HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.1001 Residential #2.47A-86CASELOAD SDMAARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: p-
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE:
a 73 7- / 8 a -oo - ceiR
CA: '� NO. 47A 8�
STAFF:
PROJECT NAME: 1001 l�esi'den��al AMP /S hm� ion p
IPPLICANT:/y�12en r beJP1oo e - "+Ccnsfr:c_�iiei & G1O bate C A.1 /OUah
Applicant Address /Phone! --5,420 s5a(A>Lh 1)7'c B /vO(. Su, e DO
REPRESENTATIVE En� /e woad, CO 8a /// 746-/,A//
Representative Address /Phone: & M E. yman S - �v
Type of Application:
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 20✓
2. Preliminary Plat 12
3. Final Plat 6
II. Subdivision /PUD
1.
Conceptual Submission
--.14
2.
Preliminary Plat
9
3.
Final Plat
6
III. All
"Two Step" Applications
11
IV. All
"One Step" Applications
5
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1.
Minor Applications ✓✓
2
2. Major Applications 5
Referral Fees -
Engineering
Minor Applications ✓ _.
$2,730.00
1,640.00
820.00
.$-1:900 fi0 _ ._..
1,220.00
820.00
$1,490.00
F .:1 fts
$ 5i. l u
$ 125.00
80-00
Major Applications 200.00
______________
(P —&-Z) CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC EARING: YES NO
DATE REFERRED: �' ���� IN IT IALS . /��
----- - - - - -- ------------------------
-----------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Atty V Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall v" Bldg: Zo_ ning /Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
Roaring Fork Transit �j Roaring Fork Energy Center
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: IN ITIAL:Yw��
City Atty
City Engineer
Other: / a Other:
VTr n omur.nc .r11
Building Dept.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
RE: 1001 Subdivision: Appeal of Planning and Zoning
Commission Rescoring of Growth Management Quota System
Application
DATE: May 26, 1987
Summary and Recommendation
The representatives of the 1001 1986 residential Growth Manage-
ment Quota System application have filed a second appeal, this
time regarding the rescoring of their application by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The appeal specifically challeng-
es the scoring of one Planning and Zoning Commissioner charging
the Commissioner with abuse of discretion.
when the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) rescored the
application it received a score of 31.65 which is below the
minimum threshold of 31.8. The Planning Office recommends that
you reject the applicants second appeal. It is our opinion that
this is not a case of abuse of discretion.
Previous Council Action
On Monday, March 9, 1987 the City Council voted to remand the
1001 subdivision Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) to the P &Z
for rescoring. Prior to the March 9, 1987 appeal hearing, the
City Council granted Conceptual PUD Subdivision approval to the
1001 application.
Background
On January 27, 1987, the P &Z originally scored the 1001 Subdivis-
ion application. As summarized in attachment 1 (January 27,
scoring tally sheet), the six members present awarded the
application a score of 31.67, which is below the 31.8 minimum
competitive threshold. On April 28, 1987, following the appeal
to City Council, the entire application was rescored by the P &Z
and the application received a score of 31.65 (see attachment 2,
April 28, scoring tally sheet). When the appeal was originally
heard by the City Council, we discussed whether or not the entire
application should be rescored or just specific categories which
the applicant was questioning. The City Council, upon the advice
of the City Attorney and Planning Director, determined that the
entire application would be rescored.
r
Problem Discussion
Attachment 3, a May 12, 1987 letter from Ron Austin to Alan
Richman, appeals the P &Z's scoring based upon section 24.11.4(f)
of the Municipal Code. The letter contends "the consequence of
the rescoring is that but for the reduction by Commissioner David
White of his score in four areas , the project would have reached
the threshold and would be eligible for an allotment for residen-
tial development." The applicant claims that White's scores
represent an "abuse of discretion and results in a lack of due
process."
The Staff does not concur with the position stated by the
applicant. One of the risks which the applicant accepted when it
accepted the City Council's decision to remand the project to P &Z
for rescoring is that a P &Z member may change a score. If the
applicant was not willing to accept this risk he should have
objected to the entire application being rescored and should have
requested that only those specific scoring categories which
formed the basis of the original appeal be rescored. It is our
opinion that a P &Z member has a right to consider all of the
testimony presented at the public hearing and based upon that
member's judgement either increase of decrease scores.
We reiterate our previous advice to you that for the City Council
to accept the applicant's challenge would undermine the GMQS
scoring process. It would mean that the P &Z has no discretion to
listen to the advice of staff and the input of the public but
merely should hear about an application from the applicant and
score a project in accordance with the applicant's wishes.
Further, if the City Council sets the precedent of reviewing
individual scores awarded by P &Z members, you will be placed in
the position of rescoring every controversial application, which
is inconsistent with the idea of delegating the scoring to the
P &Z.
Alternatives
There are a variety of alternatives available to Council includ-
ing:
1. Certify the P &Z scoring as it has been forwarded to
you.
2. Alter the P &Z scoring as requested by the applicant in
his letter.
3. Schedule a hearing for City Council to score the
project.
4. Remand the project again to the P &Z for rescoring.
The Planning Office's recommendation is to follow Alternative 1.
As we have suggested above, we do not believe it is appropriate
for City Council to re -hear the detailed scoring issues. If City
Council feels, however, that the scoring should be reconsidered,
then you should either alter the scores or send it back to P &Z.
Planning Office Recommended Motion:
"Move to deny the appeal by the applicant for the 1001
Project"
City Manager Recommendation:
1001appeal /gh
AUSTIN & JORDAN
Attorneys At Lew , J
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205 .�.
Ronald D. Austin Aspen, Colorado 81611
William R. 7ordan III
Gray A. Young
Frederick F. Pence
May 12, 1987
Alan Richman, Director
Department of Planning
and Community Development
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611 HAND DELIVERED
Dear Alan:
Telephone
(303) 925 -2600
Re: Challenge of GMP Scoring of
Planning and Zoning Commissioner David White
-- 1001 Project
This challenge is submitted to you pursuant to
Section 24- 11.4(f) of the Aspen City Code. It is filed on
behalf of Aspen Development and Construction Company, the
owner of the real property situated on Ute Avenue known as
"1001."
As you know, a first appeal by the Applicant was
successful in that the Aspen City Counsel directed a remand
of the project to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
rescoring. That rescoring took place on Tuesday, April 28,
1987. Although at the time we urged that there was no
provision in the code for a remand, we went along with the
procedure in order to, in good faith, exhaust all
administrative remedies.
The consequence of the rescoring is that but for
the reduction by Commissioner David White of his score
previously awarded in four areas, the project would have
reached the threshold and would be eligible for an allotment
for residential development.
We submit that Commissioner White's scoring in
these areas is clearly an abuse of discretion and results in
a lack of due process to the Applicant for the following
reasons:
1. There can be no basis for reducing the
scores in these areas since there was no change
from the original application and nothing was
raised by the Commission, the Planning Office or
any of the public that would in any way detract
C
AUSTIN & JORDAN r.. ..
Attorneys At Law
Mr. Alan Richman
May 12, 1987
Page 2
from the original quality of the project in these
four areas. The only difference in the areas of
storm drainage and energy from the first scoring is
that the Applicant pointed out that more credit
should have been given to the easement for storm
drainage that was offered, and more credit should
have been given for energy because the applicant
was exceeding all of the standards in the code.
Nonetheless, Commissioner White scored as follows:
First Scoring Second Scoring
Storm Drainage 2 1.5
Energy 2.5 2
Trails 2.5 2
Green Space 2.5 2
The Planning Office passed out the previous score
sheets so commissioner White had his previous score
sheet with him when he scored the second time. His
overall score total was 1.75 below the first
scoring, which reduction prevented the applicant
from reaching the threshold.
2. It is easy to conclude that Commissioner
White had to have a motive other than the merits of
the project in reducing his earlier scores. That
motive had to be to lower the scoring sufficiently
so that the project would not reach the threshold.
Since this is not based on the merits of the
project, and since it is not based on any new
evidence or any change in the application, there is
no rational basis for the reduced scoring other
than that it was a mistake. Thus, the only
conclusion can be that the scoring is an abuse of
discretion, whether it was a mistake or
intentional.
3. As a consequence of this scoring the
applicant, although seemingly availed of the due
processes of the City Code, is in fact denied due
process by the conduct of Commissioner White. The
other commissioners who were present at the first
scoring with respect to these four areas either
scored the same or higher the second time. Thus,
in their minds, there was no rational basis for
decreasing the scoring in these areas. The conduct
AUSTIN & JORDAN
Attomeys At Law
Mr. Alan Richman
May 12, 1987
Page 3
of one commissioner in a scoring mechanism such as
this can result in the failure of the applicant to
reach the threshold. While that might otherwise
appear to be fair, under the circumstances of a
second scoring, it clearly denies the applicant due
process when the system is subverted by one
commissioner member reducing his score.
What is an abuse of discretion?
Black's Law Dictionary defines it as: "Abuse of
discretion is synonymous with a failure to exercise a sound,
reasonable, and legal discretion." It does not even require
that it be an intentional act of bad faith, but means "the
clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment."
Commissioner White's conduct here may or may not
have been an intentional act of bad faith, but whichever, it
clearly is not the exercise of a "sound, reasonable, and
legal discretion."
Thus, in conclusion, there was both an abuse of
discretion and a lack of due process in this matter.
Please set this matter before City Council at the
earliest possible time, preferably before the current Council
members leave office.
Sincerely,
AUSTIN & JORDAN
By
RVn a rd D. Au stin for the
Applicant
RDA /mis
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq.
Mr. G.R. McIntire
Mr. Joe Wells
Attachment s2
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET
oject: 1001 Ute Avenue Re -Score April 28, 1987
Z VOTING MEMBERS
Welton
Jasmine Ro er Ramona
David Mari Al
Jim Average
Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service
2
2
2
2
2
b. Sewer Service
—I
I
1
1
1
c. Storm Drainage
2
2
2
1.5
2
d. Fire Protection
2_
Z
i_
e. Parking Design
2
_�_
Z
2
f. Roads
2
-2—
1
_2_
_�
�_
1
SUBTOTAL
11
10
10
9.5
10
Quality of Design (15
pts)
a. Neighborhood
3
1
2.5
2
2.5
Compatibility
b. Site Design
2.5
1
2
1.75
C. Energy
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
d. Trails
2
2
2
e. Green Space
3
-2_
1
2.5
2
2
SUBTOTAL
13
8
11
9.75
11
Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public
2
2
2
2
2
Transportation
b. Community Comml
2
2
2
2
2
Facilities
SUBTOTAL
4
4
4
4
4
Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income
7
7
7
7
7
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
7
7
7
7
7
Conversion of Existing
Units
to Employee Housing (5
pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1 -5
Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
Al. POINTS 1 -6
35
29
32
30.25
32 31.65
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
RE: 1001 Subdivision Residential Growth Management Scoring
System Remand
DATE: April 23, 1987
On January 27, 1987 you scored the 1001 Subdivision as part of
the 1986 Residential Growth Management Quota System Competition.
The application received a total score of 31.67 which is just
below the threshold of 31.8
The applicant appealed the score claiming the P &Z "abused it's
discretion and denied due process." Specifically, the applicant
questioned four separate scores awarded by three different
Commissioners and argued that due to the time constraints of the
January 27, 1987 meeting the applicant contended that they were
not permitted enough time to present their application. The City
Council did not uphold the applicant's claim of "abuse of
discretion" but did believe that the application should be
reconsidered in order to provide the applicant with more time for
presentation.
Attached for your reconsideration is a copy of the staff's
recommended scoring. All of the staff's recommended scores are
the same as the last recommendations with the exception of site
design. Based upon technical clarifications made by the appli-
cant, the staff proposes that the site design score be upgraded
from a 1 (major design flaw) to 2 (acceptable to standard
design). The applicant has submitted a revised drawing of the
site design and committed to preclude one -story buildings on the
site. This clarification should reduce the perceived density of
the subdivision. Overall, the staff still recommends a score of
31 points which falls just below the 31.8 threshold.
As you requested, to assist you in your scoring, the staff will
distribute your old score sheets at the meeting so they are
available to you as a reference.
Also attached for your review is an April 21, 1987 letter from
Joe Wells to the Planning Office which addresses specific scoring
criteria.
gh.1001
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 1001 Date: April 28, 1987
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:
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off -
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 2
- 2 -
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
RATING: 1
does not enhance the neighborhood.
SUBTOTAL: 10
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
- 3 -
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground -
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2
able but standard.
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
M-M
acceptable design
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2
and is therefore. a standard proposal.
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 2
SUBTOTAL: 10
- 5 -
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:
intersection.
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
COMMENTS
RATING: 2
SUBTOTAL: 4
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24 -11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non - restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: 7
- 7 -
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: 7
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS
1.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
10
2.
QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
10
3.
PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8
4
4.
PROVISION OF IOW, MODERATE
OR 7
7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5.
BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8
31
Name of P &Z Commission Member:
Planning Office
�:ND
D EliC�C��C�°i
is
APR 2 21987
DOI" MUS & WeLLS
an association of land planners
April 21, 1987
Mr. Glenn Horn, Assistant Director
City of Aspen Office of Planning
and Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Glenn:
Our letter is to provide additional information and
clarification regarding the 1001 Subdivision proposal, in
order to assist the Planning Office and the Planning and
Zoning Commission in preparation for the GMP rescoring
presently scheduled for April 28.
During the review of the 1001 project, several key
issues have been raised and we wanted to summarize our
thoughts on those issues in order to focus attention on these
areas of concern.
Background
The 1001 project has received Conceptual PUD and
Subdivision approvals from both P &Z and City Council.
However, the score of 31.67 awarded to the project at P &Z's
GMP scoring was .13 points below the required threshold of
31.8 points in this year's competition.
As provided for in Section 24 -11.4 to City Council,
we appealed a total of 4 individual scores awarded in several
relatively objective scoring categories during P &Z's scoring
session; these were scores which we felt were below the
appropriate award.
City Council approved our appeal but in a creative
action which we believe is not provided for under Code
provisions, Council chose to remand the project to P &Z for a
complete rescoring, rather than change one or all of the
appealed scores, as they are authorized to do under the Code.
We are concerned that this action by Council may
create further confusion, since some P &Z members who may be
involved in the rescoring have not had the benefit of
reviewing the project during P &Z's consideration of the
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 2
Conceptual PUD and Subdivision matters. Further, while we
are not certain of the propriety of the procedure we wish to
give our best efforts to make it work.
GMP Scoring Categories
We would like to take this opportunity to offer
further clarification in several of the GMP scoring
categories in response to various issues that have been
raised throughout the review of our submission, as follows:
(1) Public Facilities and Services
l(aa) Water
At the request of the Director of the Aspen
Water Department, we committed to pay the costs to extend an
8" water line to the west of our property to complete a loop
for a segment of the existing line in Ute Avenue. In
addition to increased reliability in water service in the
area, this commitment will provide backup service so that the
outdated main in Ute Avenue can be replaced without
disruption in service. The benefit to the neighborhood was
confirmed in the Water Department referral letter, which
stated that "this loop connection will improve the quality of
service in the area ".
The developer of the adjacent Aspen Chance
property has stated that the looping cannot be completed
because their water lines remain a private system, and they
will not consent to connections to their system.
It is true that the City has refused to accept the
Chance system because the Developers of the Chance installed
a substandard size line not in accordance with the design
standards of the City's subdivision regulations in effect
since the mid 70s.
According to the City Engineer, our commitment to
loop the line would not only improve service in the area but
according to a letter dated February 23, would provide
improved reliability as well as enhanced fire protection for
the Aspen Chance. The Engineer also stated that the City
would be willing to reconsider acceptance of the Chance
system if looping is completed.
While it seems foolish for the owners of Aspen
Chance to not take advantage of the benefits of improved
water service which would result if their substandard lines
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 3
were included in the loop, we nonetheless are prepared to pay
the cost to extend our line within the platted easements
across the Aspen Chance to the existing Ute Avenue line and
and thereby comply with our original commitment to loop.
This certainly should entitle us to the maximum
award of 2 in this category.
1(cc) Storm Drainage
With regard to on -site drainage, the standard
for receiving the maximum score of 2 points was stated in the
Planning Office's recommended score for the 700 E. Hyman
project:
"The applicant proposes to retain 100% of the
runoff generated on the property in on -site
drywells. The standard for an area service
water on a
maintain nistoric rates ne proviae
applicant has made no such proposal.
The Engineering Department apparently made a minor
change in its interpretation regarding the desired solution
for maximizing the score in the category following the
submission deadline, but prior to the scoring hearing,
stating that it is preferred to release the water at a rate
slower than historic rates.
We believe our original commitment to retain
on -site storm drainage in retention ponds and design our
system to release the water at a rate not to exceed historic
rates complies with the changed standard. If not, however,
we want to clarify that this is a simple engineering change
for a solution that has not yet been designed in any detail.
Because we were unaware of the Engineering Department's
change, we did not offer any clarification at the original
scoring hearing.
With regard to off -site drainage, an original
commitment to grant a 30 -foot easement through the site as a
part of the proposed solution to the Aspen Mountain runoff
problem remains a part of our proposal.
This easement grant is not conditioned on the
City's assuming responsibility for the drainage solution. If
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 4
other parties come forward to address the mountain drainage
problem, those parties will be able to utilize the easement.
l(dd) Fire Protection
The loop connection in the water system
discussed previously will improve the quality of fire
protection in the area because it will serve as a backup
water line in the event there is a problem in the Ute Avenue
line.
The looping issue should not affect our score in
fire protection, in any case, since the addition of the
proposed fire hydrant provides increased fire protection in
the neighborhood. As the map on the following page
indicates, there is presently inadequate coverage in the
neighborhood relative to the requirements of the subdivision
regulations. In residential areas, hydrants are to be
provided every 500 feet.
The hydrant we are providing not only provides
adequate coverage for the 1001 project, but also eliminates a
hole in the coverage which presently exists for adjacent
properties. According to the Fire Marshall (Planning Office
January 20 memo), "a new fire hydrant in the neighborhood
will enhance fire protection for Aspen Chance."
Finally, our commitment to require that the
individual residences have sprinklers installed will enhance
speedy fire suppression and therefore lessen the likelihood
that fires will spread to surrounding residences.
l(ff) Roads
In further discussions wi
engineers, we have learned that conceptual
for the proposed storm drainage system
installation of curb and gutter along the
Avenue.
th the project
design assumptions
included the
south side of Ute
In light of this and in conjunction with the
commitment by the 1010 Ute Avenue project to realign Ute
Avenue in an area that includes our property frontage, it
appears that our participation in widening the alignment to
the south will be needed, and we reaffirm our commitment to
do so. We believe the road realignment and curb and gutter
will improve the quality of service in the project area.
•
� / P
ljydz,l-
j
FA
O
jt.......•r.ty:..:•::; . f
0 50 1
anan assDOr8Fa� & laritl planners
6G8 e. hymen avenue
aspen, cobrado81611
phonei303926 -8886
UTE AVENUE Jt
l�
/I •
HYDRANT COVERAGE
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 5
2. Quality of Design
2(aa) Neighborhood Compatibility
As the Planning Office is aware, we have
submitted additional information regarding design issues as a
result of concerns raised during the review of the proposal,
and in order to clarify the plan. This information was
directed at the perceived bulk of the residences and the
project's compatibility with the neighborhood.
We believe that for the most part, two factors
colored reactions toward the 1001 project. First, the
building footprints, as illustrated on the original site
plan, were overly generous; they did not accurately reflect
our own commitment to multi -level construction within the
total building square footage limitation for the property.
Since there is no requirement to portray architecture at this
stage, we did not expect it to become that great an issue;
the footprints simply had not been studied that closely at
the time of submittal.
Secondly, as more of the lots have been developed
at Aspen Chance, concern that the Chance project is somewhat
overcrowded has been expressed; in the absence of any
comparative graphic information, this concern may have
influenced thinking with regard to the 1001 project.
The site plan on the following page illustrates
revised footprints that more realistically reflect
conceptually the multi -level residences anticipated given a
maximum buildout of 18,068 sq. ft. on the site. Of the total
square footage available, 1,000 sq. ft. has been set aside
for a tennis pro shop, which may never be built, but which is
a part of the joint -use agreement with The Gant.
The site plan also illustrates the relationship of
building to open area for not only the '1001' project, but
also the Aspen Chance project and the three residences on Ute
Addition lots. We believe this drawing supports our
contention that the buildings in our project are less crowded
than those on adjacent sites.
As a result of this further study, we are now
confident that we can commit to setbacks of 20 feet from the
property line; this is four times the side yard and double
the rear yard setback requirement for the zone district. We
can also commit to maintaining a minimum of 20 feet between
the project residences, double the side yard requirement, in
It
112
1
.ss
i�
j
I�
UTE AVENUE
e..I'
El
6.It3
O
1�
0 50 100
DOfA�YN1S &WKW'
an association d land pkffws
608 e. hymen avenue
aspen, cobrado81611
phone: 3039256866
COMPARATIVE FOOTPRINTS
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 6
order to increase the visual separation between the units and
provide better opportunities for landscaping.
As we have mentioned previously, we can comply with
all area and bulk requirements of the zone district if that
is preferred by the City. We originally requested variations
in minimum lot size, front yard setback and the manner in
which the height limit is calculated. While we still believe
these variations improve the project, lot sizes can be
increased by adding portions of the common area to the
northeast of the residences to individual ownership. Front
yard setbacks can be increased in the one or two cases that
are of concern by an additional five feet to maintain a 25
foot setback. Finally, we can calculate height from existing
grade rather than finished grade, as we proposed; this will
permit much higher construction on three of the four building
sites as a result of the regrading however and, therefore,
seems to be contrary to the intent of the regulation.
As the following table indicates, the 1001
project's density (or dwelling units per acre) is quite
compatible with that of the surrounding neighborhood.
Relative project densities in the area:
Project Density
1.
Aspen Chance
(1)(2)
2.1
du's
/A
2.
1001
(1)(2)
2.3
du's
/A
3.
1010 Ute Avenue
(1)(2)
2.7
du's
/A
4.
Hoag Subdivision
Lower Lots
3.1
du's
/A
5.
Ute Addition
9.1
du's
/A
6.
The Gant
27.5
du's
/A
(1) Employee Housing Units have been excluded from the
calculations for Aspen Chance, 1010 Ute Avenue and 11001'
because of their limited square footage and the absence of
employee housing units at the other three projects.
(2) Density is based on land remaining after slope reduction
calculations performed for Aspen Chance, 1010 Ute Avenue and
'1001'.
2(bb) Site Design
We have committed to intensively landscape the
open space areas to be retained in common ownership on both
-
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 7
sides of the tennis courts. Those areas include
approximately 14,500 sq. ft., or 138 of the site within the
City; within individual lots, additional open space of
approximately 47,000 sq. ft. will be retained. Within the
City portion of the site, then, over 508 of the site will be
retained in open space (the tennis courts are excluded from
these calculations). As stated previously, all utilities
will be buried. The site plan has been developed with an eye
toward minimizing the extent of roadway and other hard
surfaces which will result from the proposed development.
2(cc) Energy
General - Because of the site's limited solar
potential, and the fact that the residences on this site may
not be built for several years, we felt rather than attempt
to judge what "state -of- the -art" might be in the future, we
would make a commitment to exceed the most restrictive design
performance standard in the Building Code. According to 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
flexibility to employ a combination of then current
techniques, materials and equipment to exceed this
restrictive performance standard.
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.
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.
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
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 8
such regulations would most likely be at least as restrictive
as the present ones and probably more restrictive.
Efficient heating and cooling devices - We have
been asked by the Roaring Fork 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 908 efficiency in order to add further
definition to our commitment. We will incorporate this
additional performance standard into our covenants for the
project; this will still permit the designer of the
mechanical 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 building
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 appropriate; the award
of half points, which some members of the commission utilized
previously, seems to us to be reasonable in a category such
as this one.
2(ee) Green Space
As we have discussed previously, even though
there is no open space requirement in the zone district, the
amount of green space provided (over 508 of the City land)
greatly exceeds the requirement of any other zone district.
In smaller residential projects it seems more appropriate to
utilize the open space as a buffer area to surrounding
development, concentrating on the landscaping of those areas
rather than the provision of active recreational
opportunities.
In order to prevent any future construction on the
4 acres in the ownership which are outside the City which we
agree is inappropriate for development, this area is being
deed - restricted against further development.
In closing, we view this additional information as
a summary of verbal responses made previously through the
course of the review of the '1001' project. We do not
believe any substantive changes from our original commitments
made in the GMP submission are included here; these points
are intended simply as further clarification.
Mr. Glenn Horn
April 21, 1987
Page 9
Based on previous comments made by the Planning
office, the clarifications regarding design issues apparently
go a long way toward resolving the office's concerns in those
areas. We are hopeful, therefore, that the Planning Office's
recommended scores can be revised accordingly, as
appropriate.
We will be calling to see if we can provide any
further clarification. In the meantime, please contact Ron
Austin at 925 -2600 if you need anything further.
Best regards,
Joseph Wells
DOREMUS AND WELLS
By
Ronald D. Aus in for
Joseph ells
JW /vl
Ltr /Horn -VLO1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
FROM: Jay Hammond, Public Services Director
DATE: March 26, 1987
RE: Status of Utility Easement in Subdivision
Recent discussions with the developers of the 1001 Ute project
have raised a concern regarding the status of utility easements
dedicated pursuant to the City subdivision regulations. The
question, quite simply, is whether or not easements dedicated
pursuant to 20 -17(b) are of a public nature and therefore
available for use by an adjacent property owner.
I have reviewed Municipal Code Section 20 -17(b) and would
interpret that easements dedicated pursuant to the section are
and are intended to be public. The reasons I would say that are
several:
1. Section 20 -17(b) indicates that easements adjacent to
exterior lot lines shall be wider when an adjacent property has
no easement. This implies that where an adjacent property has an
easement it would be shared by both properties.
2. Section 20- 18(b)(2) refers to the continuation of easements
and utilities beyond cul -de -sacs to adjacent properties.
3. Several of the sections refer to public utilities and
improvements such as drainage.
4. The availability of public utility, drainage, irrigation,
access, trail or pedestrian easements though properties linking
adjacent subdivisions is in the public's best interest.
Clearly, it is in the interest of 1001 Ute to establish that
utility easements contained in the Chance Subdivision are
available to them to effect beneficial utility looping. I am
concerned that, if our code is not clear in this regard, that we
promptly consider appropriate amendments to make it clear. Let
me know your comments on the above.
JH /co /UtilityEaseSubd
Enclosure
cc: Glenn Horn
I D� L7 k�7 u u v i I
March 6, 1987
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street HAND- DELIVERED
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
Re: 1001 Subdivision Appeal
Gentlemen:
I think it is important to note that the basis for this appeal is
two -fold. The first aspect of the appeal deals with due process.
Having personally observed the January 27th hearing from which the
above appeal is taken, as well as reviewed the record, I can state for
a certainty that the applicant, with the direction of the City Attorney,
was afforded an opportunity to respond to and rebutt public comment.
If anyone was denied due process, it was Ed Zasacky who was not allowed
to clarify some of the representations that were being made by the
applicant. This, if anything, negatively impacted the Aspen Chance
group because the Commission gave the water system the highest possible
score despite the fact that Jay Hammond specifically agrees that it is
a private water system and, therefore, could not be looped and thus
earn the maximum points without Aspen Chance's permission . If due
process was denied to anyone, it was to Aspen Chance; and if there was
an error in the scoring, it was an error in giving more points rather
than less.
The other aspect of the appeal challenges the scoring of Ramona
Markalunas who was one of the few people that scored this applicant
above threshold, and the only one that actually gave them bonus points.
While hard to believe, what they are doing is challenging their
strongest supporter. If her scoring is in question it should be in
question on each and every category and not just a handful of selected
categories. I make this point because I think it is apparent that you
can't begin to get into arguing over a point here or a point there.
The only valid challenge would be to a total score which is so clearly
out of line with the other scores that it suggests a lack of
understanding. This is clearly not the case, and the P &Z scoring
should be certified as correct.
RSL /bw
cc: Paul A. Taddune, Esq
ve,-., � „ i .,
T0: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director MN
RE: 1001 Subdivision Appeal
DATE: March 4, 1987
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that the City Council
uphold the score awarded the 1001 subdivision by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) during the annual 1986
residential Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) competition.
The Aspen P &Z awarded the 1001 subdivision an average score of
31.67. The minimum threshold to receive an allotment is 31.8.
The applicant is appealing the score, alleging that the manner in
which the P &Z conducted the hearing "constitutes a denial of due
process" and there was "an abuse of discretion" by the P &Z in
three scoring categories; storm drainage, fire protection and
energy. The applicant's appeal centers on four separate scores
awarded by three different commission members in three categories
which they believe are sufficiently objective that a determina-
tion can be made that the points awarded were less than the
minimum score which the project merited.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On February 23, 1987, the City Council
granted Conceptual PUD Subdivision approval to this project.
BACKGROUND: On January 27, 1987, the Aspen P &Z scored the 1001
Subdivision application. As summarized on the attached tally
sheet, the six members present at that meeting awarded the
application a score of 31.67 points which is below the 31.8%
minimum competitive threshold. According to Section 24- 11.4(F)
of the Code, appeals of the scoring must be submitted within 14
days of the date of the P &Z's hearing. The attached letter
prepared by Joe Wells on behalf of the applicant, Aspen Develop-
ment and Construction Company was submitted in accordance with
this requirement.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant's letter to you contends that
there was a denial of due process due to the limited time alloted
to each applicant to present and discuss his proposal. Due to
the limited time periods, the applicant's representative was not
able to address each of the fourteen scoring categories.
Furthermore, Joe Wells states in his letter that he was not
permitted an opportunity to rebut damaging public comments.
However, the attached verbatim transcript of the meeting shows
that following a remark by the City Attorney calling for an
opportunity for the applicant to speak, the applicant was
provided with such an opportunity. Since this opportunity was
provided and no additional objections were raised by the appli-
cant at the meeting, the staff does not concur with the appli-
cant's contention that their due process was violated.
In considering whether the P &Z abused its discretion, it is
worthwhile to define what constitutes the discretion granted to
P &Z by Council through the zoning regulations. By the language
of the Code and by precedent of nearly a decade of GMQS reviews,
the Council has delegated to the P &Z responsibility for scoring
GMQS applications. It is the P &Z which reviews the applicant's
original submission in its entirety, conducts site visits when
necessary, hold lengthy public hearings and considers all
pertinent facts and presentations. Unlike conceptual subdivision
and PUD, where City Council repeats the in -depth investigation of
P &Z in the GMQS process, Council does no more than grant allot-
ments and hear challenges and never gets involved in point -by-
point scoring.
The applicant's case is a point -by -point evaluation of three
scoring categories for three P &Z members (see attachment). The
applicant contends that the P &Z abused its discretion in three
categories which he believes are objective rather than subjective
in nature. This implies that the scores in question are "wrong"
and should be corrected. As you know from your participation in
the land use review process, rarely is there a case that there is
a "wrong" or "right" score. If scores were based only on
mathematical calculations, land use applications could be fed
into a computer and the final score would come out on a printout.
However, you have specifically granted the P &Z authority to
consider the facts presented to them by the applicant, staff and
the public and to make decisions as to the most reasonable score.
We believe that there is no question that P &Z awarded the scores
in question on this basis.
For the City Council to accept a challenge based on the premise
of the applicant being "right" and one or two P &Z members being
"wrong" would undermine the GMQS scoring process. It would mean
that the P &Z has no discretion to listen to the advice of staff
and the input of the public but merely should hear about the
issue from the applicant and score the project accordingly. This
is not the intent of having the P &Z sit as a public body to hear
land use applications. Further, if City Council sets the
precedent of reviewing individual scores awarded by P &Z members,
you will be placed in the position of re- scoring every controver-
sial application, which is inconsistent with the idea of delega-
ting the scoring to the P &Z.
We cannot support the contentions of the applicant. The verbatim
transcript of the meeting shows that due - process was not viola-
2
ted. The scores awarded in the storm drainage, fire protection
and 'energy categories are discretionary decisions made by each
P &Z member and should not be questioned as being right or wrong.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are a variety of alternatives available to Council includ-
ing:
1) Certify the P &Z scoring as it has been forwarded to
you.
2) Alter the P &Z scoring as requested by the applicant in
some or all of the categories.
3) Remand the project to P &Z for rescoring.
The Planning Office's recommendation is to follow Alternative 1.
As we have suggested above, we do not believe it is appropriate
for City Council to re -hear the detailed scoring issues. If City
Council feels, however, that the scoring should be reconsidered,
then a hearing should scheduled for either the City Council or
the P &Z to score the proposal again in the three categories being
appealed.
PLANNING OFFICE RECONNENDED NOTION:
"Move to deny the appeal by the applicant for the 1001
Project"
CITY MANAGER'S RECONNENDATION:
0 W v o" 4, l
GA.1001
3
CIT
13
ash
Mr. Ed Zasacky
Carol Ann Jacobsen Realty
P•0• Box 1168
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: Aspen Chance Water Line
Dear Ed:
PEN
et
11
February 23, 1987
Per your request
main within ' I am writing
As you the Aspen Chance to confirm the
know, we have devfo Pment as status
acceptance discussed a Private
the water
Given °f the Chance water some water
does
notsmeetdthed configuration and for maintenancesue of line
policies and as minim bequirementsx of inch Purposes however Seit
such c
She cit he oPPOrtunity arise accepted by the Cityaat thisetimen
the y system, it to loo ns
reliability and would P the six inch
would Provide main back into
certainly my encourage the as enhance dpfiretlal for improved
possible pin As e protect'
acceptance of the.math system and wouldnbe owners to entertain a We
if looping were completed. tO reconsider
JWHIcOIAspChanceWL
Enclosure
cc: Jim Markalunas
Very Truly Yours,
W
J y W• Hammond
Director of Public Services
Mr. Ed Zasacky
Carol Ann Jacobson Realty
P.O. Box 1168
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Easements for Aspen Chance Subdivision
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is a copy of my February 9, 1987 memo to Gideon
regarding my review of the Plat, P.U.D. and Subdivision
Agreement, and Amended P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for
Aspen Chance Subdivision for the purpose of ascertaining the
nature of the utility easements created by those documents.
It is my conclusion that the water lines and fittings,
including the land through which they run, constitute a
private system solely dedicated to the benefit of the owners
of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. While Article 9 does
include an agreement to turn over sewer lines and
"appropriate easements as may be necessary ", it is my
understanding that it is, for health reasons, illegal to put
water lines in close proximity to a sewer line.
Additionally, since no similar provision exists with regard
to the water system, the intent of the draftsman of this
agreement, as well as the parties to it, would be legally
interpreted as not creating a public easement or public
rights in the water system.
While I believe you will find the enclosed to be
self - explanatory, please do not hesitate to contact me should
you care to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By i �;' �/� G • .. is
Rich6rd S. Luhmah
RSL /bw
Enclosure
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
TELEPHONE
n
February 12, 1987
AREA CODE 303
RICHARD S. LUHMAN
925-8166
Mr. Ed Zasacky
Carol Ann Jacobson Realty
P.O. Box 1168
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Easements for Aspen Chance Subdivision
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is a copy of my February 9, 1987 memo to Gideon
regarding my review of the Plat, P.U.D. and Subdivision
Agreement, and Amended P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for
Aspen Chance Subdivision for the purpose of ascertaining the
nature of the utility easements created by those documents.
It is my conclusion that the water lines and fittings,
including the land through which they run, constitute a
private system solely dedicated to the benefit of the owners
of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. While Article 9 does
include an agreement to turn over sewer lines and
"appropriate easements as may be necessary ", it is my
understanding that it is, for health reasons, illegal to put
water lines in close proximity to a sewer line.
Additionally, since no similar provision exists with regard
to the water system, the intent of the draftsman of this
agreement, as well as the parties to it, would be legally
interpreted as not creating a public easement or public
rights in the water system.
While I believe you will find the enclosed to be
self - explanatory, please do not hesitate to contact me should
you care to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By i �;' �/� G • .. is
Rich6rd S. Luhmah
RSL /bw
Enclosure
DOMMUS &weu.s
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:
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 abuse 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 u aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866
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
Aooeal No. 1 - Storm Drainaqe
Commissioner Markalunas' score of 1. (Planning Office recommend-
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
�7
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 150 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 ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 c telephone 303925 -6866
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood
2.5
1
2.5
1
2
2
Conpatibility
0
Attachment i
0
0
TOTAL POINTS 1-6 37
30
CITY OF ASPEN
2
1
RESIDENTIAL
2
GRURM
MMULEMERr
PLAN SUBMISSION
2.5
POINTS Ar7o=cN - TAILY SHEEP
Project: 1001
January
27
1987
d. Trails
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
2
P &7. VOTING M94HEIRS
3
1
Mali Al JiID Averdpe
2
1. Public Facilities
2
SUBTOTAL
12.5
8
11
and Services (12 pts)
11
10
3. Proximity to Support
'a. Water Service
2
2
2 2
2
2
b. Sewer Service
1
1
1 2
1
1
c. Stour Drainage
2
2
2 1
2
2
d. Fire Protection
2
2
2 1
2
2
e. Parking Design
2
2
2 2
2
2
f. Roads
1.5
1
1 1
1
1
SUBTOTAL ._
10.5 .
10
10 - 9
10
10 9.92
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood
2.5
1
2.5
1
2
2
Conpatibility
0
2
0
0
TOTAL POINTS 1-6 37
30
b. Site Design
2
1
2
2
1.5
2
c. Energy
2.5
3
2
3
2.5
2
d. Trails
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
2
e. Green Space
3
1
2.5
2
2.5
2
SUBTOTAL
12.5
8
11
U
11
10
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public
2
2
2
2
2
2
Transportation
b. Ccmmuiity Comml
2
2
2
3
2
2
Facilities
SUBTOTAL
4
4
4
5
4
4
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 7 7 7 7 7 7
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 7 7 7 7 7 7
5. Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 pts)
a. law Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Insane
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1-5 34
29
32
32
32
31
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts) 3
0
0
2
0
0
TOTAL POINTS 1-6 37
30
32
34
32
31
4.17
7
.83
32.50
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: 1001 Date: Jan. 13. 1987
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
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 2
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
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
- 2 -
COMMENTS
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
RATING: 1
does not enhance the neighborhood.
SUBTOTAL: 10
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
- 3 -
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground -
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 1
courts are design flaws.
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
- 4 -
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 2
courts will not offer the same density relief as vegetated open
space. Nevertheless, this is considered an acceptable design.
SUBTOTAL: 9
- 5 -
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 2
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The proposed development is located approximately 1,300
feet from the closest commercial district. This is lust over
five blocks.
SUBTOTAL: 4
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24 -11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non - restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: 7
for the existing free market unit which was demolished, and
employee housing calculations.
- 7 -
7101
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One (1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL: 7
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS
1.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.6
10
2.
QUALITY OF DESIGN
4.5
9
3.
PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8
4
4.
PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE
OR 7
7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5.
BONUS POINTS:
PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
31.8
30
Hame of P &Z Commission Member:
Planning Office
w • •C • 5
'• ii W,6 *0
•
P &Z VOTING NEZEERS
Welton Jasmine
Rpmr
RamCM
David
Mari Al Jim Average
2
2
1. Public Facilities
Compatibility
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
3
and Services (12 pts)
0
b.
Site Design
2
1
a. Water Service
2 2
2
2
2
2
b. Sewer Service
1 1
1
2
1
1
c. Storm Drainage
2 2
2
1
2
2
d. Fire Protection
2 2
2
1
2
2
e. Parking Design
2 2
2
2
2
2
f. Roads
1.5 1
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
SUBTOTAL
10.5 10
10
9
10
10 9.92
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a.
Neighborhood
2.5
1
2.5
1
2
2
Compatibility
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
3
0
0
b.
Site Design
2
1
2
2
1.5
2
c.
Energy
2.5
3
2
3
2.5
2
d.
Trails
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
2
e.
Green Space
3
1
2.5
2
2.5
2
SUBTOTAL
12.5
8
11
11
11
10 10.58
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 2 2 2 2 2 2
Transportation
b. Community Comml 2 2 2 3 2 2
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 5 4 4 4.17
4. IInPloyee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 7 7 7 7 7 7
b. Moderate Incase
c. Middle Income
SOBTOIAL 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
5. Conversion of Existing Units
to nnployee Housing (5 pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL CATE13CRIES 1-534
29
32
32
32
31
31,6
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
3
0
0
2
0
0
.83
ICfM POINTS 1 -6
37
30
32
34
32
31
32.50
� • 1
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET
Project:_ 1001 Ute Avenue Re -Score April 28, 1987
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS
Welton Jasmine Hoste r Ramona
David Mari Al
Jim Average
1. Public Facilities
a. Neighborhood
3
and Services (12 pts)
2.5
2
2.5
a. Water Service
2 2 2
2
2
b. Sewer Service
1 1
1
1
c. Storm Drainage
2 Z 2
1.5
2
d. Fire Protection
_2 2 2_
2
2
e. Parking Design
2 2_ 2
2_
2
f. Roads
—Z 1 —1—
2
1
—1—
SUBTOTAL
11 10 10
9.5
10
2. Quality of Design
(15 pts)
a. Neighborhood
3
1
2.5
2
2.5
Compatibility
b. Site Design
2.5
1
2
1.75
2
c. Energy
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
d. Trails
Z_
2
2
2
e. Green Space
3
_1
2
_2
2
SUBTOTAL
13
8
11
9.75
11
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 2 2 2 2 2
Transportation
b. Community Comml 2 2 2 2 2
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 7 7 7 7 7
b. Moderate Income _
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 7 7 7 7 7
5. Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1 -5
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
TOTAL POINTS 1 -6 35 29 32 30.25 32 31.65
To: GK
From: RSL
M E M O R A N D U M
Re: Easements for Aspen Chance Subdivision
Date: 21 "9T 87
1.\ Pla contains language dedicating the public trail
easement for the use of the public, and is silent with regard
to the nature of the dedication of the other easements,
except as they are described pictorially. In this case,
whenever utility easements are referred to, they are referred
to solely as utility easements without any reference to
whether they are private or not, unless it is in combination
with an easement of passage and here we have two types. The
first type is for "private access, drainage and utility
easement ". The second type is for "private ski easement and
utility easement ". All other references are to setbacks and
utility easements without regard to whether they are private
or not.
2. The amendment to the PUD and subdivision agreement
for Aspen Chance Subdivision done in 1986 did not affect
those sections of the subdivision and PUD agreement
concerning easements and water.
3.( Article of the original PUD and Subdivision
Agreeme3:t' for Aspen Chance Subdivision addressed easements,
rights -of -way, and relocations. This articles consists of
- 1 -
four subdivisions labeled A, B, C and D. Paragraph A deals
with private access, drainage and utility easements, and
states that the owner dedicates these easements for the
benefit of Aspen Chance Subdivision. Paragraph B deals with
the ski trail easement which is dedicated for the benefit of
the owner, its successors in interest, and any future owners
of any lots in the Aspen Chance Subdivision, and is described
as a private ski trail easement. Paragraph C is the public
trail easement and states that the owner will dedicate for
the benefit of the public a public trail easement described
on the plat. Thus far, the plan is clear, there are three
types of easements which consist of private easements for the
benefit of the subdivision, private easement for the benefit
of the owner, successors in interest and the subdivision, and
the final classification being the public trail easement.
Paragraph D is entitled "Utilities and Drainage" and
states that "there is hereby established and agreed between
the City and the owner necessary easements for the location,
installation and maintenance of utilities . . . as such
easements may be specifically set forth on the plat and civil
engineering drawings." It is noteworthy that this paragraph
contains no specific designation of the party, or parties,
which is to receive the benefit of these easements. In fact,
the logical reading of this paragraph is that it is intended
as an agreement by the subdivider to meet its legal
obligations to provide utility and drainage easements, and
that they are to be "as such easements may be specifically
- 2 -
1 set forth on the plat and civl engineering drawings."
Because the plat contains no language of dedication regarding
these easements, it would seem that the dedication as private
easements contained in paragraph A of this article would
control.
4. Also helpful in this argument is the language of
the miscellaneous provisions contained in Article 11,
paragraph D, which state that this agreement contains "the
entire understanding between the parties herein with respect
to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered
or amended from time to time only by written instruments
executed by all parties hereto."
5. The counter argument finds it genesis i Artic s
8, 9 and W concerning water availability, sewer
availability, and financial assurance. The second to the
last paragraph of Article 10 contains an agreement to provide
a one -year warranty as to all water and sewer improvements
described on Exhibit F commencing from and after "approval
and acceptance by the City of the improvements ". it is
arguable that implicit in an acceptance and preceding it is a
grant or conveyance. Once that step is passed, it is not too
difficult to imply an easement of access for maintenance,
repair and replacement of these improvements as being
essential to their enjoyment. However, this is the Financial
Assurance Article which could merely mean the Engineers'
"approval and acceptance" as conforming to the statutory and
- 3 -
1 0
engineering standards of the Code. In addition, this Article
treats water and sewer systems equally, but the Article's
dealing with these systems treats them differently.
6. The water and sewer availability Articles differ in
that the sewer availability Article contains language to the
effect that "upon completion, these lines will be turned over
to the Metropolitan Sanitation District, together with such
appropriate easements as may be necessary ". This language
does not appear in the water availability Article. However,
both Articles contain provisions stating that the City agrees
to supply the service called for in each Article
respectively, and the owner agrees to pay tap fees for that
service. The natural meaning of this language is that the
sewer easements are being provided, and that water system
easements are not being provided, and that the balance of the
language in the Articles is merely that which is necessary
and consistent with the providing of the service and not with
the conveyance of the system or easements necessary to its
proper maintenance and enjoyment. Therefore, it is only that
language talking about acceptance by the City of the
improvements in Article 10 which contains the potential
argument against private ownership of this system.
aspenchance memo /DAILY2
- 4 -
P
y.
1001 UTE AVENUE REnDENTIAL GNP CONCEPTUAL SUBNISSION
COMMISSIONER'S CONVENTS
Welton Anderson said he found that the amount of vacated open
space, namely the area above the 8040 Greenline, to be a very
worthwhile public benefit.
Who can or cannot use the tennis court is really not a concern of
this board. The PUD has accomplished what a PUD is designed to
accomplish - -that is to cluster structures and preserve open
space.
The trail is another positive amenity and I do not find the
density of the 40 units as being out of character with the
neighborhood.
He then asked for comments from the other commissioners.
Jasmine said the dedication of the upper portion of the site is a
very good benefit. Also she said she is not concerned about who
uses the tennis courts but that this is something which came up
when we were going through the time share regulations about
ownership of "common elements ". That these must be fully
portioned to owners of the units. There may be some problems
with that down the road but that is not our concern.
She said she had to agree somewhat with the Planning Office's
valuation with the apparent density on the site. Even though the
land above it could technically be developed, the perception of
most people would be that the developable area is where the
envelopes are and therefore the structures seem "mushed in
together and appear to be more of them or bigger than need be for
a PUD.
She said she was not sure whether the answer would be to remove
one of the dwellings or make each of the dwellings smaller so
that they don't seem so squashed together. She would like to see
some reduction of size or number of dwellings.
Mari Peyton said she was curious about the dedicated slope. What
is the actual slope and whether it is actually developable or
not. If it is not practically developable she did not see that
this is such a great benefit.
Joe said you have been through some controversies with very
similar parcels. It is a benefit to the city to eliminate that
ever happening on this piece. It is the possible spector of
having this piece with no commitments on it. We thought that
would be perceived as a benefit to the community.
Glen said he agreed with Joe.
1
Roger Hunt said he agreed with Jasmine regarding the bulk of
these structures. He would not have a problem if these were 4
smaller dwellings. If 4 smaller dwellings cannot be done then he
would tend towards eliminating one structure.
David White said he did not think density is a big problem. The
Gant right across the street is a lot more dense. The tennis
courts is a problem for the developer, not the P &Z.
Ramona Markalunis asked if the Aspen Developer Company actually
owned the 1001. The answer was yes. She then asked what divisor
Joe said they calculated the maximum allowable square footage for
the entire PUD which is approximately 18,000 square feet. There
is a provision in the lease agreement that allows the Gant to
construct a small pro shop facility which would be in the area
below the tennis courts. We are committing to the Gant 1,000
square feet of that 18,000 sq.ft. of density. What we suggest
doing is committing to not exceeding the 18,000 sq.ft. permitted
after slope production is performed.
Al Blomquist said if a developer includes a park in his develop-
ment, his density is going to be very low. The perceived density
in this development is very low. And therefore is a very good
project but the county land should be dedicated to the City. Then
the City would be justified in providing driveway space on the
second park to allow them to get a better arrangement and getting
rid of those little parking spots on Ute Avenue and making that
all landscaping making that a nice foreground to the tennis
courts.
There was then discussion as to the number of members who where
concerned with density and bulk of the project.
Joe said he was concerned about the provision that had to do with
getting consent of all the mortgagees and lien holders. It seems
to be something that is not normally enforced and is something
fairly difficult to achieve.
Glen Horn explained that that recommendation was made at the
advise of the attorney's office because he was concerned based
upon the title policy that was in the plans. It is at the
discretion of the P &Z Commission to require mortgagees to co -sign
the application.
Nick McGrath on behalf of
recommendation. He said
that generally the owner
to sign the application.
fairly technical party an(
at between 150 and 200
the Gant said he was not aware of that
he was familiar with the requirement
and the mortgagee who is the applicant
In this case the Gant is joined as a
we have 162 owners. There is probably
mortgagees. He said the Gant is a
2
corporation and the board of directors of the corporation bind
the corporation. If Aspen Development Company is a corporation
you don't require each shareholder to sign an application. He
did not think that the paperwork is at all necessary from the
standpoint of the City and could see no purpose at all in
requiring that.
Welton then asked for a motion to approve the 1001 Residential
Conceptual Subdivision Submission with the conditions listed in
the Planning Department memo of January 20, 1987 with the
exclusion of the condition heretofore mentioned. But on the
condition that it be a subject of discussion at preliminary. And
that the concerns and conditions of the commissioners concerning
bulk and density also be addressed at preliminary.
Jasmine so moved. This was seconded by Roger Hunt.
Al Blomquist asked if there was a condition for park dedication.
He asked for a condition that the land outside the City be
dedicated as City park.
Joe said they were committing it to open space to be maintained
by the homeowner's association but were not objecting to this
change.
Jasmine said she would not amend her motion as she was not sure
we want it to be a park. That is something we could consider but
did not want it to be a part of this motion.
Welton said we can make it a part of preliminary. He asked if
there was any further discussion. There was none. All voted in
favor of the motion.
3
Public C
PROJEM 1001
Ed Zasachy speaking in behalf of the Neal Meyers Development for
Aspen Chance. We have some problems with this project in terms
of neighborhood compatibility being that we feel we are the
neighborhood in large part. For one, some technical problems we
have with the application. The applicant has proposed to loop
the water system. For that a 2 is recommended. However we
believe this is inappropriate since Aspen Chance water system is
currently a private system and, therefore, the applicant cannot
loop without our approval which he has not received. I don't
see, therefore, how he is improving the quality of service in the
area.
The second concern that we have is in the recommended score for
parking design. The applicant has committed to parking all cars
in the subdivision and has also proposed guest parking spaces to
accommodate visitors. So this commitment by applicant should
receive a 1 as opposed to a 2 since the improvements he is
proposing benefit only the project and not the area in general.
The 1010 Project across the street provided public parking spaces
that improves the area. Public parking is a commitment that
should receive a 2. Whereas the commitment this applicant is
making only deserves a 1.
In addition there is required parking for the tennis courts along
Ute Avenue. I see utilization of this parking as a potential
goal dipping of new parking and required parking which they are
receiving a score for.
The major flaw in the project relates to site design and green
space. We believe the site design should receive a 1 as recom-
mended by the Planing Office because of the massing on site,
maximization of FAR density and the fact that almost all of the
open space that they are proposing is unusable. The applicant
has attempted to clarify the massing issue by showing or by
discussing the use of two story buildings. However, without a
deed restriction requiring that, you cannot be sure how the
massing will look. Therefore, you have to score as previously
presented. The deed restriction at this time would not be
allowed because that is not a technical clarification. Even if
it were all two story, its visual impacts would be negative
because of the high profile that the two stories would create.
The solution to the massing issue isn't one or two stories, it is
one less unit. I also believe that 1 as opposed to a 2 is
appropriate for green space. The 4.13 acres of land within the
county that is being proposed as open space is meaningless. That
land is unusable and cannot be utilized. Of the roughly 38,000
sq.ft. of land that is to be retained in the City as open space,
the vast majority of that is the tennis court and the spaces
between the buildings. There is no true usable open space on the
project. Again one less unit could solve this problem too. To
us, the number of units being proposed is a major design flaw of
both the site design and green space and consider those major
design flaws as deserving a 1 instead of 2s.
On Aspen Chance "Ikl . I'll show you that quickly. Since we are
being compared to, or this project is being compared to Aspen
Chance. This is Ute Avenue along here - -ah- -there was a state-
ment in there that Aspen Chance has no usable open area. These
gray shaded areas, this being the City limits right here, are the
open space areas of Aspen Chance. You can see that there are in
no part of Aspen Chance are there any more which is the same
width as 1001 are there any more than two houses across the
property at any given point. In addition there are 4 separate
benches in Aspen Chance. The Ute Avenue level, there is a level
here at lot 5 in the Alps tennis courts, higher middle level of
lots 3 and 4 and again a higher level at lots 7 and 6. Where the
houses as shown there have 20 to 25 ft. of distance between them,
our houses never get closer than �ly 50 ft. and in most
cases where there is 50 foot proximity, there is also vertical
separation of an additional 20 to 30 feet. So as people who will
be living there, I don't think these people will agree that this
site is compatible. Again one less unit would help that a lot.
Welton asked if there were more public comments.
Chuck Brandt representing Michael Dingman. He owns a home in the
Aspen Chance subdivision on lot 6 which is in the third tier that
Ed just alluded to and also a lot in the Aspen Chance lot 1 off
of Ute Avenue. And I think really that Ed has said it all. I
simply wanted the Board to understand that there is at least one
owner in the Aspen Chance who shares those concerns and is quite
concerned about the density of this project.
Andy Hecht. I represent John Nichols who owns a lot and a house
in the Aspen Chance and joins in the protest.
Welton asked if there was any more public comment. There was
none. He closed the public hearing.
Joe Wells asked if he could respond to some of those.
�John said "very quickly ? ".
JxLe.- sa}d������"since there is debatable information there ".
WWYton sWId me in 'here which I could not understand.
w
John said as to density he would like to point out that the 1001
density - - --
Welton said "John ".
John said "Sorry ? ".
Welton said "We didn't say yes ".
John said "Oh, I'm sorry ".
Laughter
Joe said "David was signaling yes"
White - "We can't not let them talk"
Again John said "I'm sorry ".
Welton said "Well, as long as we can score while you're talking ".
Laughter
White "I think you've got to let them talk"
Paul Taddune said "there have been remarks made and I do think
they should be given an opportunity of rebuttal ".
Ed - "Will we get an opportunity to rebut their rebuttal ?"
- No
Taddune - "It's reasonable debate and debate shouldn't be shut
off.
John Doremus said the water line was proposed as a recommendation
from the City Water Department. The density is almost identical,
please listen to this, one dwelling unit per .43 acres - 1001,
one dwelling unit per .47 acres in the Chance, almost identical.
Any argument about the density is inaccurate.
Mari Peyton asked if this included the tennis courts or not.
Joe said it does include the tennis courts which were apart of
this application. He said on the matter of parking, the standard
is consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed
development. On the plat which Ed showed you, he identified the
gray areas as open space areas. You should know that there are
considerable roads in those gray areas that he has identified as
open space.
The Board then proceeded with scoring.
REb�
GROWM IBC+ 4RU PIAN SUE ILSSICN
32
POINTS ArrncMrol - TALTy SMU
32
Project: 1001
3L6
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
3
0
0
2
0
0
.83
TOTAL POINTS 1 -6
37
30
P &7. VOTING MEN)BN3tS
Welton
jasmine
BQger
Ramona
David
Mari. Al Jim Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service
2
2
2
2
2
2
b. Sewer Service
1
1
1
2
1
1
c. Storm Drainage
2
2
2
1
2
2
d. Fire Protection
2
2
2
1
2
2
e. Parking Design
2
2
2
2
2
2
f. Roads
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
SUBIVPAL
10.5
10
10
9
10
10 9.92
2. Quality of Design (15 pts) J
a. Neighborhood
2.5
1
2.5
1
2
2
Compatibility
b. Site Design
2
1
2
2
1.5
2
c. Energy
2.5
3
2
3
2.5
2
d. Trails
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
2
e. Green Space
3
1
2.5
2
2.5
2
SUBICIAL
12.5
8
11
.11
11
10 10.58
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 2 2 2 2 2 2
Transportation
b. Community Cmul 2 2 2 3 2 2
Facilities
SUBIVIAL 4 4 4 5 4 4 4.17
4. EW10yee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 7 7 7 7 7 7
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
5. Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 ptS)
a. Law Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBIO1TL CLTBOORIE4 1-534
29
32
32
32
31
3L6
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts)
3
0
0
2
0
0
.83
TOTAL POINTS 1 -6
37
30
32
34
32
31
32.50
CA;:E DISPOSITION: ^~ ------
Reviewed bv: Asia. n PC City Counc__
e -1--L k C :!Lj Cc-:),.1, Y \� 1:, c,'-NA U
^(nl rw e r fc,-�C -�-A e-j L rA G s T VN re 0 t j
/fit rer r�yc7 c.nPe�lS ��
C--C--
C_�vSc
Cn�eYlYl �Q✓
Reviewed By: Aspen P &Z City Council