HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.1001 Mine Claim.47A-861001 I�es;den-'jaf o2737---0419
GM P Scab m+Ss ion 47A
��d
,?-73-7-/F;2-6V_G41
ASPEN/PITiKIN PLANNING OFFICE 063
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 4f
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 -63721 - 47331 -52100
00125
00123
00115
County
00113
00125
00123
00113
00113
- 63722 - 47332
- 63723 - 47333
- 63724 - 47341
- 63725 - 47342
- 63726 - 47343
- 63727 - 47350
- 63728 - 47360
REFERRAL FEES:
- 63730 - 47380
- 63730 - 47380
- 63730 - 47380
- 63711 - 47331
- 63712 - 47332
- 63713 - 47333
- 63714 - 47341
- 63715 - 47342
- 63716 - 47343
- 63717 - 47350
- 63718 - 47360
REFERRAL FEES:
- 63730 - 47380
- 63730 - 47380
- 63731 - 09000
- 63732 - 09000
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 -63061 -09000 - 52200
- 63063 - 09000 - 52200
- 63062 - 09000 - 00000
- 63066 - 09000 - 00000
- 63069 - 09000 -
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
GMP/PRELIMINARY
GMP/FINAL
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
SUB/PRELIMINARY
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
GMP/GENERAL
GMP/DETAILED
GMP/FINAL
SUB/GENERAL
SUB/DETAILED
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
COUNTY CODE
ALMANAC
COMP, PLAN
COPY FEES
OTHER
SUB -TOTAL
Sa•
SO
-73 0 0 0
_To f- w Q,16 TOTAL C2,1 "730 - a d
Name: Aeefl Of CAP/P f,-) / Phone: - Jr �O 4 tv
Address: � /` GS � - Project:
/ dwo
Check k �, �� � oZ Date:
Additional Billing: # of Hours: ��
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director G1-1
RE: 1001 Residential Subdivision Conceptual PUD Submission
DATE: February 18, 1987
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend,
approval of the Conceputal Submission and PUD approval subject It)
conditions cited in the memorandum. ��//
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Aspen Development and Construction Company, a Colorado
Corporation.
LOCATION: 1001 Mine Claim: South of Ute Avenue, West of the Hoag
Subdivision and West of Aspen Chance (see vicinity map attachment
1) .
SIZE: 6.73 total acres, 2.65 acres are located within the City
limits and 4.08 are located within unincorporated Pitkin County.
ZONING: Unincorporated land, AF-1.
City land above 8040' line (6,200 sq. ft.): C
City land below 8040' line (109,114 sq. ft.): R-15 PUD
APPLICANTS REQUEST: Conceptual PUD approval for a four lot
subdivision to include four free market and three employee
restricted units (three duplexes and one single-family).
SITE DESCRIPTION: Attachment 2 depicts the 1001 site and
surrounding land uses. The subject site is characterized by
relatively flat terrain in the lower portion of the site which
extends approximately 250 feet south of Ute Avenue. There are
presently three tennis courts located on the flat portion of the
site. There is a joint use agreement between the applicant and
the Gant for the tennis courts. Just south of the flat portion
of the site are large piles of historic mine tailings. Above the
mine tailing there is a City trail and steep, heavily wooded
slopes.
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The Ute Avenue area is a neighborhood in transition, from old
miners shacks and employee -type units, to modern second homes.
Just to the west of the subject site is the recently developed
Aspen Chance Subdivision. Lot 5 of the Aspen Chance is the only
lot in the subdivision which remains undeveloped. Aspen Chance
contains a mix of single-family and duplex dwelling units. To the
west of Aspen Chance is the Alps Condominiums and the Aspen
Mountain Skiing area. North of the 1001 site between the
property line and Ute Avenue is the Ute Addition comprised of
three single-family houses. On the other side of Ute Avenue are
the Gant Condominiums and a vacant piece of land which was the
proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski area. This site is
the location of a current subdivision proposal for a 16 unit
single-family subdivision known as 1010 Ute Avenue. To the east
of the subject site is the Hoag Subdivision which contains one
single-family residence.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachment 3 depicts the proposed site plan for 1001. To develop
the proposed site plan, it will be necessary to relocate the
tennis courts a few feet to the west to allow enough space for a
private entry road which will provide ingress and egress. Three
duplex units, which will contain free market dwelling units and
low income deed restricted units will be located south and west
of the access road/cul-de-sac. The dwelling units will sit on
lots varying between 14,500 square feet and 19,500 square feet.
The developer anticipates retaining David Finholm and Associates,
the architectural firm who designed several Aspen Chance residen-
ces, to prepare design guidelines for this project. Attachment 4
is indicative of the proposed buildings within the 1001 Subdivi-
sion.
To develop the 1001 Subdivision, the site will require extensive
regrading to remove the large piles of mine tailings. The
applicant has submitted a slope density reduction calculation due
to the presence of slopes greater than 20%, in accordance with
Section 24-8.18 of the Code. Land located within unincorporated
Pitkin County and within the City's C zone was not included
within the gross area for slope density reduction calculations.
Based only upon the 115,314 sq. ft. within the City's R-15 zone
district, the adjusted building area has been shown to be 75,211
square feet. Dividing 75,211 sq. ft. by the seven proposed units
shows that the adjusted land area per dwelling unit will be
approximately 10,744 sq. ft. (the Code requires at least 10,000
s.f. per unit in the R-15 zone). According to Section 24-3.4 of
the code, the average unit sizes of the duplexes will be approxi-
mately 4,620 sq. ft. and the single-family house will be limited
to approximately 4,200 sq. ft.
2
0
it is proposed that all of the 4.08 (177, 724 sq. ft.) acres of
unincorporated land and approximately 38,005 sq. ft. (including
19,800 sq. ft. of tennis courts) of land within the City will
serve as open space for a total of 215,730 sq. ft. or 4.95 acres.
This represents approximately 74 percent of the entire site.
Five guest parking sites are proposed for the entrance adjacent
to the tennis courts and three are found around the cul-de-sac
(see attachment 3). Resident parking will be provided off the
street within each lot.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 30' wide drainage
easement on the old Midland right-of-way to the City. This
easement will help alleviate a community problem by carrying
storm water from Aspen Mountain.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
As of Friday, January 16, 1987, the Planning Office had received
written comments from the Sanitary Sewer, Water, Engineering,
Environmental Health, Housing, and Zoning referral agencies.
Preliminary verbal comments have been made by the City Attorney.
Comments have not been received from the Parks Department. The
following are brief summaries of the referral comments.
1) Fire Marshall: The Fire Department is capable of
serving 1001 Subdivision without any problem. The
conceptual design is adequate and a new fire hydrant in
the neighborhood will enhance fire protection for Aspen
Chance.
2) Aspen Consolidated Sewer District: There are no
problems serving the 1001 Subdivision.
3) Water Department: The Water Department has requested
and the applicant has agreed to provide a loop system
between Ute Avenue and Aspen Chance consisting of 8"
ductile iron pipe. Additionally, the applicant has
agreed to install a mueller 5.5" three nozzle fire
hydrant or its equivalent.
4) Engineer: Slope density reduction calculations may be
in error by an acceptable margin. The City Attorney's
office should be consulted concerning water rights on
this property. The applicant needs to provide a map
showing adjacent ownerships.
5) Environmental Health: The applicant should be required
to meet conditions established by Tom Dunlop in his
December 18, 1986 memorandum regarding construction
related air pollution. Likewise, during construction
the applicant will be required to abide by noise
3
abatement regulations. The most significant issue
addressed is soils contamination which will probably be
a problem on this site due to the presence of mine
tailings. Prior to construction, it is recommended
that the applicant prepare a mine tailings management
plan for review by the Environmental Health Department.
6) Housing Department: The calculations of employee units
in the application are correct. The applicant should
comply with conditions cited in Ann Bowman's December
10, 1986 memorandum which are listed at the end of this
memorandum
7) City Attorney: The City Attorney has completed a
preliminary study of the legal issues associated with
this proposal and is completing his analysis. The 1:001
tract is not presently in one ownership due to the
leasehold interest for 99 years which has been granted
to the Gant for the tennis courts. According to
Section 20-3(s)(i) of the Code a leasehold interest is
considered a subdivision. Therefore, it cannot be
presumed that the applicant may use the land for the
purposes represented in the Plan. The application
should be rejected unless the applicant can get
representatives of the Gant to agree to be joint
applicants prior to submission of the preliminary plat.
The applicants have retained a local attorney who
worked all of last week to try to reach an agreement
with the Gant to be co -applicants. On Friday afternoon
the applicants representative notified the Planning
Office that a tentative agreement had been reached with
the Gant. More information will be presented at the
meeting.
Additionally, it is the recommendation of the City
Attorney that prior to the preliminary plat submission
the applicant should provide an updated title policy
(current policy was issued in February of 1984) and
that in accordance with Section 20-10(b)(4), the
Planning Commission should require that holders of
"mortgages, judgements, liens, easements contracts or
agreements join in and approve the application for
subdivision."
8) Zoning:
o The project requires 8040 greenline review at
preliminary plat.
4
i
•
o At preliminary plat, the applicant should be more
specific regarding building envelopes and set-
backs.
o The applicant should propose more specifically how
building height will be measured during the
preliminary plat stage.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
The Planning Office has comments regarding the proposed 1001
Subdivision in four areas which are addressed below:
o Consistency with Master Plan
o Employee Housing
o Geology concerns
o Site plan
MASTER PLAN:
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the subject site as
"Mixed Residential". Within the Mixed Residential district a mix
of residential land use types are encouraged. The mix of duplex
and single-family residential units proposed within the applica-
tion are consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. However,
as explained in greater detail in the forthcoming site plan
section, the density of the proposed subdivision may be too high
for this site which is located on the fringe of the municipality.
The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan suggests that "residential
densities shall generally be more intense close to the two major
centers Aspen and Snowmass and decrease in intensity as distances
from the centers increase." This policy statement has been
reflected in the 1973 Land Use Plan which amends the map in the
1966 Aspen Area General Plan. The amended map depicts a hier-
archy of land uses decreasing form higher densities in the
central area to the lowest densities on the borders of town.
The 1985 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space Trails Element designates a trail on the old Midland right-
of-way traversing the upper portion of this site. The applicant
has proposed dedicating an easement to the City for the trail
shown on the Plan which already is in existence.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING:
In a December 1, 1986 letter from Joe Wells, Planner for the
applicant, to Alan Richman, the question of a credit for an
existing dwelling unit on the site was addressed. The applicants
5
contend that when the grading for the adjacent Aspen Chance
Subdivision was done, an existing residence on the subject site
was demolished. A review of the files in the Planning Office
confirm that there was indeed a residence on the site. There-
fore, the applicant should receive credit for one existing
single-family residence, despite the fact that verification was
not accomplished prior to its demolition. Since the house was
inadvertently demolished by a neighbor, the verification require-
ment would be an unreasonable restriction.
GEOLOGIC CONCERNS:
The applicant has submitted a preliminary report prepared by Chen
Associates which addresses the geologic hazards present on the
site. Chen & Associates makes the following recommendations:
o An avalanche expert should be consulted to evaluate
potential for avalanches and impact on proposed
development.
o When grading plans for the site are more complete,a
detailed geotechnical study should be done to evaluate
stability of cuts and fills.
o The risk of mine induced subsidence is considered to be
low. The majority of mining activity took place to the
west of the site despite the presence of mine tailings
on -site.
o Prior to development, the potential for debris flow/ -
flood impact on the site should be evaluated by a
surface water hydrologist. The steep, heavily vegeta-
ted portions of the site should not be disturbed.
o All stripped areas should be revegetated to protect
against soil erosion.
o When more specific site plans are prepared, a detailed
plan to address mine tailings and potential toxicity
hazards should be prepared.
SITE PLAN:
As evidenced by the referral comments explained in the previous
section of this memorandum, most of the problems associated with
the proposed subdivision can be resolved with additional work.
The Planning office's primary concern with this subdivision is
the proposed density of the project. Since this proposal is on
the fringe of the urban area, it is the staff's opinion and
recommendation of the Master Plan that the proposed subdivision
should be below the maximum density of the zone district.
Additionally, the unique characteristics of the site contribute
0
to the perception of density. These attributes are the steep,
heavily wooded hillside behind the housing and the tennis courts
located in front of the housing. Since this subdivision is a
mandatory PUD, variations from the area and bulk requirements are
permitted at the discretion of reviewing bodies. The applicant
is seeking variations in the minimum lot size requirements, front
yard setbacks, and the manner in which the height limitation is
calculated.
Section 24-8.4 of the Code states that "maximum density in any
zoning district shall not be allowed as a matter of course, and
the actual density for any Planned Unit Development shall be as
determined in the PUD plan and finally approved in accordance
with the purposes and requirements of this article." It is
worthwhile to examine in detail the applicants request with
respect to site data. Listed in Table 1 are the relative data of
the site plan depicted in attachment 3:
TABLE 1
SITE DATA*
Total Site area - 6.73 acres
City Site area - 2.65 acres/115,430 sq. ft.
Adjusted Site area (after slope density reduction) = 75,210
sq. ft.
Adjusted average lot areas - 10,740 sq. ft.**
Allowable build square footage limit - 18,070 sq. ft.**
Impervious surface in common area - 30,500 sq. ft.**
(tennis courts and roadway/parking)
Tennis courts - 19,800 sq. ft.**
Roadway parking - 10,700 sq. ft.**
Total open space in City - 38,000 sq. ft.**
Landscaped Common open space - 18,200 sq. ft.**
Total Common areas - 48,740 sq. ft.**
*Please note all data are
**Denotes City land only
Source: Doremus & Wells
Planning, January, 1986
approximate
as rounded off by Aspen/Pitkin
The above data shows that of the total 48,740 sq. ft. in the
municipal common areas, imperious surfaces (roadways, parking,
tennis courts) comprise 30,500 sq. ft. or 63% of the total. Only
18,200 sq. ft. or 37% of the total common City open space is
landscaped open space. This represents only 16% of the total
land in the City.
An additional factor which must be considered is that the
applicant's lease agreement with the Gant precludes more than ten
designated residents of the 1001 Subdivision from using the
tennis courts. It is projected that 17 people will live in the
V/
•
•
1001 Subdivision. This means that 41 percent of the subdivision
residents and all guests of the residents will not be allowed to
access and enjoy an area which the applicant suggests will be a
"common area". Section 24-8.5 of the Code states that "the
development must include open space for the mutual benefit of the
entire tract." Based upon this provision and Section 24-3.7(d)
which states that recreation areas are not to be included in open
space calculations, the open space provided by the subdivision in
the City should be reduced from 38,000 sq. ft. to 18,200 sq. ft.
This represents only 16% of the total land in the City portion of
the site.
To be fair to the applicant, it has to be pointed out that the
common open space figures cited do not include the 4.08 acres of
open space in the County, on the hillside. However, due to the
slope of the County land, it is doubtful that this area could -be
developed at all. The perception of density on the site will be
based upon the relatively flat area at the toe of the hill.
For PUD's average lot area is the methodology commonly used to
determine the permitted density within a subdivision. Average
lot area is calculated by dividing the adjusted site area after
slope density reductions by the proposed number of dwelling
units. In the case of this proposal, the average lot area per
dwelling unit is 10,740 square feet (75,210 sq.ft. - 7). As
indicated previously, the lot area minimum requirements for each
dwelling unit within a duplex is 10,000 square feet. Therefore,
based upon the average lot area methodology explained above the
duplexes in the 1001 Subdivision exceed the minimum lot area
requirement for the R-15 zone district (Section 24-8.2). On the
other hand, only 10,740 square feet is being allocated for the
single-family structure. This is well below the minimum lot area
standard for the zone district but may be permitted within a PUD
at the discretion of the reviewing body.
Based upon this discussion of the site plan, the key question to
ask is whether or not the proposed PUD subdivision is in accord-
ance with the "purposes and requirements" of Article 24-8.4 of
the code (maximum density). It is the opinion of the Planning
Office that due to the density of this proposal, the site plan
does not:
o Improve design, character and quality of new develop-
ment (24.8.1(b)
o Preserve open space as development occurs (24-8.1(d)
and
0
•
o Provide procedures so as to relate to the type of
design and layout of residential development to a
particular site and thus encourage the preservation of
the sites unique and natural scenic features (24-
8.1(e) .
Section 24-8.13(a) states that in areas designated mandatory PUD
"the allowable number of dwelling units shall be reviewed and may
be reduced (but not increased) from that number allowed in the
applicable zoning district" based upon certain criteria. The
Planning Office has found the density of the proposed PUD plan to
be inconsistent with:
o The placement and clustering of structures and reduction of
building height and scale to increase open space and
preserve the natural features of the terrain (24-8.13(8))-.
It is the Planning Office view that the site plan could be
significantly improved by reducing the bulk or density of the
proposed development. If one structure was eliminated from the
proposal, the actual density of development and the perceived
density of development would be significantly reduced, and the
site plan would be vastly improved. Similarly, the applicant
could reduce the bulk of the proposal by precluding the potential
for one-story structures to be built on the site.
P&Z RECOMMENDATION
The P&Z recommends approval of the conceptual submission and PUD
if the applicant is willing to return with proposals to reduce
density or bulk of the proposed subdivision. It is also recom-
mended that the applicant comply with the conditions cited at the
end of this memorandum.
Based upon our review of this application and the referral
JQ.l comments, the Planning Office recommends that the City Council
approve the conceptual submission and PUD approval, if the
applicant is willing to formally amend the application by
�(0 reducing the proposed density or bulk either by eliminating at
least one structure or placing restrictions on the building
11Y
footprints.
In the event that the applicant is unwilling to reduce the
density or bulk of the project the Planning Office recommends
that the City Council deny conceptual submission. The recommenda-
tion is based upon our finding that the proposed subdivision is
inconsistent with the PUD sections of the Code cited within the
memorandum.
In the event that the application is willing to amend the site
plan as suggested, it is recommended that the following condi-
tions be adhered to:
01
• •
1) All representations made by the applicant in the
application will be adhered to.
2) Prior to preliminary plat submission, the applicant
should meet with the City Attorney concerning water
rights on the property.
3) The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the
Environmental Health Office to mitigate construction
impacts on air pollution (December 18, 1986 memoran-
dum).
4) The applicant will comply with the City of Aspen noise
abatement Ordinance (81-2) during construction.
5) Prior to final plat submission, the applicant shall
prepare a mine waste toxicity management plan for
review by the Environmental Health Department.
6) Prior to preliminary review submission, the applicant
shall submit to the City Attorney an agreement from the
Gant Condominiums consenting to be a co -applicant for
this proposal. In the event such an agreement cannot
be made, the applicant will not be permitted to proceed
further in the review process and the application will
be denied for failure to comply with Section 20-
10(b)(4) of the Code.
7) The owner of "1001" covenants with the City of Aspen
that the employee units shall be deed restricted to
sale or rental units in terms of use and occupancy in
accordance with guidelines established and indexed by
the City Council's designee as low sale or rental
guidelines. Such deed restriction shall be recorded
prior to issuance of Building Permit. Such low sale or
rental guidelines may change annually on April 1st of
each year and the Owner of "1001" may adjust the rents
or sale price accordingly.
8) Verification of employment of those employees living in
the low sale or rental units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Office by the Owner or his
manager commencing on the date or recording hereof, and
at time of change of occupancy thereafter. Verifica-
tion of employment of person(s) living in the employee
unit shall be completed and filed with the Housing
Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to
occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance with the
10
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be
specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by
any appropriate legal action including injunction,
abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during
the period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof
in the Pitkin County real property records, which ever
period shall be greater.
9) The Owner of "1001" or his manager shall have the right
to lease the employee units to qualified employees of
his own selection. Such employees may be employed by
the owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided
such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified
employee. "Qualified Employee" as used herein shall
mean any person currently residing in and employed in
the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum
average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any
twelve-month period, who shall meet the use and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
10) Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance with the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
11) No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive months.
12 ) When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
13) The deed restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board and by the
Housing Authority Director prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to
11
C�
•
the Housing Authority Office after recordation.
14) If such employee units become condominiumized and sold,
a resale agreement shall be executed with the Housing
Authority defining the sale price, appreciation and all
such issues as may be established by the Housing
Authority.
15) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations by
Chen & Associates regarding their study of geologic
conditions:
o An avalanche expert should be consulted to
evaluate potential for avalanches and impact on
proposed development.
o When grading plans for the site are more com-
plete,a detailed geotechnical study should be done
to evaluate stability of cuts and fills.
o Prior to development, the potential for debris
flow/flood impact on the site should be evaluated
by a surface water hydrologist � - he steep,
heavily vegetated portions of the sho ld not be
disturbed.
o All stripped areas should be revegetated to
protect against soil erosion.
o A detailed plan to address mine tailings and
potential toxicity hazards should be prepared.
In 1 w T w 10 -A. V- v n i lie P �t cwti oTh e r c� ✓1 rv� e�
✓otec.n�� � 1..�.+' ✓`',"'� be �e��,�.�✓e�U� 5•--��eSi'����C.i�e✓�•
16) During the preliminary plan review process, the 8040
Greenline Review should take place.
17) The preliminary plan submission shall address Section
24-8.9 of the Code.
18) At the time of preliminary plan submission, the
applicant shall submit a detailed grading plan.
19) The preliminary plan approval must be submitted within
six months of approval of conceptual subdivision by
City Council.
20) During the preliminary plan review, the applicant will
submit a proposal for measuring building heights and
more specifically address building envelopes and
setbacks.
12
V
s
21) The applicant
allocation for
preliminary plan
reflect the nun
allocation has bi
shall receive a growth management
the requested units prior to the
submission or amend the site plan to
ber of dwelling units for which an
ten made.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
GH.022
13
•
%909i 9f'S-d60D
February 18, 1987
D
Mr. John Doremus
Doremus & Wells
608 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 1001 Ute
Dear John:
This letter is written at your request relative to the
scheduling of the above application vis-a-vis the Mountain
View application. Please be advised that the applicant for
Mountain View has no objection, in the event your appeal is
successful in achieving a score above the threshold, for you
to:
(1) Proceed on your own time schedule regardless
of the time schedule for the required appro-
vals necesary for Mountain View, and
(2) Receive an allocation of 3 units even though
your score may be below that of the Mountain
View score.
Very truly yours
Dougla)9 P. Allen
DPA/pkm
cc: Alan Richman
0 0
DOMMUS & weLLs
an association of land planners
February 10, 1987
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
Department of Planning & Community
Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
We have discussed the issue of how the City should go about allo-
cating the available residential GMP quota with Gideon Kaufman and
Sunny Vann, who represent the two projects which scored highest
before the Planning and Zoning Commission in this year's
competition. Because of timing constraints, they have asked us if
our clients for the '1001' proposal would object to their
requesting that City Council allocate their requested portion of
the quota at Council's February 23rd meeting.
We have discussed the request with our clients who, as a courtesy
to these applicants, would not object to such a request. It is
our understanding that such a decision by Council would not affect
our pending appeal or the possibility that '1001' may still be
granted an allocation from the remaining units available for
award.
Sincerely,
A—_11
Joe Wells, AICP
JW/b
cc: Gideon Kaufman
Sunny Vann
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866
I
Lq(gLEa
DOI'�MUS & MLLS JO 3 01987
an association of land planners �j
January 30, 1987
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
Planning and Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
You asked us to comment on your suggested schedule for City
Council's consideration of the "1001", and other GMP
submissions.
We have discussed with our client the choice of February 23 and
March 9 for further consideration of conceptual PUD and subdivi-
sion issues, followed by GMP appeals and allocations on March 23
and they have confirmed that those dates are acceptable.
Let us know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Joe Wer`11`s, —
JW/b
cc: G. R. McIntire
608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-68�6
February 10, 1987
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
Department of Planning
& Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
On behalf of Aspen Development and Construction Company, our
letter is to appeal to City Council certain GMP scores awarded the
'1001' Project by Planning and Zoning Commission members at the
residential GMP hearing on January 27, 1987, under the provisions
of Section 24-11.4(f).
The threshold score without bonus points in this year's residen-
tial competition was determined by your office to be 31.8 points.
P&Z awarded the '1001' Subdivision proposal an average score of
31.67 points (32.5 points with bonus points). Therefore, the
'1001' project would have reached the threshold with the award of
one additional point by any of the six P&Z members present in any
of the 14 scoring categories.
We believe that certain aspects regarding the manner in which the
hearing for the '1001' project was conducted does constitute a
denial of due process and abu_s_e_ of discretion on the part of the
commission. The emphasis in this year's residential GMP hearing
appeared to be more on completing the hearing on the predetermined
schedule, than on granting each applicant a fair hearing. A total
of 30 minutes was alloted to the completion of the hearing and
scoring for each submission, as follows:
Staff presentation 5 minutes
Applicant's presentation 15 minutes
Public comment 5 minutes
P&Z scoring 5 minutes
Because of the extremely limited amount of time available to
present each project, there was certainly not adequate time for
the applicant to discuss each of the fourteen scoring categories.
Instead it was necessary to focus on only those categories where
there was disagreement with the score recommended by the Planning
Office.
608 east hyman avenue c aspen, color o 81611 o telephone: 303 925-6866
0
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
February 10, 1987
Page Two
We believe the lack of time to briefly discuss each category may
have led to some confusion on the part of some commission members,
which led in turn to some mistakes in certain scoring categories
-- specifically, in our case, several categories relatively
objective in nature.
It is with regard to the latter part of the agenda, however, that
we have the most objection. First, we submit that five minutes is
an inadequate amount of time for the members of the Commission to
digest all of the testimony given during the course of the hearing
and then fairly score the submission in each of 14 categories. We
have concluded that in order to complete their scoring in the time
alloted, the commission members must be coming to the hearing
already having made decisions about each project's scoring without
benefit of either the applicant's presentation of the project or
his response to the planning offices's recommended scoring in
various categories.
Secondly, no time was allotted to the applicants to respond to
public comment made in regard to our submission; in fact as the
attached verbatim from the clerk's office indicates, there was a
deliberate attempt by the Chairman to cut off our response to
damaging testimony given by the developers of an adjacent
property, despite the City Attorney's advice to the contrary.
The Chairman finally conceded to grant us a moment to respond with
a caveat -- saying "Well, as long as we can score while you're
talking." We began to rebutt the statements that had been made,
but when it became clear that the majority of the commission were
not listening but were instead proceeding with completion of their
scoring, we concluded that the effort was pointless.
We believe the unrebutted testimony was not entirely accurate and
was particularly damaging in the design section, where we were
given four scores below the recommended scoring of the Planning
Office. Because of the subjective nature of the categories in
question, however, we concluded that it is virtually impossible to
demonstrate an abuse of discretion in such a discretionary scoring
category and are therefore not appealing these scores.
Instead, our appeal centers on four separate scores awarded by
three different Commission members in three categories which we
believe are sufficiently objective that a determination can be
made that the award in these categories was less than the minimum
score which the project merited.
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
February 10, 1987
Page Three
Appeal No. 1 - Storm Drainage
Commissioner Markalunas' score of 1. (Planning Office recommmend-
ed a score of 2 and balance of Commission awarded scores of 2.)
Because of the limited time available to present our case to P&Z,
we made no comment on our storm drainage commitment, since the
Planning Office had recommended the maximum score in this
category.
Our storm drainage commitment has two components. First, with
regard to on -site drainage, we committed to maintain the historic
rate of flow of run-off through and off the site by directing
run-off from impervious surfaces into on -site detention ponds.
These will be engineered for inclusion with the preliminary
submission.
A clarification offered at the hearing by the representative for
the 700 E. Hyman Avenue project, amending their storm drainage
proposal to one virtually identical to (and limited to) the
solution described above, was adequate to merit an award of 2
points by Commissioner Markalunas.
The storm drainage proposal for '1001' went beyond this first
commitment. A significant off -site drainage problem was first
identified in the 1973 Urban Runoff Management Plan prepared for
the City by Wright -McLaughlin Engineers; that study estimated the
100 year flood event from Spar Gulch to be a volume of 300 cubic
feet per second.
To date the City has done very little to address this poenttially
hazardous occurrence. In recent months, however, this problem has
received more attention as a result of other development proposals
in the area. The City, through the Engineering Office, has been
pursuing a solution to this portion of the mountain drainage
problem which would direct runoff from Spar into a ditch to be
constructed along the now vacated Midland Railroad right of way
(through the '1001' site) east to Ute Avenue, through Ute
Children's Park to the Roaring Fork River. In order to accomplish
this plan, the City must secure an easement through the '1001'
property. The owners of the '1001' site have committed to grant a
30 foot non-exclusive easement for drainage purposes upon final
approval of the subdivision plat for the project.
We submit that it is clear that these commitments go beyond that
required for the project only (the standard for awarding 1 point)
and improve the quality of storm drainage service in the area;
there is no question that the only appropriate score is 2 points.
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
February 10, 1987
Page Four
Appeal No. 2 - Fire Protection
Commissioner Markalunas' score of 1. (Planning Office recommended
a score of 2 and balance of Commission awarded scores of 2.)
Again, we chose not to take time to comment before P&Z on our fire
protection proposal because of the Planning office's recommended
maximum score of two.
There are two commitments in our fire protection proposal which
will improve the quality of fire protection service in the area.
The new fire hydrant which will be installed in the area of the
cul-de-sac will not only offer fire protection for the residences
in the '1001' project but will serve as a back-up hydrant serving
surrounding properties in the event there is a problem with other
hydrants in the area or if access to a fire in the neighborhood is
more convenient from this new hydrant location.
Secondly, we have proposed to install a new 8" water line tying
into the existing line serving Aspen Chance. This commitment was
suggested by the City Water Department in order to provide looped
water service in the area. This commitment will assure fire flow
in the event there is any interruption in water service in the
existing line in Ute Avenue.
We believe that the appropriate score in this category is 2, which
is the score Commissioner Markalunas awarded the applicants for
the 700 E. Hyman project who committed only to the addition of a
fire hydrant.
Appeal No. 3 - Energy
Commissioners Hunt's and Peyton's score of 2. (Planning Office
recommended a score of 2; balance of Commission awarded scores of
2.5 to 3.)
The standard in this category is "consideration of the use of
insulation, passive solar orientation and solar energy devices,
efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize
conservation and use of solar energy sources."
A. General - Because of the site's limited solar potential, and
the fact that the residences on this site may not be built
for many years, we felt rather than attempt to judge what
"state -of -the art" might be in the future, we would make a
1
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
February 10, 1987
Page Five
commitment to exceed the most restrictive design performance
standard in the Building Code. According to Rob Wein of the
Building Department, that is the ASHRAE design standard which
limits heat loss to no more than 18 BTU's/hour/square foot at
an outside air temperature of -15°F; by committing to exceed
the requirements of that formula, we have allowed the future
designers of the residences in the '1001' project the flexi-
bility to employ a combination of then current techniques,
materials and equipment to exceed this restrictive
performance standard.
Further, energy will be conserved by taking advantage of the
sloping site to build into the hillside; airlocks will be
employed at all entrances; ceiling fans will be used for air
recirculation; triple glazing will be specified in key
locations; expandable foam insulation will be utilized at all
exterior door and window frames to cut down on air
infiltration.
B. Insulation - In addition, we have committed to insulation
standards well in excess of the City's standard. The
referral agency has acknowledged this in their comments.
Insulation materials have not been specified because a
superior product may be available in the future to meet the R
values committed to.
C. Passive solar orientation and solar energy devices - Because
of the limited solar potential of the site, the use of active
solar energy devices is not feasible; however, where
possible, buildings have been sited so that major window
walls can be oriented 15° from south for maximum solar gain.
It will be necessary for the designer to carefully consider
window placement and type in order to exceed the heat loss
design standard discussed earlier.
D. Efficient fireplaces - With regard to wood -burning devices,
we have committed to comply with the regulations in effect at
the time of construction of the individual residences; there
was a presumption in this commitment that such regulations
would most likely be at least as restrictive as the present
ones and probably more restrictive.
E. Efficient heating and cooling devices - We have been asked by
the Roaring Rork Energy Center to clarify our statements with
regard to heating equipment; specifically we were asked
whether we would commit to the use of a natural gas system of
at least 90% efficiency in order to add further definition to
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
February 10, 1987
Page Six
our commitment. We will incorporate this additional perfor-
mance standard into our covenants for the project; this will
still permit the designer of the mechancial system
flexibility to use state-of-the-art equipment available at
the time.
We believe our commitments in this category go well beyond those
that would be permitted under current regulations, which serve to
define what an "acceptable (but standard) design" is. Therefore,
we believe that a score in excess of 2 points in this category is
required. The award of half points, which some members of the
commission utilized, may be the best way to address this inequity.
If we can provide additional information regarding our appeal,
please give us a call.
Sincerely,
Joe Wells, AICP
JW/b
608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866
•
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, hereby certity that on this C day of, 198' - , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice, of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the public notice.
Nancy Caeti
(•
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1001 CONCEPTUAI, SUBDIVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will. be held on
Monday, February 23, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen City Council, 1st floor Council Chambers, 130 S.
Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider a four -lot subdivision
on the "1001" mining claim. The property lies to the south of
Ute Avenue, to the west of the Hoag Subdivision and east of the
Aspen Chance Subdivision. The site is approximately 6.73 acres
with the lower 2.6 acres lying within the City limits.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (30:3) 925-
2020, ext.. 298.
s/William L. Stirling,
Mayor, Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on February 5, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
•
•
PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE '1001' SUBDIVISION
Ute Addition
Lot 1 Thomas F. & Cathryn R. Crum
991 Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Lot 2 Linda Edwards Woerner
990 Van Nuys Street
San Diego, CA 92109
Lot 3 Chaspen Associates, A Partnership
c/o Carpenter & Company
175 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Aspen Chance Subdivision
Lot 1 Red Oak of Colorado, Inc.
A Colorado Corporation
1600 Smith, Suite 3800
Houston, TX 77002
Lot 2 John T. Nickel
P. O. Box 7941
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 4 Aspen -Chance, Inc.
A Texas Corporation
1600 Smith, Suite 3800
Houston, TX 77002
Lot 6 Michael D. Dingman
Trustee under the American
Red Oak Trust
11253 Torrey Pines Road
La Jolla, CA 92037
Hoaa Subdivision
Lot 1 1010 Ute Corporation
c/o Gideon Kaufman, Attorney at Law
315 E. Hyman, Suite 305
Aspen, CO 81611
Lot 3 Jack Barker
c/o James H. Delman
P. 0. Box 3379
Aspen, CO 81612
Other
Bureau of Land Management
c/o U.S. Forest Service
806 West Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin County Parks Association
P. O. Box 940
Aspen, CO 81612
0
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
Steve Burstein, Planner
Residential Growth Management Quota System: Scoring
January 27, 1987
INTRODUCTION: Attached for your consideration are copies of the
Planning Office's recommended points allocation for the four
residential growth management applicants which were submitted on
December 1, 1986.
QUOTA AVAILABLE: The 1986 annual residential quota in the City
of Aspen is 39 dwelling units per year. According to the Code,
the quota must be reduced by any development which took place via
exemptions in 1986, and changes in use from non-residential to
residential uses. It is increased by expirations of previously
granted allotments and demolitions. The City Council has the
discretion to carry over to 1986, wipe out or take no action with
respect to the unallocated 35 units of quota from 1985. Follow-
ing is a summary of the status of the 1986 residential quota.
1986 Residential quota:
New Construction:
Change in Use
Demolitions
Expirations
Total Quota
39 units
-18 units
-14 units
+12 units
+ 3 units
22 units available
Based upon the City Council discretionary authority, the 1986
quota of dwelling units will finally be determined to be either
22 or 57 units. Applicants have requested allocations of 79
units as listed below:
Mountain View: 58 units
1010 Ute Ave.: 16 units
700 E. Hyman 2 units
1001 3 units
As you can see, the requested allocations substantially exceed
the available quota. This will make the scoring competition on
Tuesday very interesting and important to the applicants.
PROCESS: The Planning Office will review procedures with you and
provide recommendations of the assignment of points. The appli-
cant will give a brief presentation of the proposal. A public
hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At
the close of the hearing, each P&Z member will score the appli-
cants proposal. This procedure will be followed for each
application in the following order:
1010 Ute Avenue
700 E. Hyman
1001
Mountain View
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting will constitute the total points awarded
to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the
total points available (31.8), a minimum of 30 percent of the
points available in scoring categories 1, 2, 3 and 35 percent of
the points available in category 4 to meet the minimum scoring
threshold. The minimum thresholds are: Category 1 - 3.6
points, Category 2 - 4.5 points, Category 3 - 1.8 points,
Category 4 - 7 points.
In the event that an application scores below any threshold, it
will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will
be considered denied, subject to the right of appeal provided for
by the Code.
In the event that a project meets the threshold, the additional
reviews identified in each of the staff's January 20, 1987
memoranda must be completed by both P&Z and Council before an
allocation will be granted.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points
to the applications as a recommendation for you to consider. The
staff met to discuss the ratings of the reviewing planner and
objectively scored the proposals. The following is a summary of
the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assign-
ment for each criterion is shown on the attached scoring sheets
including comments regarding the ratings.
CATEGORIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
Public Facil- Quality
Proximity
Employee
Bonus
Application
ities Serv- of
to
Housing
Points
ices
Design
Support
Total
Services
1010 Ute Ave.
11
13
4
7
NA
35
700 E. Hyman
8
11
6
9
NA
34
1001
10
9
4
7
NA
30
Mountain View
8
7
5
12
NA
32
NA = The
Planning
Office as a
policy never recommends
the
allocation of
bonus points
QUOTA RECOMMENDATION: The applicants in this years competition
have requested the allocation of 79 dwelling units. The 700 E.
Hyman, 1001 and 1010 Ute Avenue are requesting 21 dwelling units
which is just one unit less than the available quota of 22 units.
The Mountain View request for 58 units presents a problem because
it is more than twice the available quota. City Council may
decide to partially resolve the problem by granting the unallo-
cated 1985 quota of 35 units this year, however it will not be
clear until after P&Z establishes the rank order of the appli-
cants how many units will be needed to accommodate the successful
applicants.
Presuming that there are successful applicants for more than the
22 units available, the Planning Office recommends that the P&Z
recommend to Council against the unallocated quota being allo-
cated in this years competition for the reasons explained below:
1) In our opinion, there is no compelling reason to
allocate the unused quota in this years competition.
As noted above, the quota would be used primarily to
serve the Mountain View project. Due to the location
of the Mountain View proposal, it is likely that it
will serve primarily as a short-term accommodation use.
The City has already granted future years lodge
allocations to the Little Nell, Hotel Aspen Mountain
Lodge and the Hotel Jerome. Since growth rate control
is still an adopted community objective, we cannot
recommend that the growth rate be accelerated in
another growth sector of the community, particularly
when it serves a purpose so similar to that in the
lodge competition.
2) When the Hotel Jerome, Little Nell and Aspen Mountain
Lodge projects were approved, their employee housing
requirements were satisfied by commitments to change
the use of the Cortina, Holiday House, Alpina Haus and
Copper Horse from lodge rooms to residential units.
The community must be prepared to have residential
quota available for when approximately 75 units in
these old lodges change to residential units. The
alternative would be to give the quota away now and
then be forced to borrow dwelling units from the
future. As previously mentioned, the City has already
chosen to borrow units from the future in the lodge
sector and should strive to avoid having to also borrow
from the future in the residential sector.
The Planning Office, therefore, recommends that the 35 unallo-
cated units (plus any of the 22 units which are not allocated
this year) be left for future allocation, to address the change
in use which we expect as noted above.
0
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
RE: 1001 Residential Growth Management Quota System -
Conceptual PUD
DATE: January 20, 1987
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Aspen Development and Construction Company, a Colorado
Corporation.
LOCATION: 1001 Mine Claim: South of Ute Avenue, West of the Hoag
Subdivision and West of Aspen Chance (see vicinity map attachment
1) .
SIZE: 6.73 total acres, 2.65 acres are located within the City
limits and 4.08 are located within unincorporated Pitkin County.
ZONING: Unincorporated land, AF-1.
City land above 8040' line (6,200 sq. ft.): C
City land below 8040' line (109,114 sq. ft.): R-15 PUD
APPLICANTS REQUEST: Conceptual PUD approval for a four lot
subdivision to include four free market and three employee
restricted units (three duplexes and one single-family).
SITE DESCRIPTION: Attachment 2 depicts the 1001 site and
surrounding land uses. The subject site is characterized by
relatively flat terrain in the lower portion of the site which
extends approximately 250 feet south of Ute Avenue. There are
presently three tennis courts located on the flat portion of the
site. There is a joint use agreement between the applicant and
the Gant for the tennis courts. Just south of the flat portion
of the site are large piles of historic mine tailings. Above the
mine tailing there is a City trail and steep, heavily wooded
slopes.
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The Ute Avenue area is a neighborhood in transition, from old
miners shacks and employee -type units, to modern second homes.
Just to the west of the subject site is the recently developed
Aspen Chance Subdivision. Lot 5 of the Aspen Chance is the only
lot in the subdivision which remains undeveloped. Aspen Chance
contains a mix of single-family and duplex dwelling units. To the
• 0
west of Aspen Chance is the Alps Condominiums and the Aspen
Mountain Skiing area. North of the 1001 site between the
property line and Ute Avenue is the Ute Addition comprised of
three single-family houses. On the other side of Ute Avenue are
the Gant Condominiums and a vacant piece of land which was the
proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski area. This site is
the location of a current subdivision proposal for a 16 unit
single-family subdivision known as 1010 Ute Avenue. To the east
of the subject site is the Hoag Subdivision which contains one
single-family residence.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachment 3 depicts the proposed site plan for 1001. To develop
the proposed site plan, it will be necessary to relocate the
tennis courts a few feet to the west to allow enough space for a
private entry road which will provide ingress and egress. Three
duplex units, which will contain free market dwelling units and
low income deed restricted units will be located south and west
of the access road/cul-de-sac. The dwelling units will sit on
lots varying between 14,500 square feet and 19,500 square feet.
The developer anticipates retaining David Finholm and Associates,
the architectural firm who designed several Aspen Chance residen-
ces, to prepare design guidelines for this project. Attachment 4
is indicative of the proposed buildings within the 1001 Subdivi-
sion.
To develop the 1001 Subdivision, the site will require extensive
regrading to remove the large piles of mine tailings. The
applicant has submitted a slope density reduction calculation due
to the presence of slopes greater than 20%, in accordance with
Section 24-8.18 of the Code. Land located within unincorporated
Pitkin County and within the City's C zone was not included
within the gross area for slope density reduction calculations.
Based only upon the 115,314 sq. ft. within the City's R-15 zone
district, the adjusted building area has been shown to be 75,211
square feet. Dividing 75,211 sq. ft. by the seven proposed units
shows that the adjusted land area per dwelling unit will be
approximately 10,744 sq. ft. (the Code requires at least 10,000
s.f. per unit in the R-15 zone). According to Section 24-3.4 of
the code, the average unit sizes of the duplexes will be approxi-
mately 4,620 sq. ft. and the single-family house will be limited
to approximately 4,200 sq. ft.
It is proposed that all of the 4.08 (177, 724 sq. ft.) acres of
unincorporated land and approximately 38,005 sq. ft. (including
19,800 sq. ft. of tennis courts) of land within the City will
serve as open space for a total of 215,730 sq. ft. or 4.95 acres.
This represents approximately 74 percent of the entire site.
Five guest parking sites are proposed for the entrance adjacent
to the tennis courts and three are found around the cul-de-sac
2
•
(see attachment 3). Resident parking will be provided off the
street within each lot.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 30' wide drainage
easement on the old Midland right-of-way to the City. This
easement will help alleviate a community problem by carrying
storm water from Aspen Mountain.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
As of Friday, January 16, 1987, the Planning Office had received
written comments from the Sanitary Sewer, Water, Engineering,
Environmental Health, Housing, and Zoning referral agencies.
Preliminary verbal comments have been made by the City Attorney.
Comments have not been received from the Parks Department. The
following are brief summaries of the referral comments.
1) Fire Marshall: The Fire Department is capable of
serving 1001 Subdivision without any problem. The
conceptual design is adequate and a new fire hydrant in
the neighborhood will enhance fire protection for Aspen
Chance.
2) Aspen Consolidated Sewer District: There are no
problems serving the 1001 Subdivision.
3) Water Department: The Water Department has requested
and the applicant has agreed to provide a loop system
between Ute Avenue and Aspen Chance consisting of 8"
ductile iron pipe. Additionally, the applicant has
agreed to install a mueller 5.5" three nozzle fire
hydrant or its equivalent.
4) Engineer: Slope density reduction calculations may be
in error by an acceptable margin. The City Attorney's
office should be consulted concerning water rights on
this property. The applicant needs to provide a map
showing adjacent ownerships.
5) Environmental Health: The applicant should be required
to meet conditions established by Tom Dunlop in his
December 18, 1986 memorandum regarding construction
related air pollution. Likewise, during construction
the applicant will be required to abide by noise
abatement regulations. The most significant issue
addressed is soils contamination which will probably be
a problem on this site due to the presence of mine
tailings. Prior to construction, it is recommended
that the applicant prepare a mine tailings management
plan for review by the Environmental Health Department.
6) Housing Department: The calculations of employee units
3
•
•
in the application are correct. The applicant should
comply with conditions cited in Ann Bow-man's December
10, 1986 memorandum which are listed at the end of this
memorandum
7) City Attorney: The City Attorney has completed a
preliminary study of the legal issues associated with
this proposal and is completing his analysis. The 1001
tract is not presently in one ownership due to the
leasehold interest for 99 years which has been granted
to the Gant for the tennis courts. According to
Section 20-3(s)(i) of the Code a leasehold interest is
considered a subdivision. Therefore, it cannot be
presumed that the applicant may use the land for the
purposes represented in the Plan. The application
should be rejected unless the applicant can get
representatives of the Gant to agree to be joint
applicants prior to submission of the preliminary plat.
The applicants have retained a local attorney who
worked all of last week to try to reach an agreement
with the Gant to be co -applicants. On Friday afternoon
the applicants representative notified the Planning
Office that a tentative agreement had been reached with
the Gant. More information will be presented at the
meeting.
Additionally, it is the recommendation of the City
Attorney that prior to the preliminary plat submission
the applicant should provide an updated title policy
(current policy was issued in February of 1984) and
that in accordance with Section 20-10(b)(4), the
Planning Commission should require that holders of
"mortgages, judgements, liens, easements contracts or
agreements join in and approve the application for
subdivision."
8) Zoning:
o The project requires 8040 greenline review at
preliminary plat.
o At preliminary plat, the applicant should be more
specific regarding building envelopes and set-
backs.
o The applicant should propose more specifically how
building height will be measured during the
preliminary plat stage.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
4
The Planning Office has comments regarding the proposed 1001
Subdivision in four areas which are addressed below:
o Consistency with Master Plan
o Employee Housing
o Geology concerns
o Site plan
MASTER PLAN:
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the subject site as
"Mixed Residential". Within the Mixed Residential district a mix
of residential land use types are encouraged. The mix of duplex
and single-family residential units proposed within the applica-
tion are consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. However,
as explained in greater detail in the forthcoming site plan
section, the density of the proposed subdivision may be too high
for this site which is located on the fringe of the municipality.
The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan suggests that "residential
densities shall generally be more intense close to the two major
centers Aspen and Snow -mass and decrease in intensity as distances
from the centers increase." This policy statement has been
reflected in the 1973 Land Use Plan which amends the map in the
1966 Aspen Area General Plan. The amended map depicts a hier-
archy of land uses decreasing form higher densities in the
central area to the lowest densities on the borders of town.
The 1985 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space Trails Element designates a trail on the old Midland right-
of-way traversing the upper portion of this site. The applicant
has proposed dedicating an easement to the City for the trail
shown on the Plan which already is in existence.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING:
In a December 1, 1986 letter from Joe Wells, Planner for the
applicant, to Alan Richman, the question of a credit for an
existing dwelling unit on the site was addressed. The applicants
contend that when the grading for the adjacent Aspen Chance
Subdivision was done, an existing residence on the subject site
was demolished. A review of the files in the Planning Office
confirm that there was indeed a residence on the site. There-
fore, the applicant should receive credit for one existing
single-family residence, despite the fact that verification was
not accomplished prior to its demolition. Since the house was
inadvertently demolished by a neighbor, the verification require-
ment would be an unreasonable restriction.
5
• 0
GEOLOGIC CONCERNS:
The applicant has submitted a preliminary report prepared by Chen
Associates which addresses the geologic hazards present on the
site. Chen & Associates makes the following recommendations:
o An avalanche expert should be consulted to evaluate
potential for avalanches and impact on proposed
development.
o When grading plans for the site are more complete,a
detailed geotechnical study should be done to evaluate
stability of cuts and fills.
o The risk of mine induced subsidence is considered to be
low. The majority of mining activity took place to the
west of the site despite the presence of mine tailings
on -site.
o Prior to development, the potential for debris flow/ -
flood impact on the site should be evaluated by a
surface water hydrologist. The steep, heavily vegeta-
ted portions of the site should not be disturbed.
o All stripped areas should be revegetated to protect
against soil erosion.
o When more specific site plans are prepared, a detailed
plan to address mine tailings and potential toxicity
hazards should be prepared.
SITE PLAN:
As evidenced by the referral comments explained in the previous
section of this memorandum, most of the problems associated with
the proposed subdivision can be resolved with additional work.
The Planning Office's primary concern with this subdivision is
the proposed density of the project. Since this proposal is on
the fringe of the urban area, it is the staff's opinion and
recommendation of the Master Plan that the proposed subdivision
should be below the maximum density of the zone district.
Additionally, the unique characteristics of the site contribute
to the perception of density. These attributes are the steep,
heavily wooded hillside behind the housing and the tennis courts
located in front of the housing. Since this subdivision is a
mandatory PUD, variations from the area and bulk requirements are
permitted at the discretion of reviewing bodies. The applicant
is seeking variations in the minimum lot size requirements, front
yard setbacks, and the manner in which the height limitation is
calculated.
Section 24-8.4 of the Code states that "maximum density in any
0 •
zoning district shall not be allowed as a matter of course, and
the actual density for any Planned Unit Development shall be as
determined in the PUD plan and finally approved in accordance
with the purposes and requirements of this article." It is
worthwhile to examine in detail the applicants request with
respect to site data. Listed in Table 1 are the relative data of
the site plan depicted in attachment 3:
TABLE 1
SITE DATA*
Total Site area - 6.73 acres
City Site area - 2.65 acres/115,430 sq. ft.
Adjusted Site area (after slope density reduction) = 75,210
sq. ft.
Adjusted average lot areas - 10,740 sq. ft.**
Allowable build square footage limit - 18,070 sq. ft.**
Impervious surface in common area - 30,500 sq. ft.**
(tennis courts and roadway/parking)
Tennis courts - 19,800 sq. ft.**
Roadway parking - 10,700 sq. ft.**
Total open space in City - 38,000 sq. ft.**
Landscaped Common open space - 18,200 sq. ft.**
Total Common areas - 48,740 sq. ft.**
*Please note all data are
**Denotes City land only
Source: Doremus & Wells
Planning, January, 1986
approximate
as rounded off by Aspen/Pitkin
The above data shows that of the total 48,740 sq. ft. in the
municipal common areas, imperious surfaces (roadways, parking,
tennis courts) comprise 30,500 sq. ft. or 63% of the total. Only
18,200 sq. ft. or 37% of the total common City open space is
landscaped open space. This represents only 16% of the total
land in the City.
An additional factor which must be considered is that the
applicant's lease agreement with the Gant precludes more than ten
designated residents of the 1001 Subdivision from using the
tennis courts. It is projected that 17 people will live in the
1001 Subdivision. This means that 41 percent of the subdivision
residents and all guests of the residents will not be allowed to
access and enjoy an area which the applicant suggests will be a
"common area". Section 24-8.5 of the Code states that "the
development must include open space for the mutual benefit of the
entire tract." Based upon this provision and Section 24-3.7(d)
which states that recreation areas are not to be included in open
space calculations, the open space provided by the subdivision in
the City should be reduced from 38,000 sq. ft. to 18,200 sq. ft.
This represents only 16% of the total land in the City portion of
7
0
C�
the site.
To be fair to the applicant, it has to be pointed out that the
common open space figures cited do not include the 4.08 acres of
open space in the County, on the hillside. However, due to the
slope of the County land, it is doubtful that this area could be
developed at all. The perception of density on the site will be
based upon the relatively flat area at the toe of the hill.
For PUD's average lot area is the methodology commonly used to
determine the permitted density within a subdivision. Average
lot area is calculated by dividing the adjusted site area after
slope density reductions by the proposed number of dwelling
units. In the case of this proposal, the average lot area per
dwelling unit is 10,740 square feet (75,210 sq.ft. - 7). As
indicated previously, the lot area minimum requirements for each
dwelling unit within a duplex is 10,000 square feet. Therefore,
based upon the average lot area methodology explained above the
duplexes in the 1001 Subdivision exceed the minimum lot area
requirement for the R-15 zone district (Section 24-8.2). On the
other hand, only 10,740 square feet is being allocated for the
single-family structure. This is well below the minimum lot area
standard for the zone district but may be permitted within a PUD
at the discretion of the reviewing body.
Based upon this discussion of the site plan, the key question to
ask is whether or not the proposed PUD subdivision is in accord-
ance with the "purposes and requirements" of Article 24-8.4 of
the code (maximum density). It is the opinion of the Planning
Office that due to the density of this proposal, the site plan
does not:
o Improve design, character and quality of new develop-
ment (24.8.1(b)
o Preserve open space as
and
o Provide procedures so
design and layout of
particular site and this
the sites unique and
8.1(e) .
development occurs (24-8.1(d)
as to relate to the type of
residential development to a
encourage the preservation of
natural scenic features (24-
Section 24-8.13(a) states that in areas designated mandatory PUD
"the allowable number of dwelling units shall be reviewed and may
be reduced (but not increased) from that number allowed in the
applicable zoning district" based upon certain criteria. The
Planning Office has found the density of the proposed PUD plan to
be inconsistent with:
o The placement and clustering of structures and reduction of
E3
•
building height and scale to increase open space and
preserve the natural features of the terrain (24-8.13(8)).
It is the Planning Office view that the site plan could be
significantly improved by reducing the density of the proposed
development. If one structure was eliminated from the proposal,
the actual density of development and the perceived density of
development would be significantly reduced, and the site plan
would be vastly improved.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon our review of this application and the referral
comments, the Planning Office recommends that the P&Z recommend
to the City Council approval of the conceptual submission and PUD
approval, if the applicant is willing to formally amend the
application by reducing the proposed density by eliminating at
least one structure. It should be clear that it is our opinion
that a structure should be removed from the proposal and that
simply changing a duplex to a single-family residence may not
satisfy our concerns regarding density.
In the event that the applicant is unwilling to reduce the
density of the project by eliminating one structure, the Planning
Office recommends that the P&Z recommend denial of the conceptual
submission. The recommendation is based upon our finding that the
proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the PUD sections of the
Code cited within the memorandum.
In the event that the application is willing to amend the site
plan as suggested, it is recommended that the following condi-
tions be adhered to:
1) All representations made by the applicant in the
application will be adhered to.
2) Prior to preliminary plat submission, the applicant
should meet with the City Attorney concerning water
rights on the property.
3) The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the
Environmental Health Office to mitigate construction
impacts on air pollution (December 18, 1986 memoran-
dum).
4) The applicant will comply with the City of Aspen noise
abatement Ordinance (81-2) during construction.
5) Prior to final plat submission, the applicant shall
prepare a mine waste toxicity management plan for
review by the Environmental Health Department.
9
•
6) Prior to preliminary review submission, the applicant
shall submit to the City Attorney an agreement from the
Gant Condominiums consenting to be a co -applicant for
this proposal. In the event such an agreement cannot
be made, the applicant will not be permitted to proceed
further in the review process and the application will
be denied for failure to comply with Section 20-
10(b)(4) of the Code.
7) Prior to the preliminary plat submission, the applicant
shall provide an updated title policy and written
consent to the application from mortgages and lien
holders (Section 20-10(b)(4)).
8) The owner of "1001" covenants with the City of Aspen
that the employee units shall be deed restricted to
sale or rental units in terms of use and occupancy in
accordance with guidelines established and indexed by
the City Council's designee as low sale or rental
guidelines. Such deed restriction shall be recorded
prior to issuance of Building Permit. Such low sale or
rental guidelines may change annually on April lst of
each year and the Owner of "1001" may adjust the rents
or sale price accordingly.
9) Verification of employment of those employees living in
the low sale or rental units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Office by the Owner or his
manager commencing on the date or recording hereof, and
at time of change of occupancy thereafter. Verifica-
tion of employment of person(s) living in the employee
unit shall be completed and filed with the Housing
Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to
occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance with the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be
specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by
any appropriate legal action including injunction,
abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during
the period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof
in the Pitkin County real property records, which ever
period shall be greater.
10
10) The Owner of "1001" or his manager shall have the right
to lease the employee units to qualified employees of
his own selection. Such employees may be employed by
the owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided
such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified
employee. "Qualified Employee" as used herein shall
mean any person currently residing in and employed in
the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum
average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any
twelve-month period, who shall meet the use and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
11) Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance with the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
12) No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive months.
13 ) When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
14) The deed restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board and by the
Housing Authority Director prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to
the Housing Authority Office after recordation.
15) If such employee units become condominiumized and sold,
a resale agreement shall be executed with the Housing
Authority defining the sale price, appreciation and all
such issues as may be established by the Housing
Authority.
16) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations by
Chen & Associates regarding their study of geologic
conditions:
o An avalanche expert should be consulted to
evaluate potential for avalanches and impact on
proposed development.
11
o When grading plans for the site are more com-
plete,a detailed geotechnical study should be done
to evaluate stability of cuts and fills.
o Prior to development, the potential for debris
flow/flood impact on the site should be evaluated
by a surface water hydrologist. The steep,
heavily vegetated portions of the ? should not be
disturbed.
o All stripped areas should be revegetated to
protect against soil erosion.
o A detailed plan to address mine tailings and
potential toxicity hazards should be prepared.
17) During the preliminary plan review process, the 8040
Greenline Review should take place.
18) The preliminary plan submission shall address Section
24-8.9 of the Code.
19) At the time of preliminary plan submission, the
applicant shall submit a detailed grading plan.
20) The preliminary plan approval must be submitted within
six months of approval of conceptual subdivision by
City Council.
21) During the preliminary plan review, the applicant will
submit a proposal for measuring building heights and
more specifically address building envelopes and
setbacks.
22) The applicant shall receive a growth management
allocation for the requested units prior to the
preliminary plan submission or amend the site plan to
reflect the number of dwelling units for which an
allocation has been made.
GH.004
12
j
L-!z
Ellz-E _ I` .r �_
F - Irk/
E-1
137"
e-7- F.-i F—i -5Fyi-07 f75-11
------- 1-7 -----
E
1\ -T- \_ ,, ea -r 4—
'i
`1wil VICINITY MAP
A RES#DENT� SUDIDN"SI DO(B(TXIS & VV6LLS
ASPEN. COLC*IADO
ASPEN DEVELOPMENT AND Ca+srnucrwa RESIDENTIAL C".
S SOUTH OTC 1�lVD, SUITE 800 CONCEPTUAL PUD AND
ENGLEWOOO. COLORADO OMIT
(3031 n&,2,, SUBDIVISION SUBMISSION o
/Roci,R,E BIER6REEM5 - � "'BE" /
_ to
Ai-1
L"TS OF
TACL .S II IELO
' 1
WTURE ASPEN /
SNML COTTONWOODS
/ - 1
1
I
0 cn
�{
co
CD
1
\ C
Ei Li EEVERC TS EN S
\ I
EXISTING TENNIS.COURTS _ ,c:.•. \,
MATUSE
`%
- I
----------_ — — ---- ----
'--_-- ----- _ _-- - i1ATfME COTTONWOODS
• � 1
"-'UTE DDITI
E%E I j
LDT= I' I
R-,slnloi ___—_—___—_--------------------_—
------
11001, EXISTING CONDITIONS
A RESIDENT UIL "OIWS,ON
ASP", COLORADO DO q E S MILLS
ASPEN OEVELOPEENT ANO COA6TRl/CTgN RESIDENTIAL GJIP. I
SAGO SOUTH OTC BLVD SUITE E00 C,()MMPTUAL PUD AND �� •'••-••�•.•••_••^•. �••••• ....o-oI.>•,..�
ENCiEVf 1mCOLOR00. COLp1A00 EOt11
] SUMMON ON SUBMISSION 0 20 .0
4
LOT 3
ML10090 fT pL =•rT "a005C
e0.
-NIA Sty'._ :a•,, � �.I:�',� .; - _.
i
I
� � I I I � I I II •`�% \ 1
I 'I 1 . i,a.11Il� �• ' �.
�'•° ie Rq o.r.
li wl: .,,
RFL OCAi ED TENNIS COURTS
i
dC I WATER LINE 0' c SEWER Leo
I j
UTE AVENUE
T�LJ—E--V1 Vv--i f Yl T
liwil CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ----
A RESIDENTIAL SUBOIVISION
ASPEN. COLORADO
I eneeaxreonalwyww,
ASPEN OEVElOPrIEl1T ANO COrSTRL1CTlON RESIDENTIAL G ,, sego $ourN orc eLw. suITE eoo CONCEPTUAL PUO AND
EIrGLEK 43MI OOLDRAoo sorll ^ �.......... ,r.rw• rouses
uaoi ne Iz l SUBOMSION SUBMISSION o - A�—p I • ••••
r.
m
I .yi
1
DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC ■
PO eol 28 9 ASPEN COLOR A DO [IB.J
r°
■ ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I A
18
00
4
DOMMUS & weLLs
an association of land planners
January 14, 1987
Mr. Glenn Horn
Assistant Director
Office of Planning and
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Glenn:
My letter is to correct some minor errors
allowable building square footage as shown
'1001' GMP submission.
1. The allowable average unit size for c
feet, not 4,749 square feet as shown
2.
The allowable average unit size for
4,202 square feet, not 4,329 square feet as shown.
Therefore, the total building square footage for the project will
not exceed 18,068 square feet, rather than 18,576 square feet as
shown.
Sixneere1y,
Joe Wells, AICP
JW/b
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866
0
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Offic
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforceme fficer
RE: 4 GMP Submissions
DATE: January 14, 1987
I realize these are conceptual submissions and therefore a
lot of detail normally looked at and verified at later stages
will be sparse or unable to calculate with early stage drawings.
For example methods of calculating height, open space, floor
area often differs when working plans are submitted to the
Building Department. Applicants should be aware that
representations must be adhered to at the Building permit stage.
I will comment now where I feel there may be a potential problem.
Should Park Dedication fees be considered at this point? Some of
my questions may have already been answered to the Planning
Department.
1001 Project (PUD)
1) Does this project also require an 8040 Greenline Review?
Sec. 24-6.2 "all development 50 yards below the 8040 greenline."
2) Should the applicant be more specific in regard to
setbacks and should building envelopes be required?
3) I would like to see a definite manner of determining
"grade" for the 25 ft. height. At this point, the Building
Department would have to consider the current grade as the
"existing" or "natural undisturbed" ground, slope, not the 30 ft.
of tailings beneath.
4) Page 38 of application states:
3 duplexes x 4,749 sq. ft. = 14,247
1 single family x 4,329 sq. ft. = 4,329
Total allowable building sq. ft. = 18,576
The total building square footage for the project will not
exceed this figure. Does this mean that some of the structures
may exceed the allowable'for a 15,000 sq. ft. job, as long as the
total for the 4 structures does not exceed 18,576 square feet?
5) New Duplex Code --What will the size and configuration be
of the employee units. Will this meet the "Common Wall" and
"percent of floor space" portion of the code? Under current code
they might appear to be more of a single family house with a
smaller "caretaker" unit, and not a duplex.
700 E. Hyman
1) Project appears straight forward.
2) Stairways in setbacks must be less than 30 inches in
height or they become an encroachment.
1010 Ute Ave.
1) What will the size of the 16 free market unit parcels be?
Will the applicant divide the requested 68,900 sq. ft. equally or
will some units get more allowable F.A.R. than others? Once
again, will 14 or 15 units be built leaving no floor area
available for the last unit? I would like to see a definite
F.A.R. size per parcel.
2) Are the free market units restricted to the number of
bedrooms permitted? How are we going to figure the Park
Dedication fee? This is notincluded in the cash in lieu of
employee housing.
3) Will there be building envelopes? Are the set backs and
height clear? What and when will these variances be requested?
Mountain View
1) If the land available as developmental is as stated
72,500 square feet and the projected F.A.R. is 72,500 square
feet. That's cutting calculations awfully close and again the
applicant should be made aware that their representatives should
be verifiable at future G.M.P. stages.
2) From the information submitted to me, the buildings
appear to be over the maximum 28 ft. height limit. It's hard to
see that a 4 story building can be kept under 28 ft height.
3) The parking garage specification for space size, turning
radius, etc., should be verified by the Engineering Department.
WD:lo
4gmp.bd
cc: Alan Richman
Peggy Seeger
Jim Wilson
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer (?`JZ
Date: January 7, 1987
Re: 1001 Residential GMP Submission
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. The slope reduction calculations may be in error by as much
as 20% over, but an examination of the resulting floor area
calculations reveals that the possible error becomes reduced to
5% over, which might be an acceptable error. In the future, it
may be well to require that slope reduction calculations be
performed on Cooper 50 scale maps of the area in question for
ease of checking and verification by the Engineering Department
and to assist applicants in correctly performing the slope
reductions calculations.
2. There is no discussion of any water rights which the appli-
cant might hold on this property which would be required to be
deeded to the city in exchange for supplying municipal water.
The city attorney and city water attorney should be consulted as
to whether applicant holds water rights needed by the city.
3. Per Section 20-16(a), applicant is required to pave Ute
Avenue along frontage and provide sidewalk, curb and gutter, as
well as landscaping and other "improvements slated for the south
side of Ute Avenue" (page 34 of submission).
4. The submission satisfies the conceptual subdivision require-
ments except that a map showing the adjacent ownerships to the
subdivision needs to be provided.
5. When we get an application like this which has single
property ownership which is both inside and outside the -city,
should we be requiring or requesting annexation of portion not
within city limits?
cc: City Attorney, w/o enclosure (re: Item 2)
City Engineer
CR/cr/caseload.3
o
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
December 22, 1986
TO: Glenn Horn and Steve Burstein: Planning Office
FR: Steve Standiford and Stephanie Ouren
RE: GMP Review Comments on "1001" Residential Submission
p adF=
DEC 2 31986 D
The overall energy strategy for the 1001 residential GMP submission
loods good. Our comments are listed below.
Insulation
The proposed insulation specifications are all well above code which is
important especially for the buildings with limited solar access. There
is no detail on what types of insulation products will be used to achieve
the stated R values.
Solar Energy
There appears to be a strong intention for maximizing solar energy in
this project. Lack of detail makes it impossible, at this stage, to
evaluate the contribution that solar energy will make for heating these
structures. As well, there is no consideration of an active solar
energy system noted in the submission. Utilizing passive solar energy
gain is a wise strategy. However, there is no detail on the amount of
south facing glass or the type of thermal mass. With this level of
information we can only say that the project is aware of using solar
energy and will try to utilize it effectively.
Mechanical Sustems
The submission indicates that each building will "be heated using the
latest state-of-the-art minimum -energy input technology." We can only
guess what that really means. Perhaps, they are planning to use a
97% efficient natural gas furnace. Once again, it sounds like the
right direction. But, it's hard to make a comment without further
detail.
Other
The project developers are addressing the problem of air infiltration
through the use of airlocks and foam insulation. Further, the use of
ceiling fans and triple glazing will help contribute to'an overall
plan that will use energy efficiently. Specification of water
conserving plumbing fixtures is not mentioned anywhere. Without further
definition of the project we cannot make any other comments.
�i
ASPEN46PITKIN
ENVI MENTAL HEALTH DEPARWENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office DEC 2 g 19%
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 3� J
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 18, 1986
Re: 1001 Residential GMP
This office has reviewed the above -mentioned submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carryout from the project onto
City streets or State highways. This shall involve daily
monitoring of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving
the site during the construction period. Further, daily removal
of mud of dirt will be required with the dirt being deposited
back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall
be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to
minimize dust.
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
Health Department will review the permit application and deter-
mine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined
that a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to
the applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health
Department, Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 222, Grand
Junction, Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulations 1
and 3 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: There is not a
burning fireplaces or stoves listed in th
there is a statement that the installation
be governed by regulations in effect at the
n exact number of wood
e submittal. However
of such devices "will
time of construction
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/92S-2020
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARWENT
1001 Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page2
on individual sites". At this time the governing legislation is
City of Aspen Ordinance 5, series 1986 commonly known as the
Solid Fuel Burning Ordinance.
Reference is made to caretaker units being constructed. The
applicant should pay careful attention to the square footage in
the ordinance as it applies to a duplex situation and solid fuel
burning devices.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All construct-
ion noise related activities will be covered under the maximum
decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
It is very obvious that this project will involve the movement of
large amounts of mine tailings, mine dumps or mine waste rock.
As is stated by the Chen and Associates report, page 7, titled
Mine Waste Toxicity, there is a concern in that the mine waste
represents a hazard with respect to Lead concentrations. The
summary of Lead concentrations on Table II show high to very high
levels.
Prior to actual construction of any buildings or restructuring of
mine waste piles the applicant should develop a management plan
to address this issue. Due to the high Lead levels found, the
plan should include at the very least the following items; How
much mine waste is there, where will it be hauled to, what will
the ultimate landscaping plan show relative to redistribution of
the waste rock, what type of runoff or surface water diversion
will allow protection of uncontaminated areas, what type of
personnel protection will the heavy equipment operators and other
on -site workers be required to wear (eg. filter masks).
It shall be noted here that there is no actual requirement
locally enforceable that requires the applicant to perform the
work plan mentioned above. However, as the result of past
involvement with Federal legislation governing the handling and
disposition of mine waste, this department wants to have an
accounting of all "hazardous waste" should the Federal government
decide they want to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal:
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/S2S-2020
ASPEN♦PITKIN
ENVI MENTAL HEALTH OEPA ENT
1001 Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page3
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General•
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLENN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, YLANNING'OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: 700 E. HYMAN AND 001 UTE AVENUE
DATE: DECEMBfiR 17, 19ah
A/Zi -----------------
1. 700 E. Hyman - We reviewed the applicants statements
concerning (a) Water System, page 3, and (d) Fire Protection,
page 5 and as previously stated on July 21st, which in included
in the application, the Water Department can supply water to this
property.
2. 1001 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the applicant's comments
pertinent to the water system, section b, 1. (a), page 12. Said
comments indicate the project will be serviced by a 6" C.I.P.
water main to be connected to the City 12" water main in
Ute Avenue and looped back to the Aspen Chance subdivision. The
Water Department believes the proposal to loop is a good one and
would provide additional reliability of service for both the
existing Aspen Chance subdivision and the,proposed 1001 residen-
tial application.
However, it is the recommendation of the Water Department that
the applicant make the following amendments to his water system
plan:
a. Pipe material - cast iron pipe is no longer permitted.
All pipe shall be ductile iron.
b. In order to provide adequate flows to the proposed fire
hydrant, it is the recommendation of the Water Department that
the 6" water -line be increased to an 8" from the point of
connection at Ute Avenue to the fire hydrant. The remainder of
the loop may be reduced to 6" from the cul-de-sac to the point of
connection to the existing Aspen Chance 6" main.
C. The fire hydrant should be a mueller 5.5" three nozzle
Centurian or equivalent.
Providing the developer is willing to amend his water plan in
accordance with our recommendations, the Water Department concurs
that "this loop connection will improve the quality of service in
the area" and the Water Department will provide service to the
proposed subdivision.
JM:ab
DEC 2 21986
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLEN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986
RE: '1001' RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for the employee
generation in this residential project?
BACKGROUND: This submission, filed on behalf of Aspen Development
and Construction Company, requests Conceptual PUD and Subdivision
approval for a four -lot subdivision on the '1001' mining claim.
In addition the applicant requests a GMP allocation of 4 free
market residential units and exemption from GMP for 3 restricted
units.
The ' 1001' Claim (M. S. #1731) lies to the south of Ute Avenue, to
the west of the Hoag Subdivision and east of the Aspen Chance
Subdivision. The site is approximately 6.73 acres; only the
lower 2.6 acres is within the City limits. Two zone district
categories are applied to the City land; the lower 109,114 sq.
ft. of land is zoned R-15 (PUD) and the area above the 8040 line
approximately 6,200 sq.ft., is zoned C-Conservation.
It is presently anticipated that the lots will be sold to
individual purchasers who sill in turn build private residences
according to their own designs. The restricted units will be
built as caretaker units within three of the residences. The
location of the restricted units will be determined for inclusion
in the preliminary submission, based on a more detailed site
analysis.
The applicant requests approval for a four -lot planned unit
development, with one single family and three duplex sites. The
second unit in each of the three duplexes will be price re-
stricted and will conform to the current guidelines of the
Housing Authority.
The applicant has submitted information to the Planning Director
regarding a small dwelling which stood on the property until
1984, when it was mistakenly demolished by the developers of the
Aspen Chance Subdivision prior to verifying the unit's existence
as called for under Section 24-11.2 (a) .
The applicant is seeking a credit for that residential unit
because of the circumstances surrounding its demolition.
However, if this effort is unsuccessful it is the applicant's
2
intention, in order to provide the minimum of 35% employee
housing, to pay a "Fee in Lieu" of $25,000. as provided for in
Section 24-11.10(i)(3) as an employee housing dedication fee.
SUMMARY TABULATION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Population Percentage
Free Market Units
4 units @ 3 bedrooms = 12.0 65%
Restricted Units
3 one bedroom units (Low
Income) @ 1.75 = 5.25
$25,000 cash -in -lieu
contribution (Low Income)
@ 1 res./ $20,000 = 1.25
Total Emp Housing 6.501 5%
Total Housing 18.50 100%
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The calculations for the employee units
are correct as interpreted by the staff. The staff recommends
approval of the application with the following deed restriction:
1. The Owner of 11001' covenants with the City of Aspen
that the employee units shall be deed restricted to
sale or rental units in terms of use and occupancy in
accordance with guidelines established and indexed by
the City Council's designee as low sale or rental
guidelines. Such deed restriction shall be recorded
prior to issuance of Building Permit. Such low sale or
rental guidelines may change annually on April 1st of
each year and the Owner of 110011 may adjust the rents
or sale price accordingly.
2. Verification of employment of those employees living in
the low sale or rental units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Office by the Owner or his
manager commencing on the date or recording hereof, and
at time of change of occupancy thereafter. Verifi-
cation of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
7
0 •
a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be spec-
ifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any
appropriate legal action including injunction, abate-
ment or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the
period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof
in the Pitkin County real property records, which ever
period shall be greater.
3. The Owner of '1001' or his manager shall have the right
to lease the employee units to qualified employees of
his own selection. Such employees may be employed by
the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided
such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified
employee. "Qualified Employee" as used herein shall
mean any person currently residing in and employed in
the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum
average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any
twelve-month period, who shall meet the use and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to
employee housing.
Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
employee unit shall be completed and filed with the
Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior
to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the
employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance wit the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive months.
5. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be
sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may
be maintained on each unit.
6. The deed restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board of by the
Housing Authority Director prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to
the Housing Authority Office after recordation.
0
0
11
7. If such employee units become condominiumized and sold,
a resale agreement shall be executed with the Housing
Authority defining the sale price, appreciation and all
such issues as may be established by the Housing
Authority.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION:
V
Approved staff recommendation.
0
Ll
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Allen, Representing "Mountain View"
Gideon Kaufman, Representing "1010 Ute Avenue"
Sunny Vann, Representing "700 E. Hyman Condominiums"
Joe Wells, Representing "1001"
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: 1986 Residential GMP Submissions
DATE : December 5, 1986
This is to acknowledge receipt of your residential development
application and to inform you that it has been sent forward into
the agency referral process. Sending the application out for
comments does not necessarily mean that we have all the informa-
tion we may need throughout the process, but simply that we are
initiating review by our referral agencies. As we dig more
deeply into the applications, we will contact you if we need
claritication.
Following is a summary of the review schedule for the projects.
The P&Z will begin its consideration of the applications on
January 20. Based on an agreement reached with P&Z, their review
will begin with the subdivision, zoning and special review issues
and not the GMP scoring. Therefore, on January 20, all four
projects will be considered only for the subdivision, zoning and
special review portions of their application. Please plan on
spending no more than about 45 minutes considering each appli-
cation, including staff presentations, applicant's presentation,
P&Z questions and action. At this meeting, only the Mountain
View project will be subject to public hearing due to its
rezoning application. As soon as possible, we must receive
stamped envelopes made out to all owners within 300 feet of this
site in order that we may properly notice this hearing.
On January 27, P&Z will score all four projects at a public
hearing. It is assumed that due to the thorough review conducted
by P&Z of the subdivision application, the GMP review can proceed
much more smoothly. Therefore, each project should anticipate no
more than 30 minutes for the presentations, questions, and public
comments. At the close of the hearing, the projects will be
scored and a ranking established.
Council's review is expected to occur in February. Public
hearings will be required of each of the projects for conceptual
subdivision review. This will likely take place at Council's
meeting of February 23. Please note that before these hearings
can be set, we must obtain from you stamped envelopes made out to
every property owner adjacent to your development site. Those
projects which receive all necessary conceptual approvals from
Council and have met the applicable thresholds in scoring will be
considered for an allotment. Before the allotments are granted,
appeals, if submitted, will be heard.
I know that each of you is concerned with the number of allot-
ments available this year. As you know, the annual residential
quota is 39 units a year, reduced by any development which has
taken place via exemptions in 1986 and increased by any carryover
of unused quota from prior years, expirations of previously
granted allotments and demolitions which took place in 1986.
Following is an estimate of the quota which is likely to be
available (final calculations will not be done until January when
the December building report arrives) :
Annual Quota =
Expiration(Gordon)=
Additions =
Demolitions -
Approx.
39 units
3 units
approximately 25 units
-8 units
25 units
35 units available for carryover (discretionary review by
Council)
Likely potential quota = minimum of 20-25 units
maximum of 55-60 units
The requests by the four applicants are as follows:
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
10 Ol = 4 units
Total 82 units
As you can see, it will be a competitive and interesting process!
Incidentally, we will have two planners handling the cases this
year. Glenn Horn will have 1010 Ute Avenue and 1001 assigned to
him; Steve Burstein will have Mountain View and 700 E. Hyman
assigned to him. Please contact them directly if you have any
questions.
cc: Project Files
Paul Taddune
� FD
"DEC A W
Doremus & weLLs
an association of land planners
December 1 , 1986
Mr. Alan Richman
Director of Planning and
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
As we discussed my letter is to go over the circumstances
surrounding the demolition in 1985 of a single-family residence
which was on the ' 1001 ' claim identified on the attached
improvement survey performed in November, 1983 by Landmark
Services.
We are submitting copies of records from the 1975 City land -use
inventory, where the dwelling unit was identified as a single
family, as well as a copy of an improvement survey performed
in November, 1983 by Landmark Services (Exhibit 4), which
illustates that the building was still on the site at that time.
In 1975, as a consultant to the Planning Office, I performed a
windshield survey of all existing structures in the City; this
information was subsequently utilized in the preparation of the
Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management Policy Plan. According to Ed
Zasacky, who represented Aspen Chance in their efforts to verify
replacement units, this information was apparently heavily relied
upon in arriving at the number of replacement units.
I have reviewed the inventory files in your office and have
confirmed that the residence in question was identified as a
dwelling unit in the survey ( see attached information) . Exhibit
1 is a copy of a basemap I used in the field which noted "11 SF"
or 11 single family units on the south side of Ute Avenue in the
area between the Alps tennis courts and the 1001 tennis courts.
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866
•
C7
Mr. Alan Richman
December 1, 1986
Page Two
Exhibit 2, from my field notes, identifies the location of the 11
units in more detail. By comparing this sketch with the 1974
City basemap (Exhibit 3) it is possible to determine that the
dwelling unit on the 1001 property was the one identified as
number 6 in my notes -- a 400 square foot, 2 story wood cottage.
I recently had a conversation with Tom Dunlop, City Environmental
Health Officer, regarding this residence. Tom recalls being
contacted by Aspen Chance representatives during the construction
of the single family residence on Lot 2 of their subdivision
(construction on Lot 2 began in the summer of 1984). Tom was
asked to perform an investigation of the sewer system for the
house on the ' 1001'; he confirmed that the house was on a septic
system and that the leach field extended over onto Lot 2 of the
Chance.
Tom's recommendation was that since there was inadequate room to
build a new leach field on the 1001 and since the dwelling was
within 400 feet of a district sewer main, that the house should
be connected to the district system. Tom does not recall
inspecting the interior of the unit but has stated that it did
appear to be an occupied dwelling unit and the presence of an
active septic system would lend support to that argument.
According to the owner, rather than go to the expense of connect-
ing the dwelling to the district sewer system a decision was made
to leave the unit unoccupied after the septic system was
interrupted.
Ed Zasacky, a representative of the Aspen chance project, has
confirmed that in the meantime he contacted the representative of
the owner of the 11001' property in Texas to seek permission to
continue the Chance's regrading and revegetation effort onto the
'1001'.
Whether the owner's representative fully understood that the
existing residence, then vacant, would be demolished as a part of
that effort or whether the owner was made aware of the importance
of verifying the dwelling unit prior to demolition is unclear, as
the person that Ed dealt with is no longer an employee of the
Company and his whereabouts are unknown. Ed has confirmed,
however, that he did not inform the owner of the verification
procedure.
Mr. Alan Richman
December 1, 1986
Page Three
Based on our recent conversations with the owner we believe there
was a misunderstanding; since the tailings do no extend down into
that part of the site there was no reason for the owner to
suspect that any regrading activity would continue into the area
of the house.
Ed Zasacky has confirmed that the residence was demolished in the
spring of 1985 by Chance construction workers.
We believe that there is adequate information available to deter-
mine that there was, in fact, a dwelling unit on the property
even though the unit has been demolished. Since the unit was
demolished by a third party, we hope that the circumstances will
permit serious consideration of our request for credit for this
unit, which was very similar to other units in the area for which
the Aspen Chance project was given credit in previous years.
If we can provide additional information, please let us know.
, AICP
608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925-6866
l.,i dti, LTD.. a Cal ifur nia l i;-.: e,i
and S`: ' _:Gi.Eit-DCRA:CT ....: i X� SO?.:': :: r •.
ration (;.mein ca' I. d "S.mu`y;;rr
1. Recitals. DF% is buildin;^, a; �rusi,:.:,u17 •� c• tm
u: its in the City o_ Aspen, Colorado (the "C .:'.,:: i.:..•...").
: i
Conai- niums will i:,clud.: co:: cn ...:., ai t i.. i u• u•: ,
facilities, swimming and therapy pools :,nd tent::•: r:... %.
desi:es to augment the a-.anities w-ic :11 be .,.
Condominium Owners and Guests by a:.:',+: i::,; ccer,s :. ••• -
additional tennis courts in a nearby locr:tion..
INk
(�
1. 1 Smuggler owns a ,,arse' of . a+:c, i tu:.,
",•
City of Aspen, County of Yitk.a, State of Colorado,
Avenue from the proposed DRA Condominiums, said parse: of
Smuggler together with access thereto being co:--oonly env n :,s
1001 Lode, U.S.:t.S. 1741..
1.2 For the benefit cf Smuggler, its �i.,.:. i:.•..'.rrs ..r:c:
r`
employees, Smuggler desires to own and tenni;a
courts to be situate upon that portion of the s:,id .•.c,i Lode
marked in red on the attached Exhibit "A."
1.3 It is Smuggler's further .*.,-sire ...,.. :::A
all pha::es of construction of the said tennis cour:.s, {•r.:v: ..
all funds necessary for the s:,id construction ..nd
!
the tennis courts, and that DRA co::.pletely i:,:. .:,i fy 5::::: ;,:'. r
for any and all claim which may be aide :;{;ainst by
reason of the construction, rsint.:c.,,,r_e :,nd upert.tiun of the
said tennis courts.
n}
2. Definition: ThruuLhout this Ai, .•c:a.•nt, the
:,• :r.:tionS will apply:
(.,) ' U.r,.,•rs ::.c ins p.rsv:.; ..ho ..»n a {,• _ ... .spry i:,t, r.•::,
1
of .':e ...,» bo i ng built by .:tA
of ;:::;,,•n, to be c.,::c•l -%J,
r,,, ., . ..',o `c.,tc h, e,. y,ivvn pe:,....•-
i : t : ;,, .;, .. a,,., , .,,r•. .•r ... is 1
6 or,..by the Cant .cono
r.
%x378 ► 14M
",,, owners' association a nor. -profit
such permission to be pursuant to the
and such association's articles of
t_
4.. at"" to Construct for Struggler,
ity consisting of three tennis
("the tennis facility'? in the
Rittfdards and specifications as set
# Ilttached hereto, reference to both
tennis facility shall be owned
,hall be managed by DRA pursuant to the
�D*causs of any act or omission of LRA, its
♦ after the date of this Agreement, any °
�ieb shall be filed against the land upon
il:Elr is located ("the land") as demorcated
Ittd "3" hereto or any building or
W.. idtat! or against�'gler (whether or '
not
ilr 4('vValid or enforceaLle as such). except liens
z 4
Sbuggler's actions, DRA shall, at DRA's own,
�'esuse the same to be cancelled and discharged.
Ya reasonable time not to exceed 150 days or
tr company acceptable to Smuggler, provided
mil°{ifter Causing such bond to be made contest
! orders at its own expense. DRA shall indemnify
1.M �
i M ."Smuggler from and against any and all costs,
��losses'or daoaages, including reasonable counsel'
�illrefr0al. ,, P
Smuggler represents (a) that it owns the said;
Clear of all liens and encumbrances ex"
$' t11 ! �oicths p Section 1 of Sa6edale 11 of
UWAfe Title Xaiaranae ,
Compaq of Dalla♦ Commitment No. 73-06-11
(b) that it has beech
assessed and has paid all real property taxes upon the said 1001
Lode for at leeat the twenty (10) years previous to this agreement,
(c) that all real estate taxes and assessments are current and
2 b
4 -,, 37N :. 421
Sr:o&gler's title to
,0: e is
�..�erior to the interests o: ,
DRA acknowledges that S.-au,-.filer does not have :.:ercL.,r,t);ale title
to such property. Smuggler agrees that should DRA, its s,,cces;nr;;
and assigns be restr?ct,,e in any aterial way by any third ,„rty
I
in the use of the said tennis courts as conte.plated by :,,is
Agreement, DRA shall be entitled to recover any da::.afes c_ i ised
by such restriction,
6. Governmental Permits. Smuggler agrees that it will
obtain all permits required by governmental authoricies to deveinp
and construct the tennis facility and if such permits are not
obtained within a reasonable tine after requesting such permits,
this Agreement may be cancelled by DRA, in which case all funds
paid to Smuggler under paragraph 10 will be refunde,i pro::pt,y to
DRA. Smuggler agrees to use its best efforts and to proceed with
due diligence to seek all necessary government permits and
authorizations. It is understood and agreed that DRA will
reimburse Smuggler for any and all costs iicluding reasonable
attorneys' fees which may be incurred by `muggler in connection
with the receipt of said goveramentai permits, but no such costs
shall exceed $250 ,•nless prior written approval is given by DRA.
7. U kee h4--4grees, at its :sole expense, to keep the
tennis facilit •!;y.good order, condition and .-epair,
whether the necessity of such repairs may arise from wea.-, tear,
obsolescense, casualty or any other cause, suffering no .:ante
or injury. To that end DRA shall promptly cake or cause to be
made all needed repairs, replacements and renewals, ordinary and
extraordinary, structural or otherwise.
8, Use, Throughout the term of this Ai;reenw nt as set
forth in paragraph 12, Smuggler agrees to allow 0.4ners ind Cucsts
to use the tennis facility at such times and subject to suet,
rules and regulations as DRA, in its sole discretion, shall
determine. DRA shall also have the right (a) Lo constcuc;: and
maintain o., the land marked in red on Exhibit "A" suet ncillary
i,;.pruve,nents as it may from time to time consider ac:vi: able
�tr
3 - l i
dtk*4.1:. including &,pro
.m378 IVA422
overhead 1 i�h,'.s and s'nilar
—w-However, that no such ".-rovement -;hall
Xc"d
above iiiished grade to the highest point of said
nti.�and (b) to C.4clud, unauthorized —p,-r,.n, from
:firsing
nais - facilit Y. Sr-ug&ler reserves, however, the right to
to tali of its shareholders and c:mployces, who shall have
69* Of the facilities on equal terms with Owners and Guests.
Ah4i'—Sivs-DRA-Writtwn--not -fce from time to time of its
sholders and employees who are authorized to use the
facility. No party other than C"Q c: nd
1*r '*-shareholder. and employees wall be to use
facility.
----------------
9. Poo Beginning on the date this Agreement is signed and
until the tOrMination of this Agreement,
DRA shall make payments
td'SMSSlOr at Smuggler's address set forth below, or to such
agent. Or person or persons or at itich other address as Smuggler
fraii time to time may designate in writing. All. sums payable
"rounder shall be payable in lawful money of the United States
of America. Except for the initial payment provided for in
..subsection 9.1 hereof, all Payments due under this paragraph 9
shall be made on or before .anuary 1 of the year for -which they
are due.
9.1 At the time this Agreement is signed, DRA has
made an initial payment 1.0 Smuggler of receipt
p 2_
of which is acknowledge(,.
9.2 On or before January 1, 1974, DRA will pay to
J
Smuggler 12
On Jant.ary 1, 197L. 1976 and 1977, inclusive, DRA
will make payments to Smuggler of 1/18" W
9.4 Durirg each five-year period (an "Adjustment
Period") commencing January 1. 1978, annual payments will be
made in amounts to be determined as follows:
At a reasonable time prior to the beginning of each
AcIJkjstmL.IIt Period, the per square foot value of the land will be
dt-rermi.,_-d as ;ravided in paragraph 10 hereof. The annual ).Yment
4
soon 37� rm-, 423
Y
J�
for e.,ch year of such Adjustmenc Period will he ���'� �.•ti:zes
r-
the per square foot value of the land upon which tho tennis
i
facility is -located, except as provided in paragraph 11 hereof,
pr however, that the annual payment may not be less :han
fet forth in paragraph 9.3, hereof.
� Appraisal. Land value of the tennis facility will be
1
nod every,five years by an appraisal made by M.A.I.
ra. The land shall be appraised es if it were unimproved
ittld without reference to this Agreement, but with reference
t zoning. If DRA and Smuggler cannot r.ut::ally agree
,2 iR appraiser, then three appraisers will be se'.ccted, ore
..one by Smuggler, and one chosen by the t.,,o appraisers so
.
4
CteQ. ,If one appraiser is agreed upon, the cost of appraisal
hall. b& borne by DRA. If DRA and Smuggler cannot agree on the
~%action of one appraiser, the cost of three appraisals shall
'fhirfd equally by DRA and Smuggler.
11. Termination.
(a) This Agreement shall remain in effect until
tea+
�ecembe! 31, 2015, unless terminated earlier p,rrsuant to other
`• < provisions hereof.
�.; (b) If the value of the land as calculated according
:, t0 paragraph 10 herein should exceed $8 per square foot, 4 A
'
.t
may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of
termination to Smuggler on or before the dat, payment is due
for any year; however, Smuggler may at its sole option maintain
`
this Agreement in full force and ei_`ecr jy stipulating in a
written notice to DRA sent not l;ir r than ten days after receipt
F ,
of a -notice of termination from DRA that the land price valuation
for purposes of this Agreement will be held to a maximum of $8
per square foot.
4.t
(c) It is agreed that time is of the essence to this
Agreerent and that if either party to this Agreement shall fail
to perform or comply with any material term hereof and such
failure shall continue for more than 30 days after written notice
t1.cr.•uf from the other party (the "In::o: eat Party") , then and
i
0
5{�
J
onrk 378 - 424
. :,ny time thereafter while such Event of :• .`:+ult s al: coiZt:.n,,c,
.-xcept as otherwise specifically provi(!e' !,.-rein, the ir.., .:,•r.t
Party may give a written termination notice to the Defaulting
Party, and upon the date specified in such notice, this A),ree-
ment shall terminate.
(d) Upon termination, DRA, Owners and Guests, s;:all
relinquish any further right to u.se the tennis facility and all
other rights, duties and obligations of either party un%cr this
c A(Ye�sitgt, including without limitation management obligations
: 1
ikggylmeht•obligationa, shall be of no further effect. However,
if"tire Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisio:is of
paragraph 14, paragraph 11(b) or paragraph 11(c) and DRA is Lhe
Ingoeant Party, then upon termination Smuggler shall refund to
DRA a fraction of the reasonable amounts expended by DRA to
+; COgstrLiCt the tennis facility, tha numerator of which fraction
is the number of years from such termination to December il, 2015,
and the denominator of which is 42.
12. ?axes. Smuggler shall pay all real estate taxes,
special improvement or other assessments (ordinary and extra-
ordinary), water rents and charges, and all other taxes, duties,
charges, fees and payments imposed by any governmental or public
authority, which shall be imposed, assessed or levied upon, or
arise in connection with the use, occupancy or possession of
the land or any part thereof during the term of this Agrcement,
except that DRA agrees to pay any and all taxes assessed by
reason of the said improvements.
13. Insurance.
(a) During the term of this Agreement, DRA shall, at
its sole expense, provide and keep in force general public liability
and property damage insurance against claims for bodily injury or
death or property damage occurring upon the tennis facility in
limits of not less than $1,000,000 in respect of bodily injury
or death to zny one person, and not less than $1,000,030 for
:y injury or death to any nu;a:)er of persons arisirw out of
.—C ic'.ent or disaster, and in limits of lot less than $30,000
6l
378 ► w 425
;;e to p:o;lerty, and if higher _.TLis shaI1 at ,ny tic.e
.,._ customary to protect against possible .,,rt 1 i:+hil ity, ;,ch
;A
higher limits shall be carried. Smuggler shall be shown as a
party additionally insured under such insurance contracts; and
DRA agrees to deliver to Smuggler, aeon de, -,,and, a true :,r.d cornet
cony of whatever policy or policies of insurance may t,w r. `,e in
force and effect under the terms of this Agreement.
ih CY
"r
(b) During the term of this Agrerr.,ent, DRA shall at
nd
ito own cost aexpensu keep the tennis facility insured agains•_
loss by�fire and so-called extended coverage perils for its full
Sri
replacement cost.
(c) DRA and Smuggler shall cuoterate with each other
Rr.
'.An
the collection of insurance monies that may become due by
reason of loss, damage or destruction to the tennis facility.
'
Such insurance money shall be used for the purpose of repairing
and rebuilding the tennis facility. If there shall at any time
rf
be an excess of insurance monies remaining after the repair and
t:q
reconstruction required by this paragraph shall have been completed
and all liens of contractors, subcontractors, mechanics, laborers,
materialmen and other liens of a like character shall be either
paid or discharged, such excess shall belong to DItA absolutely.
14. Condemnation.
(a) If the tennis facility or any substantial part
thereof shall be taken for any public or quasi -public use,
under any statute, by right of emir,ent domain or by parchase by
public authority in lieu thereof, and if the part remaining shall
be insufficient for the purposes conter.:plated herein, then in
that event this Agreement may be terminated by either party as
of the date upon which title shalt, vest in the condemning authority.
!f
Smuggler shall promptly pay to DRA the portion of such award
i'
attributable to improvements on the tennis facility land.
(b) If this Agreement shall not be so terminated, it
st:r,ll remain unaffected except that promptly after such taking
A :•h:,lI r.sto:t chat part of the t'i is :acilit riot so taken
"%� ��� lam•:
• •. •.. .i to kit -it uI a kind and di'S1' �edvogv&&Ay acceptable to
I
I
.
I
r
EVII 378 .: 426
r. .'after such taking, the annu;.i pay.aents sha_,
I- reduced by the same proportion that t::e 1 .+nd C., cen boars to
the total land area of the tennis facility. Smuggler shall
promptly pay to DgA the portion of such award attributable to
the tennis facility.
(c) The division between Smuggler and DRA of the ;,ward
for partial taking provided to be trade in subparagraph 14(a) or
14(b) shall be made by agreement of Smuggler and DRA, if passible,
or-lt.t" parties hereto'eannot agree, then by arbitration between
xf �ggdy , taking into account the replacem,•nt cost of
1,
the tennis facility land.
- �, . �� y " � fir: � •,
is Performance. It is agreed that money d.,rr.ages
or* bo quate remedy for breach of DRA's or Smuggler's
blunder, and in addition to any other re-edies
unity, either party is entitled to a decree granting
spci nee.
ansfer. Smuggler agrees that during the term of +:his
Agreement, it will not convey, sell, transfer, lease, mortgage
or otherwise in any way encumber the land upon which the tennis
facility is to be located, except as required because of con-
desmation by a government authority, unless the party acquiring
strIntarest in the land agrees to make the rights of DRA, its
successors:and assigns to the tennis facility superior and
agree by written instrument to be filed or recorded with the
Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, State of Colorado, to be
bound by all of the provisions of this Agreement.
17. Ntice. All notices, demands and coLuminications here-
under shall be served or given by registered mail, ad.lressed as
follows:
If intended for Smuggler:
Smuggler -Durant Yining Company
c/o Ware, Schiffer 6 Garfield
P. 0, Box 1107
Aspen, Colorado 81611
with a copy to:
1t. Dui:nld M. }tyra.-rn
SruiF,girr-Dur.tnC ;lining, Cot.:r t:y
1780 Bro"(L':ay
.,ew Fork, N w Yc.:, 111019
1z: P
t.
r�
-(,rw, J ! O 1:11,1
if ..i:co(:ed for URA:
Destination Resorts-ASfen, 'td.
P. 0. Box 2946
Aspen, Colorado 81611
with a copy to:
Mr. A. Jerry Luebbers
Destination Reaort Corporation
Wilshire West Plaza, Suite 1114
10890 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90024
Any notice given hereunder by marl shall be deemed del'v,,-ed -.&en
deposited in a United States general or branch post office,
registered and enclosed in a .repaid envelope, addressed as
above.
18. provisions Subject to Applicable taw. All rights, powers
and remedies provided herein may be exercised only to the extent
that the exercise thereof do..s not violata any applicable
provisions Of law, and are intended to be limited to the extent
necossary.80 that they will not render this Agreement invalid,
` unenforceable or not entitled to be recorded, registered or
filed under the provisions of any applicable law. If any term
of this Agreement or any application thereof shr,ll be in-'alid
or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or any
application of this term shall not be affected thereby. This
Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.
19. Assignment and Release. Upon completion of construction
of the tennis facility, DRA may assign all its rights ant] interest
and delegate all its duties and obligations under this Agreement
to a non-profit association of Condominium Owners, provided
however chat DRA will r:main liable for all duties and obligations
hereunder intil the assignee has effectively agreed in writing
to assume such duties and obligations. After the assilnee has
effectively assumed all of DRA's obligations and performances
under this Agreement, and the tennis facility has been completed,
and 10 or more condominium units have been conveyed, al:. DRA's
duties, obligations and liabilities under this Agreement shall
nd be of no further effect.
9 _
378 fta 428
",i sce. 1 aneous. Neither this Agreement nor any provision
r.,ay be changed, waived. discharged or terminated orally,
but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against
which andors-iment of such o inge, waiver, discharge or torminat.-*.on
is sought. All the tfifiag and provisions of'this Agreement shall
be binding upon otid',",Ci Wtho'ban*f1t of 'and be enforceable
by the respecti" sue gW—&.aM assigns of the parties hereto.
The has - dings in thiW'xesmerit are for purposes of reference
of defive the meaning hereof. This
only and s"l I not,
Agro"'Ot MAYV bo tXa -inc several counterparts, each of
— t ell of which shall constitute one
W, tho parties hereto have caused this
I at to 1; t* executed by the following duly authorized
ftecutedwi
th a do of ione,, 1973.
DESTINATION RESORTS -ASPEN, LTD.
a limited partnership
By its general partner,
DESTINATION RESORTS, a joint
venture of Destination Resort
Corporation, a California
corporation, and Destin-Co., a
Californial corporation
ATTEST: By DESTINATION RESORT CORPORATION
12-(2444,,j ;ir4,e. By
--B— --
-,5*crecary David C. eTw Nor a t
Vice President
ATTEST: SMUGGLER -Du RANT MINING 4Wh**t ec
17�4 By -4"Z414,-
secretary 11 President
- 10 -
-A " , ' J F
COU-VZY OF-t[M
".378 iwA29
I I., inStrMent waS acknowledged before me this OW
F,by David G. Bohrhortt as Vice President and
as Secretary of DESTINATION RESORT
MTMTION RESORTS -ASPEN, LTD., a California
Iud.O official seal.
Notary Publi
instrument was acknowledged before me this
1973, by AA'ftp M. 44 Yr-it #1 as President and
Mrs air. as Secretary of
-Laj�-M�AMMKING QMMiilf, a New York corporation.
Counission expires:
rc
-Wittwos my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
7X
:U-11
to
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
AND STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 3650
C.. _50
�378 4u430
07.7= 10=81OW or)
NZTPO-)
r 'kP=XPT OF NOTICE OF INCLUSION
= TRE ASPEN METROPOLITAN
th4.UW%*rsiqn*d1 County Clerk and Recorder of the
tkin. an
State Of Colorado do hereby certify that
the inclUsion of real property in the ASpen Metro-
44nitation District in the above -captioned matter was
the day of
1979, in my office.
WITNESS IMEIMOF, I have hereunto
svt my hand and
"iiEl.011 this day of
1979.
County Clexx and Recor er
Pitkin County, Colorado
d
.. ....... .
00
447 F:zE 90
exx
3
Recozded at O'clock 1N.
i
Reception. iio.�4 r Recorded Fiy �
�Z
4
NE# b. TO AGPEEMENT
' T�1i tE to Agieement datedthisclay of
yg
-is tletween ")
» t HARLEY BALDWIN ("LondIOrd
S x.t
,72A.Street, Apartment 29-D, New York,
6ANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATTON, :NC., a
�'
f *cgYgiion ("Tenant") whose address is c/o
*sent Inc., 11611 San Vincento Boulevard,
k r be California 90049.
�+
;R
F ( R E C I T A L S•
Y �04Reffterce is made to that Certain Agreement dated
�.
7y
."1973 Agreement") between DESTINATION
y,
%7DRA") and SMUGGLER-DURAN'" MINTN6
`
Yt �tr") recorded October 30, 1979 in Book 378 at
thr:records of Pitkin County, Colorado. There is an
7't}nrls�orded Amendment to the 1973 Agreement dated November 14,
19751
'
2. In accordance with the Agreement, DRA cor:structed
throe tennis courts and other related improvements (the "Tennis
4
rr�
Facility") on certein "Land")
t
real property (the le,Tally
r' Lescribed
as follows:
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 18, T:OS, PR4W OF
<;. THE 6TH P.M., PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID PARCEL
i
BEING PART OF THE 1001 LODE MS 1741 AND MORE FULLY
;
?' DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Ij
T BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. 1 ASPEN TOWNSI':F., THENCE. N.
.: 47007' E. 47.57 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY POUNDARY LINE
OF THE 1001 LODE MS 1741;
c
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S 45"10' E. 14.00 FEET;
�:
,
447 0 91
NG SAID LINE S 34.15' W. 29.00 FEET;
55.50 FEET=
28.50 FEET;
`•; *-E. 25.64 FEET TO THE SOUTHF.ASTF.PLY
-SAID LODE:
F W. 126.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH FASTER LY
G SAID LINE N 42^53' W. 166.00 FEET;
130.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
tf Y TH.LINE.9 - 1 SAID ASPEN TOWNSITF;
`11r'3PStS22" E. 44.37 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 9 - 1
Vx 10,:1; THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING
ti Y$4U 4EET, MORE OR LESS.
t ;�•, ,.Q.,.•
t�DiF IN, STATE OF COLORADO
" Ja ;%andlor4 is the succes^or in interest to Smuggler
t+llstent. "d Tenant is the successor in interest to
r :
Agreement.
W I T N F. S S E T If:
A gOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, the receipt and
`:..'Of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed, the
09tee'as follows -
Ownership of Tennis Facility. The 1973 Agreement
rr, �
4•
is amended in all places to provide that Tenant shall be the
°-a mir of the Tennis Facility. Tenant shall continue to have
^ responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the Tennis.
4r^ Facility as provided in Paragraph 7. Upke,"p of the 1973
Agreement.
y. 2. Premises. The description of the Leasehold estate
�i 21 be the Land described aFnve. This description. replaces <•nd
�s accurately describes references in �hv i^:'s Agreement to
w•that portion of the said 1001 Lode marked in red on the attached
�'rT?
Exhibit 'A*."
i
2
Pr
, �of'Paragrsph46 of
he 1 7
in thereof the following
'5
sales", however, the right to
persons"who shall have the use
ties on equal terms with Owners and
e ISLX (6),Donths, but not more
ord shall give Tenant written
AMOS and addresses of such persons
Fated to use the Tennis Facility. No
an owners and Guests and persons
-it iting by Landlord shall be allowed
tB6, nnis FACility. The Land shall be used
otlkor;,Vurpose except the operation of the
*Araftllty and ancillary uses. Except for the
ty, no other improvements ;hail he
Land. For purposes of this
ix (6) month periods shall mean
h June 30 and July I through
7, Ihee,3i'each year.
4.lp Rental. Paragraph 9 Fee of the 1973 Agreement is
deleted inAts entirety And in place thereof the following is
provideds
*Itokch year during the term hereof commencing
January 1, 1983 and continuing until December 31,
2082,Venant covenants and agrees to pay to
Landlord without set-off or deduction of any kind,
semi-annual installments of rent of $3,750.00 on
or before January I and another installment of
$3,750.00 on )r before July I."
5. Term. Paragraph 10 Appraisal and "aragraphs !!(b)
(c) and (d) briwinstion of the 1973 Agreement are hereby deleted
in their entirety. Paragraph 11(a) is azrftnded to provide as
follownt
*This Agreement shall remain in effect until
December 11, 2083, unless terminated earlier
prusuant to the provigions hereof".
- 3 -
N
0
I
tA
%
71
447, 913,
lfi"the *Vent
Landlord or, r! siishall develop any part of
Mining Claim, Landlord
9h4'-, id"' 'Oh. and i*mve one or more of the
k AA;iludod within the Tennis Facility;
prior to any demolition Landlord shall be
ate and reconstruct such tennis courts
z'
A
001 2A4* Mining Claim subject to the following:
iord shall be responsible for obtaining ar,,,
1V
ntal approvals or permits to demolish and
is courts.
7t,7 !�r
im
V- shall be convenient access to the tennis
Iv.
tod, for the Owners of The Gant Condominiums and
Xkk'. t tennis court may be relocated more than one
felt (1001) from its present location. Such access shall
t
-9 approval by Tenant which approval shall not be
its ly withheld or delayed.
The tennis courts, as relocated, shall be of equal
or,ftjperior Construction to the courts that have been demolished.
To the exvant practicable, construction shall be in accordance
with th* Tennis Court Paving Materials and Construction
SPOCIfiCatiftf &ttached as Exhibit "B" to the 1973 Agreement.
Y'
(d)' All costs associated with the demolition and
relocation of the tennis courts shall be paid by Baldwin.
(0) The 1973 Agreement shall be further amended to
delete from the leasehold estate, the tennis courts that have
been demolished and to include within the leasehold estate the
- 4 -
N
t
¢ > p
r4 5c �xy
� 1r� 4 Aq{
O Nether- with
ISM
�.
tennis courts are
S Il liens at encumbrances or
a
thereof. shall agree by instrument
,,..
.
h lien or encumbrances to
tiA,
is court» as relocated. At
1ta11 be provided with a leasehold
Cy Cowling the lands upon which the tennis
{I
J1
>Parrftgzaph 15 Specific Performance of the
.
re y auMnded�to provide the following
Fsnaat4;hji11 default in the payment of any rent
01'
'dui aa.,herein provided, and such default
�s
1`.Cdntifte for thirty (30) days after notice
=
f-in writing to Tenant, or if default shall
We in, "y of the other covenants, agreements,
itione or -undertakings herein contained to be
f observed and performed by the Tenant, and
t'-
,defaultyshall continue for sixty (60) days
r notice''thoreof in writing to the Tenant, or
ant 'shall vacate or abandon the Land, then
".Shall be lawful for Landlord, at its election
byc fare the said term ended and in addition to
Other remedies herein contained or as may be
ttee by law,.Landlord may eitber by force or
r
Tvise,,without being liable for prosecution
tefor, or'for damages, re-enter the said Land
'Vab4.
r,
&yain possess the same and the improvements
':tbAreoa.
b'
With respect to any default where a sixty
4'.1401 day notice has been given to Tenant and
Provided Tenant has commenced to cure such default
to the
prior expiration of said sixty (60) day,
.period, Tenant shall be entitled to reasonable
extensians of said sixty (60) day period so long
as Tenant continues with all reasonable diligence
and dispatch to cure said default. Any
improvements of Tenant not removed upon such
>s,
L
W
95 0
14 A.
YA
idered
to, n lord'
xwkhn*
roof,
tooever to
lien paramount
'And interest of the
d estate and on any
.:blaced on the Lana,
pment, fixtures, or
Y kind belonging to
the Tenant therein.
purpose of securing
covenanted to be paid
Urpos*.of securing the
igAtions of Tenant to
be In addition to all
LaAdlotd given under statutes
ch arow-� ,p� or shall hereinafter
the Ovont of any litigation or
rOCe*dih9 between the parties
t of tho,porformance or
f any party hereto, or
rights -or remedies hereunder,
TtY SM11,be entitled In such
Or,PrOCileding to also recover
lodq:r,, t il, � *VS id or other relief,
y fees and cots incurred
:,T4Msnt expressly waive any right
V,have to trial by jury of any
hereundax.- Landlord's remedies
be exclusive and in the event
by
Tenant or if Tenant shall -acate
"Land, Landlord
may exercise any
Ii�iuy have including forcible entry
t Tenant agrees to and shall save, hold,
_t indemnify Landlord from any for any and all
tq-j�.swarda, payments, or liability, including
Orr*d by Landlord for
any losses or damage tc
Afiiiists or death to persons occasioned wholly or
ittiliqfron any acts or omissions by Tenant or
o licensees, or invitops, for any cause or reason
0,
6
R
VIE
��
•"� .'£7:'4 7 �,J 1 1 r< F � cif
•
A v
.. GY�'� .4 i'�ftV #1R. Y' i1C�•'i+•
A r
a# D� • "1�F
k•
N eoa 447 96
whatsplWrr i M •
anyfuse,`oCCupancy
m6. or possession
w
of the 2� thereon
X ereon by Tenant.
S
z 4 i Tebant agrees that Landlord and
,t
i 7.,.
it� �.flt�er r
ram. S, epresentatives shall huve the
F
4_
�•, `{.
_ y S °-Volt the Land, Tennis Facility or any
rp"
kk sonable hour or the purpose of examining
or for the safety and preservation
y
l not be deemed to be a covenant by the
to Create an obligation on the part of
toalte'<any examination, inspection or repairs.
2 ndlord with any keys
.v
Ato-SA! Tennis Facility.
at, or Assignment. Except as to any mortgages,
liens that may be crentel or
* a o } 1nt for" the benefit of Landlord and except as to
416tA!'i9etlt�ia
laCility by "Owners" and "Guests" as permitted
p te` 1971 Agreement, Tenant
shall not let, sublet, relet,
4O �r,as�ign, � mortgage, hypothecate>
pledge, or otherwise in
Jft
�•
•y
Z;anaflr or encumber or suffer
--
to be used by others this
1laslbolQ *state,
the Land or improvements thereon or any part
a
thereof.,
ll. No .Waiver. No assent by Landlord, either expressed
or 3mplied,_to any breach or default of
any one or more of the
QOYlnants Or agreements herein shall in any way be construed
f
as a
veivir of any succeeding
or other breach or default.
4 •;
7
•,a
.;y
v
pk.
'-wrequired under 'the terms of
n&Wnts thereto shall be given In
,464,j6e by certified or registered mail,
the address of the parties a shown
x As*ndWwnt to Agreement, or to such other
'4,&'ted in the same manner. If not sooner
given by mail shall conclusively be deemed
ye after the date of certification or
.� otices to Landlord shall be sent
Ronald Garfield
GARFIELD & HEHCT, P.C.
601 East Hyman Avenue
• Aspen, Colorado 81611
notices to Tenant shall be sent to:
Nicholas McGrath
71 AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
600 East Hopkins, 0205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Miscellaneous. In the event of any conflict'
on the provisions of this Amendment to Agreement and the
.Agreement, the provisions of the Amendment to Agreement
govern and control the obligations and performance of the
am. AU provisions of the 1973 Agreement not inconsistent
ith aim reincorporated herein and reaffirmed by the parties
Pugh met forth in full verbatim.
2N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this
Mat to Agreement the day and Year first written above.
I
m
'
ouvoLomm^ ~ ~
~�
-o-
»
e
r, 41,
44 1 ow 9
AGE To
AWndosnt to Agreement was acknowledged
Ay of ', . - , 1983 by
Pras ent o and on behalf of THE GANT
INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
nd and official seal.
asion expires:
Not ry Public
=f0 going Amendment to Agreement was acknowledged
N
x
Uv day of 1 ;, 1983 by �
Secretary
o and on behalf o THE E GANT
T ;
INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
":M�ZTIIES"ay
�.
hand and official seal.
d My COMMission expires:
tr .,Xy 'address is:
thj
:_
ofary u is �—'-
3 - 10 -
is Y
4t'
i' i
U
•
35-7
�.
Recorded at o'clat N M.
rf
fr,;
Retoortl.r Reception No.
t
t.
c
A 61GPMPT OF t,Y,A,,F,
" -
YWIT
L
\,
As/iGNllM OF LZMZ is tint—a,HAN1eY
NALnN;ti
1.
y, Mh1N _iMleH is One West 72nd t
At:r P+
.-.
•' Y,'`
YtFlXk 10023 and ASP= UE'V r....O1'MVN'1ANfi
O corporation ('Awe t,tnee't Rnvi r.<1
.r, e t c • . e�
�aFAR7N1, suits 120, Dallis, 'f..xne
sf
S R 8 C I T A
1r, .
Rtta•renOe is F:Adw to than currnin .t
.•+. .• .sr.••f
rileorded October 39, 1974 1n Or-uk
V-114+t 4I'?
t
,�. ;ps�tS.>'►stion Raworts-Aspen S,t,t., and tire,.:.
.•nia+,t
tiJ"Anys Assignment of
nt -
''jNWk 147 at Pwge 88 lZom U. atlnat.:"t; t+n,r•rt,:-NuVn*:
� a } 4Ot Condominium Aawociatioll, :nc-. an,t
Asaendnesnt to
11t record" Juni 15, 1983 in 'it:.,K 447 -it , :.•
t^
V N
k. ^
4:rsly the 'raant Tennis Court
2. The Cant Tannin Cous t :..,nuw co:
r isr c..a 1
prVerty legally deaaribed as tol lows o
;:�•
A parcel of land rltunttd in s«. r•
,
T106, RN4M of the 6th P.M.. P1 tk in �'•` „' .
Colorado. Said parcel being part. nr t.• i
Lode M6 1741 and more !ulli dee rtt. 1
followal
lleginninq at Corner N.,. l Asp.,,.
Tovnsite, thencr N 41^01' F 47,S7 f•
-
ii`-•' ;'
` 1lortheaste -ly boundary 11 nr. r, f t h. .
r a -
thence along said lice 9 4','tte' Y t.
thence departing said 11t,r, 5 14"1 , .'+•
°-
feet$
thence R 42' 1 5.50 f<„st ;
thence a 02" 15' w 28.50 feat t
'q
thence S 42*53' E 25.64 foot to the
southeasterly boundary line of said lodes
thence S 47*07' W 126.78 foot along said
southeasterly line;
thence departing 04W ling 0 42*53' W 166.00
'estj
thenos,;F,471W, It 2,30-00 feet to the point of
ro&j intg, t$4& �Wjt* ISAW I said Upon
4. feet a1c" said
the 220� #4 f
the point of
xqpare foot, more
2 T N
and other good and valuable
Oancy of vhich is hereby
r hereby convoys, transfers
ht, title and interact in and
i�:"Jjesiqnee hereby accepts the
after the date of this assignment
61U,t.M obligations of *Landlord*
tL" and *hall protect, indemnify
6i from all -further liability or
a ct�' to such misunied oh.ligati—s. Assignor
and hold harmless, Assignoe frog aky
or Gant Tennis Court
responsibility under said r
LA
�*W of.tM-failure on the part of Assignor to
.
ot,%)r objjgt.:Lonas of *Landlord" thereunder arising
"dates hereof. Expressly excluded --rom this assignment
Promissory Note in the
tto. Assigrkor is that certain
141oqj 40"nt of $100,000.00 dated Juno 15, 1983 from the
leant 00admialma kneoCiation, Inc., t:) the order of Assignor and
-2-
•
BOON 461 i115Ea)t)7
! oollateral given to secure payment thereof ineludingr M
i cf 'trust recorded June 15, 1953 in;book.447 at Page 106 and
(ii) Security Agreement evi40aced by a T#Isai►Ct" fUtsu"t filed
,tune 15, 1983 as •URK IW&J 7.07.2, M, 3601 447, at -page 110 cf the
real estate nL }� CdZfM1A, tiling has also
been made wttt+,-;
���rdC•
g'of Lekse is made
thi■
d88Y �
+' xAND ,+................
low
} Yy
J.
f
t;„ a By
ry
jr
Y dt wwM ZTY
r ti 4tx I of the above assignmert
Ilk
air tba dab of this assignment
Z.
sl�jA '12 for obligations of "Landlord"
4p " tXt teaae and shall protect, indemnify
4
gpp="f=w all further liability or
H^ a �cri t6 such assumed obligations." For
qpp� sW: psbs �nsir�ltioas, the receipt and sufficiency of
vhiab arm 11rsbY-aakaouled9s4 and confessed, the undersigned,
jointly-'esd severally, personally and unconditionally guarantee
to AssiqWrr, big sWolssere and assigns, full and punctual
perform&&* ca,tbe Fart of Assignee of the foregoing indemnity.
-3-
!_
461 ,3FA
V
a of Lease Man acknowledged
o- Y w wn.• , 1744 by Aspen
any, olorado corporation t,y
a
`and Official seal.
i
tary P1.hlie
t;
tag 11asi r}/r of l.eas9 was acknowludged
day Of d� 19�4 by Harl"y �.
� I
vy haud and official seal.
N
�±ooswi«sion exliresr�
y
address isi
N
y
OFF
i
r},
_4_
Y;
t,vo 461 11 161
ACKNOWLEDGMENT nA(;F. TO
ASSIGNMENT OF i KASE
Soo )
an
The o t to IS%C1119 AmSt p� f
Spn�.ease was ackr. •w'
this I"I'M day of by ',a!-
WITSISS my Mad and official seal.
Xy cowmission expires:
MY 44fteassac Div L,
Notary Tu- i,
an
The;ioreyoing Assigpeol f Lease was
t,M94Y-Lr— day Of L%I 1994 by Raymond 0.
WITIMS my hand and official Seal.
My commission expires:
My address is-
Ndtary PuSTIT'
-5-
s
0
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 100 ( Date: 1 /7/8
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS : Pro it s- or o t- Wa�tr w\a.i v+ ek 1 t! SV oN lh 0-cc6 rc�A14 C e
wZi-i& wafer bepf, C'ow, meJS -for►,., of loon will hehe�rif
MUP-rs (AsreA agi4ce oppUc&J.
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: I
•
0
COMMENTS: 'Pr6-
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:_Ir most ettce-4 Cock
V DA 111WOMA10A� A.,A o,,u;lir dAA-Ll IQNili bGi1Q'1 ice` �i! a �i� � ��%G'`
a
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [21 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.
COMMENTS: -tD OZ
— 2 —
RATING: 4-
s
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 •
•
Pro l e r/l
--7
Iwo Pc oJPS
he' Q �Lo ' 6j 5e-N ice by O&r*
6A
R IA.%nrro
� CAS
ftQtl
t-e-zLo #*t-ed ��J C&J P C I/PSDK A ?
6 1A Ae ,eve
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
COMMENTS: ("oKE-)
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
- 3 -
0 0
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
YNeighborhood Compatibility (maximum three (31 points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Site DE!sign (maximum three [3) points) .
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground- �
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: _1� rr
COMMENTS:Lis is r-egjr'-J OLJQ6 e.xfra 1?0 COU(d be. e-0-t-we
befttr "I lean hnI Vl W VH Jet-i1h 5 ifeWoek- UJJ JW Pro\/e e_XL tA
Vkime JLUMP A.PKaM"CQ Grllu.1La.4 0f 361 draLM0.a� P�aS�w•t
Energy (maximum three [31 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 -
•
•
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: I. rive it&-t's o. ` 54 bec ruse o L'Wpotf^nce 4 klota c
�r-ad but I ques ov, S eAM'%eJ mloa + need
r be w4et- iV% order +o 0.11ow 4v- o� +roLLI • A
Qisfeh bill +rack sever i s el w'de .
Green Space (maximum three [3) points) .
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [61 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.
RAT I NG : 'L
COMMENTS: Pf0o jer AJ Leasi (? 00, raw tleares+ (�uS t-oJ1Le .
A �oha (4- -350� .
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.
6G 350 -f-ea. RATING: 2
COMMENTS:
- 6 -
SUBTOTAL:
n
LJ
U
Employee Housing (maximum twenty [201 points) .
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One ( 1 ) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [11 point for each five (5)
percent housed).
RAT I IG :
COMMENTS:
- 7 -
i
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
COMMENTS:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven (7] points) . RATING:
POINTS IN CAT DG ORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4:
POINTS IN CAT DG ORY 5 :
POINTS IN CATDGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Dame of P&Z Commissionmember :
• IpLgN
F • P�� co 0
601
TLENEL
C Q C) O,
or 07'
0.9 rr
61
800
C ca
01
THE GA r
CONDO INIUMS
19
TENNIS /
\ 0 U T 9 900 E.
19
19
oo
COURTS
a
rrl 17
9 / s f wd cdt. G oa�,
i O c5 S
` 4
l�
(6 x
0)
1
/1 F-
0
J
�� �r x \ 0)
M � x
O�
j
U, 11
.
CL
Q�
U ti
ti \
co N
� � x
cr ti
0
U
N
a �z
z
N \ L►J }
tt.. x F—
0
0
0
0
az
OD
ONE
1 I
o -I
\ 1
o y
��
iv .,
kL
1
Ifs