HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.925 E Durant Ave.49A-87
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Robert S. Anderson,Jr.,City Manager
Cindy Houben, Planning Office ~
925 East Durant - Final Plat
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
June 27, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office is recommending approval of the
Final Plat for 925 East Durant.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTION: The Planning
commission approved the 925 E. Durant Preliminary Plat with the
following conditions:
1) A detailed storm drainage plan to the satisfaction of the
city Engineer.
2) site/landscape plan showing site improvements described in
the 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP application, including but
not limited to vegetation to be planted, irrigation system,
pedestrian areas, bike rack, low-level sidewalk lighting,
easement for transformer or switchgear on applicant's
property, and plans for undergrounding utilities on site and
relocating utilities in the alley.
3) A statement of subdivision exception 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
improvements and off-site improvements described in the 925
E. Durant Townhomes GMP application including but not
limited to sidewalk, landscaping and bicycle rack. Also
included shall be agreement to join any future improvement
district formed that encompasses this property.
Subsequently, on March 14,1988 the city Council allocated four
units to this project via Resolution No.8 (series of 1988).
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In
Department, dated June 19,
concerns:
a memorandum from the Engineering
1988 Chuck Roth notes the following
1) We have received a letter from an engineer concerning storm
run-off design details. The letter is very brief and does
not state that the design conforms with the parameters of
the Engineering Department memo of January 14, 1988, item 1,
and it does not appear that the design conforms with the
requirements. The Engineering Department must have a letter
from a registered engineer which states that the historic
site run-off will be maintained.
2) The plat does not indicate the date of the survey, which
must be within the past twelve months.
3) The surveyor's certificate must state that the survey was
performed in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51.
4) The title commitment is now over one year old. An updated
commitment must be provided to ensure that no easements or
other interests have been conveyed in the interim. The plat
must contain a title certificate.
5) The plat must contain a note referring to the previous
platting of the property, which is recorded at Book 13, Page
29. Please provide a clearer indication on the first sheet,
such as a subtitle in large (half inch or taller) letters
which indicates that the drawing shows proposed
improvements.
6) This plat is a pre-construction plat. When construction has
been completed, an amended plat must be filed which confirms
the locations of improvements as constructed. The as-built
plat must show utility meter locations.
7) Please note that comment 11.b of our memo of January 7, 1988
is sketchy and that the full requirements for site
improvements and bonding are enumerated in section 20-16(a)
through (d). Pending the assessment of the City Attorney,
some of this section might need to be incorporated into the
subdivision exemption agreement. The subdivision exemption
agreement must also include current language concerning
improvement districts for construction of improvements in
the public right-of-way. This reviewer is still unclear
concerning the method for acquisition of any water rights
potentially owned by land use applicants. Does this
applicant and property have water rights which should be
acquired at this time?
8) The zone district must be indicated on the plat.
9) The limits of the GCE's and LCE's are not clear. Also, as
indicated on the plat, there are different driveway widths
and areas for different units. Is this as intended?
10) If there is no three dimensional subdivision of space
occurring, elevations of ceilings and floors are not needed.
2
All elements of the two dimensional subdivision must be
dimensioned on the final plat. It appears that there may be
some three dimensional subdividing occurring because of the
configuration of the decks.
11) The Engineering Department acknowledges the 7' x 7' utility
easement at the southeast corner of the parcel and add
additionally requests 4' x 4' utility easement at the
southwest corner for a utility pedestal for telephone,
television or electric use.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office is satisfied that all
planning conditions have been adequately addressed for final
plat with the exception that the improvements agreement did not
commit to joining a future improvement district.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Office recommends that the
Council approve the Final Plat for 925 E. Durant with
following motion:
City
the
"Move to grant final plat approval to 925 E. Durant, subject
to the following conditions:
1) The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall include the
commitment that the 925 E. Durant project shall join any
future improvement district if one is formed for their area.
2) The final Plat shall include the following:
a. Indication that the survey was completed within the
last twelve months.
b. The surveyors certificate shall state that the survey
was preformed in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38,
Article 51.
c. The plat shall contain a note referring to the previous
platting of the property, which is recorded in Book 13,
Page 29. The plat shall provide a clear indication on
the first sheet, that drawings show proposed
improvements.
d. The zone district shall be indicated on the plat.
e. The GCE and LCE's shall be more clearly defined on the
plat.
f. A 4' x 4'utility easement at the southwest corner of
the property shall be provided for a utility pedestal
for telephone, television or electric use.
g. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Engineering
3
Department from a registered engineer which states that
historic site runoff will be maintained.
h. An updated title commitment shall be provided to the
Engineering Department.
i. The plat shall contain a title certificate.
j. After construction is completed a plat shall be filed
by the applicants which confirms the locations of
improvements as constructed. The as-built plat must
show utility meter locations.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
,
~
v
~
A_~~
/\~ -e=..
tR.- -;L- '<o!-
CH.925
4
CITY OF ASPEN ..
MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN
MAY 5, Iqi6
Note to fdi" A)~ t+!v~ w.1 J mJ 1Nj ~
r ~ ~:!-t jo,h';'.JJ:J. s ;te f'~" ~ ~ t.
j~)\}\NA"'" '~.J),,....~1 ~,~ to 7 P ~ fn({{4 rl
~ cQfl'JJ (/'1-^1v>~ tJ J9- tw- 'Vo ~h, S;1~tld~'
Uo';'" j'i ,.----j. ~9_h~.)'J..~.h~t
f- II \l vr\..fV'f II -
F.zvJ {1M l)/Lp\i~
, .
Jrc1vJ ,LtV('M,J-iJ,l' tkwf/Vo pth/;L J\M\A,~ ~
fe, -L W;JJ ~* (;"1 (]VK,I (e,f4, ~e.,,().u wL)
,
r
.C ST.
. "
,
'~ . ~
-.t-
o
o.
'"
.'
~ :"
r
SPRING
-..
..
...,
,
I
..;:--1- ---~._._-
o
....
:",'-'
..;.j'
L~
VI
o
""
.'~
.... 0 '
o ST,
Ih ..... ..
lID
o
o
.".
'- ~
......., ..
~
0-1
:'II
.,
,7820[=_
}O
VI
ST.
CAl
o
o
!"
0._
r r-
:J:C
. '0 c -~
o z
o C
->>-:--
IT!
C
'~.
-:.....:. ,..,.,.~,
. . 0
~.
~t::t-
. ---)lll.-..
V1
~
-J
'"
--.-- -'0
-J
-.
~<;
~-'-"':'-
~.~_._~.
(I)
-J
-- --.- - - (JI"--'
o
-J
\,01._
N
~J
-
r,.r
___h..___.____.___.
, "-J
CAl
ORIGINAL'
__~~I~
WEST
_.~_'i '-0 1___
o
-!>
-~_.
""
/
00-
CD .
~
"
(I)
'"
(I)
,
.
lID
CD'
-~-_.-.
END
<.D
o
().I
U1
"'~--iID
l>
<
fTI
CLEVELAND h
o
-0
o
'0
.~.. -
Dg
:r:.
"-
'5
~
s
-~. --'--"'-'- -
ID--~-
._----._~-------.
[IJ----
N
0,
---_...~..__.~- -
250
IID .._-~-
.~ L__.._ ().I
I
[ID---- --
~
lJ'.
N
- ..
-~. ..
[E----
II
?12
D_-~"
.~..~
o
~ ----..-
.- -/
/
-1
.~
ST.
[[
O......~..I
_. U1.
().I
N-
__.._... n __
6J
<9
... _. t>l.
()\
. .. r-::--J
L~J
r-
l"l
OX
c> .
1:-1--.1
~,I\)-
'1", '
c
"
"
$
'f' .
.,'
(7
.(11"
,~
;..-.t
O\,.,-.t
>111
~
H
G(
O..p
)..
01
ORIGINAL 8"
{I)
!'b "
", ~ (,
'-. ........"
~''-.
1lJ~ Jt'."
Ojt:b '-"'_
'li "" '-
-, ID '-
~ ....,..,. "
'v '.
.' ~ ,,"',- /
q,q, " ~
IlJ tv "_ ~
q, ~" ~
(0
IlJ f.
fl'
10
?~
-0.
"V~
1-
o
if ~ ,.,
<III
)> 0
-- ----c
x
~. ,
r
0-
-I
~1S
-. ,.,
. r
r
86
tTI%r
O 0)>
0%
'0
R: ?J
.q ,.--..
;25
< WEST END
~ <!> g---fb :l> U)
~ I 620~1
0 if' "
<Y ,., - -~._-
B ~ <o-._~._.%
_(1)0
l> .... -l :D CD
-i ' '--.--1'
t rn. :D X
'::0 1.0
(f) CHATEA
. . --SNOW -
-
[J
71
vi
CD
a.
r;r1
VEL~
-
'>
0'7"
o
g/ -.J
z
\; gl~
\ ~~l--
o
o
~+~ 1- '
n1iL
'~v- ~
,-
l>
<
ITI
-I
-----0
o ~ :
---%.-. .
UlX
00
-- c.... '"
---~ - .
\/I
~
o
[IJ In
I r; \\'(1 ,'/~ .....
~.,. ~rn\N
-n -
o
1\)'-
r--
~
-0
-l :D
,., 0-
.r- )> 0
_:D 101
',r-~
:~
'----
en
'>
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE:
925 E. Durant Townhomes - Subdivision Exception and
Acceptance of Cash-in Lieu for Employee Housing
DATE:
January 19, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION: Lots F, G, H and I, Block 119, city and Township of
Aspen.
ZONING: Residential - MUlti-Family (R-MF)
LOT AREA: 12,014 square feet.
APPLICANT: STP Associates.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests subdivision excep-
tion for construction of a four unit townhome project on the site
and acceptance of a cash contribution for the equivalent of 11.3
low-income employees.
BACKGROUND ON SITE: Approval was given in 1978 for a low-income
employee project with 12 one-bedroom units (425 sq. ft. each)
associated with the 500 S. Galena project. An attempt was also
made to utilize the Residential Bonus Overlay to create a 24 unit
low income project in 1981.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1. Engineering Department: The following comments pertin-
ent to subdivision review were made by Chuck Roth in
his memoranda of January 7 and January 14, 1988:
a.
After clarification
storm drainage plan,
finds the proposal to
from the applicant of the
the Engineering Department
be appropriate.
b. The parking design is satisfactory.
c. The Parks Department should be consulted for
approval of any trees planted in the public r.O.W.
1
,...
........
~
',...
d. The applicant should be required to provide
bonding for promised improvements that are not
installed prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy.
e. The applicant will be required to provide an
easement on their property for the transformer or
switchgear shown in the application. utility
relocations which are required for the convenience
of projects are required to be paid for by the
project.
f. Bicycle racks must be designed and placed such
that their use does not obstruct the required 5'
wide sidewalk.
g. A final plat must be submitted which meets the
requirements of section 20-15 of the Municipal
Code.
h. The applicant must agree to join future improve-
ment districts per language from the City Attor-
ney's office.
2. Water Department: Jim Markalunas stated water is avail-
able and can be furnished to the site.
3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Heiko Kuhn
stated the proposed project can be served by the
Sanitation District by the 8" line in Durant Street.
4. Environmental Health: In Tom Dunlop's December 28, 1987
memorandum he made the following comments:
a. A mUlti-family building is entitled to one
fireplace and one certified woodburning stove.
b. A fugitive dust control plan will be required.
c. The applicant is advised to contact the Environ-
mental Health Department if mine waste, waste rock
or mine dumps are encountered during excavation.
5. Housing Authority: The Housing Authority recommends
approval of the proposed cash-in-lieu contribution for
employee housing. After the applicant made a technical
clarification, accepted by the city Attorney in a
letter dated January 5, 1988, the Housing Office
reported that the Housing Authority recommended
approval of the sum of money proposed ($226,000).
B. Planning Office Comments:
2
--
'-.
-
'-'
1. Subdivision Exception: The applicant has presented
information sufficient for Preliminary Plat review and
requested to be excepted from the Conceptual Review
stage given the small size of the project. The purpose
of subdivision review for mUlti-family projects is to
assure that such projects meet the basic criteria of
suitability of the land and the standards for develop-
ment contained in the Subdivision Regulations.
Our comments in response to the "suitability of land
for subdivision" criteria in Section 20-9 are stated
below.
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 snow slide, steep topography or other
potential hazards.
Response: No natural hazards have been identified that
would prevent development of this site. The existing
hole was excavated and not natural subsidence.
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: Development of this property does not appear
to create any particular governmental inefficiencies.
This site is within an already developed residential
neighborhood containing a mix of multi-family, duplex
and single family residences.
Additional comments regarding the project's compliance with
subdivision regulations follow:
1. Project improvements: Improvements proposed by the
applicant include landscaping of the site and adjacent
right-of-way, sidewalk and internal walkway, sidewalk
lighting, bicycle rack, and partial undergrounding and
relocation of utilities in the alley. Irrigation has
not been addressed, but should be in the final plat
submittal. The applicant should also address in the
final plat special considerations raised by the
Engineering Department about the easement for the
transformer off the alley and location of bicycle
3
....
-
".J
racks. It is also important that the lighting be
specified to ensure that illumination level, glare and
locations are appropriate. An improvements agreement
and guarantee should be prepared following the require-
ments of section 20-16(c) (1) of the Municipal Code.
2. Plating: A final plat must be submitted according to
the standards of section 20-15 of the Municipal Code.
3. Evaluating whether there is an adverse effect upon the
surrounding area: section 20-12 (I) 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." The GMP application provides various
information on these topics. In staff's opinion, this
project has certain design weaknesses such as the moat
in the front yard, less usable open space than desired
for a mUlti-family project because of the 12 foot
separation between halves, and bulk for four units in a
quasi-duplex arrangement that may be excessive for the
neighborhood. However, we do not make the finding that
the surface treatment of landscaped and paved areas or
the proposed build-out will have an unmitigated adverse
effect upon the surrounding area.
2. Cash-in-lieu for Employee Housing: The applicant has
proposed to contribute $226,000 under the current Housing
Authority guidelines to house 11. 2 low-income employees.
city Council has discretion in accepting cash-in-lieu, or
turning down cash in favor of on-site affordable housing or
off-site deed restrictions. P&Z 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.
The Planning Office has the following comments in review of
the cash proposal. There are no adopted plans currently in
place showing affordable housing planned for the 925 E.
Durant Avenue site. We note that the site is well suited for
affordable housing with regard to availability of services,
proximity to community facilities and lack of environmental
constraints. In the past, Hans Cantrup had an approved
proposal to locate employee units on the site. In addition,
the Alpina House next door has been converted into an
employee housing project. Location of employee units within
this mixed multi-family/single family/duplex neighborhood
4
" ".
would be appropriate. Further, the size of the project
(approximately 12,000 square feet) would not seem to
prohibit the production of one-bedroom employee unit in
addition to the four free market units proposed. This would
require reducing one free market bedroom from the project so
to meet maximum bedrooms per lot area. The project does not
appear to require the provision of affordable housing on-
site to meets its service needs. In support of the total
cash contribution, we note that the rather large contribu-
tion for an equivalent of over 50% of the project to provide
low-income employee housing should give a needed boost to
the Housing Authority's cash fund for production of afford-
able housing.
After all these considerations, staff suggests that the most
appropriate approach would be to provide one on-site
employee unit along with a reduced cash contribution to off-
set employee housing impacts of the 925 E. Durant project.
This approach would reduce the size of the free-market
portion of the project by one bedroom, consequently reducing
the cash contribution to approximately $174,800. This is
$51,200 less than the applicant's proposed contribution.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Preliminary Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends the
Planning and Zoning commission to recommend approval of the
requested preliminary subdivision for the 925 E. Durant
Townhomes multi-family project subject to the conditions
that follow:
a.
A final
standards
including:
1. A detailed storm drainage plan to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
plat
of
shall be submitted according to
section 20-15 of the Municipal
the
Code
2. Site/landscape plan showing site improvements
described 1n the 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP
Application, including but not limited to vegeta-
tion to be planted, irrigation system, pedestrian
areas, bike rack, low-level sidewalk lighting,
easement for transformer or switchgear on appli-
cant's property, and plans for undergrounding
utilities on site and relocating utilities in the
alley.
3. A statement of subdivision exception and improve-
ments agreement shall be submitted as part of
final plat. Included in this document shall be a
development schedule and appropriate financial
5
'"
guarantee for all site improvements and off-site
improvements described in the 925 E. Durant
Townhomes GMP application including by not limited
to sidewalk, landscaping and bicycle rack. Also
included shall be agreement to join any future
improvement district formed that encompasses this
property.
4. Allocation of four (4) 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.
2. Cash-in-lieu for Employee Housing: The Planning Office
recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend
approval of an employee housing program consisting of lone
bedroom room deed restricted low income unit on site and
acceptance of the cash-in lieu payment for the equivalent of
8.74 low income employees (equaling 51. 835% of the total
project), as calculated at the time of building permit
application, which shall be paid to the Housing Authority
prior to issuance a building permit for the project.
925memo
6
....-.'"
,...-'
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project:
925 E. Durant Townhomes
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: 1
COMMENTS: The deyelonment will be served by the existinq 6 inch
main in Durant street. Jim Markalunas stated water is available
and can be furnished to the site. No imnroyements to the water
svstem are nronosed.
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
-
I".,
-"""'""
'oJ
COMMENTS: The development will be served bY an existina 8 inch
sewer main in Durant street. Heiko Kuhn stated that the pro;ect
can be adeauatelY served by this sewer line and the ACSD sewaae
treatment plant. No improvements to the system are proposed.
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 development will be desianed to retain 100% of the
historic storm water flow attributable to the property. Historic
runoff will be released on a delayed basis maintainina historic
flow. The Enaineerina Department considers this an improvement
to service in the area.
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:
1
COMMENTS: The site is located between 2 fire hvdrants to
and west on Durant street and 8 blocks from the Fire
Adeauate fire protection service is available to the
accordina to the Fire Marshal. No improvements in this
proposed.
the east
station.
pro;ect.
area are
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: The 10 space parkina reauirement will be met throuah
the inclusion of a aaraae for each unit located off the alley.
Driveways will be snowmelt and provide additional stacked parkina
for auests (10 spaces). This desian has minimized visual impact
while creatina on site more parkina spaces than reauired.
- 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
COMMENTS: The Enqineerinq Denartment notes that the traffic on
Durant street will not be adverselv affected bv this new develon-
ment because narkinq is off the allev. There will nrobabl y be
some curb side narkinq on Durant related to this nro;ect:
however. the existinq street system can handle this. No imnrove-
ments in roads are nronosed.
SUBTOTAL: 8
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
COMMENTS: The nronosed four-nlex has an FAR of 0.86:1 (10.430
sq.ft.). heiqht of 28' (to neak of roof) and site coveraqe of 41%
(4.923 Sq. ft.). The size and heiqht of the buildinq are similar
to its multi-familY neiqhbors and mainly comnatible within the
vicinity. The hinned roof townhouse modules are each about 24'
across and off-set from each other bY six feet. This helns break
un massinq and leaves a front yard 20' to 26' deen. The sub-
qrade "moat" (a dron of annroximately 4' over 7' distance) is a
- 3 -
r--...
... ."
desiqn feature not vet common in the area and will add to the
sense of bulk as it does for the 700 E. Hvman Townhouses in our
opinion. If the property were develoDed as two dUDlexes. as the
desiqn closelY resembles. allowed FAR would be 7.200 sa. ft. or
0.6:1. Additional bulk is allowed and used from the contrived
upper level interconnection between the two "duplexes". thereby
meetina the definition of an attached multi-familY dwellina. The
result in desiqn is a structure aPDearina as a pair of especiallY
larae dUDlexes without the sense of visual relief in setbacks
between 2 dUDlexes. Desiqn flaws in the moat and extra FAR
throuah attached mutli-familv decrease staff's evaluation ratina
of this Dro;ect.
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: Thirtv-six Dercent {36%} of the site {4.337 sa. ft.}
consists of ODen soace. The front yard is deeper than sur-
roundina DroDerties and. with proposed sDecimen sized trees and
shrub Dlantinas (some 55 Dlantinas shown on site Dlan) should be
an attractive imDrovement to the block. Sidewalks. street trees
and bicycle racks in the riaht-of-wav are also Dositive site
desiqn features. The 7' wide east side yard will helD aive the
existina spruce and fir SDace to qrow. Circulation. enclosed
trash dumDster off the alley. and utility underqroundina all seem
to work well. The 12' wide seDaration between halves of the
pro;ect is too narrow to allow for either useable Drivacv SDace
or landscaDina in the center of the cODlDlex. This space could
have contributed to laraer side yards or front yard to imDrove
the site desiqn.
The 10' wide separation between halves of the project appears to
be too narrow to allow for either useable privacy space on land-
scaping in the center of the complex and could have contribued to
larger sideyards.
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
- 4 -
......
.......
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes enerav conservation measures in-
cludina standard level of wall and ceilina insulation. vapor
barrier. heat mirror alazina and 95-97% efficient aas boilers.
Solar orientation and south-facina windows indicate some passive
solar aains for space heatina. No mention of thermal mass. solar
heat or solar hot water is made. Substantial north-facina alass
is included in the desian. Snowmelt on the parkina apron is an
enerav user. No commitments have been made for efficient
fireplaces bevond code reaulations.
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the prov~s~on of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The commitment to install sidewalks alona Durant street
is a standard reauirement of subdivision. Liahtina with low-
level decorative fixtures and the bicycle rack appear to be
primarilv of benefit to the pro;ect and not a substantial public
benefit.
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: 2
COMMENTS: The applicant states 4.337 sa. ft. (36% of sitel will
be devoted to landscaped open space. This is onlv sliahtly more
(1% or 132 sa. ft.l than reauired bY Code. In addition. the moat
area. slopina down across a portion of the front yard. reduces
some of the useable front vard area. Setbacks achieve accept-
able relief from the densitv of surroundina develpoments.
SUBTOTAL: 10
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
- 5 -
e-'
, '"
", ,....
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: The Droiect is located less than 2 blocks from Dublic
bus routes on Durant Avenue. Oriqinal street and CooDer Avenue.
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: 2
COMMENTS: The DroDertv is located 612 feet. over 2 blocks. from
the Durant Mall. which is the closest commercial facility.
SUBTOTAL: 5
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
- 6 -
.....'""
p.,
......../
""",..,
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the
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:
10.4
COMMENTS: The aDDlicant DrODOses to Droyide the cash eauivalent
for 51.84% of the Dro;ect in low income emDloyee housinq
($226.000 under current Housina Authority auidelines). A
technical clarification was made to amend the aDDlication's
reDresentation of a 70% emDloyee housina comDonent of the
Dro;ect. as acceDted bY the city (throuah the city Attorney's
Jan. 5. 1988 letter attached). The Housina Authority recommends
aDDrOyal of this contribution.
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
-----t-
".~-^,
...r......
1t., '"
>.,. ,
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
/
SUBTOTAL:
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
8
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
9.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
5
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
7
10.4
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8
32.9
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
Plannina Office
- 8 -
,
...."">,.
',~. .,,-
'",n,'#
MEMORANDUM
To: steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer(Z~
Date: January 14, 1988
Re: Amendment No.1 to Comments on 925 E. Durant Townhomes
Residential GMP Submission
This is written in response to your request for clarifications of
the above referenced comments.
I. The storm drainage portion of the applicant's submission was
unclear. We have requested a clarification from the applicant,
at the same time clarifying to the applicant the Engineering
Department position on storm water issues. By the attached
letter, the applicant has stated that the project will provide a
storm water retention system which will release historical
outflows from the site in quantities as required, but on a timed
basis such that the flow is released after the storm has passed
instead of permitting the full release during the storm event.
This will be a benefit to the City because it will decrease
demands on streets, gutters and storm drain systems for handling
flows during the storm event by retaining the water for release
after the event has occurred.
The Engineering Department therefore changes its recommended
scoring for Storm Drainage from 1 point to 2 points for an
excellent design.
Storm Drainage - 2 points.
2. This is to clarify elements of our comments in item 11 (c).
The applicant's project site will be provided electric power by
the City Electric Department. As a result of the city utility
undergrounding project, the primary lines belonging to the City
have already been buried. The remaining poles and electric lines
belong to Holy Cross. The applicant must consult with Holy Cross
on the ability to relocate poles. As a matter of existing code
requirements, the applicant is already required to underground
all utility connections.
3. It was not our understanding that this application was to be
reviewed simultaneously as a subdivision exemption application.
The following comments address subdivision exemption issues:
a, The City Attorney must be consulted to see if water rights
must be acquired.
... ,,'
b. A final plat must be submitted which meets the requirements
of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code.
c. The applicant must agree to join future improvement districts
per language from the City Attorney's office.
cc: Jay Hammond, city Engineer
CR/cr/memo.88.1
~
.-,
"".--..
,
......,...'
'>t,"""
January 13. 1988
M r" Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
City of Aspen. Co lorllkl
130 5" Galena 5t.
Aspen, CO
81611
RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP Submission
Dear Chuck:
It is my understanding that you require clarification of the storm
drainage system proposed for the 925 E. Durant Townhomes develop-
ment. The applicants intend to work closely with you to design a storm
water management system which will release storm water after the
peak of a storm" Based on criteria provided by your office, we will
design an on-site basin, swale, or equivalent device or devices with
flow restrictors to assure uniform and gradual release of storm flows
to the City's storm water management network at a rate below the
historic runoff flows from the site"
The development of the proposed storm water metering system will
result in substantial off-site benefits to the City, consequently we
trust that the system will merit the maximum award of two points.
Thank you for your comments and for your cooperation, I look forward
to working with you in the development of the townhomes project.
Sincerely, -"~.
(J)Wvf/J(Zl1v-"t~ .-
waynEt!'Ethridge
Groundwork
xc: Steve Burstein
JAN 8
MEMORANDUM
To: steve Burstein, Planning Office
Cindy Houben, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer ~~
Date: January 7, 1988
Re: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made
a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Water Service - I point - Existing water main can supply
project. No improvements needed - no improvements offered. It
would have been desirable to have seen in the application a
letter from the water department concerning the project.
2. Sewer Service - 1 point - Existing sewer lines can accommo-
date the project. No improvements needed - none offered. It
would have been desirable to have seen in the application a
letter from the Sanitation District concerning the project.
3. Storm Drainage - I point - The Code requirement is that the
applicant maintain the historic site storm water runoff for the
100-year event. An applicant may not permit more storm runoff to
leave a site and flow onto public rights-of-way, nor may an
applicant retain all storm runoff on a site which might result in
over-charging the groundwater aquifer and possibly adversely
affect adjacent property owners. The storm drainage features
must be designed by a registered engineer and approved by the
City Engineer.
4. Parking Design - 2 points - The parking for residences is in
enclosed garages. The applicant states that guests may park on
heated concrete pads which will reduce the need for parking on
the streets. Additionally, the design of the project is such
that the allowable curb cutes) on Durant Street are not utilized
which would further reduce parking on that street.
5. Roads - 2 points - By providing access to the project site
from the alley, the traffic on the frontage street will not be
adversely affected.
.~-....
6. Site Design - 3 points - underground utilities are required
and cannot be considered as an element of an excellent ite
design. "The arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation and increased safety and privacy" appears to indicate
an excellent design.
7. Trails - 3 points - By Resolution No. 19 (Series of 1975),
the applicant is required to construct a sidewalk when performing
new construction. This would also be required by the subdivision
exemption process. However the landscaping, lighting and bike
rack are improvements which are not required.
8. Proximity to public transportation - 3 points - Project is
located less than two (2) blocks walking distance of existing bus
route.
9. Proximity to community commercial facilities - 2 points -
Project is located 612 feet from commercial core.
10. Bonus points - The project could receive bonus points for
its parking conditions. As discussed in item 4 above, not only
is parking provided in garages for residents, but parking on
heated driveway slabs will be provided for guests, which will
reduce pressures for on-street parking. Also, with the alley
access, the applicant has not utilized its entitlement of curb
cuts and has thereby preserved additional parking spaces which
could have been lost on the frontage street.
other projects have received a second point because the parking
was buried. It must be pointed out that some projects were
"forced" to bury the parking in order to meet height and open
space restrictions. The community received no benefit of a
"shorter" or less bulky project because of buried parking. This
applicant should therefore perhaps receive one bonus point for
parking because it provides parking for guests.
It appears to be burdensome to award the same number of points in
item 9 above as an applicant whose project would be 1,500 feet
away from the commercial core. If one assesses the ratios of
distances and points, it would be appropriate to award the
applicant (1,000 feet less 112 feet divided by 1,000 feet) times
one point which is a bonus award of 0.9 points for its proximity
to the commercial core.
11. Additional comments -
a. This application was not referred to the Parks Department.
The Parks Department must be consulted for approval of any trees
planted in the public right-of-way. It is this reviewer's
understanding that the cottonless variety of cottonwood tree is
preferred if not mandatory. Also, any trees planted in the
right-of-way must be pruned up to a height of seven feet above
any sidewalk in order for pedestrians to be able to pass under-
neath.
b. The applicant has stated that the project will be completed
and occupied by December of 1988 but that landscaping will not be
accomplished until June of 1989. As a condition of approval,
prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the buildings,
the applicant shall be required to provide bonding to the
Engineering Department for improvements promised to be construc-
ted in the public right-of-way.
This reviewer is concerned about the public losing other benefits
from promises made through the GMP process. We have seen other
projects which have managed to come to fruition without providing
amenities for which scoring was received. Can, or should, the
city require bonding for promised improvements which are on
private property and which have not been completed at the time a
certificate of occupancy is requested?
c. As a condition of approval for the subdivision exemption
process, the applicant will be required to provide an easement on
their property for the transformer or switchgear shown in the
application. utility relocations which are required for the
convenience of projects are required to be paid for by the
project.
d. Please note that bicycle racks must be designed and placed
such that their use does not obstruct the required five foot wide
sidewalk.
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR/cr/caseload.20
ASPEN.PITKIN . .
ENVIROr..IlVlENTAL HEALTH OEPARTI'",,,NT
MEMORANDUM
DEC29
To:
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
Cindy Houben, Planning
From:
Thamas s. Dunlap, -Dire.ctav;-\ S~J
Enviranmental .Health'Dept. "'<-
December 28,1981 .
.925 E. Durant Tawrihames ~eside1itiaIGMP SubmisSion
Date:
. Re:_
================~==================~============================
. .
The Aspen/Pitkin Enviranmental Health Department has reviewed the
abave-mentianed land use submittal far the fallowing cancerns.
The autharity for this review is granted to. this affice, which is
a recagnized land use referral agency, by the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office.
~!.WAGB TRBATMBN'l' . AND COLLBCTI08..:.
The applicant has agreed to. serve the praject with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Cansolidated Sanitatian District. This
is in confarmance with Sectian 1-2.3 af the Pitkin County
RegUlations On Individual....Bewage Disposal Systems palicy .section
to. "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and'whenever
feasible, and to. limit the installatian af individual sewage
dispasal systems anly to. areas that are nat feasible far public
sewers." .
It will be to. the advantage of the applicant to provide an actual
letter af cammitment from the utility confirming service to the
praj ect.
ADBJlOATf! PROVISIONs.. FOR~.R NBEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distributian system. This is in
canfarmance with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code
requiring such prajects "which use water shall be cannected to
the municipal water utility system."
"
It will be to. the advantage af the applicant to. 'pravide an actual
letter af cammitment fram the utility canfirming service. to the
'proj eeL
. AIL Q.D.ALtn.:.
waadburnirig pevices: .'
..' ".
'.'
. "130 S~utt'l "Gaienoa" 6;i=reet
Aspen.. CQlorado' S1611
. .
. 30319l;!S-2i;-eo
:--
925 E. Durant Twnhms.GMP
December 28, 1987
Page 2
The submittal does not address the issue of woodburning devices.
It will be the assumption that the project will be constructed
with the maximum number of woodburning devices installed. Given
that, the applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 86-5 which describes the type and number of woodburning
. devices that may be installed in new .or remodelled buildings; In
summary the ordinance allows one fireplace and one certified
woodburning stove per 'building with the exception of a duplex.'
If each side. of the. duplex exceeds 1000 square feet then each
Side of the duplex may have one fireplace and one 'certified
woodburning stove.
Construction:
~
There is no mention in the submittal of a plan to control
windblown (fugitive) dust on the project site. It will be
the obligation of the applicant to submit such a plan to this
office prior to construction. The plan shall include a commit-
ment by the appl icant to institute methods of dust control such
as watering the work area, use of dust suppressants, fencing and
other frequently used controls. There shall also be included in
the plan a method of mud and dirt carryout removal from City
streets. Mechanical sweeping using water to keep the dust down
is a recommended method. Prompt revegetation of disturbed soil
areas is also a recommended dust control method. Regulation 1 of
the c.oJ.QrM~o hLr Ouality: Control Requlations and Ambient Air
QJla~it-y Stand<u::dfl. is the document requiring this plan submit-
tal.
An application for the fugitive dust plan can be picked up from
this office. Return it to this office when it is completed.
NOrsE;
This project will be regulated by Chapter 16, Aspen Municioal
Cillie, titled Noise Abatement. Should complaints be received by
this office, investigations will be made using Chapter 16 as the
enforcement instrument.
C.ONFORMANCE_WU'IL O1'BEll_ ~
Not applicable to this submittal.
C.ONTA,UNATED --.SQILoS;
The appl.icant is adv ised to contilct this o1;f iCe for comment
,sh9Ul(jl mine' waste, waste.. rock of mine' dumps .he.encountered during
.
925 E. Durant Twnhms.GMP
December 28, 1987
Page 3
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.
.This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
.. experience in dealing'with mine waste in a residential area.
"
.'- ..\
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER · 242 MAIN STREET. CARBONDALE, CO 81623 . (303)963-0311
January 5, 1988
TO: Steve Burstein; Cindy Houben, Planning Office
JAN
6
FR: Steve Standiford, Director
RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission
Review comments on energy related aspects or the 925 E Durant Subnilssion:
ENERGY CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
p,l' 4^PC Public Service Company and other utilities recommend specific R values
for insulating homes in mountain areas, like Aspen. They indicate that
n-\1 ",.lIs walls should be R13 and ceilings R38. As you can see, the specified
t(~lQLtll,\toJs insulation levels for this project are more than what is recommended
~h<"J/,j'R,~>'. for walls and less for ceilings.
R-z.O ~...Ih The specification of "Heat Mirror" or other energy efficient glazing is
(?-lD ,"~;hh~} smart especially for the north side, which has a lot of windows.
SOLAR ENERGY
Fortunately, the building is oriented with the capability of using
passive solar gains for space heating. There is no mention of thermal
mass or how these gains will be stored for use after the sun sets.
There was no consideration of an active solar system to heat water. We
assume that this was not felt to be cost-effective.
WATER CONSERVATION
The low-flow fixtures mentioned sound appropriate though a gallons-per-
minute specification would be more definitive.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Using gas-fired, energy--efficient boilers with a hydronic baseboard system
is commendable.
-.
,~;
-
'......,
JAN 5
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
PLANNING OFFICE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
ANN PHILLIPS, PROPERTY MANAGER
JANUARY 4, 1988
925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PROJECT: The project will contain four units and upon approval
will file a request for condominiumization. The four units
consist of two 3-bedroom and two 2-bedroom units. The units will
sell for approximately $575,~~~.~~ for the two bedroom units and
$725 ,~~~ .~~ for the three bedroom units. The development will
contain a total of ten bedrooms for free market units or 2 x's
2.25 for the two bedrooms and 2 x's 3 for the three bedroom units
or 1~.5~ free market persons.
The applicant proposes to house 7~% of the employee generated in
a cash-in-lieu payment.
The calculation is 1~.5=3~% of x; x= 1~.,5/.3; x=35
The formula tells us that his 1~.5 free market residents are 3~%
of the project, that the total project size is 35 residents, and
therefore that there are 24.5 employees to be housed. MUltiply-
ing this number by the appropriate cash value gives the payment
due.
24.5 x's 2~,~~~ = $49~,~~~.~~ cash contribution for 7~% of
the project.
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Approve application and
cash-in-lieu payment of $49~,~~~.~~ due at time of building
permit.
_\2
Groundwork
Box 3863
Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 920-1202
January 12, 1988
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Development
Dear Steve:
The purpose of this letter is to provide technical clarification
of information provided in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes
development submission. Specifically, the applicants wish to
respond to Paul Taddune's letter of January 5th, in which he
states the city's position regarding clarification of the
employee housing contribution incorrectly stated as "70%" in the
sUbmission, and to respond to your request for clarification of
information supplied for the preliminary subdivision application.
The applicant's cash-in-lieu employee housing contribution of
$226,00.00 reflects a percentage of housing of 51.835 percent,
which is divided as follows: $226,000.00 = $20,000.00 x number
of employees housed; number of employees housed = $226,000.00
divided by $20,000.00 = 11.3; 11.3 employees housed + 10.5 "free
market residents" = 21.8 persons (total project); 10.5 "free
market residents" divided by 21.8 persons = .48165; 1.00-
.48165% = 51.835%.
If you concur with this calculation, it is my assumption that the
project will receive credit for housing 51.835% of the total
project., and the GMP scoring will reflect a score of 10.367
points for the employee housing category. In addition, the
applicants agree to Paul Taddune's second condition, which
requires adjustment to the dollar contribution if the cash-in-
lieu contribution escalates prior to payment of the contribution.
The information required for the preliminary plot is contained in
the submission, but as you know, it is not arranged in the same
order as Section 20-12 of Aspen's Municipal Code. In the
interest of efficiency, the following list of pages and/or
exhibits in the 925 E. Durant Townhomes SUbmission is arranged in
the same order as Section 20-12:
,<,.....,
/'"
Section 20-12
(a) The plat is labeled as Exhibit E; the vicinity map
is labeled as Exhibit D.
(b) The proposed name of the subdivision is 925 E.
Durant Townhomes (Note that a previous plot of
925 E. Durant was vacated in late 1987.)
(c) The owner and subdivider of the parcel is STP
Associates, 200 Main St., Toms River, NJ 08753.
The designer of the subdivision is Groundwork,
P.O. Box 3863, Aspen, CO 81612. The surveyor
(Exhibit E) is Aspen Survey Engineers, 210 S.
Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611.
(d) Exhibits D and E
(e) Exhibit E
(f) Exhibit E shows existing contours, Exhibit H
indicates proposed contours.
(g) Exhibit E
(h) Exhibits E and H
(i) Exhibits Hand P
(j) N.A.
(k) Soils tests will be conducted prior to any con-
struction on the site. The project is expected to
generate 12 vehicle trips per day (page 4 of the
submission). The project will contain a maximum
of one fireplace and one approved wood burning
device.
(1) As indicated by the text and Exhibit H, the pro-
posal will have no adverse effect on the surround-
ing area. Excavation has been minimized, no im-
provements are required to the water or sewer sys-
tems, and in fact, an existing 4" sewer line stub
will be utilized for the development.
(m) Page 4 of the submission contains the information
required by the section. According to the formula
contained in Section 20-18(A), the project will
generate nine persons.
(n) Exhibits Hand P
(0) N.A.
...,
,,~"'"
"
" f
(p) The names of adjacent property owners were trans-
mitted under separate cover.
(q) N.A.
I hope this information is helpful in your review of our
development.
On behalf of my clients, I would like to thank you for your
cooperation in working through these technical clarifications.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or the architectural firm of
Gibson and Reno if you have questions regarding this submission.
Sincerely Yours,
~ddge
WE/jak
cc: Richard Stanzione
Bill Pauli
John Tadesco
Augie Reno
Dave Gibson
Rick Knezevich
~"....,
JIll 3 ':10'
January 13. 1988
Mr. Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
City of Aspen. ColoraOO
130 S. Galena Sl.
Aspen. CO
81611
RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP Submission
Dear Chuck:
I t is my understanding that you require clarification of the storm
drainage system proposed for the 925 E. Durant Townhomes develop-
ment. The applicants intend to work closely with you to design a storm
water management system which will release storm water after the
peak of a storm, Based on criteria provided by your office, we will
design an on-Site basin, swale, or equIvalent device or devices with
flow restrictors to assure uniform and gradual release of storm flows
to the City's storm water management network at a rate below the
historic runoff flows from the site,
The development of the proposed storm water metering system will
result in substantial off-site benefits to the City, consequently we
trust that the system will merit the maximum award of two points.
Thank you for your comments and for your cooperatIon, I look forward
to working with you in the development of the townhomes project.
Sincerely, /.~_
(J)WvV~{Wh1t~
Waynfj}Ethridge
Groundwork
xc: Steve Burstein
..",...,'....
"
16
CITY OF ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jim Markalunas
925 Durant Townhomes
December 14, 1987
~9Y(~
As stated in the 925 Durant Townho es GMP Application, page two,
paragraph A, Water Service, water is available to the site via an
existing six inch main located in Durant Street. The Water
Department can furnish water to this development upon application
and payment of the prescribed tap assessment.
We have no further comments to make.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
,-...
~...
"
"
MEMORANDUM
i d':C 2 2 1::;8T
city Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
"~~1~~idAtedSani~tion District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Parks Department*
Roaring Fork Transit Agency*
steve Burstein, Planning Office
Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office
771 ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission
Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009
700 Main Residential GMP Submission*
Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002
,aB1t~ oor.nt:.~ownhollles llesidential.GMP Submission
Parcel ID# 2737-182-61-003
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.
THfs "lI.o"""~,,, p'-o~P...r- <::tt-- f!.e. $lI:lL"~f'> ra..y .,..,.,.. ,A-.s,.",-
G.o,..)O&../bAral> SA.....',."'''.- f>1s,T&tc.r. ,1\'- Ii-'( 4-.''''<< 1- (>VI&J't....r 'SI": IS
,..,.flA...~V "'....I"'!l rlJ'tj s",pp,c.,.-.r- CAPItC-c."'" q.o f1.,Al-.h"'" l""',s Pl..u..rIl:.c...-
H /J, r. L
_~ s,.,.~'-- ~_\3,:-S""" ""Y_I>
""""""
._~
.J
.... ,..'
T ADDUNE & ASSOCIATES. P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
JAN 5
'=---...........~~.h.____
PAUL J. TAOOUNE
AsPEN 'PAOf'ESSIOtW....~l,!!I,DtNG OffiCES:
600 EAST HoPKINS ..--..".----~~"
P.O. Box 9978
AsPEN. CO 81612
(303) 925.9190
FREDERICK W. GANNETT
ERIN F. HAZEN
OF COUNSEL
CITY HALL OFFICES:
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
AsPEN. CO 81611
(3031 925.2020
January 5, 1988
Richard A. Knezevich, Esq.
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 925 East Durant Townhouses: GMP Application
Dear Rick:
Based on the December 22, 1987, affidavits of Ann Phillips and
Wayne Ethridge submitted by your office, I am herewith advising
the Planning Office to permit a technical revision to the
Application, conditioned on the following:
1. The percentage of employee housing should be amended
downward to reflect the percentage of housing generated by a
cash-in-lieu contribution of $226,000.00 in 1987 dollars.
2. If the cash-in-lieu contribution for the promised employee
housing escalates, the project owner will be responsible for con-
tributing the amount of dollars equal to the percentage of
housing represented.
3. The number of points for employee housing to be awarded
will be a function of the reduced employee housing percentage,
not the 70% originally promised.
Please let me know in writing as quickly as possible whether this
is an acceptable resolution of the outstanding problems concern-
ing this application.
Vexy truly yours,
. -------
.~
----.---\.----. _...._-~-~~._..-'
~~---
Paul J. Taddune
City Attorney
PJT/mc
cc: Alan Richman
Steve Burstein
Ann Phillips
,....,
,", ,",
'.......
.,,1
JAN 8
LAW OFFICES
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARO A. KNEZEVICH
ASPEN,\OLORADO 81611
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOP1ER 920-1121
January 7, 1988
Paul J. Taddune, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81G11
Dear Paul:
In connection with your letter dated January 5, 1988,
in regard to 925 East Durant Townhouses GMP Application, this
letter is to confirm that your proposed resolution of the out-
standing issues are acceptable to us. We have informed Wayne
Ethridge to proceed with the GMP amendment in accordance with the
proposals contained in your letter.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
sincerely appreciated.
It was
Best regards,
& KNEZEVICH, P.C.
By
Ric
A. Knezevich
RAK/caa
cc:
Alan Richman
Steve Burstein/
Richard Stanzione
Wayne Ethridge
rwh3.09
""-
tfC30
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN
~~~ Subscribed and sworn to before me by Ann Phillips this
~ day of December, 1987.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: tf-).."7- "1f
',.
6.20
~~~
Notary Public
Address: :l
pox. q I,W
. /r>.r-- GO '!"I" /2-
,
AFFIDAVIT
, . , IJEc 3 0 /98r
, ...'-----
-.,........... ---.
---------- -....-
--
------------
I, Wayne Ethridge, hereby state as follows:
I am the principal in Groundwork, the planning consul-
tant that prepared the Residential GMP Application submitted by
STP Associates in regard to 925 East Durant Townhomes. During
the process of preparing such Residential GMP submission, I had
a pre-application conference with Steve Burstein of the Aspen/
Pi tkin County Planning Office. When the issue of employee
housing calculations arose, Mr. Burstein recommended that I
converse with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in order
to calculate the employee housing calculations due to the fact
that he was not positive as to how the calculation should be
made. Subsequent to such pre-application conference and shortly
before the actual submission of the application, I again called
the Planning Office and spoke with Tom Baker of the Planning
Office in regard to the employee housing calculation. Tom Baker
also referred me to the Housing Authority staff in order final-
ize the a calculation of the employee housing percentage.
I then spoke with Jim Adamski of the Housing Authority
who referred me to Ann Phillips. I described the project to Ann
and indicated to Ann Phillips that there would be 10.5 persons
housed in free market units. Ann then computed the contribution
for the 35% employee housing requirement. The number that she
provided to me was $113,000.00. I then indicated to her that
the applicant, STP Associates, had determined that it wished to
contribute $226,000.00 as a cash payment in lieu of employee
housing. Ann then indicated to me that the applicable percent-
age would be 70% (twice the amount of the 35% calculation).
I then completed the Residential GMP Application in
regard to 925 East Durant Townhomes based upon the representa-
tions of the Housing Authority. At the time of submission, I
believed that the. $226,000.00 payment that STP agreed to make
represented a 70% employee housing payment. The 70% figure was
included in the Application solely as a result of the informa-
tion that was provided to me by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
Dated: December 1-2- , 1987.
~ )~vf~ ~
Wa iie ; hn. ge ~ - . J r~
(Acknowledgement on foYiowing page)
.
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN
Subscribed and sworn to before me by Wayne Ethridge
this 7/~ day of December, 1987.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: 1-2"7- 1'(
6.21
~~
Notary Public
Address: pO'<. 1{~
Irsr- c.u f'1~ /L
~
"'-.....
~
""
December 7, 1987
Wayne Ethridge
P. O. Box 3863
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
Dear Wayne:
This letter is in regard to your 925 E. Durant Townhomes GMP
application. At this time, we have determined that your applica-
tion is incomplete, until we receive the following:
* Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
* Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application (only one copy needed)
* Your employee housing calculation is not correct.
Because you have submitted no back-up calculation
methodology, I cannot tell what is wrong. Based on
your having 10.5 free market residents, the correct
calculation is as follows: '
10.5 persons
= 30% of x; x
= 10.5.
-...
.3
x = 35 persons
Therefore, 35 - 10.5 = 24.5 employees to be housed, x
$20,000 per person = $490,000. Your application states
that you will pay $226,000, which will not even meet
the employee housing threshold of 35% of employees
housed. Since you committed to house 70%, you must
commit to pay the $490,000 (submitted 21 copies of
letter of clarification)
* This application was supposed to be presented at
preliminary plat level of detail, but you haven't
submitted anything on subdivision. Please address al1
relevant criteria of Section 20-12 and submit 21 copies
of the relevant material.
Because this application is part of the GMP competition, it is
our intention that it be scheduled on January 19, 1988 before the
Planning and Zoning commission. However, if the material
discussed herein is not submitted to this office within ten days
it will be impossible for us to complete our review in a timely
manner, and your application may be removed from the agenda.
......
.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Steve Burstein, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
SB:nec
,
~
~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Ann Phillips, Housing Office
Alan Richman, Planning Director~
TO:
RE:
Cash-In-Lieu Formula
DATE:
December 22, 1987
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
This memo is a follow-up to our phone conversation of yesterday.
Its purpose is to provide you with a simple formula from which
you can calculate the cash-in-lieu payment for residential
projects.
To understand the formula, we must assume that the applicant
knows the number of free market units he or she wishes to build.
Using our standard for persons per unit, this can be converted to
the common factor, residents. Taking this number as our known
factor, this number is equal to some percentage of "x", which is
the number of free market plus employees residents to be housed.
The formula is as follows:
# of free market residents = some percentage of x.
Taking the 925 E. Durant project as an example, there were 10.5
free market residents in these four units. The applicant told us
he wanted to have 70% of the project be employee housing, (which
means that his 10.5 free market residents must equal 30% of the
project) so we have to back into the number of people to be
housed in the total project to calculate the number of employees
for which he is responsible. Using the formula,
10.5 = 30% of x; x= 10.5/0.3; x=35.
The formula tells us that his 10.5 free market residents are 30%
of the project, that the total project size is 35 residents, and
therefore that there are 24.5 employees to be housed. Multiply-
ing this number by the appropriate cash value gives the payment
due.
I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Please feel free. to
distribute this memo anytime an applica!1t requests information on
cash-in-lieu for a residential project.
cc: Planning Office staff
hsnginlieu
,....
,"",-
--
'"-<I,....
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIIlENl'IAL GRI:lWlH Ml\Nl\GEMENr PIAN SUIHISSICN
EOlNIS ALIDC2\.TICN - TAIlll SHEEr
Project: 925 E. nrrant AvemJe (Soared 1/26/88)
P&Z vt:tr.nl; MEmlERS Welton JasIII:iIE ~ RaDDna D'lVid Marl Jim - Averacre
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water service ---L- 1 ---L- ~ ---L- ----1- ---L-
b. Sewer Service ---L- 1 ---L- ~ ---L- ----1- ---L-
c. Storm Drainage ~ 2 ~~ ~ --L.. ~
d. Fire Protection ---L- 1 ---L- ~ ---L- ----1- ---L-
e. Parking Design ~ 1 ~~ ~ --L.. ~
f. Road --L..2... 1 --L..2... ~ 1. 75 ----1- --L..2...
SlJIJIOIM, ~ 7 ~JL 8.75~~ 8.75
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood ~ 0 ~~ ~ 2.5~
Corrpatibility
b. site Design ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ 2.25
c. Energy 2.5 2 ~~ ~ 2.5~
d. Trails ~ 3 ~~ ~ --L.. ~
e. Green Space ~ 0.5 ~~ ~~~
SlJIJIOIM, 13.5 6.5 ~JL 12.5 11.5 11.25 - 11.18
3. Proximity to SUpport
Services (6 pts)
a. Public ~ 3 ~~ ~ -----2- L-
Transportation
b. Conununity Comml ~ 2 ~~ ~ ---L L-
Facilities
SlJIJIOIM, ~ 5 ~ --L- --L- -----2- --L- 5.57
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. IDN Incame 10.4 8.4 10.4 ~ 10.4 10.4 10.4 _
b. Moderate Income -- ---
c. Middle Income -- --- -
SlJB1UI2\L 10.4 8.4 10.4 ~ 10.4 10.4 10.4 _ 10.06
SlJIJIOIM, <::AT.EXXIUES 1-4 37. 9 26.9 35.4 ...1L 37.65 34.9 36.15 _ 35.56
5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) --L- 0 ~ --L- ---L --L ---L- - 1.43
'lOI'AL EOlNIS 1-5 41.9 26.9 37.4 ...1L 39.65 35.9 37.15 _ 37.0
..,"'~,
lJ,})J\f'"
"..1'
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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">
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:
)
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:
'7.--
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:
/((1../
COMMENTS:
2.
Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15]
:@
SUBTOT . d1'~
points).
010
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:
'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.
~fa-
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:
~~
,
- 4 -
-
,.......
P'....
,",.,
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
z~
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:
SUBTOTAL:
~. ~
-6)1
3.
Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
- 5 -
-
"'..1'''/
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:
Z 9?./
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
<;; '( '-
/'/\
/ /) )
! ')'
'.
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the city of Aspen and with the provisions of section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
- 6 -
".~.
"'. ,/
""
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:
iQd
,
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
""';
1~_
"
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
5.
J~~ f,_!d-~~;r-6
.;mJ .
P01nts (max1mum seven [7] p01nts).
SUBTOTAL:
RATIN~ L
POINTS
Bonus
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES
BONUS POINTS
e.~
r?~
5,j
)0.4 ~
(1/t ?J
NOT AWARD! -p " _"dO Iv
.'41-; 4-
1"1>. J.
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3'.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8 ~-
(l)Lj-h-~W'-
(
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
,.'.""..
......
~
..) '1""\\V
.. ..",
, I'
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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: I
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: /
,,-
-
...j/
'.4i/
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:
/
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
, RATING: ~
COMMENTS: 1ke.-.2.. COm /:JR.xu. ~ fOY/2;f.Lfs (lk pj 1.u.R :is fYIJU)d) r&
~n:.f7:!; ~;:~;~ 7::::':/;~~;/~-
~ Au~5.
- 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: 7
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: ThiS 6/);/~ //)1')1<5:, I;IU~ a..u ~ Md ~.....~
/lupt{l~.o lIlre. -M r i -in tU/t1;~. lOP 0,01-"1 w..e... ;,~
~)/.--tv-.-, 1 ./ 1? --Itt~ J< - (p (vi ~ -10 R.NF /
- 3 -
....''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: I
COMMENTS: 7Ut.. ~'tU2..'1t€---y-d .f,..e:I-bCY'k-S ~ //Jd.~Oa..n
~ ~ /2-/~'()Y) bP~&)//~cr
~ -J..o~ ~ Fft-.ec:17 r-€-
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-
- 4 -
_,e,,,",
" "
'. j"
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provl.sl.on 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.
.
en'tU- RATING: cr. S
COMMENTS: k4-6tl-C/<5 ~ A..--y1 et~/~
( f
SUBTOTAL:
6.5
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
- 5 -
"';~"
..
~
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
of an existing city
within two blocks walking
or county bus route.
RATING:
distance
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: 2-
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: S
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:
- 6 -
"...
...
"
~
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).
COMMENTS: ~cn'6Vv frr
~ &6- J..t.J-m.J 1-)) 1)t1. A ~
RATING: g.er-
/ M- b-rv1 rJYLo'1 u c..rn / <I-
~/0- trn -'is-Nt..
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
r'~'"
',",
'.",-"
"
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 TIIRESHOLD
POINTS
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
7.0
0. S
5.0
8,1-
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: .j~~ j "-1 ~
2b.<j
- 8 -
-III""
A"'.~
,",
"'lj'
(\
\, \.
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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:
i
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING:
I
,.,...."
cfj,
,-;,.
'1.'#
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:
L-
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
'"
RATING:
I
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:
~
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:
r
f(J
COMMENTS: b.-Nef( '( IS A.Jc) CuK: 6 ~<--)r5" OAJ bnM'A-dJ(
SUBTOTAL:
~(~
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:
'2 ' -)'"
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
,.....;.,.
"""
-.....11
,"",,;0<
b. site Design (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
---
RATING: -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:
7--
- 4 -
'.
-,
"'"
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
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:
-z-.
.
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
(1....--
~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:
- 5 -
,
"'"""-,
'".. ~
'4;
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
of an existing city
within two blocks walking distance
or county bus route.
.co<:.....
RATING: .,..L
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:
,/
1---, ')
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
.(~
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the city of Aspen and with the provisions of section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
- 6 -
y'"
/t...",
,
'I""
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:
lOti
COMMENTS.:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (one [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
?"t...,
...
",
. .
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
6o,uCJ,? 0,C/k;JV
5. Bonus Points
SUBTOTAL: (0, cj
Ii) ~/h<---fltZOJc3rr WrTft 8v6''t'..Au.... ~u:>() V,77IC,AJ
ftM (flk.)U'f
(maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
Z---
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
r-
~ {<:7
,?..6
0,5
10/1_
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
I
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD~
BONUS POINTS
5. BONUS POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8.J.!u /
AJi
"3:> (0 . 4
/
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
~p."y'y'
,
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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: .:2...
............
.
, /
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:
,;?
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: ~
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: 1;2.
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:
",{. !5
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: .3
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:
'd-$, 5
- 4 -
..........
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: ,;2..
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: .2
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
0J
/5
3. Proximity to support services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
- 5 -
,"~
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:
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:
- 6 -
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]
perce~t housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
"
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: !O
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
~
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
/;<
/5
o
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
/~
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
31.8") 4- 3
~.;r-.
c--_/".: ,Ai-- ,/ _;. ~J....d~~ ./
- ,
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
- 8 -
,-
-
."."
D (II ~
"",I""
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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.
Ih
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a.
Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
.
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
I
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 upgrajtng.
RATING:
.....
.~
''''"''...
i~
COMMENTS:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING:
~
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:
I
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
qutJ~p
RATING:
1--
CO~NT~~_
~t~~
- 2 -
"". ,~~
!.~
1"
,-,
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.
/,K
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
p;:t{
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:
2/;
COMMENTS: I
/ I
{flJ1w1 ~<nlry .
- 3 -
,.-...
"".,
'0'
......j#
b. site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and~riVaCy.
RATING: .f:
"!i;I1fL> 4!umy 7)1#",/ ;I/C1{T/lkIafiiJ ,
/
/
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:
3.0
~
- 4 -
f""^,
."' h
"",,J"
'-.1'"
COMMENTS:
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:
2,5'
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:
2
COMMENTS:
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:
- 5 -
....'....'<
.-
'-.J'
"I."
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
of an existing city
within two blocks walking distance
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.
iI'
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this
to two hundred fifty
section, one block shall be equivalent
(250) feet in linear distance.
:5
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
~
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
- 6 -
,,",'--',
.-'.'.,
""'"/
"+'
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;
Dormi tory: 1. 00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
RATING:
each five
~
[5]
a.
Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for
percent housedJ.
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
".
""',
"r.""
"
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
~%ot--
~lWti' tt
;lW!/Aly
POINTS
toY
0, 7 )
/2.5
/c?
&(
51' . (p
NOT AWARD 3r,(p(
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
~
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
~~
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
~~
?.--
- /'
,s1.(o "
- 8 -
"""'
'.;J
:)
r~
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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:
I
COMMENTS:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: ~
........,
.... ..'
,.'-
COMMENTS:
c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING:
I)--
COMMENTS:
d.
Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
'"
RATING:
\
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 2 -
4. k':J.. Jj ~
-~
h,
,J
'-.....
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:
~.5 1'8""
( C, i
\..-../
oV
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 -
,.e...,
~I.#
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: I)
COMMENTS:
c. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
-
RATING:
d,2>
.
- 4 -
/
_p-l_..
..
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
1-
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:
~.S-
.
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
~.oYJ
8"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:
- 5 -
/.,.~"
_.t......
,,,,.'"'
, "~
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
of an existing city
within two blocks walking distance
or county bus route. ep
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:
fJ-
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
s;
o~
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:
- 6 -
".,,'.....
,.,/
""".
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: L 00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: /01 'i
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed) .
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS:
3.6
4.5
1.8
7
POINTS
r
'6,"<)
If
&JSff# S-
ID,I--/
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
,
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
'bbl\US V~&~ 5-
~,~
C-\
C l C)'Se l'"
'(\.lA. 'ro \.le ~ ~
~
'\Y-c\cO
- 8 -
31.8
\0cl :
q 360/
*
c~
-\~Y--
-\~
~Q..J\r'> 0
g.~
Ii), /.j
/1
6
(
.-----:: C\
,,,"'",,
CQU)M=D
,...
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 925 E. Durant Townhomes
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.
\
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: 1.....
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: --J
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:
-z..
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:
t-5
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: ~ .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:
-z..~
COMMENTS:
- 3 -
"';.4R'
~,
'k;
-
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:
~~s
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:
7.5'
- 4 -
/">'"
1,.,
<.-."'"
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provJ.sJ.on of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING:
2..0
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:
~.D
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: -l \.1-5
3. Proximity to support services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
- 5 -
,.
,- "
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
of an existing city
wi thin two blocks walking distance
or county bus route.
RATING: ?J.O
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.-0
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
Cn.O
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:
- 6 -
,..-.-,
.. ,
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 J.ncome 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 [lJ point for each five [5J
percent housed).
RATING:
10.4
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
. ~, .
"
..
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [lJ point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
5.
Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES
MINIMUM THRESHOLD
POINTS
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
7
~.5
_II. zS'
~:D
If). t
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
1.8
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
PAthob
A-pfM
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD \. b
BONUS
5. BONUS POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS:
~J.J:)
Name of P&Z Commission
- 8 -
...
o
o
0'1'f t, OVY~h7 51.
P'Pf",I;, t. b.:IJ.~tJ.;tp'Dje,fl'1 4/Dtl~iJ.. qDD~/.,1{1EiJOw~~t4~
10,.toJ bet."., +l AI,;" /-JPIil I ~ ~ f,.....I.t.,.t. Q/l.~ h.,)j"J fj\jl.fN+~
~ A~ . jb~,,1h S1'~~ tL aMM oJ j,.,. l- 011 HuJ..J.
7J... ;lllll\;)i,tt )Ii c.;~Aj ~ ~ ~ /llu}t;.f,~',IJ J J",k1l1J S i~)), .("",', k J ~ L-Jf.J.y -
t'1fj,~1 q t4 tIlt fr./.( ~-MF )D~~J,.,1{jJ)
. I -I .
- T~ i.-f;/J f>VJ"t;lt'r"lo~~ VWI11 si'f~, ~ rhOW'" for f4 h.1.t ~loJ, ILAi Mv..~7""''J''.
:t.) ~ ri- ~.~~ (lIIIt/l
A~\iG/~. o' 0 0 . -, r:b:.) (~1 fA.; 't1'~'
~ h ;.L.,tt.J ~~~~~J.fr;"e"t ,~fbio... ~ ~ - f-~
Yh~k,~;-J1: a ~~ ~ r",tl..,-II-.. 'llr..,-
fII-tfrl f'Ml1 A.<J.. t
'''II(;ff'III'~.
~ r y.f(f(~1 ~ - f ~ f /,vJ;, I)~, J- fL ~ ~ S;'~I j~f;.....
O;)1y;;t p~vf.;~ to t~ ~ 1~'''1 iiA ul iJ1Ii fL ~ OJ,-iAt ~~~YHij'-f r.ow.
~ (wV{,,) S"V'y H~ 'v~;I.~L - no d,",., h. f"tl~ I, fJ,1ft~ IVb)-f
- rio...", J..j.":f plA-1l ~jpl,. ~ W,'t~50J)'0.~'J;t-< IA~-f,.J'>
- 1l fJ,~;n) ~ (tJf/A&- '"j"bf II- ~~ f~."jJf1ft5.."...JN f"k'{Jj "p'l1 )
i, $(ht; ff,,'}
. --~s cj iI~ i~ - I,J.t.. ~ ~,th #'I-lOt. i- ..ISmJ Ov.~iJ:v.(, ';,4+1 ~
;'It,lIii;'''1 ,li~ ./p.~ Dvud I J'.ftwJJ. li7~-I;,) H,l. I.,/Ij
/n1t,lI.f''''1 fl. i~il;MllvJ..L...j I tf/14..,(~JUr-<. Dff fl.liI}
p rwi I;", 1 "'" ~ ~y" tr(~lil'''l'rfJJ~ttl('P' 'rtfr>V-
t ArF" to rJdAI If'- ~ fbf tl ~
:> A stvo.W f;~(;.j JUoI,.\l.v. fh..lll ",J, f'II (c~. {/~.
,~ ~ 0 f.tiV).~,11~6Jv-Ao,?~1
t~ (Jl~hnl~j Off//,{ M~ 4 t~ rr'jeJ ",...t tL J.1..Ji';"J\ HUlon) o.tt~I' . 7l ~
~ ,k1;7h ',rem (J,', Ii ,t,il4;r;;- .((lIft;,)' - no V",~;-I.jAt.J dWj(~Oh tJ.).lFly~p;v.';""'''fi~j"o
W, . ~ " "-!fT.v,1 1 ~ (J..liv;'Ir., svl-jd to 'I c-b~iTj...) (r., (I S & t) .
- --- ---
~
o
o
I
I
I
_____01) VV\~II+ (cont;t1vJ]
I
)rI '~ tAJI-j""/{f!.t, tl ~ t,.., (krJ 0. ~Z1ti tJo7J ~~)~ f'~~ 1uhvv,>< 11,)
I IbWi~I'''' ~1'Y>f1.~,
1 IHk.,(,J ~ _,' "
INt . .. t~ ~ ~ 1 t). .rt'oJ"JAv..14~L (Of (Alh
O"-);~
off'J; I,
W11.k~ TW ~ H)"-!IYl>,W_~~U~',t~f'D,iJ.J~flv';rfj~
N-t~ reo.~;nJ.t.~~k~, .
D~( rellUlrlj h +W: I~ J;1;:,; f .' . v t;, JAi,} ~L ~-1,1rl"'J 1Jflu
I, t~ '~',tt kt/5vf{'ILlfWj-I~J ~(r2,Dnd)f.r tt~
d~IlI' t)' Q)<. f"p.'t
- ~ ~~
i )~
/ /~
K";U'\11.JA.,.cl-
(I \ l>cttt'r ~JJ, i~;t
1-z..,~ dh1YI1~'-r.'f)
YlOb ~ 3 ~-~ ,H~
6'(' I I.
7HO ',)'~ 2-3~
l'1fO I-/~ :J.-I~
~
He 1:1'./<-7'" j, :,t4.k-1 f:r hiJk,,1,.;,rj ~,;+. {i, f,i",,;,ly Ptrrl""f'o-l
, '- .j. n;~1
r("JI~.. . - '"
V" q J..J 1.( ~fi6',,;" .;, 'pl,r.-., I" C.lII< fi rl. ,-,;,~!..4..A
(1. ~ fl. I" ..t;..1, II., f"j"f' ,p ~ ;~-f, II-w:f~;" all!i~..J 3.,,"JI'1~d
/ll.!lfl p";');f9l1 II" Il1-J v;,t AtfrVfrU" or)... (,~',.YT
~ hy ~ - ~ AJ ..Ii !-1. H. ';1-' J f'o).",;, h t. llhl/ll'..'t] f"i 111fv J
'""hA." li>"J;, r'"
"
t'k fv~,^, 'AoAv~ c~r'>"rI1; ~ -MiJ~ - ""~J~ J ~,r)1
,;, tl ("~Ii.. .,','./ 1 phf'l4n1nt ~ ,eliU) 1iX. ;'j{lJf~>J
w; ti Vil>-t".".r,,,J~f;,,,) i~ o"l~ -<:iilj),,) lolje) (a"; (rof. .rr,,<r).
(3) i4. f~d ~ stelll) iD .ll.w v:n.ui /IIljOrlh,J/(;,.1;", f!J1J.,11~, fi",
11bJm.{ALul-'llHf'l ""'......tJ...",,(~,;,I.)i/lfJtJI.~t4f.....)l"
rJ... fY'J<J cDrnfbl"t~ 10",1/ h. ,lit.. ~ .:... _w~~ p.;~'{;J.;:.'k L.r/( 1'f/...f:~'~ Ivy.,>,
ekJuf 51"'V\):~l ~ ISI.J.O' ,So, (onJi",;;,,.iJ,., ciJpk<fJ,\Wlfl,wl fJ It ;/l/1or.( J-"t:!J.d ;ny,J i-F
tl. fn':~"~/1 ~4>", ("!vi-,,~ f~V\.~.;J un-l....,J.r ~~rt Mrt'<p.,. po,;.hJ.
~~f',"I to1t I-ttl, /1',ki t,~ ~H,iV\J 1,\ r~(J 71 I' I n It f ',_. ,~../J 11,1 '" "'JiM U "If;".,;f./.., M>oi~
4f1!'f. 110 I Iv ~ 'n 'rV i -(v~. N- ,
" "~C411'f'fb~D>Al.~TU)17" a. f' I' 1'1 1.1 1 II t ,,. ).. ~
~b~trj I t. ; I t') , I 1, .:::---.. "f o\jh L,)<<-'> A JJ t ,". /1.1.(.-.1 ).. n",,/ tin ,'l>If1rrJ.Mi', 0/,. ~I;) ,- ' ". ,I'" I
O' '''''./1''' J """~~DI,l"""~~IVIl"
--
-
- --- -
~
o
Q
,
ill Hl;hj ALI~~,~,t~ ~.(f.u..11 H.1.fIa1,. J~b"I(/j ~\oI>H7 4</...,/(,',
j.~;.~, -jIJ 0"'_)' l. ",,,1,1 J>., h, "f~
b MP l LOr;,,) -
sf.,,, J,.;. 'r (tnldi~' ~l ~ ~ ", I""/I~'
fM 1(,(1)
~'~QQIJ m"')ni~L,j,il
I
M ) + . tn E.l>-n).~ Ih.>>i"'J \
''1;'1joY- 'On co{ ry\ - .\ 1111\0)1/ "" ....... r ) )
Il'1t/Jl~1 p,.,rt4 ;'lvl, - h,\stAj"1 t~I7L~$5.
,
VlC1v'Al\tAj' 1 ~ -t1
(~"'I"ln l\~oufJf"..JJr~-
}i~~
- reli'/'( /Yl"IIYi;"/V/ of-<!\ljjlJ
:r~ m ~~t'.j~t ~P&l}i'j ,
10 or,'"" i~ pvfiLvI'1'~ IJV.J" _ nlllhl ".i/'rJJ/~ '.'.
Ji (\o, ~Jh\'hj(i- Il'Wt~;I'1~~ Tt7 frOtl,,... M';".~
~)Yj~~-t J ~ .""'v....J. - (I) IILv-
(l) ~,-tf (~I,z-I\..nJ
(11 (bl'lrhi,,~ ht:lo
C " AM, - ~ II", r >viJ i)Y'
(~ I fh~I1~'f4, ;(I If ;+'-1/' 4
An Qt\l'ovHJpDIIL-)
~
-
-
o
~)
.
I
"1 '1 T f. OVra~1'
-
Lot",(o(,- 110d <P
4/1~wAbL,f~R -11014 dJ
FA R II f, lit ~ '0 D I ~ t( '8 b:l)
8',IJ;.J f',~tp(;~t U, 'ft') <f'
Ofh Spl" K'F".,I- Y,1 Df.
()~" Sf&li fnvlJtJ - "1,1 n ~
f2rO.'<<\- 2"03rJV,,~,MM)
771 Vf.( - 2. 1 S7tP/ltnlt f~ e
I
,1-) ~~ v,.f,
~-1J.j~~ "~,\
7'2.t 0
'Il 0 v
---------
/ I 'i 6 iJ
r f- 1. J"I'/-<<I> ,'l> Lor, 'bID P - 3,60o<l>/f'" lot d' 7. i 00 11 %J/l,II'r.J4'1Ilv./,;I'>"f'.-J.
COfltp"ff: F""K RIlI~ ,j ",no"
7bO ~.Hy",~n ..t 'iJ~oo '/'
i (, fA$!)
- '1,Oooq. (7H#'(I)
~.'f ~'-
6'-'<,
, -< ~:l. <\~ .5 )x
d'M~\I'~\ - '7iJO ~,i-J-}V\11, _ t. ,f1'Y11'1) - u,'y7b J, r.
f, ,>tt -I pJ 5" fL..I'- 1. /, t. )II
bv,ll,"'J Hf~,J"1- 'X 11)
<;n.~ 1 ~,JJ,- ~ I'
jil..' t bl';f~9trl>>i~.,J J)J
Cl'l1" t I\)VI~""
---------------
Lt I "\13
,
'2.0 -<.-1'
';:: 1'1'
1 Y I
h-(\)V\t
, I Ju WI)+ ~
11'
~\!'
-r{ &N-6'lt~',i.J *v~;t:
'J ~-~ no 0
11'~ ') po
I "f 1'1L.. 11)0
'-71'
~ )
n' ):,
1. o.,'l J
'1a3. f,t.1 "'5'A- ~ rUJ6~OltJll'j-(f ~""II"J
:;) 1.7r ~4 3.JjJD/,j
').0 V
~ , 7" ,f>of'
/D.'i ~ ...,.J.r
Y.'7~ X, LO,'" iJf7 'I, grJJ
'f I,)>) -(""I"y
q.7 r . ry..- 'I< Kr. ie );Jt~tl
-
I
II
"
"'-'" -
"'",
,
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, hereby certity that on this !:/f!l- day of
1981' :' a true and correct copy of the attached Notice Public
Hearing was deposited in the united statesLmail, first-class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to th~ Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the public notice.
COL~'
Nancy
,
r ,",c
""<.
(
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GHP SUBMISSION/SUBDIVI-
SION
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 four-unit townhome project on
Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. This
application will be evaluated under the residential growth
management quota system and reviewed according to preliminary
subdivision criteria.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-2020, ext.
223.
sIC. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
commission
=============================================================
Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987.
city of Aspen Account.
ph.12.29
..
l
1"'"'
'"
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION/SUBDIVI-
SION
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 four-unit townhome project on
Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. This
application will be evaluated under the residential growth
management quota system and reviewed according to preliminary
subdivision criteria.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin planning
office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-2020, ext.
223.
sIC. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
commission
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
ph.12.29
'87 12/16 1:::32
o
z: 201 2.:1(1 -1-94$
Q STAt<ZlOIlE
02
,
I
STANZIONE, STANZIONE, MARTONE & ROSEN
A Paon_Alo A>oocun..
A1.rIIOHU A, Bum.""", Ja.
RICI!AI:D [I. 8tANZlOlll
c:I.I'fItUDlTtD~{t:l(J1t1'O'
,.,nr IDIIT.." cmL ftUL UToaJolIf
~'N..."D.C."I'U.,IU.I
~d-&p
8wmONK BUDJlL'<<l
ZOO M.uN STUBT
TOM8 RIVER, NEW JERSRY 08168
M4u.!IIG ADDU...
r. O. Box 417
TOK8 Rilla. N.J. 08764
10..l'II r, III.uroH1I
N&n. B. IlooIl<
&~'liD P. Gl.ull&&
(201) 2.0-1284
FAX' (201) Z'0.49~
nece~her 16, 1987
\.Iayne Ethrld~e
c/o Groundwork
p . (). Box 3 K 6 8
Asp"", Colorado 81612
near ~r. Ethrld~~:
I
I
This is to confirm that you A.re ,q'lthor:lz~d to process
the re51d~ntlal GMP subml.o10n for the 925 E. Durant
TO\Jnhomef\ nevel-)pment on hehalf of STP Assoc:i<!teF:.
I f Y ou h a v " any
please do not heaitate
questions concernlnM thia
to contAct roe. I remain
;7
..'~L~
matter.
l~
v
RDS:cco
---'-...- ..
N'C~ARn. STANlIONE
.
I
I
~-
.- .----. .-"
I
,.,..,,",
,
.:'
',/
"-'--'
Sanctity of Contract
STEWART TITLE
OF ASPEN, INC.
602 E. HYMAN . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . (303) 925-3577
December 4, 1987
Rick Knezevich
Oates, Hughes and Knezevich
533 E. Hopkins Av
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Rick,
Attached is a list of names and addresses of owners of
property adjacent to Lots F, G, H and I, Block 119, Aspen.
Although our search was thorough and we believe the statement
herein to be true, this is neither a guaranty or opinion of title,
and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc.
neither assumes nor will be charged with any financial obligation
or liability on any statement contained herein.
Sincerely,
/~/J~
Peter P. Delany ~_
Title Department q-
lUock 119
,...".'.
'-..
'-",
-
Lots A-E, The Landow Townhomes
Unit A
Nathan Landow
4710 Bethesda Ave.
Bethesda, MD 20014
Unit B
Landow Associates
755 West Big Beaver Rd.
Troy, MI 48084
Unit C
Robert T. Morrow
943 Cherokee La.
Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417
Unit D
Haan Trust
C/O Telic Corporation
6100 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
Lots M, Nand 0
Bertrand J. McDonell, Jr. and Janice A. McDonell
C/O Northstar Lodge
914 Waters Ave.
Aspen, Co 81611
Lots P and Q, Chateau Snow Condominiums
Unit 101
Walter E. Wells
20779 Decatur St.
Cassopolis, MI 49031
Unit 102
Nicholas Heineman
Cider Mill Rd.
Stamford, CT 06903
Unit 201
S & R Realty
3940 Walden Shores Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Unit 202
Meyer's Bakeries, Inc.
Box 7498
Little Rock, AR 72217
Unit 203
Leonard & Patricia L. Frankel
lllll Biscayne Blvd, Tower 3
Miami, FL 33181
Units 301 and 302
Hooligan Properties
3250 Stirling Rd., Suite 5
Hollywood, FL 33021
Lots Rand S, Block 119, and Lots K and L, Block 40, East Aspen
The Silver Glo Condominiums
Unit lA
Judith R. Bielinski
1529 Basswood Circle
Glenview, IL 60025
Unit IB
Bernard Gray
805 Merry Acres Court
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Unit lC
Robert A. & Melanie C. Dean
P.O. Box 80953
San Diego, CA 92138
Uni t ID
Vaught E. & Rebecca H.
Counts
12602 Kimberley
Houston, TX 77024
"."'''
'-
Unit IE
Dan T. Ballard
1225 West Main
Tupelo, MS 38801
Unit 2A
Jay L. & Margaret Adler
230 Yale Ave.
Colorado Springs, Co
Unit 2B
Joel H. Freis
130 El Camino Dr. #100
Beverly Hills, CA
Unit 2C
Craig E. Liebel and
Michael E. Warner
1045 Celestial
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Unit 2D
Brigitta Jacobsen and
James Robert Barash
50 West Cheyenne
Colorado Springs, CO,B0906
Unit 2E
Robert W. and Michelle M.
Bilstein
5087 Idylwild Tr.
Boulder, CO 80301
Unit 2F
William J. Robinson, Trustee
520 Calcard Dr.
OklahOma City, OK 73102
Unit 3A
Doris & Jack O'Neil
416 Kresse Circle
Hopkins, MI 55343
Unit 3B
James C. & Adriana P. Haidman
(No Address Available)
Unit 3C
Betty James and
Louise Gerstley
900 Homestead Rd
Jenkinsown, PA 33156
Unit 3D
KR&T Associates
C/O K and J Partnership
6406 Brentfield Dr.
Dallas, TX 75248
Unit 3E
Craig E. Liebel and
Michael E. Warner
1045 Celestial
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Unit 3F
Robert A. & Melanie C. Dean
P.O. Box 80953
San Diego, CA 92138
Unit 3G
James & Sharon Wehsemer
1045 Celestial
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Unit 3H
Richard L. Fried, Jr. and
Marsha Fried
1942 Judd Hillside Rd.
Honolulu, HA 96822
Unit AA3
N.S.N. Associates, Inc.
11051 W. Addison St.
Franklin Park, IL 60131
Block 118, Aspen
Lots P, Q, Rand S
The Brass Bed Associates
926 E. Durant
Aspen, Co B1611
Silver Glo Condominium Assoc
P.O. Box 9260
Aspen, CO B1612
.........,
.
,
,
~.'
Chateau Snow Condominium Association
C/O Coates, Reid & Waldron
720 E. Hyman Av
Aspen, Co 81611
Landow Townhomes Condominium Association
(No Address Available)
"'~
7
,
r
(
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION/SUBDIVI-
SION
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 four-unit townhome project on
Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite. This
application will be evaluated under the residential growth
management quota system and reviewed according to preliminary
subdivision criteria.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin planning
Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-2020, ext.
223.
sIC. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and zoning
commission
=============================================================
Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
ph.12.29
..
~.
~'" j;If __ u_-f!
... ,...
Cc .:-J
<,'
. "", In'.. ('0
\, .1988'
. /-
;..~
. ..
~----
,-,~-...........-----
_..-
'-.
~---.....,.----
"-: --::",-:.
" ,.:. ~ r ~ ~; (Ii l;
.:rN
~)'.t '--
-- ,.:;..;?~,~(~\ '.~v,,'_ f. 'f'
"lf~'~ /Vj' '. Ai
~':l8~ 0 "'~ La~~w Assc;>ciates
i~~~S"~~~ 75~West BJ.g Beaver Road
-.Q~D~' T~~y, MI 48084
O~~.;,'
, ~i1 ~.
J!\I'l i I
1.1,,'1'1',111,,1,,',,1,.'.11,,'
CO.vlMITMENT:
1 '.011",. ., .",."
~ D,,," ,." H"'" ~"I,,"It',1
J '",,,,_ N,,,nl',',
.IT""".1<;I""'I_,,",.
~ l.1,'h,hl~
I'Ch,u",.
/\,..1"'-"''''''''11,,,10'
f1l".I'''~'''''''''1 CI\~' 'I"
~ T ",..j II,'~"",,,,
1(1'01.",.1:."1'-
l1C"",,'Y(""""
I]P'"l'''''Y1n'''
>' .
ll:",,,"",,'II,,.,_,,.,,
T" r- <""""'.~,<", '1",.."",."
-
.l~_-J~___ I: r
r
I~
I~
EEr
11 13
-
kllJ)lers vIle Insumnce G>rpomtion
National Headquarters
Richmond. Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
_. EffecllveDa'e: JUNE 25,1987 at 8:00 A.M.
Case No
PCT-446-87 C-2
''''''? Policy or policIes 10 be Issued:
-
(a)
.- Xli1l ALTA Owne,'s Policy-Form 8 ,19701Rev. 10,17,70 & Rev. 10,17'84)
o ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979
- Proposed insured: RICHARD STANZIONE
Amount S 360.000.00
with a premium of $456.00
(b)ALTA Loan Policy. 19701Rev. 10.17.70& Rev,10.17,84)
....... Proposed insured:
Amount $
Icl
_ Proposed insured:
Amount $
-
3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land
described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested. in:
-,
-
SPENCER SCHIFFER, in trust for the Unsecured
Creditors of said Cantrup Estate
-
...4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
-
LOTS F, G, H, and I,
BLOCK )) 9 ,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
-
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
-
Countersigned at
Pitkin County Title, Inc.
01 E, Hopkins (303)925-1766
As en Col raljo 81611
Commitment No. BE-225380
Schedule A-Page 1
,-
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Sched.
_ J__ A __... ... ___ _..__...._...
,""-
"
--,"",
'-"II'
l!!.wyers 11 tl~..1~~H~.~~~~r~ (9rpora lion
Richmond, Virginia
SCHEDULE 8-Section 1
Requirements
.,....,
The followmg are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (al Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideratIon for the estate or interest
to be Insured
Item (b) Proper Instrument(sl creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record,
to-Wit
I. Deed from Spencer Schiffer, in trust for the Unsecured Creditors of said
Cantrup Estate vesting fee simple title in Richard Stanzione.
-
2. Evidence satisfactory that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by
Ordinance No. 20 (series of 1979) has been paid or exempted.
-
3. Evidence satisfactory that the Right of First Refusal recorded April 3, 1985
in Book 483 at Page 955 has been complied with.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring ProvISions and Sched-
ules A and B are attached,
Schedule B-Section 1 ,Page l-Commilment No. BE-225380
r-....
kwy~ l1tle Insurance C9rporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B-Section 2
Exceptions
"'~
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same ore disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
Easements, or claims af easements, not shown by the public records.
Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which
o correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which ore not shown by the
public records.
Any lien, or right to 0 lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, 1m.
posed by law and not shown by the public records.
Defects. liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in
the public ..ecords or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered
by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien
imposed for water of sewer service, or for any other special taxing
district.
-, 2.
3.
-
4.
- 5.
-
-
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of
Aspen providing as follows: that no title shall be hereby acquired to
any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining
claim or possession held under existing laws and subject to all the
conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in Section 2386
of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
-
-
-
8. Those matters as disclosed on the Plat of 925 E. Durant, recorded
April 16 ,1982 in Plat Book 13 at Page 29.
-
-
-
Exceptions numbered
NONE
are hereby omitted,
-
-
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if ony, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1, Item (b).
(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance
thereof; water rights, claims or title to water.
(3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax soles.
Schedule B-Section 2-Page l-NoBE-225380
-
..
...",
..
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
- 3.
-
-
-
-
4.
-
-
-
-
kl.V)!C.:'s Title Insurance C9r~ation
National Headquarters
Richmond, Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION. a Virginia corporation. herein called the Company. for valuable
consideration. hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date her~of or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the
fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed a~d sealed. to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By.Laws. This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date,"
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term "mortgage." when used herein, shall include deed of trust trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule 8 hereof. and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect lien, encumbrance. adverse claim or other
matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule e of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations,
Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of pOlicy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b) to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule e, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
~wyers llde 11l8U~ GxporallOn
01 Me. rJ cwv-:16V'
President
Attest:
4aUC~
Secretary.
K""'Iflk'J~I__ll'd,. _.I\.t.
HCt."I:'pUtlfl Nil
'l! 544 PAlif969
~".,
Ilntllder
..
,.
r7!
WARRANTY '"'EED
292438
THIS DEED. M..Jr.o Ihi,
3/rr
iJartll
August
I'" 87. be1W<<ft Spencer F, Schiffer, as Trustee for the
Unsecured Creditors of Cantrup &ankruptcy Estate
utlht City of Aspen'CutUltlut Pitkin -.lSI..b:,,'
"r<<,:lkm=_.
Sf, I II It . '17
"" Cuk,radll. JrldHnr. idId S 'f P Associates, a New Jersey
o General Partnership,
&I)
I
'---
t:d
~~z~."'~ ""',........"
~ N
~r5 ........... ~ oIn.JSI*llT~~~'~
u...&:a:: "IHi'_'-lIiETH.llwdlr".uforlVldIn COlhMler.dlllllufIhI:\um"I Ten dollars and other good and
o 6: ~ valuable consideration ________________________________________________~
i::::'! &&Ill! 1he~.-d-.atltt:I~'k..,.llf.hl..:t"'htfd)\ ......n..v.IcJlh.'\J. h;r.~rmtc\l. 11..,.,.11I11:0.1. \ltkl oInJ "Jtl',-:o,'J. ..001'0} Iho:'>CJll\''oCnl',)."" l/"oInl. h"",oIm. 'oC1I
c:; ~~ ~ ~"(.\q aIIII~.lUMOdI=....._r.tu"heln-.Jb\"'hhlfnn. oIl1lho:R.'..lpn~n~ "'f','Ilk-1 IIollhlmJl'l"...mtnh. "oIn~. 'lIu..b:.I),'1t/_'....1n1/ Inlhc-
i:J dr City of Aapen CUWltyof Pitkin ~nd SIJk" "I C"lot"<IIJIl ..k>l,.nh.,..,j;l<o !ut)...."
200 East Hain Street, To.. Rlver, New Jersey 08753
Lots F, G, Ht CInQ I
Block 119
City and Townsite of Aspen
r-
OC'
STATE IlOCUMENTARY F'~
~.7
1 . 36.'~: J
...J
-.
"7
1-
.~
.. knlMn by ~ "number...
925 Eaat Durant Avenue
....
11K;nHUt ~ .-11 ~ ~'-the hcteditamctlb MId ~h thC'~ bekJn~lnB II" In ;IJ1)"'I'oC "'flpCf' linin,. ~ Ilk' ~on lInJ
re\-('p.,,,,,, ""'.';'1d'.f 0I/lId ~nuU,*".~. tMun'" pn,,", tiIeJllof.... all rh:o~. n,hl:. 1I1k:. I_In(. 4t.lm akI.Jcrrlil ";':\l1('\~t" ullho:
IIr~fIl," ..hd In ~-or..)'.of. ..alldtpdwllblwclwpincd~."'~lhchen..,j,wnr:nhOl/lld~ncnan..T\
III iiA\.E AND TO HOLD 1M Yid PfftIIhn __......Iincd..~. .llh the iflPUn..'1WIl.:(". unit. Ilk, ~t"ilnl<<. hi' Ik-If' 0In.J it'o'ljl"'
k...l.....r Andlh:"...... bhimwlf. huhftn. ..pehOMI~..~.4Dh\~. Jfml. NrJ;un. oIfkl..~I,,~nd 110 11ft tbo: t/,4ftk...... hi,heJr. 400
ib\lP\.lhaI. dwlimeo(lhtenw...._ddiwryolthne~. .i~_It~lledut dwpmu\C'\abuw l.)fIh1-c..,j. u.. J!"11I1. ~~. ~rt('4.I. 4t->,..lulc
and l~naaal"rilWk'C. ill". u-Ift....... Hdhal.jJtJl.ldri"'. flll'p~"""",' lIldhul"Il) I.. Franl. b.r"illn_ '",:Il.md "'11\"-" tIk.' '.110.:
la mMnn.... rom. eo 1IIufnaid. MIl _ die liame _ fKe Md dr.'i"m;aS ilf1t'lrr iIIl'J ulhrf Io!fllnh. h..'l/'illn'. -.ak,_ 11~'lh. 1,,-,0;:,_ "''oC''lJk:nh.
t1k~"n-lnIricIill.~l1t.hllnnklndu..~loIllM"f."""'qlI general taxe. and any taxes, special
as.ess~nt., charges or Ilene ~8ed for water or sewer service or for any
other epeclal taxing district, for the year 1987 and subsequent years; and reser-
vations and exception. as contained In the Deed. from the City of Aspen dated
August 2~~ 1888 and recorded in Book 59 at Pa~e 475. November 2. 1888 (see rever~e)
Tfit "..,..... \lW1.-d "'10 WARRANT AND RlaEVER DEfL."4DIhr *-.lwJaiitd ~ In thr qult1 tIIld pra:elblr P"''K"\\"K1llf thr panke.
b,,, hel,...... b"',..,.... a1IMdncry prnotIor prt'IOII!o '-f"lI)' e.."".... liar.... or it"):-n .f("t'" like '1"",1. nurnbrr \haIIIIKIUtk dll:' p1un1.
lhe pl... dIl:' 'Inc:w., Md Ihr U\C of _) JftIdrr wll be "'11.."** k' all Fnden
1:'ItII ".IT'lL.." "'Hf..f<<"'~ IhI: ,nonIIlI'" ~ o;:\,'.:u~.J Ihl' do...."'.!ft lhe iLIIo: ...:-t ........h
fo-r
HUt. (N. n...oR....'.)
(."um).It
}"
Pitkin
Iht k..,... tllWnlmrlf ...b"'Wdpdhdll'~lItC' lOft Cuunl) lit Pitkin
(......... ~f1f" cM)...- August .11187 .tt) Spencer F. Schiffer.
~~~~,~:,,"~~,~~ Cred1to/~ M /;. ca~t'lf :~~~~~p~ .~a,~~~,~ ",I
. StaIr 01
as Trustee for
. ,\-'.,
/ ....~.
~ ".. ".
..' \\.
...
~.~
-'"";P""-- ~ _
. ,..,
_1'- _ 3rt I
"......~ 1/ iJ~' ~~.
.' ....... .'-\
11
[)
.
,
.
.
"
I
fl
~I
11 -
.. '" 1
( i
! 71
III
1)
,j
I ~
, ~
I n ~ ;I
,J .
rl !" IL [,'n i, ~ :
:>.' oF. _;. :
:!i ". ,,~
- t J: I ~_ P I
1 ~ I f i,'
Ild~11
o
~
"
"
>
2
..,
<
"f
~
~
"
I
i
~
,
"
i
,
~
~
7
~
a
=
~
~
=
Eml 544 PAGE970
and recorded in Book 59 at rage 499. January 25. 1888 and recorded in Book 59 at
Page 314 of the records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County.
,I,
, ,
-.
'.
,
-
. ,
I'
.
u."
i-a
"m
~:I::lI
-g I
0"-
I iilS'
I r!
!
! -4
'-~ ,
.
..
,.,
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.
\J..", ~
q <:> 9,~1<
~~
~
......,.,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, 00 8161l
(303) 925-2020
Date: :pG.1,lq~?--
t~ _ (,-~~......"-
".>CZS''o';
\..0 'ir\ ~ \l.
'\1." <!. _ ~......._.lt qc>~,\...........,
RE:
Dea r ....,..." ",Q.
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined
that your application IS NQ! complete.
Additi7al items required include:
./ Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
vr
Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of $
,J....,- .J,- ......1\ ~
A."Your appl icatiol} is. comp1:'ete .and -we t.~....e scheduled it for
review by the ~\...~~''"\ Lc_-'~",,,~ on -:>..~ \'\. We will
call you if we need any additional information prior to that
date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum. please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee.
B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. when we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you on the next available agenda.
If you have any questions, please call
the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
~ '\o.....a. ,,~\..'\~t.. 'v-o:".".~ LAo\. "'" \....~.~
....Q ~A"'C.'" '-"\l:"~~_ ......6\....,.1.1...o~"" '3:
",\.~R. I....v,\ ,..S' ~-u. --.....It.--\ N....~
\<:>,5 t'^->.~';' ~o"lc> .,~ )(
,
,..,
\.~ ....o\- l..olUU-d .&CA.....~ ,,\0- \........L '>,:'o-,U
,-.~_.{ ~ \\ ...L..-\ ;\ \oJ....~. ~......JL 0_
"--<. LO ~ ,-..I.~ \...-\.....- ..<;. A-$ f'- \.l...." :
" _ \() .S'
r- ~ ~::.?S"
^'
7-) ~~5 A-@,,\'<-~- '^"~ s" ~I'-'>.Jl. -\-<. ~ (f^-L~"""",""\ ~__'''A "-'I ( ~A'
\Q.,~S, o~ ~- "(f~ \....vo..-'-I; s-\.,-_ li A,4 G\....-l 0 _ )J'nQ,v, ~..o~
(J:;~ ~k \"'-~'i"~ ~ ...\6\...- '>~\-_\ '-<l"'-'-'-f~\ ,",o","",Ofl.-h,
')~\, _:\ :d~'\-\.h~"+:"- ~^- ,,-,..~~_, ...-Ci ~ V\.JL.U-\\A""1. -.....*-"-,~\..~
*" C<>~\-L "-\'~'V'''''O~ """,""Q..".; ...-\- ~~, \-'~. ~~ ~'>
~ ~.J. ~~'-;., ,,~~~ ;).0 - ,-z.,
.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
/
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: 125" 1:,0;;1/[,.+ jt, Rfl ,.1 ",1 ,.1 Gff' q-II-'t7
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: lAJr.yn. t1/..;~ ",; R1-<~ 1(1)oJ/j.e',uL
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNERS NAME:
STP A$lNi,tcs
1.
2.
SUMMARY
Type of Application: R<I,jJg,r/i./ c. /.f(J ao) SvbdN;lir, (14"/i;.f/,,,,I-j r,i'tl) )
Describe action/type of development being requested:
811i1~ i-"3t~ nJ. ~ -lL,,~ttrrn ~ r. L~1IFJ'J.J,n 5/K,//'1 rt~
"Ctll+m,'i hd~~ Il.td1. Alpi.... IhliH p".J ~.J.rl\ A,"iJ "l
I ,
3.
Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Areal
Referral Agent
HIJiI';"j AI,fL.,.,f '/
Comments
UD"';"-' orfk< .ImIJ c...-fjr,., CllJh in lirv e,/,.il'l1"" r'fpli,*,t
e>fi"1t~J ~ I~OOl'D-f;r'''I~.-rhr~MA 1;it,',nMk I.nJ lJ lain
cf-ji'~l-r;r pv;.4,>, fkJ~ 1 cff,;i"A',tr, b",.j, i. 61
b.,I;,.,/! ~ hp"'"" '" /i",,!ldfH/( t.~J,,;,~'..(f"fC'<O'
~ I1J i. ''''~~'''1 Otrt" {" {;")(~l ova -f'('j~ ,1,.-.,. I 5'1"" 1,4,,,/- ,p.,\:',.,.J-pJ.m'i rf{;
{) J I, '1+. 11 'e . 0'1 "Di~+("t,l ,KJ
W~1lr Olf1. ~ 511;"1.1,,, ""'f" (iV"IA", ' }i ~(''';l.fj " )tj' t "', .
t="" MMJ~.I f,(< hydr4h1 fl t~ fiil t,dl/..fi.. WI. r c:ft'"I"'t.
"1. c~i~1 C.rfiClJ Jt+UI'f.i..i,,,,,, 'vnJ..tJ{~" Yl,L, '-f~,.cil;'ffN~AU
k^~'+^i ]+~.,H, - r,,< fll'-1l" ~. .",1.1...., .~.r 01 j,., ",,- f:'/<J
Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (PU thentoCC/'OCC)
Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
Did you t~.ant to submit list of ADJAC PROPERTY
OWNERS? YES Disclosure of OWnership: YES) : (NO) . It
00 _ J'1J.1 (fl,ntrRd€vr^1 0
What fee was applicant requested to submit: HNCtoJ- -JJ4-H1. .: 't H 1ft .l
nj "(;;~" .~, I rr
Anticipated date of submission: ll"Cellt~fr (, jtj~7 HDU;;,~)
9. CO~IENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
p It~"'I~j Cen CWh, In (/,,.1.: I. Jb..t f/~, / t: nji,<lI",I1.uu"(){/ 1 I,A.-,u", 4J;.v/.<~it ;, ~.i...Jtl n,().,f/,h+.,
, d. FAR (."",~t'1dJ i-f (D'~ d.1 ~. Wi H I.i( -I. ..fduld-l~t,
, 1-1! r, f 1 1, d
",1\ 1.llnto II 'J!!'., \C , ")\1,, '.'~ ),.. 0, rl '" r t /. f" I, fAg ^"'._~ ,.. {, r(.J. I"
, I' , ,V/ """l :; Or r~lltl;~!(4fl ;"Jil'"f"1ItI" ""~;"'''''~'':~li'7f~J'''
r~f\".1i5'^,.; ,A'''''rj'',f,v 1(>)..', 3 PHr:I~J re1.i.(It>~~11~F/b2Jr""" UilDbd",1a/: tuM!'JrTJiIJ,1. ";~-.li,IJ"P;r.;iJ{"
" (:it 14.1), Gf ( I .) ~ ..J ~ J /( .. d I j lOr;., l ur
~ j ~" re ilfi7Jn /1) 5"1 AI~;. b,j,"lil J 1J.i~" <lYl is Jill ,I.<."J TGi I '~'J
~, J,NfrJ h ~ rdw{ (O,. "'hc(,jt" d)' rl)w.d i{ A ~ I, ~.
'f. 1tI~.fH-t., prJ ',..:I 1,d.h fvll ,.l.jj'~l r-. <1 sJ.J, t,wr,'r,. Aff/,...i ~III ffi'<('><
~rpli, ~-I",. tv kW 1 pl~ o.J.,J,.;w~ rrg1/ffl1 s.l,/f>1. t-(rf;"
5'. frc).;""t) t. "C~'''''''),"JiJ a'1<!l(";..( fp,:II1I(j h hil/PC" 'cl.rd fI.)'o-tfldt.af
A/i!"~"1ltfifJ : ~ \
.""
~,
...
-
...
-
..
-
..
'"
..
""
Ii.
""
..
,..
..
,.
..
c
r
~
".
..
t925
t
E. DURANT TD\NNHDMES
RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
DECEMBER 1. 19B7
'"
..
'"
~
,..
~
H,.
925 E. DURANT TOWNHOMES
Residential GMP Submission
,-
....
Submitted by
-
STP Associates
-
-
- Prepared by
- GROUNDWORK
P.O. Box 3863
- Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 920-1202
-
-
in association with the
- architectural firms of
- GIBSON AND RENO
..
and
..
WILLIAM PAULI
-
..
- December 1, 1987
..
-
-
-
-
',j'
"1I1l
Section
....
1.
"M
.,.
II.
-
-
-
-
-
III.
-
IV.
-
-
-
-
-
...
...
...
TABLB OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Water Service
Sewer Service
Drainage System
Fire Protection Services
Development Synopsis
Traffic Generation and Parking Data
Location Relative to Public Facilities
H.
Location Relative to Retail and
Service Facilities
I.
Effects on Adjacent Uses
J.
Construction Schedule
EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
MANAGEMENT SUBMISSIONS
A.
Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1- Water Supply
2. Sewer Capacity
3. Storm Drainage
4. Fire Protection
5. Parking Design
6. Impacts on Bxisting Road Network
i
Page
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
..
Section
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
V.
IV.
~-~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PaCle
B. Quality of Design
1. Neighborhood Compatibility
2. Site Design
3. Energy Conservation
4. Trails
5. Green Space
C. Proximity to Support Services
1. Public Transportation
2. Community Commercial Facilities
D. Employee HouBing Contribution
BONUS POINTS
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
10
10
12
15
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
APPENDICES
20
i
-
I. INTRODUCTJON
The 925 E. Durant Townhomes development has been designed
outside the traditional boundaries of multi-family construction
in order to produce a "free market" product that complements the
neighborhood and provides the greatest sense of separate owner-
ship for purchasers of the units. All units have separate
entries and private garages, natural light and ventilation is
available on three sides of every unit, and natural light is
available through skylights placed on the roof of each unit. The
site has been extensively landscaped with specimen-sized plant
material to reflect the mature character of the neighborhood and
to assure harmony with adjacent developments.
'.1iI
,..
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
In order to assure ease of reference and review, this
submission has been arranged in essentially the same order as the
residential development application procedures contained in
Section 24-11.4 of Aspen's Municipal Code. All sections of the
residential development application have been addressed in this
application, however, should the Planning Staff require addition-
al technical data or clarification of any information contained
in the submission, the Applicant will be happy to respond to the
staff's request in order to assure a complete evaluation of the
proposed development.
-
-
-
-
-
-
II. PROJBCT DB SCRIPTION
The 925 E. Durant Townhomes development will contain four
units on Lots F, G, H and I of Block 119 of the Aspen Townsite.
Given the minor impact of subdivision of four townsite lots, the
Applicant has requested a subdivision exception in accordance
with Section 20-19{a) of the Municipal Code. Subsequent to the
grant of a development allocation, the Applicant will file a
request for condominiumization.
...
-
...
-
...
-
1
-
..
Specific details of the project are contain in Sections A
through J below.
-
A. Water Service
The development will be served by the existing six inch
water main in Durant Street immediately north of the site. Mr.
Jim Harkalunas of the Aspen Water Department has indicated that
the main has sufficient pressure and capacity to serve the
proposed development as described in Section E. Impact on
existing water facilities will be minimal and will require no
system upgrades.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B. Sewer Service
An existing eight inch sewer main in Durant Street
immediately north of the site will serve the proposed develop-
ment. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
has indicated that the existing main has adequate capacity to
handle the outflows anticipated from the development. In fact, a
four inch service line was extended from the main by the previous
owner of the property and will be utilized by the current owners,
eliminating the need for sewer line excavation on Durant Street.
No upgrades of existing sanitation services will be required as a
res_It of development of the property.
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
C. Drainage System
The development will be designed to retain one hundred
percent of the historic storm water flows attributable to the
property. As indicated by the attached Exhibit, the previous
owner of the property substantially altered the natural grade of
the site. As a result, virtually all water reaching the site
goes directly into the groundwater table. The Applicant proposes
to restore the runoff balance existing on the site prior to the
alteration of the site's contours. It is expected that the
restoration of this balance will have a substantial positive
impact on adjacent properties during wet years through the
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
,..
control of groundwater recharge. A combination of drywells and
landscape-filtered retention areas will be utilized to produce
full retention of storm water. Exact details of the drainage
plan will be developed with the City Engineer during subsequent
review phases of the application.
-
...
-
-
-
D. Fire Protection Services
The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department and the Fire
Marshall will provide fire protection and prevention services.
Their comments will be solicited during the detailed design
phases of the project to assure inclusion of reasonable fire
resistant construction techniques, materials, detection systems
and compliance with applicable fire protection codes. The site
is located eight blocks from the fire station, allowing a
response time of a maximum of five minutes. The site is located
between fire hydrants located at the northwest corner of Durant
Avenue and West End Street, and at the east end of Durant Avenue.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B. Development Synopsis
The 925 B. Durant Townhomes development contain four
units, consisting of two 3-bedroom units and two 2-bedroom units.
Required parking for each unit will be provided in a private
garage. Parking for guests is available in the driveways, and
equals the required parking for development.
-
-
Employee housing for
through a generous cash-in-lieu
III.
the project will be provided
payment, as detailed in Section
...
...
...
The design of the
proposed construction places
market.
units and the quality level of the
the units in the luxury second home
-
-
-
Market conditions
will determine the sales
at the time of offering of the units
price but current estimates are
-
3
-
-
-"-I
'.
$575.000.00
$725.000.00
for the two-bedroom units
for the three-bedroom units.
and
approximately
,;wl
.,..
..
The following table provides a summary of the develop-
ment parameters:
1. Site Area 12.014 sq. ft.
2. Allowable FAR 12.014 sq. ft.
3. FAR Utilized 10,430 sq. ft. (86%)
4. Building Footprint 4.923 sq. ft. (41% of
total site)
5. Open Space Required 4,205 sq. ft. (35%)
6. Open Space Provided 4.337 sq. ft. (36%)
'..
,,.
,.
..
..
..
-
-
-
The development will contain a total of ten bedrooms.
ten baths and four half-baths. The project is expected to
contain six bath tubs/showers. four kitchen sinks, four dish-
washers. four jacuzzis, fourteen toilets, eighteen lavatories,
eight hose bibs. four washers, four bar sinks, four showers and
four tubs.
-
-
-
F. Traffic Generation and Parking Data
Durant Avenue and West End Street dead-end in the
vicinity of the development and currently operate below their
rated capacities. Since the Townhomes are intended as second
homes to be occupied seasonally. and given their proximity to
skiing, Shopping, dining and transportation facilities. impact on
the City's street network is expected to be insignificant.
During peak occupancy, each unit is expected to generate a
maximum of three vehicle trips per unit. for a total of twelve
trip. per day.
-
-
-
...
...
-
...
..
space per
the lower
The parking requirement in the RMF
bedroom. Each unit will contain
level containing the required
zone district is one
s private garage on
spaces for each unit.
-
4
1;'<11
The driveways will accommodate additional guest parking, although
the code does not require separate guest parking areas.
'II''''
...
The alley south of the
vehicular access to the townhomes,
front yard area, and eliminating
conflicts on Durant Avenue.
development will provide the
allowing a fully-landscaped
potential vehicle/pedestrian
-
..
-
-
Locatien Relative to Public Facilities
The 925 E. Durant Townhomes are located one and one-
half blocks from the RFTA bus routes and four blocks from the
Rubey Park Transit Plaza. The Roaring Fork River and its
recreational opportunities are one block east of the site, while
Glory Hole Park and the quasi-public Aspen Mountain Ski Area are
located within three blocks of the site. The Ute Trail is
approximately four blocks from the site. The near-east end
location of the development provides easy access to government
offices, the Pitkin County Airport, and Aspen Valley Hospital.
-
G.
-
-
-
H. Location Relative to Retail and Service Facilities
The development is only one and one-half blocks from
City Market and the Durant Mall complex and only five blocks from
the Cooper Street Mall. Given the increases in commercial space
Aspen has experienced during the past few years, it is not
anticipated that development of the 925 E. Durant site will place
measurable demands on existing retail and service outlets.
-
-
-
-
I. 8frects on Adjacent Uses
with the exception of the project site, the adjacent
neighborhood is fully developed. The project site is currently
an unsightly vacant lot with severely altered contours. The
zoning of the subject property and of the immediately surrounding
neighborhood is RMF. The previous owner of the property removed
fill material from the site, which destroyed most of the natural
vegetation. The hole left by the excavation was subsequently
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
partially filled with
particular attention
material on the site,
appaarance.
a variety of fill materials, with no
given to uniform placement of the fill
resulting in a vacant lot with an unkempt
-
The architectural styles of adjacent buildings is quite
varied, including a .swiss chalet" (The Alpina Haus and Brass
Bed), "mansard modern" (lspen Silverglo and Chateau Snow),
"contempOE'ary" (Landau units) and "new-victorian" (the Old
Hundred) .
-
The Applicant seeks to respond to these surrounding
structures in positive ways. A solar orientation like the Landau
units is adopted with generous south glazing. Shingle siding
gives a pleasing textare and echoes the wall material of the
Chateau Snow and Old Hundred units. Small scale gable and dormer
roof forms create a picturesque roof contour against the sky, not
unlike the surrounding mountain horizon lines, and create a
dialogue with the small gables of the Old Hundred and Brass Bed.
Finally, generous setbacks are accorded toward adjacent proper-
ties, including twenty feet in front, twenty-seven feet in back,
and seven feet along the Alpina Haus (east) side lot line.
_.
-
Massinw of the building is broken down to a smaller
scale by the use of step backs, porches, dormers and entrance
features. Additionally, the building parts at the center to
allow the open space to extend to the rear of the site creating
two separate footprints.
-
-
-
In summary, the response to adjacent uses and buildings
is made compatible through the use of orientation, materials,
roof forms, setbacks and massing of the building.
-
-
-
-
6
~,".I
J. Constwction Schedule
Construction of the Townhomes is expected to begin in
the spring of 1988, with aD anticipated occupancy date prior to
Christmas, 1988. Phasing of project construction is not current-
ly planned. Landscaping will depend on weather conditions. but
will be installed not later than June 1, 1989.
-
III. EMPLOYES HOUSING PROPOSAL
In recognition of the lack of housing opportunities for
employees and to help assure the creation of new housing stock,
the Applicant proposes to provide a cash-in-lieu payment rather
than convert exis~ing, units to deed-restricted employee housing.
The Applicant proposes to house seventy percent of the total
number of persons to be housed by the develop.ent, resulting in a
cash-in-lieu payment of approximately $226,000.00. Further
discussion of the employee housing contribution may be found in
Section IV.D., Employee Housing Contribution.
IV. RBVIBW CRITERIA FOR RBSIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGBMBHT SUBMIS-
SIONS
-.
The review criteria which will govern the evaluation of the
-
925 E. Durant Townhomes project are addressed in this section.
In order to facilitate review of the development each of the
criteria has been analyzed in relation to the proposed develop-
-
-
ment, and a scoring request has been incorporated based on the
-
Applicant's understanding of the project's degree of compliance
-
with the individual criteria.
-
-
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services
-
-
1.
Water Supply
The existing six inch main in Durant Avenue has
-
7
-
,~
adequate pressure and capacity to serve the proposed development,
consequently no system upgrades will be required. The requested
score for this category is one point.
-
-
-
2. Sewer Capacity
Development of this site has been anticipated, as
evidenced by the four inch sewer line stub out on the property
border. The existing eight inch sewer line in Durant Avenue has
adequate capacity to handle the project's outflows without system
upgrades. The requested score for this category is one point.
-
-
-
-
-
3. Storm Drainage
The current unvegetated state of the site results
in rapid recharge of the groundwater table, which can be a
concern during wet years. The Applicant believes that the
restoration of the pre-excavation balance of storm water runoff
and soil infiltration which will result from this development is
a benefit which extends beyond the boundaries of the development
and as such exceeds the requirements of the Code. Given the off-
site benefit of the proposed storm drainage improvements the
Applicant requests the maximum score of two points.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4. Pire Protection
The existing six inch water main in Durant Street
provides adequate fire flows to serve the development. The
project site is located at the approximate mid-point of the
-
-
-
8
-
~ I"~
spacing of fire hydrants located at the east end of Durant Avenue
and at the northwest corner of the intersection of Durant Avenue
and West End Street. The proximity of the site to the fire
station, coupled with favorable terrain and the inclusion of
appropriate fire detection devices will assure a minimum fire
risk for the development. A score of one point is requested for
this category.
...
...
..
-
-
-
..
-
5. Parking Design
As previously discussed. the parking requirement
of one space per each bedroom contained in the development will
be met through the inclusion of a garage on the lower level of
each unit. The three-bedroom units feature a three-car garage,
while the two-bedroom units include a two-car garage. Access to
the garage and parking areas will be provided from the alley on
the south side of the site. The driveways leading to the garage
areas will have a concrete surface and will be snowmelted to
assure safe ingress and egress. Given the fact that the parking
requirements for the development are to be met entirely in
enclosed structures, and access is from the alley, assuring a
fully-landscaped front yard area, the Applicant feels the design
of the parking areas exceeds the standard criteria for reduction
of visual impact, provision of paved surfaces, user convenience
and pUblic safety and that a maximum score of two points is
appropriate for this category.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
9
-
..
6. Impacta on Existing Road Network
Both Durant Avenue, which dead ends east of the
site at the Chateau Roaring Fork development, and West End
Street, which dead ends in the vicinity of The Grant, operate at
below their rated capacity. The small proportional increase in
traffic which is anticipated from the project can be easily
handled by Aspen's existing road network. The Applicant feels
tha appropriate score for this criteria is one point.
,1",1
,..
-
-
-
-
-
-
B. Quality of Design
The Applicant feels the architectural team has produced
an outstanding design, as evidenced by the plans and elevations
included in this submission. In addition to the previous
discussions regarding the design of the project, the analysis
provided below of the design criteria applied to this category
should allow a complete review of the proposal.
-
-
1. Neighborhood Compatibility
The Applicant feels the 925 E. Durant Townhomes
development has met the challenge provided by the complexity of
architectural styles found in the neighborhood, which include
"Swiss Chalet," "solar contemporary," "mansard modern," and "new-
victorian" architectural styles (see photos following). It is
not the intent of the development to emulate its surroundings,
but to produce a design that contains appropriate elements of
structures found in the neighborhood while creating a well-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
-
jljl
designed, unique character. Bach unit is designed to offer some
features which give it unique characteristics.
"....
,,1tII
,...
-,
A wide range of construction types and materials
can be found in the vicinity of the project site. including
shingle, stucco, brick, board and batten and vertical siding.
Consequently, a variety of well-blended quality materials has
been chosen to assure harmony with adjacent structures. The base
on the buildings will feature cut sandstone blocks in irregular
rectangular patterns, while the sides of the structures will be
covered with wood shingles. Variations in the tone of the stain
colors of the wood shingles will help emphasize the articulation
of the structures, and will enhance the surface planes of the
building which are intended to visually advance. while subduing
those areas which physically and visually recede. The gabled
roof forms, which will be covered with standing seam metal
roofing, are intended to define the individual character of each
unit and to provide vertical relief for the facade of each unit.
As indicated by the plans and elevations included in this submis-
sion, the gabled elements of the units recall but do not imitate
Aspen's architectural history, particularly in the use of
materials and articulation of roof forms.
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
.,
-
-
-
-
-
The center courtyard separation of the building assures
that every unit will have natural light and ventilation available
on at least three sides, and natural light will be provided to
-
-
11
-
,,-1-1
the interior of the units thrGugh the roof-mounted skylight
system.
,-
,I"
-
The provision of garages will eliminate the potential
visual impact of on-site parking and places no burden on the
portion of Durant Avenue in the vicinity of the site. Since the
existing road. water and sewer systems will not require upgrades
a. a result of this proposal. off-site neighborhood disruption.
if any. will be minimal.
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
Given the quality of architectural design evidenced by
the enclosed drawings, and the assurance that the project will be
harmonious with its surroundings and will minimize construction
related impacts on the neighborhood. a maximum score of three
points is requested for this category.
-
-
-
2. Site Design
The design team has produced a site design which.
in terms of landscape materials and details. exceeds the stan-
dards of the neighborhood and of the typical townsite lot
development. In an attempt to respect the proximity of the
Alpina Raus. the side setback on the eastern boundary of the lot
has been increased to seven feet. assuring the preservation of
the large spruce and fir trees on the boundary of the site. and
increasing the distance between structures. While the Alpina
Haus is a non-conforming structure in terms of setback. and may
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
..
~
-
well be sUbject to extensive renovation or demolition in the
foreseeable future. the Applicant nevertheless has chosen to
mitigate the project's impacts on the Alpina Raus at the expense
of allowable floor area. In addition. the Applicant has chosen
to move the power poles and lines located in the eastern portion
of the alley as far east as possible. resulting in lessened
visual impact for the surrounding structures and the proposed
development. The ten foot separation provided between the three-
bedroom units creates opportunities to introduce landscaping in
the center of the complex. enhancing the small scale residential
character of the townhome development. All driveways and parking
areas are serviced from the alley, allowing a fully landscaped
and continuous front yard area. The Applicant will extend the
five foot sidewalk abutting the site on the west to the eastern
boundary of the site, increasing pedestrian safety on Durant
Avenue. Service vehicle access will be provided from the alley,
and a two cubic foot enclosed dumpster will be provided off the
alley as indicated by the site plan.
...
..
i.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Approximately thirty-six percent of the site has
been dedicated to open space, which will be extensively landscap-
ed, as indicated by the landscape plan. The site plan preserves
the mature lilac located in the northwest corner of the site and
the clump cottonwood on the northeast corner of the site.
Narrowleaf cottonwoods with a caliper of three and one-half to
four inches will be provided as indicated in the public right-of-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
-
way adjacent to Durant Avenue. The cottonwoods will balance the
mature cottonwood grove located on the north side of Durant
Avenue and the younger cottonwoods on the Landau property. The
trees and shrubs shown on the landscape plan will be specimen
sized. with a minimum of two to three inch caliper for deciduous
trees. eight feet in height for evergreen trees and five gallon
container size or larger for all shrubs. The sod will be a
mixture of bluegrasses to assure maximum disease resistance and
cold tolerance. The specimen size of the plant materials and the
extensive nature of the landscaping will provide the complex with
an immediate sense of permanence and will be harmonious with the
landscape concepts and materials found in the neighborhood.
"m
;11hI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avenue pUbic
residents of
provided by
pUblic usage.
A bicycle rack will be provided on the Durant
right-of-way for use by the neighborhood and
the Townhomes. The five foot public sidewalk
the Applicant will be lighted to help encourage
-
The Applicant feels the site design and quality of
landscaping exceeds the minimum standards of the Code and will
provide significant off-site benefits. consequently. the Ap-
plicant requests a score of three points for this element of the
scoring criteria.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
l"Iii
3. Bnergy Conservation
~he 925 B. Durant Townhome development has been
given a north to south orientation to maximize the potential for
passive solar gain. Glazed areas on the southern facades of the
units will allow comfortable utilization of solar energy. "Heat
mirror" glazing or an equivalent product will be utilized in
construction to assure maximum thermal efficiency.
.".
"..
-
..
-
..
-
-
In addition to the R-19 batt wall insulation. and
vapor barrier, an exterior rigid insulation sheathing material
with an R value of 3.6 and R-30 ceiling insulation will assure
that the structures exceed Code requirements for insulation by a
minimum of twenty percent.
-
Gas fired boiler units with an efficiency of
ninety-five to ninety-seven percent will be used to provide hot
water heating to baseboard panels in each unit. Domestic hot
water consumption will be minimized through the use of flow
restriction devices installed on shower heads, lavatories and
kitchen sinks.
..
-
..
-
Given the extensive insulation proposed for the
structures, tbe excellent solar orientation of each unit and the
use of high efficiency heating systems. the Applicant requests
the maximum available score of three points.
..
-
-
..
15
,'..
4. Trails
Durant Avenue is currently poorly lit, and since
no sidewalk exists on the Applicant's side of the street,
pedestrians are forced to share the roadway with vehicles,
creating a hazardous situation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The provision of a five foot sidewalk, lighted
with low-level docorative fixtures, and separated from Durant
Avenue by a landscaped buffer strip which includes a bicycle rack
will encourage public use and will result in substantial public
safety benefits and justifies the maximum possible score of three
points.
-
-
-
-
-
5. GreeD Space
As previously indicated, thirty-six percent of the
site, or 4,337 square feet will be extensively landscaped. In
addition, the Durant Avenue will be fully landscaped and large-
caliper street trees will be provided and maintained at the
Applicant's expense. The generous front setback, coupled with
the fully landscaped right-of-way creates a large, residential-
feeling front yard space. The side yard areas have been extended
to the alley and large planters have been provided adjacent to
the driveways to introduce as much landscaping on the rear of the
property as possible. The large caliper trees proposed for the
site will blend well with existing landscapes in the neighborhood
and will complement the residential scale of the development.
~.
~.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
'..
,...
The character of the green space areas reserved on
the site is of benefit to the neighborhood providing an off-site
benefit which should result in a score of three points for this
category.
1'1.
..
-
..
-
-
C. Proximity to Support Services
1. Public Transportation
The site is located one and one-half blocks from
the public bus routes on Durant Avenue. Original Street and
Cooper Avenue. entitling the development to the maximum available
score of three points.
-
-
-
2. Comaunity Comaercial Facilities
The site is located within two blocks of the
commercial facilities and services available in the Durant Mall
and at City Market. allowing the project to receive the maximum
possible score of three points.
-
-
-
D. Raployee Housing Contribution
As described in Section III. the Applicant proposes to
provide housing for seventy percent of the total number of
individuals to be houssd by the Townhome development by con-
tributing a cash-in-lieu sum of approximately $226.000.00. which
is nearly $114.000.00 more than the minimum requirement specified
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
""'-!II
by Section 24-11.4(c). Since each five percent of residents
housed by the Applicant entitles the project to one point.
housing of seventy percent of the residents grants the develop-
ment a score of fourteen points.
IIW
-
..
-
..
~.
V. BONUS POINTS
In recognition of the apparent quality of the architecture.
site and parking design and off-site pUblic benefits which will
occur as a result of the proposed development, in addition to the
generous cash contribution to the community's employee housing
needs, the Applicant feels the development merits the award of
bonus points.
-
..
-
-
-
-
~.
-
IV. RBQUBST FOR SUBDIVISION EXCBPTION
The redefinition of Lots F, G, H and I of Block 119 will
require subdivision approval. Given the fact that the project is
amall and is infill development in a well-established neighbor-
hood. full subdivision review of the proposed Townhome develop-
.ent would appear unncessary.
-
-
-
-
-
In addition the scrutiny the project will receive as a
result of the Growth Management Plan competition, the Applicant
will prepare all maps and information necessary to comply with
the preliminary plat application contents listed in Section 20-
12 of the Municipal Code. As a result of the information
contained in the GMP submission and preliminary plat documents,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
-
.-.
-
the Applicant feels a subdivision exception request may be
granted under the provisions of Section 20-19(a) of the Municipal
Code. and that no pUblic benefit would be derived by requiring
the Applicant to undergo full subdivision review.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
"",...
-
-
APPENDIX
-
-
-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
.J
K
L
M
N
o
P
Q
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
APPENDIX
TITLE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND SITE
LOCATION/ZONING MAP
EXISTING GRADE PLAN/EXISTING PROPERTY SURVEY
HISTORIC GRADE PLAN
VICINITY TO COMMERCIAL CORE AND TRANSPORTATION
SITE PLAN
GARDEN LEVEL PLAN
ENTRY LEVEL PLAN
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION IN COURTYARD
WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
LANDSCAPE PLAN
UTILITY PLAN
TITLE INSURANCE POLICY
20
~,
~..H
.,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(OLD HUNDRED)
(BRASS BED)
,-
VIEW TO NORTH
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (ASPEN SILVERGLD) (NORTHSTAR)
(SNOW, CHATEAU)
- VIEW TO SOUTH
-
...
...
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
(917 E. DURANT)
(ALPINA HAUS)
-
VIEW A,T ALLEY
-
r,..J, .
,~~t." '\;.
f'~'~-t,.~. '\>.
. ,:"~~~^,~;' \,:r:..-'~'.
y,''''.-.:-l,'. ,.:
~
...
-
-
-
-
-
...
...
,~ .'.^"
;)
.,
,
'.
...
(917 E. DURANT)
-
...
VIEW TO WEST
-
-
-
...
-
...
-
-
-
-
[ALPINA HAUS]
[ASPEN SILVERGLD]
VIEW TO EAST
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[OLD HUNDRED]
-
-01: .t-'tP:(~ /~~,~-;?'- - _...?---= h,':)-::C;E~ ; ~Q.r '$N,l
~\~ rl~Y-= '.''''1)/~~Y~~~~ s;i= 'c:=t=T~V:'~;:"y{l/ ! )a:~"'H.\
~ II II" ~~,f, /' ~\ ~ ~ -..:..; ~; \ a: ,.,-
'~- fl]~f:J ~ l--., 1F =~ O~S ~a:? ~.- e-, ; ""-'. \o:~ ,/'<pg.- .
..U IF. .....J/. ~ i, 11= I ~~... e-, I" \ " 0:,'
.... 't! cl::!I :1.';,1 ~ . .-, ! 15-) ". 'U
~, %- ...... ~L 1t---l-J! I -
~. ~. ~ J;C/ .~ 1\'-- =J=~ii ill ,-. '.' ,d. ~.
.-r1" ~ ~ i - -------< f----J , f--- ,'(. ~
'8 ~ .?7""~ ~,~ I Q. --i I/-- . : Q. ,ot .' ~
~~~ L//' to 0 / ,)) , . i ' '.. . ~ '... ~
~ .1' .: cl::E I r;: ~ ~- ,..-*';'---;-'";'--III-'.n--1------- " ,.:) J
, ... It! : - :: . ~ SI ~'=\I'~ I !=! '," - ", / .....""-'"
If \:.. '" .. .. ffI =1 ;~;: I I ! I I :1
I '.,' '." _ r =; ==.. I, I :Il .~ U-:;1,;A<,,1
.. ~ , ---r ~ I I . ;Y
-,
~'" . ~w, ==' .,R ~, "
, i =: . "D ~' I
... f; tOg -(( f-n/.---n_~~-- "--~~ni~ F ,C7 U l
_. I; ~C' oct ~. ~ J ~ i ~S ~ I ~ r~ . -1->.'- ~::~___
..~ Q. ,i \ I g;tl---~ I~-I~ i "...", ~lil---fi~ i ~ " "-"<~~
;:::: ,~' / (/):! I 1J.~j gf' ~ ~ ~I I :~. .1.1.1.1.1. r:- '\-~~t<<eeC\
,/ ~ L ~1 :;,l- ~!I I l=t= '1.11.1,1.1~~~2 J~
....xr fL.--__ , / . jj, , f , I" ~..;k .~.
(-~ CO l' ~- --:----- "''''1' 1=== /Ei i~g='-I:n~~'''.. i =1 1.1.1. 1.;TJ"H',.i.l~.'. ;.;-
, ;:) (f) ,U. I-_~ f- -_' - " - - .
.\ . J Z . _ ~ ;-;; _ > ---;;; :; ~: I -= : I> 1iL-J ~ :.It-
\ .-/. <II ~ ~ i ....l I I. . -i"
. r.-.~(/)" . '~~ l-I~' . :i:r; i:JJ: I :~ ;:;I;13i
::0 '9'1-1~I~j'I~,~ . ~ I" :: / ~ I~ ~. lElE'; ~jEl\ U
\1) ::, r; ;;q~i",~'"' ~ ~ il" ,-.:. [---~L~~-r;--~i----'--.--+i-"-.~I.:~~ I.; II~ J~~{ I
I ~ _== I lo.Q I I . IE.. 1" 9 :::;::::::~
!It "..:; I - I I _l..- ~ I.. !!E ,"
_':oF I I I .. , .. ~ ...!!.........; if
.. ,,:>s,.. L___......___. I u .""...... I ,--- - I - .. ::;:::= fl'1
; t/ ~ 81 [28 II: Ji~ I~ il~ 0:111 ~ e-, /~,~~~ti,' il
A ;:~ ~ ~~,R.. 'F~ lit"~'I
",+ r- IB . . I 0::- ~
p.~~ S~ 8S ~S:~~!~~%gSl~"
fJ..!tJ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ B~ ~1f:3 8~ f 0
IJ~ ~~ I:M~'* '11-/
-F"'=1 @gji~I:~~ ~~ si~!~
I ~ ~:~r~~cl::~ ~ ~~ ~~I~
I .,c i ..t-. " ~,.~d ?
t~Jniii;~i IIJ..!}
U
~
.
.
U
>
.
a.
c(
:E
CI
2
Z
o
N
'-
'~
I .
.
.;2 So
~ ';;' :I
-'-'~
____"1.-
2
o
-
..
c(
U
o
..I
....
-
...
-
'..
-
-
-
~~
" c
~ - .
"
~ '",
.'
,
, ,
, ,
~ ~
: ~
D!t
<f> :H
c.J ,.l
o ~ ~ ~
z I s ~
:tl ~: ~
> ~ f ~ ~
o i -' ~ ~ ! !
~ l,! ~ J . ~
~ ~ h 1 g z
t ~ t ~ ~ ,
,
,,]
,
.
..
7-----
---
"Ii";
.1Ii1
l'l'"
,.,
,
-, .
,
-,
lJj
.., ~
't
-, h..
<:
-, 't
~
C:l
l,j
..,
j
"1
"
"
, '
1'; ~I
t ~ >1
!d
'i!,
.., ,
il'1
tIl. I!
~ !
-. I
,
I
"" i",
1
... r
I
"1
.. i
... "
~ Q tI
"
~ i > (
.. ~ n ~ t
t~p
~ I 'J ~
... :!/
. (to
~ I' 0
...
----
~.'l-
'0J
\1)1
/ .
I
I
/;
,
<
\
,g
"- . t
,,-
. . ~
\ 11,1
ry1 ~
II
I,
';
I
I"~
11 ~ ~
~J I:,: i
,t.
~
t
I L,
I "...
=='"
-~
.'
."
-/
/
/
/
/
, ,
i l i ~
!'1 n
~ ~:. t, s
~;~ ~ 0
t~~~( ~o~
~.~i~ln~
~ 1 ~ t ! 6 ". f
'10. J".t
,. ~ 0 0, . f Q
~ !~~ H i
~ p p ~
: ~ .
"~ (
'.
.'
.
,
"
"
~i-
t
'"
----
(QOOO.'
, ,- ,
..
, . z '.
> ,
" > 0 1,_
> e v ",
. " v z !ill
. ;: . ~
> " !Hr
.. . ~
I " v Z
" 0
" ~ "
0 . ~ j/
" - . ,
I z . c ~
0
, ". "
". ~ "
1 i . c " N
3 z ..
~ ~ . "
~ 3 0 "
0 ~ "
H
~~
1,,1
""-,
I
"\ ~ 1
\ 1'- "
. 'r
'..", 1 !I\ "
'{I!\ I
~~ ~I 'l- r
~-
"I'
i I ~ i
r'-
(.C>O <>0-',-, 7. &(.~:'" ....~1 N)
~ I
~
Ii,
I' \
f'
2_ . ,.c. 2 ,'''':'2-
-'v,~;' '.~
,,:~S: ~~J..k
------ "
~,,"
, \\
" .
~ ~\ ~-
-~ \ \T
'\ I
\ ~,
\ . i
\ \ 0
I \ \ :
I iI' \
I \
U
~
-------
------
[[]
'-.
'"
\:
,
,
,
~' \
~.
,
.
"
..
'-
.'
'\.,..
'-.
-t-
-+
~ ,
,
,
,
,
,
/
,
t
,.
" :...
I
I 4..J
\ -oJ
! -oJ
"' 't
" t--.-.
"
" I
, i
.
'9
\
----
/
----
/
I
"'......0..-....'.. )
~ "', :-.- -';
.J~r~ "
~.. ~ ~
"
8:
"
,
,
: Ijl
: I
"
o.
."
"
L
I.
~
;
~
.
"
,
Ii i
, I
I t
, I
! .I..
r
,
,
1
.
,
,
8
,
>
W
>
IE
2:J
C(lD
.J>
11."
wlE
OW
~II.
lED
19~
1919
22
--
....
llJID
XX
WW
:.
",
"
'I
'I
I.
!i
"..
'.
II
i:
h
II
"
ji!
In
'"
.'.
"I
ii-
Iii
,.,
j!!
,.>It
'..
'B
-
-
-
...
-,
-,
...,
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
...
.. .><D.......a::>O "... ""'-",.,~ "'.....
......._.0::"'" ,_...... en...........~.....~ ....
~'.:"
o..,.~....~
..~
,,,......."'"
ONooor
'1--------
...---
,
,0
"
~~
"
"
"
"
III
::E
;!
2
~
~
o
U
II
:J
2
II
>
<l:
I-
2
<l:
a:
:J
o
iii
III
N
III
------1----;.=;.)
I!.
-i
w 1 ~
~ ~!
! ~
'z I
q.! i\ ~
i "IU~~,~
1, ~ - '\- h- - \3
I I' ,.,,~
, .to ~
i' I it'
. '
"
,
!
~.\
.OJ..O
~ ~,.
~ -~:.. n
S-L:=:r=31JH:Jt:J\1 ON3t:J 'S NOSBI8
w;
...J"
<t'
u'
U)~
H
I-
S"----
............. ~"'~
CC..,t:tC'C::l 'Nild8.., . .!.N..,t:tna .!.8"'. SIll" l ~
'I'
(/)
W
t-
o
z
tt5
Cl
z
w
(9
lJ.J
...J
,
}: ~
~~:
" :,~
_ _ ft~ ~,,~
o:~'O-'I''' C~CM ...-"c...S!
:.'::;> ;0' :< ,~",':"'.~' ...
---~
'0.
~-
:!:
:::
!
~
"
."
'.
,.
,"
:',:
(,,,'" co' "".~~,"~ .~. S)
H
"
"
"
"
:.
; ~
.
:,. ~ ~ ~
'. i ~ ~... ~ t ~
, ~,,~: ~ ~
~ 1 ~',~
:~~~~~_O:;
, . " < 0 .'. ~
I 1 . 0 ~ J! 0 ~
~ 0
-0
,
! ,
,
"
0
J
0
,
, ,
0 "
J
. ,
'.
~ .1
"
"
~ ~
'.
'.
"
~ ~
d~
"I
'..
,.
~L
, .
~n
'.
'"
",
".
Jl~
....
~ j
'0
.,
'~
,
I
,
.J
I-'
Z
o
U
w
t-
<t
u
[i:
i=
a:
w
u
.~
o
>-
w
>
a:
::>
,,)
d
, . 1 ~
.. > .10> 1
i~ ~ >;: ~ 01 -.1
q, 0 ~ ~; S ~go
~S~ ~n:~.p~
l~. ~~:~~H~
, d ~ 1 !-t~ f d
t r ~ ~ 01 () ( 0 4
:;h ~d~~~~~t
.01 j ~ ~ Jt 91,1
!. ~ ( ,oil! _~ ~;
) ~ 8'I o~" ~:! H 1 >l
~hd ~h~.(.'-~~.~
t.9! ~
o - 3 'j> ( 00': ~ ~ 0
t~.: ~a'.~~~~~i:
~ 0 t_ ~ ~... 01' _ _ ~ -
~~~: ~a~;~~~(J'
~ ' . ~ I ~ Z u j . (~
~:~.:~d~:~>:~~
~;.S~P~1 ~~i~
(II i _ ( ~ ~ l ( O. O.
19~1"Otll~~~h,
~t:~:~~~: ~~n
~iCO~~~>I~ IOl
~~n~~~FI ~~: S
~,,~~n~'l. (o!~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ,0 1/ Or 0
I!
I:
~I-' .-
.._..",~.;i~-:-I=:I ~
~\~.\i,.:\1 z
J.~.EE\_ u
"i~~~
......... >
l
t
t
~
~
1
ij
.
a..
<t
~
z
c(
..I
D.
W
lJ
c(
IE
1!I
U
if
o
..
UI
I
-=
j,,/I ~ "';'A;W~cX:0f~ s: =--l--E.'~=J =~ ''-:A. .~~~=/.J... . /......;L>--
Pi r--= .' /1'/1 r--.L::[;o..,\ ,E '-'- c::= ~ ~t==q ~ . ,0:: / ' .,~,
I II" r _' L . <0 'E;:::: t:= i== j' 0::;; /
~ ~, ,c::=;:::: = = '- \, / <O-
J ~ ! II Ii - ':2 il.Z " iE ." .~,~ I ~, " ~ /;/ d:~ ~ ,
J( <t I~ d:~ . ';'(~ i3! r't' !~m != j j,' 'u
~, e; r;1lO"'~ i~i ~~[ ~E!F3c~i' l " ~ g ~-------
3. ':'" i I . "!i~~~. -=r~ ~~ .' 0:: ' ,~ '-.
~. y" -w ~ ;;:- I ~ ' iil; =;:::: I ,---.-. >)1'.-':' l
~\\ /' .~/ <00 11'-..:: I ,t:~.E , II' ~'F _ 10. ~J.;' ." -, ~
I'-~ ,,' ::l C ~c:= . I::::" \
./ : ^ \ : ~ . ~ C::jp;; I ~~;i~ '1V=~jf;I'II;!I! ~: - ~ ", /) .,...,..",;
L' f I' ^I" .~I' rfuTIM" l:3!~ - r~ \I , I I, "\!---"_Ai
y. n . -, Ll1J]' = . l' , '.. ~,,,.
· ~ .,,>> . 11' c=-.... .." .,.......--............ > . #
u
; ~ ~__~f'il..~:~u~(
&.. ) ~Il \ ~1"-~rn!~_Bili" ."...~~I___1Irf\~~.i.~, --'-~::~
~ I (}) B I ,j~; I ~J ~~ ~~ I \!a.!.!,[. -.' ~,::~"')
~ p________ }. C::=( .EJ ~ i;=1 t~: I Im.]f.,. - ,:;:~= ....11
______. ..,,~. I / ,__:./fJ 1.$_""' I I i'"
a U ,,_ 1== I--II~ ~F=i7 I a\1 1.[-[ . I:f,RHI".. ~~[
~ ' CJ).J I _ ...... I [=; =---~~ R -' . --;::::::;- ~ ~
a. ' j Z ; ~ ~ '- > i 01 I : ' ,~ I-- ." ~ "EEf='
" -'_ :...- I; c I I.. r I! ~ ~ ~ I:.. n
.. ,~ j" " _ 0.- I ,. I !' . >==-
. ~CJ)" . ,p ~= '\::="~. .. :t;:, ~,\,--"w.L-Il'
. : i:,-7....-l.J~ ~ ~ -- I~ ' : I/~!~ I,., ~ .~~~~
", . 'h-HII,,,,,," ,,:::::: M:b ; , :t: ,~l= i' ,,' ! \ U
: ;3j . J'-- := ,= . -" - . ',--",.J''---''
"",,~ ~+\f1f' . ~'I' r----.-.-.----r--------+-.-.~f ' "'il ,l,______.,.t
\.~. ~ i== lIEf I ~ li;IB ::::=1:271:\1;.: ~~+.{ I
c ~.. ' ".' .. ,. 'i- . I .
....., ~ I ~ I..... I .. t;.. ,,::;= ---------
f ~ ~ ," I lo.e I I ~'~. l" ; . i:: .11'
. ' I' :,:.",,- f1'
:II ",..4." L____...___. I a ",.,~."" 1 J--- - I - .. ~ :f" .
~?l ~~ Iii ii .dl..\~~/IT~~/
<>;1~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~I: . ~~T~~ ,:~
7~!E=~ ~~ ~~ ~~i'~ ~~I~w
.t-;;- l.I _:p'. I l< _:n' I ~
.!i~ ii ;11i~iil'I~~li
.~ i; ~I:II:. Ir[/
i -~:!~~~:;II! Ii\~
li1iiil;BI1II?
-1t!_ __i~~ r~d-!=b ~w
:~ 0
I Z
.
'j.~ J 0
~.:~~
_____ -z.
:Ii
i ill I
~ I;
> 0
. .
. >
~ I
. ~
, .
. ,
. .
. >
. .
. .
U .
. .
. )
~ z
, .
. I
I
2
g
l-
e:(
l-
i IE
o
s a.
OJ
2
e:(
IE
I-
o
2
e:(
w
IE
o
U
oJ
e:(
-
U
IE
W
~
~
o
u
o
I-
,
>
I-
-
~
U
-
>
.
.
"
G
'<1'
'""
...
-
-
---,
-,
-, .
%
-, ~
.
c
x
-, .
.
0
E
.,
u ___.J
-,
.
-----, ~
..
-,
.,
-,
.
.
.
.
.
.
F
(
.
1I
r
o.
.,
..
.,
.,
.,
.., Q;
.,
III
::j
... m
1I
.. I'"
~
. Z
...
.. ~
...
..
'-
1
\
\
\
\
c.
l't:
I
I
,
I
I
I
,j ,i
, .. ...l
-;tc-T-'-+rf'''i'--'---'~''--~ )1'
D bpi --./'
" i~,~' .' ~I
....., 'I
- ~/~ ;
l~'
.j'
r
["
I ~ i
I
, ~
t
I
,
.
"
.
r
'~i~
r,\\, '~J.. 'fl
.~~ :-.,
I
.
r
\
"
\
\,
,>-+--:
. \.,' .
0'\:.
: \
. r
. .
, .
. 0
! ~
I c
. z
~
I
~
.
~
.
. .
Cl I It ~
! I
1c"r---".
)0 I .;-
< I !
I
I
\
\
c_
,---]
----..'j.,.
\
1aa.ClCl. "
.
~~
~
._~,_J_
, ' , '
.,,]
.........,
-1DDDD'
.
r
.
Z
.
%
.
C
.
Sli!1lI EAST DURANT' ASPEN, COLORADO
III
~. '
. "
'.
r '.
----fL.
GIBSON & RENO' ARCHITECTS
,
\
,
'.
-------l______._
. 0 . r 0
.. ~ : .
" I . (
. , .
,
. . . , r
. '. 0
. . . .
. , I
. ,
, .
~ .
..
. .
. .
0 .
~
.
,
.
,
.
. . .
. o .
III 101' b
1.. lo1 ..
: I g :
. ..
,
,
-\'1
,
"':',\J
1
\
-;\ f
i './
, r: 1':
o~'W"--~
~ ' ~~ j
\ " I
.------.-~~- . _:"" _:",'~~,
,', .,...... I'.'
-'- ---,-------,--'-'--
,"I
L,
',.
-~~
--: ~\
"'AU
C~.C~.C'
iO...
4,& <dTC~" ""....u. ...............' 3<>3'..........
~....... "'''.OAAOCI &'$" QCOP'O'OO_'.
i
I
...
-
-
nil
IIII
IIII
LUi_
IIII
1111
...,
N
E
g
.
..
.
lD
1'1
E
.
.
.
..
.
. I
s: "
. . I
.. . I
:l1 . I
CI I
. I
. --l
u
. i
J I
l- I
I
_.J
, I
.
.. I
I
I
i . I
I
. " I
. .
:l1 . I
. I
CI I
. I
. . ---I
u I
1'1 I
I
I
, I
...
-
...
-
,
Iii
"',
.
-
-,
...'
I
-, 1'1 I
E I 2
,
. I
. . I c:(
. "
.. . I
. . . I .J
lD . I
..., CI , a.
N . L-l
E ~ I .J
I
. 1'1 I W
.
-, . I >
.. ,
. , W.
lD , ) .JS
,
/
. , 2
" ,
. , W
. ,
-, . ,
CI '---I lJ
. I
., . I IE
u ,
, c:(
i . :
.... J
r'-rt- g I- [!J
IIII 1111 :l1
., III1
IIII ~
w.l..L
...
.,
...
..,
...
...
.
...
...
-
- -"--
I E
- d, I .
, .
.
"
0
ID
-
,,-
.
-
E
- .
.
.
- "
0
ID
-
-
- " -)
"
':
. ~..~
-
2
. c(
0
.
0 .J
0 It, ,I
:e .1' D.
- IIJt"'
11& .J
- D "D W
" > 8
-'.II
- W .
E
. .J
- .
.
" >
0 ~
- ID IE ..
~
- . I-
o. II
C1. 2
- :~ W
L______--.J D
'-
-
-
-
-
-
llltool
-
BJ
l
,0
-
-
t---- -
I
__1 ~
c
ii
d ':
-
-
r-r---'j
I - I
r - _<m
I ii I
__'uJ
----7
/
/
/
,
/
/
/
II
<
c
jj
.
<J
.0
~ d
r' '1
I
b
\][]
,
,
,
,
,
,
----....
,
II
<
c
jj
-
. ~
-1
~
).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
II
<
------i---
::i
~-
j
"
.
.
a
/
/
/
L____
II
---=i-------
::i
,----
\
/
J-____
II
<
----=;:------
::i
,-----
\
\
\
r-
o
]
"
.
.
a
-1
2
c(
oJ
D.
oJ
W :
>
W
oJ
IE
W ~
D.
D.
J
Q
II'
~
Ie
!r
5&
'.
f"
j1i
.oi Z
0
- -
---1 t-
o. I ct
- > a
._j w
... .J .
-, w
,
_1
- I
-
... t- ..
j IE II
I 0
- Z D
.."
-
I
- J
-
""1
-1
,
,
~
,
- -,
,
- _l,-t
..
-
-<
... -"
-
..
..
...
-
- I
..
I
e
... 11.
Ci L'
.
,
!
!
..
C
-
-
- 2
- 0
-
..
et:
- >
w
oJ
w
-
I
..
- :J
0
rn
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
..
.c
of
J,
,0
fill
."
.....
m
-
~
.
M
-
~ 0
..
c
~ II
D
9
l.
II
.).
~
l.
::J
D
\ u
\ C
,-
I w
__1-1 Z
0
I -
l-
ll'( ,..
l.
> II
-
W .-
E
'""':.:~.~..;..-- oJ .-
W III
,'If ,;;,! ,ii
n-' I- ~
:.'< III
UJ GI
Il'( ~
W w
-
-
-
-
-
-
'fT:,r,'.""',::,i!
I '~:I';~:_,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.~
-
N
,~
u"'""
- ~
..
-
-
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
J
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
r--1
I
I
I
I
/
-
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
~
II
-
..
-
2
o
-
l-
e(
>
W
oJ
W
?-
m
w
~
...
L.
.!
'e
'in
~
rn
lD
GI
w
.-,~ 0) . r
, ,. . . .
. ;
E p I ~ I I I .
z
l I a
n
I ~ i .
I ~ I
I ~ . I
I I . .
I . z
. I z
I I .
< I
I .
.
< ~
- ,
.
t
.. . , , ~ l . ~ . i
; , 'I .
- - I , N .
~ .
- l l l l l ,------,
L_._______....I
...
-, F~
,
,
, I'.)
I
-
2 Tn'-, i
a ~ ~:iJ
.
t
. 'f,
. [2:'::;
z
. ,-+"':
E I
I : I,
I l,J,J
I
I ,
I i
~
~
. I
-
-
~ ! 925 EAST DURANT . ASPEN, COLORADO.
4. c.....""".,..... .....N.... ........._, 3CQ,___
.._...~..'... Cl""""""".....w
.,.,....". ~'&ON'
-,
""'~. ,
C;o<KWIID'
~,
-
GIBSON & RENO' ARCHITECTS
..,\
-
'..
,...
..
..
..
..
'fl!.
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
3
~
.
.
Z
D
~
I
I
I
,
,
,
__-1
~
.
.
!
.
F
I
(J)H
~ ~
. r
~
I 2
l~."'.-....'.
., ,'..
.... . '. ',I
J
.
.
.
p
i
,-----,
L ____J
F-'
,.
~
~
cr----,.
~ , '
< i
I
.
,
I
lfl
, ,
II
. .
. i 1- J
.~ k:
~l;.L
I : Ii
"~i)
. I ,.
d. 1Il.
~!
II
.1
r
II
.
I'll '"
~ I .
.-"
~
-~~___J__n___ ... _ ___ __ ___,._ u_
\;
..~ t.__t"'
r~-'- p;iliLl.. '. ,-~
Ill,:", I
L____, I
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
I
i
1
I
,
,
~
~
z
~
.
~
c
.
~ ! 925 EA9T DURANT
[
I
'I
if
i I
~ I
I I
'.. --i
~-I.
"'1"
I
,,!.~,.
[j .
t . . .
ill
"-'
~ l\ ,
'I E
" I , )
,::' qi
I I
A9PEN,CDLDRADD
........, ......,......'
--,
0olo'.'
""'_0'
-"
GIBSON & RENO' ARCHITECTS
.. f......~. _N"- -..:_, XXI'__
_...,,~..,.,. c.",..,.~..
C3
~
- CONIMITMENT:
I .,'f",. ...,t"."
," l).I!" I." ",n,' "1'.1><"11',1
J t".",. N"",f...,
.11"""-,ILl'''''(,',oI,,
'>l.,ol..lolv
{.('h...".'
i 1".1",'.""",,,, 1_,,",'
A l ",1."",''''''''1 C1,~, 'J"
!l!,,,.,!II..y....,".
IU'd.",.f:'Hh'
11 (",,,'1'1' ,,,.h'
I;r'"IH'''vlvl'''
IJ""'''''''''I1."""."
1,lf:,,,,,,,,,.,...,-,,, "1"""""..,
j~_l~___ I: 1:1
19
EE"
11 13
E
I~
-
kwyers l1tle Insurance (9rporation
Nalional Headquarters
Richmond. Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
-
.., Elfecllve Date: JUNE 25, 1987 at 8: 00 A.M.
Case No
PCT-44 6-8 7 C- 2
Policy or policIes to be Issued:
-
(al
- IDl ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 8.1970 (Rev, 10,17,70 & Rev, 10,17,84)
o ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979
- Proposed insured: RICHARD STANZIONE
Amount $ 360,000.00
with a premium of $456.00
_ (bl ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 (Rev, 10.17,70 & Rev. 10,17,84)
Proposed insured:
Amount $
(c)
...... Proposed insured:
Amount $
3, Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land
described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested,in:
SPENCER SCHIFFER, in trust for the Unsecured
Creditors of said Cantrup Estate
.. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
...
-
LOTS F, G, H, and I,
BLOCK I 19,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
...
-
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
...
-
...
-
Countersigned at
Pitkin County Title, Inc.
01 E, Hopkins (303) 925-1766
Asoen ColoralJo 81611
Commitment No, BE-225380
Schedule A-Page 1
-
-
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring_Provisions an~ Sched-
-
~wyers l1tl~J~~H~~~~~r~ (9rporation
Richmond. Virginia
,,--i
SCHEDULE B-Section 1
Requirements
-
..
The following are the requirements 10 be compiled wIIll"
Item (al PCJyment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest
to be Insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record.
-
..
to'Wlt:
1. Deed from Spencer Schiffer, in t"ust for the Unsecured Creditors of said
Cantrup Estate vesting fee simpl~ title in Richard Stanzione.
-
...
2. Evidence satisfactory that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by
Ordinance No. 20 (series of 1979) has been paid or exempted.
-
3. Evidence satisfactory that the Right of First Refusal recorded April 3, 1985
in Book 483 at Page 955 has been complied with.
-
',""';;
-
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
..
...
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring ProvISions and Sched-
ules A and B are attached.
Schedule B,Section l-Page 1 ,Commitment No, BE-225380
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~.
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
kwyers l1t1e Insurance C9rporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B-Section 2
Exceptio"s
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, encroachments. and any facts which
a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im~
posed by low ond not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in
the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered
by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien
imposed for water of sewer service, or for any other special taxing
district.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of
Aspen providing as follows: that no title shall be hereby acquired to
any mine of gold. silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining
claim or possession held under existing laws and subject to all the
conditions, limitations and restriction" contained in Section 2386
of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
8. Those matters as disclosed on the Plat of 925 E. Durant, recorded
April 16 ,1982 in Plat Book 13 at Page 29.
Exceptions numbered
NONE
are hereby omitted.
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, sholl contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1, Item (b).
(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in potents or in Acts aurhorizing issuance
thereof; water rights, claims or title to water.
(3) Any a~d 011 unpaid toxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
Schedule B-Section 2-Poge l-NoBE-225380
...
,-
,,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
kW}'ers l1tle Insurance CQrporation
National Headquarters
Richmond. Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virgm,a corporation, herem called the Company, for valuable
consideration. hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A. in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A. upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the pOlicy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such pOlicy or policies is not the
fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge, If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, orrf
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b)to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring proviSions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
_ arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
~wyers lltle Insu~ (9rporallon
O1kc, J~(f\I"
President
Attest:
~~CL
~At':rArarv
~.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE '01 I
130 South Galena Street 2'txlld -0 -(1)3
Aspen, Colorado 81611 '2/9A-!?7
(303) 925.2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
- 63725
- 63726
- 63727
.63728
- 47332
. 47333
- 47341
- 47342
- 47343
- 47350
- 47360
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
GMP/PAELlM1NARY
GMP/FINAL
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
SUB/PRELIMINARY
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL l-STEP APPLiCATlONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
~ L/PC,{}rJ
- 63721
- 63722
- 63723
- 63724
- 47331
REFERRAL FEES: .sa,OO
00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 57:J . 00
00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING ./1 X"'O,OO
SUB-TOTAL ~, 70 00,
.
County
00113 - 6371' - 47431 GMP/GENERAL
- 63712 - 47432 GMP/OETAILED
- 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAl
- 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL
- 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED
- 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL
~ 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPliCATIONS
~ 63718 .47460 ALL 1.STEP APPLICATIONS;
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 - 63730 .47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING
00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
00113 - 63732 . 47480 ENGINEERING
SUB-TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 .63061 .09000 COUNTY CODE
~ 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN
- 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES
- 63069 - 09000 OTHER
Name S7PA2~
Ad~ r. ~$n~~~
" 1h;;J- .(.-~)t Cl/7stj
Check. /t! )
,
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
-$ 1~ 7000
Additional Billing:
:~;:tftiK. .~ -
~ . ..vJ-~_J:.
Dete: /;;J I ,I.5?7 ,f-h,.1
# of Hours: / /