ~
..J~~ ~~~
l. II ~ 11. 0
,0 ill
!
\
1 ,
! ,I
:1
,
,f'
1'1
nn f )1 \
~'~~ .". 1~
,J -.- 3 ~ ~o ~~ ~
\- ~ 1. ~ >I.... tl > l
1~~~ ~.r~ ~J
~~iJ ~~~ ~~ J
~~r~ ;~; ~~ ~
\- \- ~ ~ ~ \- 'l1 ... i
~~f.1 i~.t i~ S
,j!l,j!lhl Il
!'II'j.H.' J.
~ t t ~ ~.f' .. C ., -'1 <1 ~
~ .~>-l~' l-j ~~r
l~l~!l~"~~1 ~3.;
r C J l ~ 1 . ~ ~
II - . q tJ ~1 ~ >I.
;~i,!:~~i,J~H~~~
f'i1l~ El!jh-lc~
!ll~ ~h",,,,r.
~ l. J 1. Jl ~ J ::ill.J
en 1. l. ~ '>- .J'" l- ./I~ - ~ S
LiJ~~f~-.rFl<"!'j1~~ l
b~~~~l~t~ltq~~,j
z~~...;:.J~ \-).~<I~~
t~1F~s~~P~S~i:
~"!~?~~:J~~H:.;~
~~~= l\ ~~~1Li:I"?~
~ ~ ~
" V
,
j
j
.
H
~ :~
I;
! t
" "~l
. -l~"
g ~,,~ ~
~ ~ ~-~
!i;
,:.' ~ : i i
.;
}
:!i
;i
,"
~ Hi
!Ii;
"
EXHIBIT 1
~
.
.
~ :; .~~ ~ =
c ~ ;
~ J~~H
~ ~~~~~
~ < :: ~
~~ ~~
~~~:~
~'I~:j
. ': ~
~ ! a.. ~
ct ~ ~
~ j~ I ~ ~ ~! 5~
I I . .,," ~ >-': - ~
--dJ H-1!<
~.. ~", I~l:;
; ,
\
>
/
i
i
!
\ ~
en
1 ~
; ,~ ~ t
li I ;1; "'~ I
i~ )li ~l!
111~:r 1'1
"
.
.
-'
; \
~ ,
;
,'< "'1.\i'tll:.LI~..\f~lP~1,\1ISTICi'L 'PollcvNumber 4 Po,"cyArnount
i"_:~;~'USI3 ONLY ^ND IS NOT A PART 2 PrOD~rtv Tvpe 5 Premium
iJf 'HE POLICY II-i" '-'"---~'C ""
1~5_._._ LJL_._~_, 5
7 EHer.t've Date
8 Survey Amendment
9 Addlllonal Chal"S
1 ...__J7
EXHIBIT 2
[.~~J
lmvYers l1tle Insurance (9rporatlon
OWNER'S POLICY
Schedule A
~ CASE NUM::J'R
---------
I PCT-283-86
DATE--ciFPoTi~-
AMOUNTO'FiNS~-
JULY 16, 1987
@ 2: 15 P.M,
$700,000.00
~L:O()'" , '''\1''';;-'
THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN -_. --- -
ON THIS SCHEOULE MUST 85-00-674093 1
AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED
NUMB,R ON THE COvER SHEE T
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 veMed in;
KENT W. SHODEEN
'4 The land refprred 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 41,
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 County Title, Inc.
601 E, Hopkins (303)925-1766
Aspen. Colorado 81611
IS'\"E"j.ll!t"C.ll,,,nl
r us Pohev '" Ilwaj,tt Wll!J'i3 the CO"'f!r :,1""1
Al TA ()""n"'t'" r"li"v ~n"n R 1 Q"1n In",,, '" ,.,. '"" ~~.. '.('\ t.,. o~,
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,
e:~
_.~
-
APPENDIX B
-
~.
.--.-....-...,,--------
EXHIBIT 1
130
asp
November 19, 1987
Mr. Sunny Vann
VANN ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes
Dear Sunny,
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 quantities to service your proposed development.
Should your project be approved, I will recommend 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.
-
i:~
m Markalunas
Director, Water Department
-
-
JM/pdm
-
:Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation !District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
EXHIBIT 2
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Tele, 13031 925-2537
November 19,1987
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P. O. 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
~C~
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
-
EXHIBIT 3
~~~~~fPff~
420 E, HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
13031 925-5532
TO: SUNNY VAN & ASSOCIATES
"
FROM: PETER WIRTH ~
RE: FIRE PROTECTION ON UTE AVE & ORIGINAL
DATE: NOVEMBER 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
-
",,"
..
-
-
-
-
,iIIIlII
....-..........'"-_.._._~,~,'----<--
ASPEN
ALPS
EXHIBIT 1
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
November 30,1987
Mr. Kent Shodeen
13 South 7th Street
Geneva, Illinois 60134
Re: Shodeen Residential Growth Management Application
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 pro;ect's trash area and to permit you
to landscape the portion of rhp Alp~' prnpprty 'Q~~t~A ~d;~rpnt
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.
''v
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 approval for your project and that
the parties may amend, modify or otherwise renegotiate the terms
of the agreement to be entered into by the parties.
Box 1228, Asoen, Colorado <
925-7820
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,
/ ;j(/c~7:C-CC?-'
Gerald G. Hewey
General Manager
GGH:pmc
,
~.. 7/
/~{c/-d-/...-~o<__
Went W. Shodeen
,
I
Date:
1/"/ '7
~'..
;....
...
-
-
-
-
,-
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ,,-{j
130 South Galena Street z::t31-/Q. . ~5-{)1!/
Aspen, Colorado 81611 /-If'/' - ,>T. ----7
(303) 925-2020 '" /1 ,
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
- 63721
- 63722
- 63723
- 63724
- 63725
- 63726
- 47332
- 47333
- 47341
- 47342
- 47343
- 47350
- 47360
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
GMP/PREUMINARY
GMP/FINAL
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
SUB/PRELIMINARY
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS;
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-:2, /7.3'7, 00
- 47331
- 63727
- 63728
REFERRAL FEES: ~
00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ..50,00
00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING SO de)
00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING dOC). 0 ()
SUB-TOTAL -#-3,030,00
County
00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL
- 63712 - 47432 GMPJDETAILED
- 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 APPLlCATIONS/
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 COMPo PLAN
- 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES
- 63069 - 09000 OTHER
Additional Billing:
.;1.3/ 030' 07(")
Phone ~l
ProjJlet: :':.)7/ If 1 p I, Vf
jf'..v_<:'jjr"J-;, l,C(, { r'
Dele /,;J / / /%7
DlO
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
# of Hours: