HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Callahan PUD.64A88
,.....,
r4:
?;1~ r 4JO-v1
'~,t,.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11/22/88
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND
CASEAP'
~-89
CH
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Callahan PUD Insubstantial Amendment
Project Address: Centennial Circle Drive. Aspen
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: John Elmore, Lionel Yaw
Applicant Address: P. O. Box 381, Wriqhtsville Beach, NC 28480
REPRESENTATIVE: Same
Representative Address/Phone:
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
$100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED:
1 STEP:
2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
NO
VESTED, RIGHTS:
YES
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
NO
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
REFERRALS :
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
city Electric
Envir. Hlth,
Aspen Consolo
S.D.
Mtn. Bell
parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
state Hwy Dept(GW}
State Hwy Dept(GJ}
Other
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED: --;17uJ1 ~ INITIAL: ~
Env. Health
___ City Atty ____ city Engineer ___ Zoning
___ Housing . Other:
FILE STAWS AND LOCATION:
~('iuL
."'"
tl/; If ~ Y- c;
,-,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
city
00113-63250-134
00113-63270-136
00113-63280-137
00113-63300-139
00113-63310-140
00113-63320-141
Referral Fees:
00125-63340-205
00123-63340-190
00115-63340-163
County
00113-63160-126
00113-63170-127
00113-63180-128
00113-63190-129
00113-63200-130
00113-63210-131
00113-63220-132
00113-63230-133
00113-63450-146
Referral Fees:
00125-63340-205
00123-63340-190
00113-63360-143
Planning Office
00113-63080-122
00113-63090-123
00113-63140-124
00113-69000-145
GMP/conceptual
GMP/Final
SUb/Conceptual
I n 00
Sub/Final
2-Step
1-Step/Consent
Envir. .Health
Housing
Engineering
Sub-Total
GMP/General
GMP/Detailed
GMP/Final
SUb/General
Sub/Detailed
Sub/Final
2-Step
1-Step/Consent
Board of Adjustment
Envir. Health
Housing
Engineering
Sub-Total
Sales
City/County Code
Compo Plan
Copy Fees
Other P&Z Sales
Sub-Total
. . TOTAL /DcJ lJ()
Name: Oh1 E//}1tJ rU Phone:
~ot,..,' ~acA/!I!II--II" f'"".f -.{{G
checJJfV -gO /51 Date: 1-:;:/ g
,.
1""'\
.t"""'\
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Alan Richman, Planning Director
Cindy Houben, Planner
TO:
RE:
Callahan PUD Insubstantial Amendment
DATE:
November 22, 1988
=============================---------==========================
Attached is a copy of the! proposed plans to landscape the
Callahan POD parking lot for the Aspen Club. The proposal is to
improve the aesthetic appearance of the entrance of the parking
area and the Centennial Circle Drive leading to the proposed
Gordon Subdivision. The proposal will also increase the number
of parking spaces in the parking lot.
My research indicates that a landscape plan was never approved
and recorded for the Callahan PUD. This proposal is definitely
an improvement and I recommend its approval pursuant to Section
7-907 of the Land Use Code.
I approve this request pursuant to section 7-
907 of the Land Use Code regarding an
insubstantial change to a recorded plat.
~U
Alan Richman, Planning Director
ch.clandscape
1k1J~(le.. ~
T. Richard Butera
November 22, 1988
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 816ll
Dear Cindy,
Please accept this letter as my authorization to
proceed with landscaping plans submitted by Stan Mathis
for the landscaping work proposed on the Aspen Club
parking lot. I agree to allow John Elmore to improve our
parking area with burming, additional trees and to
increase the parking spaces as outlined on the parking
plans submitted to your 0 fice.
Please call me if you h
djp
1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8900
398668'
SILVIA DAVIS
. 11/131/199& 10:49A PG 1 OF ~
PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER ~
REC
16.013
DOC
NOT
_...__....._._..._~._._-~---_._- .--,,-_.-
AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
~/y
This Agreement, made this.,2....2... day of SeptCl1lbcr, 1996, by and between the
City of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter sometimes called "City"), and Aspen Club
International, LLC and T. Richard Butera (hereinafter sometimes collectively called the
"Owner").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Owner applied to the City for approval, execution, and
recordation of an Amendment to the Final Plat and Development Plan of the Callahan
Subdivision, original plat recorded at Book S at Page L of the real estate records
of Pitkin County, together with any previous amendments thereto ("the Amended
Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the Amended Plat encompasses land located within Lots 15, owned
by Aspen Club International, LLC and Lot 14A, owned by T. Richard Butera (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Amended Plat, and a change of
use of portions of the Property and the improvement of the land therein, and the
burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring properties by reason of
the proposed change of use and development of land included in the Amended Plat;
and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation
that Amended Plat upon agreement of the Owner to the matters hereinafter described;
and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection
with its approval, execution and acceptance for recordation of the Amended Plat, and
that such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Amended Plat
for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows:
1 . The Owner has submitted a revised site plan for Lots 1 4A and 1 5 of the
Callahan Subdivision, which depict the approved configuration of the parking areas
required for the uses on Lot 15. The site plan for Lot 15 shows that there will be
398&68
11/01/1996 10:49A PG 2 OF 3
Fifty-Six (56) parking spaces on Lot 15 accessed from Ute Avenue. The site plan for
Lot 14A shows that there will be thirty (30) parking spaces for use by Lot 15
recreational uses; and the creation from Lot 1 4A of a new Lot 1 7 of Callahan
Subdivision. The site plan also shows an area for Five (5) additional parking spaces on
Lot 14A that have been reserved for use in the future if required by Lot 15.
2. The Owner agrees that all improvements shown on the Amended Plat,
including landscaping shall be constructed as delineated thereon.
3. The Owner agrees that they will not authorize parking within the delivery
area off of Ute Avenue as delineated on the Amended Plat.
4. The Owner agrees to install signs on Lots 15 and 14A as follows:
a. A sign shall be installed in the parking area located on Lot
15, stating that preference for parking shall be given to therapy patients
and handicapped persons.
b. A sign shall be installed in the parking area located on Lot
1 4A, stating that parking is for members only, and not for the adjacent
residences.
The enforcement of such restriction~ shall be the obligation of the Owner.
5. Exhibit A attached hereto ~nd incorporated herein by this reference
represents an Easement Agreement that restricts the use of the spaces located on Lot
14A for the use of members of the Owner of Lot 15, recreation facility and is binding
on the heirs, successors and assigns of the Owner of Lot 14A.
6. Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is
a memorandum from Alan Richman to the Aspen City Council dated July 15, 1996.
The Applicant agrees that all representations contained in Exhibit B for conditions of
the approval of the Amended Plat. The Owner of Lot 15 agrees to submit a report
to the City of Aspen within one year after the completion of construction of the
parking areas on Lot 15 and 14A addressing the effectiveness of the Transportation
Management Plan, for review by the City Council.
7. The Applicant hereby agrees that all representations made by the Owner
before the City Council are conditions of this approval unless otherwise amended by
, subsequent conditions or amendments.
v
398668
11/01/1996 10:49A PG 3 OF 3
8. If the Owner desires to modify the Amended Plat, such modification shall
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director of the joint City
of Aspen, Pitkin County Planning Department. If the Director considers such
modifications to be significant, such modifications shall be reviewed and approved by
the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission with the right of the Applicant to
appeal such review to the City Council.
9. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Amendment to
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement and the Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision recorded May 19,
1976 at Book 312 at Page 110 at Reception No. 183890 and any amendments
thereto, the provisions of this Amendment shall control.
10. At such time as and to the extent that Owner of either of Lots 14A, Lot
1 7, or Lot 1 5 have assigned any of their rights hereunder such Assignee has assumed
any obligations hereunder, such owner shall have no further obligation for such
assumed obligation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
~(>~
ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, LLC
~~;/"
, individually
By:
avh\butera\docs\callahan.amd
~\
^
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that on the 6th day of July, 1978, a public
hearing shall be held at 5:00 p.m. before the Planning and
Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, Colorado, in the City
Council Meeting Room in City Hall. Said hearing is being held
to consider the application for the expansion of the conditional
use, namely the Recreation Building located on the following
described property:
Lot 15, Callahan Subdivision
City of Aspen
GARFIELD & HECHT
BYAS~~
Attorney for the Applicant
~
(~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: Aspen Club - PUD Amendment
DATE: July 6, 1978
The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the conditional use
application for the Aspen Club expansion proposal at a pUblic hearing
tonight, July 6th. We are including our P&Z memo in your packet because
it incorporates information relevant to your continued consideration of
the PUD amendment on Monday. After our own site inspection, it is even
more apparent to us that the design of the western addition and the place-
ment of the new western tennis court do not integrate compatibly with
surrounding terrain and land uses and therefore do not meet PUD objectives.
We have asked the applicant to provide elevations and landscaping plans
which should be available by tonight's meeting.
sr
i"""\.
,-"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: Aspen Club Expansion - Conditional Use
DATE: June 30, 1978
On Thursday July 6, the P&Z will consider at a conditional use hearing, the
expansion of the Aspen Club, a recreational club, which is a conditional
use in the Rural Residential Zone. Since we have previously considered
the proposal as a PUD and subdivision plat amendment, we will not repeat
the details of the expansion here. In sum, the application requests an
additional 10,715 square feet of enclosed space within the club, an over-
hang over the below grade entrance and two additional tennis courts. The
change of the Benedict dining facility to single family is not under con-
sideration.
As a reminderlSection 24-3.3 of the Code states that in considering the
suitability of the conditional use, the P&Z shall determine:
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements
imposed by the zoning code.
2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and
purposes of the zone district.
3. If the Use is compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in
the area.
The question of compliance with zoning code provisions is a matter that
can be handled as well through the PUD amendment, since the FAR and other
area and bul k requi rements are set thro1l9h that process. Council tabled
the PUD amendment at their last meeting. They have set a site inspection
and alerted the applicant that they would like to see further information
or presentations including:
1. Elevations of building as required in original PUD process.
2. Financial figures showing the need for additional members in
order to keep local memberships at a low rate. The cost of the
improvements should be contrasted.
3. Council expressed concern over the differential rates among local
group memberships.
4. Landscaping plan as required in PUD.
5. Some expressed concern that the building profile be lowered.
Consistency with zone district purposes and compatibility with adjacent
land uses are issues best discussed together. The intent of the RR Zone
District is as follows:
To allow utilization of land for low density residental purposes
with customary recreational, institutional, publi:c and other com-
patible uses customarily found in proximity to those uses permitted
including conditional uses.
Adjacent land uses include the Benedict Office building to the west, single
family residences across the river to the northwest, and condominiums
across the river to the northeast. The latter two uses are part of the
same Callahan subdivision which included the Aspen Club.
The issues concerning compatibility with adjacent uses and consistency with
the Zone District include those we isolated in our June 16 memorandum. Again
we feel that the intensity of the use by local members will increase beyond
'i)
^
r--,
Memo to City. P&Z
Aspen Club Expansion
Page 2
a degree which is appropriate to the rural residential district and to the
adjacent R-6 PUD district. We do not believe the district envisioned rec-
reational uses which serve the entire community, but rather that the phrase
"recreational uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses"
meant those that served an immediate neighborhood. This is consistent
with the original representations made about the club, but not with the
new Community-wide orientatiCm, however^beneficial the memberships may
be to a certain segment of the local population.
Compatibility with adjacent uses is undermined by both the traffic conges-
tion of increased local use and the physical scale and placement of pro-
posed additions to the facility. We remain unconvinced that increased
bus service will persuade the local person to take the bus rather than
drive his car. Taking the bus increases the length of the member's lunch
"hour", no matter how you look at it. Usually a person will maximize his
recreational time and then try to minimize his travel time by having an
auto there at his beck and call. While we'd prefer more transit-concious-
ness, we don't see any evidence. We would recommend against approval in
any event until the experimental results of the transitlparking enforce-
ment system can be measured.
After having conducted our own site inspection and looking at a topographic
map of the site, weare even more convinced that the scale and location
of physical improvements is inappropriate with respect to adjacent land
uses. We grant that the Benedict building itself is not an appropr,iate
use in the Ute Avenue area, but at least it has been well-landscaped and
maintains a green-spaced buffer. The proposed new tennis court to the
west of the recreational building would be built to the property line.
More unfortunate is the fact that it would require excavation into a ridge
which now is covered with brush and aspen and serves to conceal the huge
mass of the club facility. The possibility of a high retaining wall to
bolster up the court is an affront to the adjacent property in and of
itself and would expose the club's currently massive facade. A good PUD
design would not build into the setback and should retain buffers. We
adamantly recommend that the court be dropped, !from the plan.
The situation worsens when you consider the proposed western addition
to the building which also cuts into the ridge which has well served
as a buffer to date. The building now is very visible from Mountain
Valley and other higher elevations around town. With the addition, it
will look even more massive. But at'least it was fairly well hidden
from those immediately adjacent. The addition represents a serious
deficiency in the quality of the design. The purpose of the PUD is to
ensure sound architectural and site design and to promote compatibility
with the natural terrain and adjacent areas through permitted variance
in strict setback and other bulk provisions. We are sorry we did not
require the applicants to provide architectural elevations, landscaping,
and site plans because we think they would show that the proposed mod-
ifications do not serve the intent of planned unit developments. The
flaws we perceive in the design, however, also constitute grounds for
denial of the conditional ..use application because they are incompatible
with adjacent land uses ana generally with a residential zone.
, '
~\
.,.-.,
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I served a copy
of the attached Notice of Public Hearing by depositing a
copy thereof, first class postage prepaid, in the United
States mails, addressed as follows:
Fredric A. Benedict
P.O. Box 40
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Pitkin County commissioners
c/o pitkin County Courthouse
506 E. Main St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
City Council of the City of
Aspen, c/o Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena St.
Aspen~ Colorado 81611
Benedict Land & Cattle Company,
a Colorado corporation
P.O. Box 40
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Fabienne Benedict
P.O. Box 40
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Robert S. Goldsamt
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
R.S.G. Development, Inc.,
a Colorado corporation
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Bureau of Land Management
Grand Junction District Office
764 Horizon Drive
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
William E. and Eleanor Stevenson
P.O. Box L
Aspen, Colorado 81611
peronelle Burnford
P.O. Box 2052
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DATED:
! i-71.L ,;Jj Sr-
{
.,-,
^
CERTIFICATE OF HAND DELIVERY
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served
a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public
Hearing by HAND DELIVERING the same to the following:
City of Aspen
City Manager - Mick Mahoney
city Attorney - Dorothy Nuttall
City Clerk - Kathryn Hauter
pitkin County Commissioners
County Manager - George Ochs
County Attorney - Sandra Stuller
Kristy Murray
Julie Hane - Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
/
\
DATED:
C2/,j/,
\
1978.
r_~LeL
~
,,-.,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
Planning Office, Karen Smith
FROM:
RE:
Aspen Club, PUD Amendment
DATE:
June 21, 1978
The Planning and Zoning Commission acted this past Tuesday to
recommend approval of a PUD amendment involving the expansion
of the Aspen Club and internal modifications of use all as
further described in the attached application. The Planning
Office had recommended denial of the PUD amendment on the
grounds that the admitted public benefits (in terms of increased
local membership of the promised reasonable rates) did not out-
weigh potentially adverse impacts as identified in the Planning
Office memorandum of June 16. City Council may amend the PUD
(after P&Z recommendation) only if the changes are shown to be
required by changes in conditions that have occured since the
final plan was approved or by changes in community policy.
The Planning Office agrees that conditions have changed in that
much more demand for local membership has occured than antici-
pated. But with that higher level of memberships there can be
increased congestion and will be expansion of size and scale
of the facility beyond that which is compatible with the
terrain. The original application projected that 90 to 250
people would use the facility at one time (or during one day).
Now the membe!Bmp is up to 1300 persons with 300 daily visitors-
the proposal would expand the membership to 1700.
These two community concerns were repeatedly brought up in
previous Council reviews and it is our opinion that they remain
as community concerns and thus there has been no change in com-
munity pOlicy. In .fact,experience has proved that traffic con-
gestion is a problem,. The size of the building was a concern
of the Planning Office as the application changed upwards in
previous reviews from 24,000 square feet to 38,000 square feet,
to the current 42,000 square foot facility. The Planning Office
did not object to the change in the Benedict residence from
restaurant to single family residence as the residents are in
favor and there will be less commercial space in the PUD: we'd
recommend that there be a condition against expansion of res-
taurant/bar space in the club facility itself however.
The P&Z was persuaded that the adverse congestion impacts could
be resolved by the transit alternatives offered by the appli-
cant. Conditions of their recommendation were that:
1. The applicant alleviate the serious concerns of the
Commission regarding traffic congestion by the develop-
ment of an improved City Transit system subsidized by
the Aspen Club and initiation of charged parking and
other parking provisions.
2. Conditional use approval. Because the recreation club
is a conditional use in the Rural Residential Zone,
it must receive conditional use approval from the P&Z.
The P&Z has scheduled a public hearing for its July 6
meeting.
The P&Z also excepted the application from full subdivision
procedures provided that the Engineering Department's concerns
as expressed in its June 16 memo are satisfied.
- 1 -
f"""",
l~\
Memo to City Council
Aspen Club
June 21, 1978
In sum, while the P&Z recommended approval because of changing
conditions since original approval, the Planning Office believes
that those changing conditions do not require expansion of the
club. Given the adverse impact in terms previously expressed
community policy - such as traffic congestion, intensified use,
and increased mass and scale all of which are incompatible with
the objectives of the RR district, we feel that there is no
change in community policy that warrants the amendments at this
time.
sr
1"""\
-------
...-.,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Ka~en Smith
RE: Callahan PUD Amendment
DATE: June 16, 1978
The attached application clearly states the proposal for a PUP Amendment
to expand the Aspen Club. It is justified on the basis of changing con-
ditions which are, in summary, that the Club is being used far more by
locals than was originally anticipated. In order to improve the avail-
ability of local memberships at lower cost, the application asserts the
need to expand. Since there are fewer higher priced memberships, the
financial feasibility of the project apparenty depends on increasing the
number of lower priced memberships. The demand for more local partici-
pation is demonstrated by the fact that there is a waiting list of some
200 persons.
The grounds fQr the ~pplication certainly do represent a change in con-
ditions and raises, a question of change in community policy. The
latter is the second matter that the P & Z must consider in any deliber-
ation to amend the PUD. Specifically, when the Aspen Club was presented
for approval it was represented that the recreation club would be a low
intensive facility deriving its major source of participants from the
surrounding subdivision. This was represented by Mr. Kutik at the time
of final plat (Februa~y 23, 1976) approval along with the statement that
no more than 90 to 250 people would be on the site at anyone time. Now
we are talking about a different kind of facility with greater numbers
of participants and drawn fundamentally from the comnunity. It is our
impression that this represents a major change and one that we are re-
luctant to condone without examining all other related areas of community
concern as have been expressed in past reviews. These are as follows:
1. Membership: In addition to the noted change in type of member-
ship both in terms of overall numbers and in terms of community-
wide versus internal, there is still the question of afforda-
bility by local members. The application states that continued
lower prices are the objective of this expansion. But what
guarantees do we have? As you can see from Council minutes this
issue was raised continually during the Final Plat consideration.
2. Intensification of the use: This amendment proposes to drop the
Benedict residence as a restaurant with a net stated reduction
of some 9400 square feet of commercial space. The Benedict house
would revert to a single family dwelling. The applicant states
that the reduction would lessen the intensity of use in that
people would not be so inclined to visit the Aspen Club solely
for socialldining purposes. This is only true if dining facili-
ties are not expanded within the club building and we have seen
continual pressure to accomodate expansion thereio.
3. Size and Massing: The Planning Office on numerous occasions
raised the concern about the mass of the building, Between
conceptual and final plat the size increased considerably, The
Planning Office did state that the applicant could come in later
for a third enclosed court after the community had a chance to
view the impacts. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the facil-
ity is the second-la~gest in the Aspen Metro area ~over half
a block. One expansion has already been approved through
a plat amendment. The structure, in our opinion, has exceeded
an appropriate scale for the rural residential zone. It is out~
of-character with the objective of retaining wooded vegetation
and compatibility with natural terrain.
-----,
~
^
Memo to Aspen P & Z
Callahan PUD
June 16, 1978
4. Traffic con~estion: One of the fears the Planning Office had
about the Slze of the facility is that it would result in in-
creased automobile traffic and congestion. Experience has proved
this to be the case. We have one written request from Crestahaus
that any expansion be approved after the traffic problem is im-
proved. The applicant, however, has advised us that it will
offer a mass transit solution coupled with strict enforcement of
the parking. The community would have to accept the proposal on
good faith since we have no experience to prove the situation can
be improved. You will hear more from the applicant on Tuesday.
The issue seems to boil down to a trade-off between the proposed increased
availability of participation for locals versus further intensification
of the use and resultant impacts. The question is whether the community
is ready to accept additional impacts in favor of the community benefit.
At a minimum, strict conditions regarding transportation commitments
(should be an amendment to the subdivision agreement), and pricing policy
to protect the local participant and,lIlJeexpans'ton of restaurant space should
be conditions. Tightened control over Ute Avenue access is another.
Our concerns are the same as they were throughout the original approval
process. We feel that the Aspen Club has already incrementally increased
beyond the original presentation to a facility that is much more intensive
in use and greater in physical scale" We think that the relevant community
pol icy centered on these concerns previously/and that the fundamental
community concerns remain. Those who now have Aspen Club membership and
those who wish to join do enjoy the benefits of a first-class recreational
facility at a reasonable cost. However, at this time we cannot recommend
that those benefits outweight the costs in community impacts. Assurances
that the situation will improve are not as good as experienced improvement.
Dave Ell is wi 11 include hi s comments. And for your i nformati on we have
included the minutes of Council's final plat deliberations.
One procedural note is due. Since a recreation club is a conditional use
in the district, the expansion requires a condit;,onal use hearing and
approval. Should you wish to recommend approval of the proposal with
conditions you should include a contingency of conditional use approval.
--
!"*'"
'~'-'
MEMO
TO:
KAREN SMITH
PLANNING
DAVE ELLIS ~( /'
ENGINEERING~
FROM:
DATE:
June 16, 1978
Callahan Subdivision (2nd amended plat)
Preliminary Review
RE:
After having reviewed the amended plat the engineering
department's comments are as follows:
On sheet lB the relocated fire adcess easements should
be shown. Also, the book and page location fdr the
twenty-four foot utility and access easement abutting
Lots 15 and 16 should be corrected to read Book 312,
Page 154. Finally,con sheet lB a certificate of accep-
tance and approval for City Council is necessary.
On sheet 3B the existing building footprint is incor-
rectly oriented, and the modified fire access easement
on the westerly side of Lot 15 should be shown. The
original plat indicated that the minimum setback was
thirty feet; however, the roof overhang reduces this
to fifteen feet.
The relocation of the easterly fire access easement will
necessitate either a new road cut within the existing easement or
a relocated easement abutting the south side of Lot 15. Since no
mention was made in the amended plat submission of changes to
parking configuration, it is our assumption that no changes are
intended. This would mean that about half of the existing parking
on Lot 14A will be deleted and replaced with landscaping per the
original plat. Subject to the above conditions and the granting
of an exception to pUblic hearing procedure for preliminary plat
approval, the engineering department recommends approval of the
preliminary amended plat.
jk
cc: Ashley Anderson
.r-.
~.GWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
1""'\
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner
of:
~.
Real property wi.thin 300 feet of the following described parcel:
Lot l5 ,
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, as shown in Plat Book 5 at page 5,
Plat Book 5 at page 7 and Plat Book 6 at page 16.'
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in
the name of
1.Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation
2.Frederick A. Benedict
3.FabienneBenedict,
4.RobertS. Goldsamt
5.RSG Development,.Inc.~ a Colorado corporation
6.Bureau, of. Land Management
7.City of Aspen (Ute Park)
S.PitkinCounty Commissioners (Easement through Lots l5' and 16,
Callahan Subdivision)
9.Peronelle Burnford
10.William E. Stevenson and Eleanor Stevenson
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be
construed as an abstract ,of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of
title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. neither
assumes, nor will be charges with any financial obligation or liability whatever
\on account of any statement contained herein.
June
A.D. 19 7Sat 8:.00 A.M.
D~ted at Aspen, Colorado, this 12th day of
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
BY:
.Q IJ~~ .
I ~iden~~
".
"
~
.""'"
MEMORANDUM
TO: ~ave Ellis, City Engineer
Willard Clapper,. Fire Chief
George Newell, Fire Marshal
FR6~1: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Club, P.U.D. Amendment
DATE: June 2, 1978
I
The Aspen Ciub is now requesting several changes in their
approved P.U.D. plan~ ?he proposed changes are Qptlined in the
attached letter of application. In addition to the application,
each of you should receive sheets IB and 3B of the second
amended Final Plat.
This item is nm\7 tentatively scheduled for the June 20
City' p&Z. Could I please haye your reactions and ,\7ritten
comments by June 14, 1978?
Thanks.
"
RG:mc
I"""\.r'\
""'-
, '~,
'",--
GARJ;'IlCIJD & H:IDCHT
ATTONNEY6 AT LAW
V1C'rORIANSQUARF.: BUtLJnNO
611J EA~T HYMAN ^Vfo~:-;t::E
SJ<;C'Or-oD J:o'LOOH
ASPE:'Io"", COl.ORAnO SUH i
RO:'\ALD OARlo~J1o~L})
AX DREW V. HECHT
TEL.EP!lOS&
(303J 92;:;-1936
ASHLEY A."'DI-:RSOz.;
CfIIUSTOPH8H :0;. SOMMl~R
May 24, 1978
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City Hall
130 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.
Dear P & Z Members:
,This is an application pursuant to 24-8.26 of the Aspen City
Code for an Amendment to the Callahan Subdivision PUD.
Ac'cording to 24-8.26 "Such amendments shall be made only if
they are shown to be required by changes and conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes
in community policy." The Aspen Club has seen a tremendous
change in conditions since the approval of the original plan. .,
That change is the overwhelming response that the Aspen Club
has received from members of the local population. At the
, present time, at least 90% of the club lnembers are locals and
there are approximately 200 locals on the waiting list. The
local members and those on the waiting list come from all walks
of life, inCluding a large number of local employees from such
organizations as the City, County, Aspen Valley Hospital and
several other local businesses. The reason for this local
response is clear, it is the low rate structure of the Club.
It was always envisioned that the Club would have local members,
but it was originally envisioned that they would be greatly
outnumbered by non resident members who would be paying high
fees and the tCltal number of Club memberswould'be lm.... \'lith
the present r a'te structure as stated above, the opposite has
occurred and the locals presently greatly outnumber the non
residents and the total number of members greatly exceeds
original expectations. In order to accomodate this local pres-
sure for memberships and in order to assist in keeping the rate
structure at an affordable limit for all locals, the applicant
is proposing the following limited alterations to the Club's
facilities:
, ,
I""'"
^-,
P & Z Members
. Page 2
May 24, 1978
1. The Benedict Residence, presently approved for a
Club dining facility will revert back to a single family res-
idence. This facility is presently approved for an expansion
of approximately 4,400 feet, which when added to the present
9,000 square feet would have made a dining facility of approx-
imately 9,400 square feet. If the facility reverts back to
single family status, this expansion will be abandoned and the
result will be a net reduction in corrunercial space at the Club
of approximately 9,400 square feet.
t/
2. The recreation building will be expanded by a total
of approximate1y'IO,715 square feet. The exterior change
in the building as a result of this expansion is demonstrated
on .the plans attached to this application, as well as on the
proposed amended plat attached to the application. The interior
changes are demonstrated by a comparison of the sketch plans of
the proposed expansion with the sketch plans of the building as
it presently exists, both of which are attached to 'the application.
There are several basic purposes for the expansion
of the recreation building:
(a) the small addition, containing approximately 108
square feet on the east side of the building is necessary
for use as an equipment and storage facility for the pool
and the jacuzzis;
(b) the expansion on the south side of the building,
containing approximately 552 square feet which ac'tually is
merely the 'glassing in of an already existing entryway
will allow us to move the pro shop into that facility;
'in addition, the small office space presently between the
pro shop and of this office space will allow us to expand
the womens' locker room to almost double its present:
capacity. This is extremely important as the breakdOlm
of Club membership is nearly 50-50 be'tween men and ,wmen;
a percentage that was completely unforeseen at the time
of the original approval.
(c) The weigh't room and therapy roorn presently im-
mediat,ely adjacent to the mens' locker room will be moved
to the expansion on the ~Iest side of the building and this
will al,low us to 'greatly expand the mens' locker room. ~\llis
expansion of the mens' locker facility is dlso extremely
import:ant since, because of the ,large. tlnforeseen number
of members" the present facility is woefully inadequate
,
\.
-~ .;-
P & Z ,Member s
Page 3
May 24, 1978
(d) As mentioned, the offices as well as the
weight and therapy facilities will be moved to the
expansion on the west side of the building. The
present office facilities are almost non-existent
and with the large number of members, the administra-
tion of the Club has become much more <:omplicated and
thus this office space is very important. Furthermore,
the weight room and therapy room will'be greatly ex-
panded since the present facility is also inadequate.
The present facility 'is inadequate in large part due
to the large number of women using the weight room.
This too was unforeseen at the time of the original
approval.
(e) Also to be contained in the expansion on the
east side of the building are six additional racquet-
ball courts. This, of course, .is necessary to accomodate
the large number of members and to allow us to accept
the large numbers now on the waiting list.
3.-' We request permission to add t"lO tennis courts.
The location of these courts is demonstrated on the sketch
plan and on the plat attached to this application. Additionally,
we ask permission to cover the court to the southeast of the
recreation building to allow play indoo7s in the winter. This
court, as the rendering which we will submi.t at the hearing
clearly demonstrates, is located such that the cover will be
virtually impossible to see. Also, according to Hal Clark,
who at that time was the planner, the City Council, during
the original approval process, indicated to the applicant that
he should see how the Club went and if. it became necessary, to
come back to Council and request permission to build an addition-
al indoor court. This, of course, is' not fully indoors as the
cover "Jill be re.moved in the summer. The covering of this,
court is extremely important to our entire expansion plan
and to our quest to keep the rates affordable for all locals.
The number of tennis memberships that we can accept is in direct
proportion to the amount of indoor space available in the winter.
These 'tennis members do pay more than the health club members,
therefore, in order to keep rates affordable, it i.s iITipOJ:tant.
U'c)t "ie be able to take in a sL,bsl.dntial l1)lmber of tennis members.
"
\+- . 4. 'l'he applicant requests pc,ni1i.ssion to build a s7-anted
, ~~ \ V roof over t.he drivelvay area inth::, cear or south of th,:, re-
~~~ . creation b~lil~ing.. 'rilis Ivould be a~pr,?ximat21y 2,?OO s<;fuure
\~tl/. feet and S1.ne, 1. t ~s T<lel'oly a roof J.t ,J.s.not cont.a1.ncd ~n the
\)</{'-:r-, 10, 21~ square .-foot expansion fi9ure s~ated above. 'Ph0 purpose
. , of ,lus roof lS merc~ly to protect agaJ.I)st snow fullin9 from thi",
. ,
,~.
i~
P & Z Members
Page 4
May 24, 1978
roof of the recreation building, as it did last winter, onto
the driveway below.
As mentioned, the tremendous response from locals to the
C).ub was largely unforeseen. Also as mentioned, the reason
for that response is clear, the low rate structure. The ap-
plicant sincerely desires to accomodate the local demand and
to do so at rates affordable to locals from all walks of life.
Although minimal, the amendments detailed above are curcual to
the applicant's efforts, and therefore we respectfully request
their approval.
Sincerely,
GA~ t::~Jl
Ashley Anderson
Attorney for Robert S. Goldsamt,
Applicant
AA:le
.'
(""',-, I"",
~bt ~rtS'tafJauS' 1lJnbge, 11:. hie -A~"(IAA.IJ!.uJ;
1301 EAST HIGHWAY 82
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303925-7081
~~"? ~ I:' 7Y
7'. 7. 7f~mu~ ,
~1of.. ~'de.,,-r>'j' I/1M" c1a4~Y;L-6'?,,", ~
/-I!W ~ tAb J ~Vk 'fz.-Je ft.4 cvc=~ %. J4fLa.
juo10h 'Ytz;ll/c ;Jtu'd- CU- ~ d"Yr ~ ~ cf'~, 2~T.
fud,,-/~ (.JQY/U' i 9~/' iJL;llc c~ ~ ~C>~"'/ ~
fie;, 'thrc 07'k OtJ~7Uj ()!Ji/7'de4' JjP'-<- 9ce~)' /-U~ A-I ~
I I~I ) . I' VI
(~ ~! -h ..-Mtc! cU-<-1-7 ~ ~,
_ . dlw';) 8'l2 # dt;; /!cW ~ U- fI ~0C'67L/ ~
Pftr J~ e auF) iAyf'e-. t21P JtJaol /:/a~
lfi- (jiddu c~ dfl- JUVOo--u-i'dd a.1 yt1e e~ ~.r
j(u, f~ llaJ dh % fltz Ai"", 'i!~ ;J,~.~~ j
;. M~ rY< cI"*,?,CQ<d r ;ji't!da <0< ~ f_alk-
-i - ~ A-t d<:- ~ YM! ~ cot QItv{it.
(\j~ .Pi )1t0 a. ('~dc:Uu I- :; ~I- OL
074' c.L =,-- c:/
MJr O"YL ./1/ I~I /f?,4ktw ~'()"Ic ('~;&.
a tftn~ tJ7'9L rt-~ /Zp. .
"J
{,\I/' _ ~ r. ~'~
y/ ....~_..
/~
/
//"
/~
/
/
l
-
.-::::>
'f""\.
--..
Cbty fr, -e -..... !;
MEMO
TO:
.
FROM:
FILE
DAVE ELLIS ~.?:-
CITY ENGINEER
DATE:
RE:
April 11, 1978
Minutes of Meeting with Ashley Anderson and
Jim Reser on the Callahan Subdivision, PUD amendment
April 11th we discussed the mechanics of changing
the plat. The conclusion was that we, would redo two sheets,
numbered lB and 3B. All language and references to utility
easements and other items not specifically amended on the
PUD plan would be omitted from-the amended sheets. The items
that will specifical'ly be shown are 1) the change in the
recreation club footprint on Lot 15, 2) the Change in the
water line alinement on Lot 15, and 3) the change in the
book and page for the utility easement along Lot 15. The
dedication would be short and to the point referring only
to the owners of the property and their intent to amend the
PUD as shown on the amended sheets. Signatures on the amended
plat would include City Council, SUrveyor, City Engineer,
P & Z, and Director of Parks. One item which was discussed
. was whether orno,t Goldsamt could sign the amended plat
dedication as owner or whether the ,Benedicts and all con~
dominium owners would hav.e to be included. Ashley will re-
solve this with Dorothy. It was noted that should they want
to make application for increased parking on Lot l4, that
this would be the ideal time to do this and also, that the
P & Z or Council might require additional parking for the
proposed new tennis courts.
The problem of how to handle the newly annexedter-
ri tory was also discussed.' It was conc luded that. .the new
territory would not in any way be shown on the PUD amendment,
Ashley still feels that they can go through subdivision ex-
emption; I feel that they should be required to go through
full Subdivision procedure. I noted that I had concerns re-
garding the adequacy of both the alinement and width on the
right-ai-way adjacent to Lots 15 and the tennis court's. I
also indicated that it might not be in the'City's best interest
to have this dedicated at the present time because of main_
tenance problems; however, ultimately the City would most
certainly want to have the right-of-way available on a full
dedication basis.
Although the proposed tennis courts would probably
not be affected, it was'noted ~hat it is in a slide path and
that the slide has run this spring.
..
jk
.~
.~
/It'
L/'-'
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Callahan Subdivision - PUD plan Amendment Request
DATE: February 3, 1978
As the attached correspondence dated February 1, 1978, details, Robert
S. Goldsamt of the Aspen Club is again requesting a PUD amendment to
the approved Callahan Subdivision/PUD. The requested amendment is for
the purpose of relocating the club dining facility from the approved
location at the Benedict Residence to the recreational facility. The
final PUD plan for Callahan allows the addition of some 4,400 square
feet to the existing 5,000 square feet of the Benedict residence,
resulting in a dining facility of some 9,400 square feet. The appli-
cants now propose to transfer the additional 4,400 square feet permissab1e
to the recreational building for use as a dining facility within that
structure. There would be no increase therefore in total commercial
space, but merely the transfer and relocation in another structure.
The recreational facility was approved for 39,499 square feet. One
substantive change results, however, in that the 5,000 square feet
of the Benedict residence would become residential instead of commercial
resulting in one more residential unit to add to the 38 already approved.
Section 24-8.26 of the City Zoning Code allows certain amendments to
the PUD plan to be made "only by the City Council after review and
recommendation by the planning and zoning board." Such amendments may
be made only upon showing:
1. That they are required by changes in conditions that have
occured since the final plan approval, or
2. That there have occured changes in community policy.
The applicant offers as justification the rationale that the change will
segregate commercial uses from residential and that this is desired by
residents of the subdivision (numerous., letters are submitted in support).
Also, they state that since there will be a food service operation
anyway in the recreational building (which was recently granted a liquor
1 icense) that efficiency will be enhanced by locating the two food
service operations under one roof. Traffic, they say will be less in
the residential area if the Benedict house is residential instead of
commercial. And furthermore, they think the new location will actually
Serve as an auto-disincentive since the parking lot will be at a further
distance from the dining facility. The shuttle bus then will presumably
be more attractive.
As many of you will recall, this request was made to and denied by the
P&Z in June of this year. At the time the Planning Office expressed a
number of conc~ns, a primary concern being increased pressure for use
of Ute Avenue due to concentration of all the high impact activities in
the recreational facility. Other concerns are as follows:
1. The intent of the PUD plan was not to concentrate all
commercial and recreational activity in the recreational
building area to avoid inevitable future demand for use of
Ute Avenue as access.
~
\
~
City Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 1978
Page Two
2. While traffic impact may be in one sense reduced in the
residential area, the net reduction would seem to be minimal
given the fact that all access to the recreational facility
is to be from the Highway 82 side.
3. Moving the dining facility and substituting a residence
will reduce the common area open to the residents and
increase the residential units by one.
4. There do not appear to be changed circumstances requiring
the change in location and there has been no change in
community policy relevant to the relocation.
On the positive side, the relocation means a 4,400 square foot dining
facility instead of 9,400 square feet. Residents seem to be in favor of
exchanging common and dining area for the less intense residential use.
The applicant, by letter dated February 2nd, has agreed to certain
restrictions designed to ease auto impact (prevent .use of Ute Avenue)
and prevent proliferation of parking areas.
Only because of the latter set of agreements has the Planning Office
reconsidered its earlier opposition. The questionlnow seems to boil
down to one of whether the agreements are sUfficiently enforceable and
capable of preventing the kind of pressure for Ute Avenue access or
additional interior parking and congestion that the original plan was
designed to prevent.
1mk
encs.
^,~
,-. ,-,
GARFIELD & HECHT
A'l'TORNEVS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITES 201 & 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
Februcu:y 2, 1978
TELEPHONE
(30S) 925-1936
ASHLEY ANDERSON
CHRISTOPHER N. SOMMER
Bill Kane, Planning Director
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Bill:
I am writing this letter pursuant to our conversation in your
off~ce on February 2, 1978. Please be advised that as a condition
for the relocation of the dining facility in the Callahan Subdivision
from the "Benedict Residence" to the Recreation Building, the Applicant,
Robert S. Goldsamt, for himself and his successors agrees to the
following:
1. The Applicant will covenant with the City of Aspen that
the Benedict Residence will remain a single family dwelling
and will not be expanded.
2. No Aspen Club members will be allowed to park in the park-
ing lot for the Benedict Office Building. Further, if
necessary, in this regard, the Applicant will patrol this
lot and remove the automobileS of any member parked there
and using the facilities.
3. The Applicant will erect whatever physical restraints are
necessary to insure that access to the Recreation Building
cannot be gained from Ute Avenue.
4. No parking will be allowed on Highway 82.
5. Any increase in auto traffic due to the dining facility
will be accommodated by an increase in the Club's shuttle
system.
6. Use of the dining facility will be restricted to Club members
and their guests.
Respectfully submitted,
ASh~d~SqUire
For the Applicant, ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT
I"""~
~.~
,
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 E. HYMAN A VENUE, SUITES 201 & 202
ASPEN. COLORADO 8l6H
I
February l, 1978
TEl,EPHONE
(80S) 925-1936
ASHLEY ANDERSON
CHRISTOPHER N, SOMMER
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Application for P.U.D. Amendment for Callahan Subdivision
Dear Members:
This is an application for an amendment to the
planned unit development for the Callahan subdivision.
Specifically, the applicant seeks approval for the relocation
of the club dining facility from the "Benedict Residence" to
the recreation building.
The "Benedict Residence" presently contains approx-
imately 5000 square feet. The original development plan for
the Callahan subdivision allows the addition of another
4,400 square feet to that residence, with the result being a
dining facility of approximately 9,400 square feet. The
proposed dining facility in the recreation building will
contain only 4,400 square feet, and the "Benedict Residence"
will not be expanded and will remain a 5,000 square foot
single family dwelling. The additional 4,400 square feet in
the recreation building will be completely contained within
the building envelope permitted under the original approval;
and furthermore, the net result will be that the square
footage for commercial use will be identical to that originally
approved for such uses.
The applicant submits that the relocation of the
dining facility will benefit the Planned Unit Development in
several respects:
1. All commercial uses will now be segregated from
the residential area.
2. A liquor license has recently been approved
for a food service operation to be located in the recreation
building nearly adjacent to the proposed dining facility.
1""".. .r-,
."""" ,-,.
,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page two
February 1, 1978
Clearly, it is more efficient from a logistics and an oper-
ational standpoint as well as from the standpoint of the
members to have the two food service operations contained
under one roof as opposed to being located in separate
facilities.
3. A conversion of 5,000 square feet from commercial
to residential use will result in a quantitative reduction
in the amount of traffic in the subdivision. The 5,000
square feet, if commercial, would require at least l5 parking
spaces which would generate a minimum of three trips per
space, per day. Whereas, the 5,000 square feet, if residential,
will generate a maximum of 8 to 10 trips per day.
4. The dining facility will now be located a sub-
stantial distance from the parking area; thus the emphasis
will be on the pedestrian, not the automobile. Furthermore,
since members will be unable to park their automobiles
adjacent to the dining facility, there will be a greater
incentive to use either public transportation or the club's
own shuttle service.
5. The residents of the Aspen Club condominiums
unanimously favor the relocation of the dining facility (see
attached written statements).
In order to alleviate any concerns you may have,
and to insure that the proposed relocation will in fact
benefit the subdivision, the applicant will agree, for
himself and hissuccessors, to the following:
1. With respect to traffic on Ute Avenue, he will
not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of
the condominium units or recreational facilities of the
subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the
purpose of construction, maintenance or dealing with emergencies
at tne subdivision. All vehicular traffic not accepted,
will enter from Highway 82, with all deliveries made by that
access. Furthermore, although it is nearly impossible to
gain access to the recreation building from Ute Avenue, and
although since the opening of the club that has not become
a problem, the applicant will agree to do whatever, within
reason, the City requires him to do to prohibit access to
the recreation building from Ute Ave. This will include,
but not be limited to the establishment of a sticker system
-
~ ,-,...
,"-"'. -,
,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page three
February 1, 1978
for the parking lot at the Benedict office building and the
towing of any cars parking there without proper authorization.
And further, if necessary, the building of a fence or whatever
physical restraint is required to assure that no access to
the recreation building or the subdivision is gained from
Ute Avenue.
2. With respect to parking, the applicant has
already agreed and is in the process of establishing a
shuttle system from the City of Aspen to the subdivision.
(see attached Schedule). The applicant agrees that if
necessary this shuttle system will be increased to alleviate
any parking problem that may arise. Of course, as mentioned
above, the relocation of the dining facility will actually
result in reduced traffic.
3. With respect to assuring that the dining
facility remains basically a private facility, open to club
members only, the applicant will agree as a condition to the
approval of the relocation, to the same conditions imposed
on the applicant by City Council under the above mentioned
liquor license was granted. That is, the applicant will
agree that as soon as it is legally possible, he will convert
his liquor license to a club license. Further, the applicant
will agree that he will not advertise either the dining
facility or the availability of liquor.
In conclusion, applicant submits that the relocation
of the dining facility will greatly benefit the Callahan
subdivision, and therefore respecfully requests your approval
of that relocation.
Sincerely,
M~
Ashley Anderson
Respectfully submitted:
~~
Ashley Anderson, for the
applicant, Robert S. Goldsamt
Attachments:
1. Letters from residents
2. Bus Schedule
3. Plans for dining facility
t""\
14'
Dear Mr. Goldsamt:
I understand that it is the present intention of R.S.G.
Development, Inc., to seek governmental approval for the
relocation of the Clubhouse delineated on the final plat
and development plan for the Callahan Subdivision to a
site on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River within
the proposed recreational building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
Clubhouse and hereby agree to support the application made
by you for such relocation in the future.
Sincerely,
J/Y~#~~
~ /1; /;?77
r-.(
r-.(
Dear Hr. Goldsamt:
I understand that it is the present intention of R.S.G.
Development, Inc., to seek governmental approval for the
relocation of the Clubhouse delin~ated on the final plat
and development plan for the Callahan Subdivision to a
site on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River within
the proposed recreational building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
~ and hereby agree to support the application made
y you f such relocation in the future.
~
^
Dear Mr. Goldsamt:
I understand that it is the present intention of R.S.G.
Development, Inc., to seek governmental approval for the
relocation of the Clubhouse delineated on the final plat
and development plan for the Callahan Subdivision to a
site on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River within
the proposed recreational building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
Clubhouse and hereby agree to support the application made
by you for such relocation in the future.
Sincerely,
tUiw (/
I
,-"
A.
Dear Mr. ,Goldsamt:
I understand that it is presently your intention to seek
governmental approval for the relocation of the Clubhouse
delineated on the final plat and development plan for the
Callahan Subdivision to a site on the opposite side of the
Roaring Fork River within the proposed recreational
building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
Clubhouse and hereby agree to support the application made
by you for such relocation in the future.
Sincerely,
e
to /111J . ..
.fY.~_.
'f/II /77
,-;
r,.
Dear Mr. Goldsamt:
.
I understand that it is presently your intention to seek
governmental approval for the relocation of the Clubhouse
. delineated on the final plat and development plan for the
Callahan SUbdivision to a site on the opposite side of the
Roaring. Fork River within the proposed recreational
building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
Clubhouse and hereby agree to support the application made
by you for such relocation in the future.
Sincerely,
.
~.
i
~
Dated: December 12, 1977
Dear Mr. Goldsamt:
I understand that it is the present intention of R.S.G.
Development, Inc., to seek governmental approval for the
relocation of the Clubhouse delineated on the final plat
and development plan for the Callahan Subdivision to a
site on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River within
the proposed recreational building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
Clubhouse and hereby agree to support the application made
by you for such relocation in the future.
Sincerely,
r,
r".
Dear Mr. Goldsamt:
I understand that it is the present intention of R.S.G.
Development, Inc., to seek governmental approval for the
relocation of the Clubhouse delineated on the final plat
and development plan for the Callahan Subdivision to a
site on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River within
the proposed recreational building.
I am in complete accord with the proposed relocation of the
Clubhouse and hereby agree to support the application made
by you for such relocation in the future.
Sincerely,
L~4r:.
..-..
r"
THE ASP E N C L U B
D 0 W N TOW N BUS S HUT T L E
Scheduled to commence mid-February with the opening of
the food and bar facility. The following schedule will
be adhered to seven days a week:
Pick-Up Pick-Up Pick-Up
Public Parking Mall/Hyman Little Nell
Lot & Galena
11 :30 a.m. 11 :35 a.m. 11:40 a.m.
12:30 p.m. 12:35 p.m. 12:40 p.m.
1:30 p.m. 1:35 p.m. 1:40 p.m.
4:30 p.m. 4:35 p.m. 4:40 p.m.
5:30 p.m. 5:35 p.m. 5:40 p.m.
6:30 p.m. 6:35 p.m. 6:40 p.m.
7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. 7:40 p.m.
8:30 p.m. 8:35 p.m. 8:40 p.m.
9:30 p.m. 9:35 p.m. 9:40 p.m.
..
Drop Off
Aspen Club
Pick-Up
Aspen Club
11 :50 a.m. 12:20 p.m.
12:50 p.m. 1:20 p.m.
1:50 p.m. 4:20 p.m.
4:50 p.m. 5:20 p.m.
5:50 p.m. 6:20 p.m.
6:50 p.m. 7:20 p.m.
7:50 p.m. 8:20 p.m.
8:50 p.m. 9:20 p.m.
9;50 pim.
^
!~
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTOR:o>&YS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE Bl,JILOING
GO~ E. NYMAN STREET SUITE 201
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
AKOREW v. HECHT
June 2l., 1977
TELl:Pt{ONF..:
(303.) 925-1936
.BROOKE A. PETERSON
ASHLEY ANDERSON
Mr. William Kane
Planning Director
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill:
As you know, by letter dated 5/20/77, you approved an Amend-
ment to the Callahan PUD by which four townshoJ,lse parking
spaces were moved from Lot 13 to Lot 14A. Along with the
moving of the spaces, you also approved conversion of the
four existing carports to laundry and storage facitlities,
According to theorig'inal PUD, the four carports and the land
thereunder now approved for laundry and storage. .facilities,
were to be owned by the Condominium Association. However, the
laundry and storage facilities will not be operatecl by the Condo-
minium Association, but rather by the present. owner of.thefour
spaces, Robert S. GOldsam..t. 'l'he.refor.e,w.e.. request..~...tha.t... ?,.,.3....'~ -~
be allowed to Ge-nlinuc owning the sp::tccc. / Lt./! .
,;>,""..n.... ~, s/Gtt...-<>,~ f-r:-z 'i:/7'~ '. f/-q
We submit that the impact of this change is minima . At
present, all townshouse units are still owned by Goldsamt;
and thus, the Condominium Association is yet to be formed.
Therefore, the requested amendment will not result ina change
of ownership from the Condominium Association to Goldsamt,
but rather, merely a reservation of the ownership in Goldsamt.
If this application for amendment made pursuant to. Section
24-8.26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is acceptable to you
without additional public hearing, please approve the
changes as indicated below.
Sincerely,
t.) /1'" ,}
~c, S ~,,~j
Ashley Anderson, for the
applicant, Robert S. Goldsamt
APPROVED. /- /1....~ .. ....._.... .. ..... ..
.A{;~~J2/
P~~ Director . ;az;<<e
~
A
1'"
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Members
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Aspen Club - Final Plat Amendment
DATE: June 3, 1977
As the attached letter of application explains, this is an application
to amend certain provisions of the Aspen Club Final Plat and P.U.D. Plan.
Specifically, the applicant wishes to change the location of the club-
house/dining facility from the approved Benedict House site to the site
now under construction for the recreational facility. The Benedict House
would be sold as a single ,family house.
In support of the application, arguements are offered that:
1. The building envelope of the recreation facility will be
no greater than that approval in the final plat and the
commercial will be no greater than what was originally
approved.
2. The residential area will be improved by the removal of
noise and commercial activity.
3. The applicant agrees to prohibit vehicular traffic from
entering the Callahan project by Ute Avenue.
Despite the representations made by the applicant, the Planning Office
bel ieves that the noise and commercial activity was fahi-ly well removed
from the residential area in the original final plat and that the proposed
change of location will not materially benefit the residents, especially
in light of the fact that all visitors will still park or pass through
on that site if access controls are adhered to. Although there will not
be a net increase in commercial square footage, the square footage of
the recreational facility will increase albeit within the approved building
envelope.
Finally, the Planning Office believes that it would be next to impossible
to guarantee that access will be prohibited from the Ute Avenue side.
The plats of the original Callahan Subdivision were approved in the ori-
ginal configuration with the thought in mind that the more you concentrate
the commercial and recreational facilities, the greater the pressure will
be for traffic access from the Ute Avenue side. In addition, that concen-
tration of activity at the recreational facility was not within the intent
of the approved P.U.D. plan.
We believe, therefore, that the change proposed materially changes the
approved plan, and the Planning Office therefore recommends denial of the
application. The applicant will bring an amended final plat with signature
block for your consideration. We understand that there will also be some
survey corrections requested.
lmk
-'
~
^
,L.,-,r
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQVARE BUILDING
601 E. HYMAN STREET SUITE 20:1
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
RO~ALJ) GARF'IELD
A!'fDREW V. HECHT
TJl:t.EPHONE
(303) 925-1936
BROOKE A. PETERSON
ASHLEY ANDERSON
May 24, 1977
Planning & zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll
Dear Chairman and Commission Members:
This is an application by Robert S. Goldsamt for amend-
ment to the final development plan for the Callahan
Subdivision. Robert Goldsamt requests that approval be
granted for relocation of the clUbhouse/dining facility to
the recreation building within the Subdivision. It is
Goldsamt's belief that all of the commercial uses would
function better located in one building. In the course
of development, it has become apparent that the relocation
is possible and will materially improve the final plan
for the Subdivision as it will remove the noise and other
commercial activity from the residential area. The Planning
Department's response to the request focuses primarily on
reservations about inducing additional traffic on ute Avenue.
The applicant has considered this concern and agrees it is
legitimate. Therefore, the applicant will agree, for
himself and his successors, that he will not authorize
any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium
units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision
from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance or dealing with emergencies on the
Callahan Subdivision. All vehicular traffic not excepted
will enter from Highway 82, with deliveries made by that
route.
This not only avoids a further increase in the potential
traffic on Ute Avenue for deliveries to the ClUbhouse/dining
facility, but indeed decreases such traffic to the extent
that it excludes all delivery vehicles from Ute Avenue
including those not previously excluded.
The square footage that the applicant will utilize at the
recreation building for the relocation of the clubhouse/
dining facility will be no greater than that remaining for
further expansion of the "Benedict residence" less that used for
""J<-'
.'
^
~
Planning & Zoning commission
t-1ay 24, 1977
Page two
mechanical space which is not calculated. The resulting
recreation ouilding will still be contained within the
permitted building envelope approved in the final
plat and development plan. The square footage for
commercial use excluding mechanical space will be identical
to that originally approved for such uses.
The applicant respectfully requests that the Commission
approve the amendment requested above.
Respectfully submitted,
c~~
Andrew V. Hecht, for the
applicant, Robert S. Goldsamt
AVH:js
!"
.r-,.
GARFIELD & HECH'r
ATTORNEYS AT I,.<AW
VlQi'OR1AN. .SQUARE .BUILDING
eOlE..HYMAN STREET
AS~SN, COLORADO 81611
BONAL])' GARFIELD
ANDREW' V~HECHT
BROO'K)!:'A, PETERSON
May 20, 1977
SUJTE .201
TE1.EPHONE
(303' 925~193ll
Mr. William Kane
Planning Director
130 Sbuth Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill:
The applicant seeks approval to relocate four parking
spaces from the site of the condominiums to Lot i4A
which is the lot designated for parking in the original
approval. The effect of this. would be to preserve tho;
same number of parking spaces originally required.
The use of the sapces originally designated for parking
at the condominiums would be used for storage. and laundry
facilities. .
If this application for amendment made pursuant to
Section 24-8-26 of the Municipal Code is acceptable to
you without additional public hearing, please approve the
changes as indicated below.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~~
Andrew V. Hecht, for the
applicant, Robert S. Gold.samt
APPROVED:
~Yl.._
~ning Direct~
~:
~
.
~.
.1""'\
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LA.W
VICt'ORIAN SQUARE .BUIL!>ING
eo). E. HYMAN BTR'!!:'ETSUXTE 201
A:SPE:N. COI,.,ORADO 81611:
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW, V.' HECHT
May 10, 1977
TlliLEPllONJ&
(303) 92~H8S8
SltOOKlC A. ,PETeRSON
.aHLEY' ANDERSON
Mr. William Kane
Planning Director
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill:
This is an application .for amendment to the final
development plan for the Callahan Subdivision. Robert
Goldsamt had previously requested that approval be
granted for relocation of the clubhouse/dining facility
to the recreation building of the Callahan Subdivision.
It was Goldsamt'sbelief that all of the commercial uses
would function better located in one buil<iing. Your
response to that request "[a]side from the more techni.cal
and narrow gui<ielines of the Code. . ." concerning increased
square footage were reservations about in<iucing additional
traffic on Ute Avenue.
I have considered your concern about minimizing traffic
on Ute Avenue and agree it is legitimate. Therefore,
the applicant now will agree, for himself.and his successors,
that he will not. authorize any vehicular traffic to7nter
the al:"ea of the condominium units or recreational faCilities
of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such
vehicles are for the purpose of construction, maintenance
or dealing with emergencies on the Callahan Subdivision
All vehicular traffic not excepted will enter from Highway
82, with deliveries made by that access.
This not only avoids a further increase in the prospective
traffic on Ute Avenue for deliveries to the dining facility,
but indeed decreases such traffic to the. extent that it
also excludes non-clubhouse delivery vehic::les from .Ute
Avenue.
The square footage that the applicant will utilize at the
recreation building for the relocation of the dining facility
will be no greater than that remaining for further expansion
of the "Benedict residence" less that used for mechanical
space which is not calculated.
1"'\
r,
Mr. William Kane
May 10, 1977
Page two
Initially, the approved aggregate size for the recreation
building was 38,446 square feet. It was then increased
to 39,499 .square feet by an amendment to the first plan,
the applicant conceding the elimination of 1,053 square
feet from the "Benedict residence". Under this proposed
amendment an additional 4,400 square feet would be added to
the recreation building still contained within the building
envelope permitted under the original approval and the
balance of the square footage approved for the expansion
of the "Benedict residence" - 4,400 square feet - could now
be conceded by the applicant to be utilized.at the recreation
building for the dining facility. The net result would be
that the square footage for commercial use excluding
mechanical space will be identical to that originally
approved for such uses.
Finally, the applicant seeks apProval to relocate four
parking spaces from the site of the condominiums to Lot l4A
which is the lot designated for parking in the original
approval. The effect of this .would be to preserve the
same number of parking spaces originally required. The
use of the spaces originally designated for parking at the
condominiums would be used for storage and laundry
facilities.
If this application for amendment made pursuant to
Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code is acceptable to
you without additional publiC hearing, please approve the
changes as indicated below.
Respectfully submitted,
.~. /.. ;2---//~.
~/t--'~...~..',
Andrew V. Hecht, for the
applicant, Robert S. Goldsamt
APPROVED:
Planning Director
,I""""
r"
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIC'TORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 E. HYMAN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
SUITE 201
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
BROOKE A. PETERSON
April 19, 1977
Mr. William Kane
Planning Director
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 8161l
Dear Bill:
The purpose of this letter is to request your concurrence
in our interpretation of one of the provisions of the
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for
the Callahan Subdivision. The provision in question is
paragraph l(c) which grants an irrevocable non-exclusive
easement throughout Lot 14. Lot l4 is the Benedict
residence and that provision contemplates the conversion of
the residence to a clubhouse. We seek to clarify what
happens in the event such conversion does not occur. It
is our interpretation that since there would then be no
necessity for such an easement and indeed it would severely
burden the residence, that the easement described would never
exist.
If this comports with your understanding of that provision,
please acknowledge that below and return a copy of this
letter to me for our files.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
~ ~./.~ .-
~p--~."
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH:js
Encl.
~4w~
.. /.. ... i,l>'Jli,,,J At.
'V~,~---""'; .
t1\/',,',./:/ ., _' ~.. .~.
~'"
I'tL H.lY 19, 191t;
(^~
..... ,~,'i ',,"
, ,r
-
R~C'l;Liv" ,1(' 10~~D:JO
!c" "r?;< ,~,{:',':~~r.:t
- -P-.' juiI~~11~l ~'~.' 'Lt::,~'()i'(.fe-r',;
::; j)
'"".,f'
BOOK312 PAGE110
<
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
. .
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
. d
THIS AGREEMENT, made this,63 - day of ha".-/
'c7'
1976, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
,
. sometimes called "City"), and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes
collectivel~{ called "the owner"), and ROBERT S. GOLDSAl1T or
the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometiI:les called "the
subdivider").
~I T N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of
the owner has submitted to the City for approval,. execution,
and recorda.tion, the final plat and development plan of a tract
of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. 105,
Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado,
designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat"); and
mlEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an.area
in the City zoned RR and R-15; and
~'REREAS, the city has fully considered such Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
.. . proper.ties by reason of the proposed development and improve-
ment of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the olvner
and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described; and
subject to all the reguirements,terms, and conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements
in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for
)
at. ~
(
'i"""".
c
..~
800K312 I'm111
. .
reco~dationof the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) of the
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance
that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution
and acceptance of the Plat for recerdation by the City, it is.
agreed as follows:
1. All references to lot numbers hereinafter set forth
. .
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ("Plat").
A. Fee simple title to Lots No. 13 and 13-A will
'" ,
be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium
- OlilnerS, ::.u!lJt<<,.;LLo .exrst~f1g easements and road and
. ut11i1:Y' easemem::s contempJ.atec1 by the Plat and
additional utility easements as may be required. Lots
..
No. 13 and 13-A will be used for condominium units.
B.Lot No. l3-B shall be conveyed in fee simple
.to a corporation to be organized by the purchaser of
such property from the owner or by such purchaser's
assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as
"Holding corporation". The Holding Corporation shall grant
to all condominium and homesite owners a non-exclusive
easement for the recreational use of Lot l3-B so long as
such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or
.commercial use by P.U.D. amendment or other appropriate
governmental approval and shall grant such easements
as are necessary for the roads and utilities reflected
on the Plat.
C. Lot No.14 will be owned in fee simple title
by the Holding Corporation or another corporation con-
trolled by or under com;non control with the Holding
-2-
..'
.,
1. ...
"
h
BOOK 312 PACE 1.12
h
corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict
residence situated on this lot will be conver.ted to
a clubhouse. The owners of condominium and ~omesites will
be granted an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage
by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing.
D. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed ihfee
simple title to the Holding CQrporation or a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or ~ts o~ their assignees. Lot .14-A will
contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and
recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot
(15\wil1 contain recreational facilities.
'---...,.;
E. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed in
fee simple title to the purchasers of these ten home-
sites. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy
by two families; the other lots are for single-family
homes.
F. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family
lot.
G. Lots 12 and l2-A are collectively designated as a
single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for
Lot 12.
H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of Aspen.
I. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the
rights of way on which such roads are to. be constructed
shall be owned by the Holding Corporation or a. corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
-3-
,
'.
(~
(~
8001<312 .1'^~di3
..~ ....
. Corporation or its or their assignees, and such corpor-
ation shall grant an irrevocable non-exclusive license
to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for
their use. The Owner shall retain a non-exclusive
cost-free easement on Crystal Lake Road for q.ccess, .
ingress, and egress to and from Lots 11, l2 and 12-A.
Ownership of those lots is being retained by the owner.
J. Easements for utility improvements and rights
of way shall be granted to the Public Utilities as
shown on the Plat.
K. Maintenance of the property and structures ~n-
cluded within the Plat shall be the responsibility of
.
the m.,ners of the fee simple title to such property
and improvements; provided, however, when hereunder
anye.aseme:nt is granted with respect to any such land
or i~p~ovement, the cost of maintenance shall be borne
by all <g:r.antees of such easements.
L. The City shall provide up to a maximum of 0.65 cfs.
of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter
set forth in Paragraph ate) (1) for the maintenance of a
water level not lower than the lowest water level in
Cry.s.it:.al Lake as shown on Page 3 of the Plat. The Holding
Corporation or a corporation controlled by or under common
control with the Holding Corporation or its or their assignees,
shall make provision for supplying such water to Crystal Lake
in order .to insure its use for recreational a.ctivity..
2. Subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph,
the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construc-
tion of all common improvements which include construction of
roads, utilities, drainage improvements, landscaping, moving
and paving if required by subdivider (the recreational
trail), as described in the agreement between pitkin. County
and Benedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through
the subdivision as shO\vn on the Plat and supplemental
engineering plans. Also included shall be street i~ghting
..,1..
\. \.. uuuC\v..J..... IA~t.l.1.':t
. .sufficient to illurr~ate subdivision roads an~raffic signs to
comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve-
ments shall commence in the spring of the year in which construction
on Lots 13, 13A or 15 is to commence hereunder, or any homesites
are sold, whichever event occurs sooner, and shall be constructed
with due diligence thereafter until completed. In.order to
secure the performance of the construction and installation of
. the improvements .herein agreed to by the subdivider and the
City, and to guarantee one hundred (100%) percent of the current
estimated cost of the im?rovements agreed by the City Engineer to
be $ 271,000.00 , the subdivider shall guarantee through a
.
conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment
from a financially responsible lender (irrevocable until the
-
construction is completed) that funds of the estimated costs of
construction are held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the construction and installation of improvements hereinabove
described. In the event, however, that any portion of the improve-
ments have not been installed according to the conditions contained
herein, then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining
work and improvements completed by such means and in such manner,
by contract with or without public letting, or otherwise, as it may
deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the city out
of the funds held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the City' s cos.ts incurred in completing said work and improve-
ments; provided, however, in no event shall the lender be
obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate estimated
sum for these improvements, .less those amounts previously paid
and approved by the City,by reason of default of the subdivider
in the performance of the terms, conditions, and covenants con-
tained in this paragraph 2. However, the City waives no right
to claim full compliance with the improvements required in ex-
cess of the estimated costs. From time to time as work to be
performed and improvements to be constructed herein progress,
the subdivider may request that the office of City Engineer
i~spect such \,.ork and improvements .~s- ~recompleted and may
submit to City the costs of such completed work and improvements.
-5--
(
.~
c-.
600K312 i'Acdi5
',-,
When the City Engineer is satisfied that such work and improve-
-'.~ '
rnents as are r;q-;;i;::~d--bi the subdivider to be completed in fact,
nave been completed in accordance with the terms hereo~ the
-.
C1ty Engineer will submit to the lender its statement that it
-
-nas-~o objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much
~"-..~_:~~..........~.."..'."..._..,..---------_. _....- ~,----_. _.._-~ ,...---..--....-.
ot the above-specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs
, .,' _. ...-'-,:_....._...__""-.'..:-:..<."'-'..-'-_. .~";:_' __ "._ __co, ._...~::-:- "_"',,,'-,,,_'~" ,"_ ~"""'=--'.,",..,.,.~.....,. ._.~,."...:. __.' _"'-'..."__"._..__",.' "_ . .." _ _
~work"performed and improvements installed pursuant to the
~ .~,...__._...__..~_..._.,~.. ."..~__"..".' '.C... ...-_......=.... ... ., .,'._". _ .... .. ....._...._
terms ..of this' Agreement, except that ten (10%) percent of the
.I.. ,~-' .~ -' ,--- ~-."..- - - iY"'" -_- - -- ~-~ -
estimated cost shall be withheld by the lender until all pro-.
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer. Subdivider shall prepare and be responsible for the
preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and construction
dra\qings for all improvements included in Paragl;aph 2. above. These
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer
and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any construction
by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall also be responsible for pro-
viding all necessary engineering and/or surveying services in con-
junction with the construction of said improvements. The City
Engineering Dep.artment shall be notified prior to the commencement
of construction so .that the work may be inspected during construction.
3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.)
4. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside Ditch
for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a rubberized material to
prevent seepage onto Lots 8 and 9. If the subdivider finds that
use of the rubberized material is not feasible, a feasible alternative
lining shall be used, provided the subdivider.shall use best efforts
to find an alternative to concrete lining.
5. The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors
and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to
enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities
-6-
nIIlU\... . ,
~ j-.' .'..
1""(
^(
"
aOOK 31:2 FAGEi
of the Callahan Subdivision from .Ute Avenue unless such vehicles
are for the purpose of construction, providing services to. or deal-
ing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the. subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall pro-
vide for any parking spaces along the border oi Ute Avenue
within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. The prohibition
contained in this paragraph shall not apply to the parking lot
which presently exists on Lot 16 nor to any expansion thereof.
6. The subdivider agrees to relocate at subdivider's
expense a portion of the recreational trail which will be moved
to a location approximately as shown on the plat. Such relocation
.
shall be done as follows: By June lS of the year in which
construction is to commenC3 on Lots 13, 13A or 15, subdivider
shall cause such trail to be roughed in place. The easement
to that .trail shall be granted to the City and shall be restricted
to the following uses: pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling, and
cross-country skiing. No motor vehicle of any kind shall ever
be .allowed to use the trail, excepting only such vehicles as are
f
absolutely necessary at the initial construction and subsequent
maintenance and repair of the trail.
7. The subdivider agrees not to pave any of the roads in
the subdivision until at least six months after all utilities are
in place.
8. It is acknowledged by the owner that certain land areas
included within or adjacent to the subdivided land have
previously been used for agricultural uses or as meadow lands and
have been irrigated by waters owned by the owner and carried in the
Nellie Bird Ditch. The City of Aspen has established a policy of
~cqllisition of those water rights beneficially used by annexed and
subdivided lands at the time of annexation and subdivi~ion approval,
when the proposed development will be serviced by the City owned
water utility:
a. So as to avoid the establishment of competitive
water utilities.
b. To insure that all water uscd for domcstic
purposes meets minimum sanitary and hcalth standards.
-7-
,- .
~
(-"
BOOK 312 fACLj17
c. To prevent the abandonment of water rights by
discontinuation of their beneficial use.
d. To provide for the acquisition of more senior
rights to guarantee water service to Aspen area users
in time of low supply.
e. To reduce the costs of condemnation for acqui-
sition of water rights in the future. Therefore, it is
agreed as a condition of subdivision approval.
1. That upon recording of the final plat of the
.
Callahan Subdivision the owner will convey to the City
of Aspen, without further consideration, 0.65 cfs. of
the Nellie Bird Ditch, Priority 3136 (Source: Roaring
Fork River; adjudicated August 25, 1936), which cor-
responds to the ratio of the subdivided lands to all
lands irrigated by this water right. In the event
use of part of such water granted to the City shall
become necessary to retain the lowest level of Crystal
Lake (as described in Paragraph lL of this Agreement)
the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of
the water right necessary to maintain the lowest water
level; provided, however~ that nothing herein shall be
construed to require the City to supply ditches; rights
.of way, pumps, or othe~ facilities necessary to. ~ransfer
water to Crystal Lake.
2. That owner. hereby grants to the City of
Aspen a right of first refusal on the balance of the
water right described in subparagraph (1) in the event
such water right is offered for sale independently of
a sale of the iands irrigated by said right. To the
extent permitted by law this right of first refusal
shall be deemed a covenant running with said irrigated
lands, and bind the owner, his heirs, assigns and
-8-
(,-,
~
800K 312 I''\G~ 118
successors in interest.
3. That t.he owner does further agre.eto negotiate
in good faith with the City of Aspen for'the grant to
the City (or its nominee) for a nominal fee of a
revocable license to make beneficial use (as allmoled
by law) of part or all of the water right described
in subparagraph (1) retained by owner, without jeop-
ardi~ing owner's interest in said decreed water
right.
.
8.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority
right on Hunter Creek, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No.
90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, l899; headgatetrans-
ferred to Huston Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575,
records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Reocrder) hereinafter called
Hunter Creek water right, the acquisition of which is also of in- .
teres!: to the City of Aspen. Owner agrees, as a further condition
of this subdivision approval and with reference to said right:
a. That Owner hereby grants to the City of Aspen a ~ight
of first refusal on the Hunter Creek water right in the event
such right is offered for sale independently of a sale
of the lands irrigated by said water right; and to the
extent allowed by law, this right of first refusal shall
be deemed a covenant on the lands so irrigated, and bind
the owner, his heirs, assigns, .and. successors in interest.
b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith
for the acquisition of.this right to facilitate the con-
struction of a package filter plant on Hunter Creek. Ne-.
gotiations will be deemed to be proceeding in good faith
when the City seeks such right only for .construction .of
said package plant and owner attempts to achieve. only
(i) domestic water service for potential homesites on
his lands above Hunter Creek and below the Red Mountain Road
-9-
'.
(
~
c
^
BOOK312 I'Acd19
(on the Red Mountain side), (ii) provision for the future
irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston
Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider-
ation on the sale of the water right which is equivalent
to its fair market value, with proper credit and allowance
being given for the fair market value of any exchanges,
. concessions, promises, undertakings or other consideration
received pursuant to (i) and (ii).
9. In satisfaction of the deaication fee required to be
paid to the City under Section 20-18 of the City of Aspen Muni-
cipal Code for the purposes set forth therein, the subdivider
agrees that upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan
r- ---
Su~_~ion. that he shall make a cash payment to the City in
the amount of $90,000.00. <ll"
10. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred
to the cO.t1trary, the owner and the subdivider, in developing the
property contained. within the Plat and the improvements as herein
described, shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations,
standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and
bodies having jurisdiction.
11. The City agrees that since the townhouse-condominiums
as designed do not exceed two and one-half stories in height, and
the total height of each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope
be created around each unit module allowing a maximum of two and
one-half feet above elevation shown on the PUD building plans to
accommodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of
this Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between
buildings, between buildings and tops of carports, as well as the.
best utilization of existing terrainwithin~he development zone.
Prior to application for the building permit, the pe:rmit applicant will submi,
a ground survey, showing final building layout and floor elevations,
noting any variations in the contour.
-10-
... ;
c....,
h
BOOK 312 fACd20
12. Subdivider agrees to pay the City in addition to its
dedication fee the sum of $250.00 which represents the agreed
upon costs for the City to tap into the sewer line in Ute
Children's Park. The $250.00 shall be due and payable upon the
granting of the easement acro.ss Ute Children's Park and Ute
Cemetery for sewer lines by the City.
13. Subdivider agrees to provide at his expense shuttle
bus services consisting of van-type vehicles for the recreation
facilities and the clubhouse of the. Callahan Subdivision upon
the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The expenses of
the acquisition, mairttenance and operation of such vehicles shall
be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by
the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or
any other available means which shall be adequate.
The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a
number sufficient to serve the need therefor based upon year around
operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation
facil.ities and downtown Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles
shall not number less than one. The term of this service shall
be until the earlier of the following. occurs:
1. Such van service shall no longer be needed: or
2. Until the transportation services provided by
this Agreement are fulfilled by other public or private
means.
3. Until the expiration of five years from the
date hereof.
-11-
.. .., ..'-_...-.._,.,...'...._.~ '-"-... ....~,--_._..__..'.'. .......-...'''......------..,..
'.
~.
h
eooK312 i'Acd21
..
,C>
.
subdivider.
15. Failure of the subdivider to pay dedication fee
or to provide the requisite guaranty for roads and utilities
and otherimprovernents prescribed hereunder, shall carry only
the sanction of prohibition of recording the subdivision plat
and final development plan herein. If the foregoing sanction
is imposed by the City upon the subdivider, it shall release
the owner of all obligations under Paragraphs 8 and. 8.2 hereof..
16. The subdivider agrees to furnish City with an as-built
survey description for sewer, water and .trail easements.
.
l7. The subdivider agrees to allow the City to install a
water line in Ute Av~nue at the time subdivider constructs his
eight-inch line greater in size than that eight-inch line, provided,
however, that the City shall pay for the extra cost above the cost
of installing .an eight-inch line.
18. The stages for the development of the subdivision
improvements shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
19. At such time as and to the extent Goldsamt has assigned
any of his rishts hereunder or under any agreement with owner and
such~assignee has assumed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall
have no further obligation for such assumed obligation.
;
J .;~""'" '"
,h~rrl<~s'" ~,np'.<.seals .the day and year first above written.
,,.. ...., \ ..........'''' ,<, ";',
~;" '", "., ("\ .~.
"( ./.(; ',"',', :,-,.: '\ .~,~~ -:'~
f '/ A;t;rEST.-: ".: -
. T:.\:.~. ~? .;.~ j \ !J i J E" ,",
.'.. . 'i./ ., , ,~') . . J ,/..,-.)
.\::/..I:..ai.Ii:':u;'yb :Z/. I~~
':'C,itY)P~::-,K'
;.";1;,,,;'....: "
IN WITNESS .WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their
CITY O~frPEN, ~)orado
Mun'c~it'~.ionU.l?
/ ~~
BY-- I-~~or~!/ J .
f::,;;;;;:,~ry~ . (l
~~''''.,.,... 0.. H: r:. . '. 1
. ...:1 \\ '~'....'.. .... .. ,'1/. ':
':' ,\:-' ",,('" .~.. ," .c.
.. 'v..,," ~ .. /.',
.'" ." ...... . ,
'; ,~,," _. "'Co : ,.", ~.
" ..:.:!: { 1 :'~ ( I.'~. r... .:.. .'
',J /"". l.:..)t.'..../, (, I: .",'
',;. :t,) ~. ,.", "....e ~< : ':. "
j .-; '" '-, ~'
"<:~.>.oo,,~~.".<;<. :'
'h,(.'\~r(F~J..\l\) .:'
'. ......~ <~-~~~-~:...:....:-
BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, Owner
,,,OJ_.-=:> /? . ,fi
.-........r;...;;-.,;.;-~(;?~~/7 -r:;':>tc'c~'~-C:,.J.-:-:.I..""':;~~
F-r-ecl'r-:i:e-,;'h-&3ABd.i-Gt;
0~- - President
.-9~ _ ". _ C2- Cd- - - ~/~
~"::"",o:...<:C.!~~:"::::"""-
.-d'-,/-,:::? /' /2.;,.. . ,,,.." P:._. .,.....,... d" /'
.../1._ ......_... ..-?-t:-~ ~::-:.' .:,:?,.;>:""..~~.;..:'~J~:,.,::. ...c:~__ ,-'...-'t?,cc..../ ~ ___~ #/;-~~
?Pr~dr:ic A( Benedict, O\.;ner if .~
,-...:;;r;~.?.--e.~/-/.,...~...,....::...<_ i".~d--'~.:"....4!".~;.?;~ "
7" /' '-;> ". /7, '- /" 7Z /' /'
.....L..,,,-....__=- ,.'-.:::.-:,-' -_,"rr:~/!,;~)..~"'-"____,~/_,_<,/".-r:~-C' - /c2--<~
~abienne-Benedict, /~ner~. ~
Jj1:f /II/!I!-:-;r
Robert Goldsamt, Subdivider
.
.,
(~
c-,
e;oK312 i'IIGE122
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
The fore$oing instrument was acknowledged before me
/<1q~day of. ~;r-Il(h , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor
fhe City of Asp~n, a Colorado municipal corp~ration.
this
of
,.,......... . Witness. my hand and official seal.
. ,. . " ~ ,. r 1/.' My commission expires:
, .\.,.. ;. '.~..." .
i:_0/"~~,~r::So~,.rr.iSSjOn expires January. 24, 1978
:_-l:~ " ..:::"..
,).11~ .J: .,'v..'
~, ~. 'f~.'\>"
,~ ~ ,/"..". \"'v. I .. .
..~ ." .'. . . ...' ,
. ...."lJ;.~..if..~\:. :.
. I"~, ... ..
,.7; ,.'........",
,
.
.
iA-
...
. . / l~ r
VA>>)fl /1&~../
. "liiotary
Public
..
.
.
..
/A Ai I'J'!d'bIMe. ;;;.f FIle.. feJ'tlel}f.
tJ... The foregoing instrument was a~nOWl~dged befo~e me ~hiS
I t day of l;fn(i//:'r' ., 1976, by%.~-edrie=A-:-i:l-en~:r.e.&i:-
'~of Benedict Lan~& Cattle Company, a Colorado. corporation.
County of Pitkin
)
), 5S.
)
. : STATE OF COLORADO
.. ~.. Witness my hand and official seal.
_. . ..' ..... hi {' I My commission expires:
" \.. .....
. ,/~~..M1: Gommission expires January. 24, 1978
':"'2 "! (,\1 .;.~.
J .t.0~ -~.'~ ~~:~::~~~'~~'.~. ..:-, .
.~,,'~ ". ru .'.l~' .. .
..' ~>"':~~i.~?.<.;.:X', ::
.Wn J(!.C2~,jz.;)'
Notary
Public
STATE OF COLORADO
y.. . ~
~J~k~' 01" ill,,,')- MoJ-)'; M4"
The foregoing instrument was, acknowledged before me this
of'?~~n~~j' , 1976, by'Fredric A. Benedict and
Benedict. Jf . .-
Witness my. hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
.-
County of Pitkin
)
)
)
SSe
It; . day
Fabienne
....<'~~y.~G~mmjssion expires January 24,
/~;~>~';:::'" /. .
.: 1...:..,: ..\\J I j ;." f .
.-:: '.
~". - r;-- - : .
= ;~~: ~\.:
.:::: ... i) / I"" i. .
,;.. .}', 1 U 1; ',.,'
',.;.J.). ". "
. 'i.,.. ....... " :',
,'z."'(.),::". .
. /. \
1978
~t!1,j(U Or~~,:'~J
Notary
Public
'''u.
-13-
~ '.
..
.'
.;
h.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
^
500K312 i'AGd23
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this 1..3 day of ApI: i3!'}.';'t97 6, by AndH:ew-V...--Hecht,-Attorney-
i-n-Pa:c-t-fo~ Robert S. Goldsamt..
~
.
.
Witness my hand and official seal.
- .-
:
My Commission expires:
.
,
-l4-
.,I.f,."';lt"",!,.
.\\~' ,,-'0:':;: .;") '-
. ..:!-' .,..;:....:\.....:-'.. "
My Commission expires Nov. 14. l.37.,;<.......-, (] .....:...;...\
g ~ ... \) \ ~ 1... ,'" ,". '../} ~
t.Q'(j^- /,/P i'1 K~~00b;:':!'
. Notafy Publ;r-.. ....... .,..'
. . ". .0, .... .... '.' '....'
-,., 'f' ...., \,...
~("'(II~: ;;;': l~i)'\ \\
..
- o. '..
. .
....-.-
..
:
..
.. .
.-:
,
..
.-
'.
. (~ (~ eooK312 PAcE12l1
.
,^ " N
jt co
, '"
N
N
. . . .
.u .u .u .u
.... .... .... ....
VI . . . .
.-I lJ' 0' 0' 0'
Q) VI VI VI VI
VI U
.-l $..I N 0 0 0 0
ltl. ltl CO l' 0 \J;) 0
.u 0. '" '" M '" 0
0 . - - - -
E-i 0 N \J;) l' CO N
N N r-- .., '"
o.ll
tJ(
Q) I::
U'M 0
'M~ 0
....$..1 ,\J;) 0
....ltl .-I .
0'" *' N
. . .
.u I .u .u
....1:: .... ....
, 'r!
.. ~ . .
O'Vlr-I 0' 0'
:>, VlQlO VI III
.u '00
-r! O:lo. 0 0
.-I .-I "".-I 0 0
on '<l' U'lOk M 0
Vll III '" -I:: 0 - -
Q) .ltl .-I . ""r! 0 r-- \J;)
~f%l *' '<l' M-''t:S .., '<l'
. . .
..u .u "'"'
.... .... ....
~ . . .
lJ' 0' 0'
H III III lJl
~ Q) \J;)
,QlJl .c '" 0 0 0
.c :l:l ...... \J;) 0 0 0
~ r-IO .-1.-1 ... '<l' 0
E'l U..<:: *'*' N - - -
H ~ '" '" N
II:l
H
::<: ~ . .
><: .u "'"'
~ ..; .... ....
p
'. .
t<l lJ' lJ'
E-<, VI lJl
H lJl
tIl Cll ... .., 0 0
J::1Il ..; . '" r-I ... \J;)
~:l MM III r-I 0 ..,
00 .-Ir-I 0 - - -
E-i"<:: ""*' \J;) \J;) N CO M
N ...
.c
I
N
'" r-I .
"" .u
o.ll 'l4 ~
~I ..<:: . 0
tJl - 0' .-I
:l N III *'
0 r-I
k "" 0 -IJ
..<:: lll.-l 0 0
.u - I l{) 0 H
r-IOMl'- - ~ .c .c .c
r-Ir-Ir-Ir-I . U'I N ....... ....... .......
##=l-J:;:#\O r-I r-I r-I Z kZ Z
0
Q) Q) 0
.u tJl tJl'O
'M ltl rcl-IJ
I:: $..I k :l
. :>, :l Q) Cll 0
0 r-I :> :>
I:: 'M 0 Oo.ll . .
S -IJ 0 0 .u .u
r-I rcl 'l4 .... .....
Cll S ..... III III .-IJ III
0 :;l S . 'OtJl '00 tJl . IJ
$..I S Cll X 0 0' $..I ~ k 0'1:: 0'1.:
rcl 'M r-I Cll 0 III tJl'M tJl(() 1Il',..j III Q)
0. I:: tJl r-I k '0 'M '0 S
OJ 'M I:: 0. '0 Q) 'M . ~ . rl . Q)
$..I tJl S .,..j :;l Q) tJl X.,..j X ~ X.,..j X III
0 ltl (() '0 ,Q rcl 0::1 o <iJ o :l o rcl
Q) $..I k,Q k-IJrl k.Q k.n
.u k . Q) '" '" 0 '" 0.
0 0 0 0 0 :> "'..... P,..... 0 p,,," C.""
H .c Z Z z .c .cO .cOP, .cO ";0
"
~.~ ,j'
8'....
A ~e .,-".
r- ",.:t;
\D ....
'" '"
.
M ...
.N
. . . .
-1-1-1-1 -1-1 -1-1
~~ ~ Il-l
. . . .
O'tJf 0' 0'
III III III III
OIl:;1"'C 0 0
NO <Xl <fl
NO \D ...
, , , ,
IDN <fl M
.-1M <Xl N
III
Q)
H
o
.:t;
Ul
M
III
-1-1
o
e..
<.ll
tr>
Q) ~
0'';
'rl ~
~H
Il-lrtJ
OAl
.
I
>.
-1-1
'rl
'M
orI
o 0
Q)rtJ
ll::l%i
-1-1
~
.
0'
III
I Q) 0
.Q1Il 0
::l ::l 0
..-l0 ,
U.c: N
M
.
-1-1
~
.
0'
III
11l
I Q) ...
~1Il N
'" ::l N
00 ,
e...c: \D
..-l
z
0 ~I
H
;;:
H
..::>
a:1
.:t;
8 H
.:t; 0
....
8
.:t; Q) Q)
Q 0"\ 0"\
III Ill-l-l
~ ~ H H ~
8 0 Q) Q) Q)
H :>~ :> E
Ul . 08: o <lJ
-1-1 'Cl 00 o Ul
~ ~ ~ III
::l .~ . <lJ
. 0 'Cl 'Cl
0' ... <lJ H Ul Hr-l
.:t; Ul I tr>0 O"\+> tr> .';
H III <lJ III
8 i'tJlQ)4-I . <lJ . ...
HN X ~ 'Cl ... X H X+>
en o .rl ~ ;:l o+> 0
H <lJ ....~ ;:l III ;< Ul ... <lJ
:r: 0' 0..... 0.. 0..-'<:
X r\l 0.. III 0,"-' o.,'rl
~o.. .:t;o.. ..; 0 ";.0
-----_..,,~_...~,._~.._"_.,..__.,_.._-----,
lloOK312 fhcE125
,
^
(.
,-,.
(
31~2 . ()~
BOOK r,\cE1~O
,. .:...
'.
EXHIBIT nBn
DF.VF.LOPHENT SCHEDULE - CALLAII.Z\N SUBDIVISION
A. Condominiums. Subdivider .!ill commence the construction
of condominium units contained on the Plat in the 1976 or 1977
construction season, with the completion of such units contemplated
in 1977 or 1978.
B. Clubhouse situated on Lot 14. Construction of any improve-
ments to the existing structure and any alterations thereto shall
be completed by December 31, 1979.
~
C. Recreational facilities contained on Lot l5. The facilities
situated on this Lot shall be constructed by December 3l, 1979.
D. Roads and Utilities. .Subdivider will commence construction
of all roads and utilities provided for on the Plat prior to commencing
the construction of any other facilities or sale of any single
family or duplex lots provided for on the Plat.
E. Subdivider shall have the right to construct, by staging,.
any portion of any of the facilities provided for on the Plat at. any
time he decides within the development schedule here.tofore set forth
for such facil i.ties.
F. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any im-
provements until all roads and utilities servicing those improve-
ments shall have been completed. Construction of utilities
ana roads to all lots except lots 15 and 16, must be completed
b.efore a certificate of occupancy will issue for any improve-
ments thereon, The certificate of occupancy for the improve-
ments on Lot 15 shall in'no way be tied .to the certificate of
occupancy for any other improvements. Further, subdivider shall
complete all landscaping shown on the Plat by December 31, 1978.
G. Subdivider will be deemed to have complied with the
previsions of the Plat f.or improvements on tot 15, if such improvements
;
.'
(~
"
,)
0"-""
BooK312. PAcd,27
-4 ,.:.
.>~.~v~
~
do not exceed the footprint or vertical elevations contained on
such Plat for such improvements.
H. The.only sanction for failure to construct any portion of
any of the improvements on the Plat within the times provided for
their construction hereunder shall be withdrawal of approval by the
City for those improvements not so constructed and shall in,no way
affect the validity of the approval for those improvements constructed
within the times provided for hereunder, or in any way give rise to
any claim by the City of Aspen or by" any party claiming under or
through the City of Aspen against subdivider for the construction
of any such improvement or for damages for. failure to construct. any
of them.
I. To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of
this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement,
. the provisions of this Exhibit B shall prevail.
-2-
38
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
February 23, 1976
_,",~..".,.,.~..,.,,;.,~...,...c....,__;__... .....
councilman Wishart moved that the City agree to help fund the $3,000 to $4,000 engineer~
ing study; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. !
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Subdivision Approval
Planner Kane told Council the outstanding item in this subdivision was the size of the
recreation building. There are 34 dwelling units, and expanded clubhouse and the
recreation facility. The building had been -staked out for, an on-site inspection.
Hal Clark told Council 'the proposed recreation bui'ldi.ng was 46', 000 square feet; the (I,.
recommendation of the planningofflce' .is .36,000 square feet with two indoor tennis di'~
courts. Clark outlined the comments of the planning office. C1ty Engineer Ellis is
recommending approval of the subdivision. The planning office asked that the transpor_
tation agreement be part of the subdivision agreement. The planning office asked for
a revised landscaping plan; it has been submitted, and the planning office agrees to it.
The sewer line easement will go through' Ute Park; Ted Anmstrong is concerned about the
possibility of a wiqe excavation from a safety factor. The basic disagreement boils
down to two indoor courts or three indoor courts. The planning office has tried to
relate that to the impact of additional use of the building.
Councilman Behrendt asked if the
be underneath the.tennis courts.
the lowest level. .
other proposed uses for the recreational building WOuld
Paul Kutik answered that the tennis courts would be
Councilwoman Johnston asked that Housing OffiCer Brian Goodheim address the employee
housing. Goodheim-had submitted a memorandum to Council suggested that.the five acres
under the applicant's control at the end of Ute Avenue be considered for employee hous-
ing. ,Goodheimsuggested that the density be worked out by the planning office and
whatever density is recommended be utilized to meet employee housing for the impact of
the development. Kan.e told Counil he' had not worked out a site analysis. Based on
existing zoning, slope reduction, and avalanche control, the density will not be very
great. Mayor Standley pointed out the City did not have any regulations that required
developers to include housing. Councilman Wish~rt stated in going through subdivision,
it was maintained that Ute Avenue should remain low impact and not create traffic out
there; employee housing would.
Kane explained. to touncil there had been a gradual change and expansion of the facil.i...ties.
'Nre s.!':i';l";'aiulOea had been for a medium range tenn]JLJ:.ac.J...lJS,.;!.E~ 'Ph'::' .::Irlnii-;nn nf the
third court wuuld-aLia uu J.lorc ;:J.utomolri'"Te traffic, use of the facili tv ann ('"'on'Je~H nn
thd.L Wet3 HuL pdi"t ot the conceptual subdivision. Kutik talA Council th;:J.t tho.y.-w.o.uld
ta\e care of tn~s.problem by prov~ding transportation, pick up station, etc. ThLs_~ill
be -rncluded. in the subdivision aqr-eement.
Councilman-Wishar~as~gd if -the Council left out the third coV~~yrl ~p.nDis_"~_OllI_~ld
the~:5et-U~a-rne:chanismso that the developer could come back later for a third court.
clark answered they could go for an amended PUD. Afterthebuilding;r~-~ex~~t~TIce and
opera~ion for some tlme, the City can better assess the impacts.
Councilman Behrendt said between the health club and clu~house, Kut~k is proposin~ that
90 to 250 ppnplc would-be-on the q;rp .::It anyr.jme. Counc11man Behrendt asked if Kutik
ha~l-'parking provisions .to. address thQ..~ .,<,_~,15utik . noted tha~.. a lot,o~. _E~.?P_~~.mg_$_~,1.lg.....the
faclil~~~wvuld also be llvlng thereL CounciTwoman--Fe~~rsen-askea Kutik if any trees
or graves would be destroyed by the sewer line going through Ute Cemetery and ute Park.
Kutikanswered he had studied the easement carefully and had agreed to replace any trees
that are destroyed. City Attorney Stuller remarked she had no problems with the
:Subdivision.
Councilman Wishart moved to accept and record the sUbdivi$ion plat; to authorize Mayor
Standley to execute the subdivision agreement on behalf of the City, and to authorize
Mayor Standley to execute the easement agreement; and to include the reservations of
the planning office and to incorporate exploring employee housing; seconded by Council-
woman Pedersen. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, nay; JOhnston, aye;.parry,
aye; Peder-sen, ay~; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
Paul Kutik told Council that Callahan's FHA loan application was being withdrawn.
700 WEST HOPKINS - Request for 'exemption from the definition of subdivision
Druce Kistler, representing 700 West Hopkins, had submitted a letter to Council outlininq
the peti.tion for exemption from the definition of subdivision and the reasons Kistler
believe the exemption to be applicable. Kistler stated basically there are two n~ason,;
why the 700 Hopkins project should be exempt, other than the fact that to impose sub-
division obligations on the conversion of apartments,to condominiums accomplishes no
valid purpose under the subdivison regulations. Kistler said the 'law is very clear.
There are two standards. The fee must be specifically and uniquely attributable to
the subdivision, and there must be some nexus between the subdivision itself and the
reason for extracting the fee.
Kistler said the' new subdivision orainance fees in lieu of land dedication will be used
for acquisition of land or open space. Kistler asked if the 700 Hopkins subdivision
attracted a need that may exist in the community for more open space~ Ki.stler ,stated.
with conversipn, there is no such need demonstrated. For that reason, Kistlersfatedr
the ordinance! as written is illegal and unconstitutional. Kistler wanted the city to
recognize that. the ordinance is unconstitutional. It is up to the City to take furt.her
steps to rect~fy this or to, operate under an unconstitutional ordinance. I
Kistler asked for the mon(~y back that 700 West HopJdns' paid pursuant to this subdiv-1SU.'P
Jgrcement. Kistler s(.dd t.hefacts are not there t.oslistuin that <'l condominium convcr-
.:;,i.on establishes either nexus 01': sp{~cificaJ.lyand uniquely at.:trib{;.tal)lc need.
,
l
'. ("1:
:; j ; ~ c .
!:
:H
-.
i if:
I- f>
<~
re,
.I F'
F,st II C
r
'.' - ,I
ii s
I S'
j Ii g.
,
I s:
l 'I d.
, I, -[1
I I:. a;
ii.
i! Tl
1 I' i~
,[
i il l!'ri'
j :1
" i;
I ']
I' O,.~
,I
:; !{o
,-
ii e,:
"
ii r~
! s,
h ,
1:,
ti1
i.t',
ie
e::-
,:
r ex
ii ~ Zl;l~
fi "-'
n<::
Me
Ii v..:;r
, L
Ii e:?
:1 d:.c
"
! ~
" 1...:::
i, .
]1 C'~
., i.)t
~\ en}
,.
~1,
OX"
ir.
e:.:
an
no
tl,
, "!J.S
i:~ t.,
,
;1 . ce-
"
.' AS
Ii
53
t;,
cH:~'
1:1.
Kj
C.i
.fe.;
rot"
mn;
We
ge'
fi:'.
Ms
an
de
a.~'
ih~
$e'
in';
513:'
ch
2;;'t~
th
"
:i iJr',.
],
.!
1.968
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
February 2.'l1.
, .j);
'k'.
Councilman Wishart moved that the City agree to help fund the $3,000 to $4 000 ""
ing. stu9i seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. .- I'"
-CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Subdivision Approval
(~,
planner Kane told Council the outstanding item in this subdivision was the s.iz\. o. ~,
recreation building. There are 34 dwelling units, and ~xpanded clubhouse and 1.1;,'
recreation facility. The building had been staked out for an on-site inspect.io;~:'
Hal Clark tC?ld Council the 1?ropose~ re<:reation building was 4~, 000 sq';1are fc(,t:, ~,,~
recornmendat~on of the plann~ng off~ce ~s 36,000.square feet w~th two ~ndoor t<_:H'" '
courts. Clark outlined the comments of the planning office.' City Engineer gtl~~~\
recommending approval of the subdivision. The planning office asked that the t r :c.,,'~ ~
tation agreement be part of the subdivision .agreement. The planning office a~lko,,'~ ~
a revised landscaping plani it has been submitted, and the planning office age"I':' ;"
The sewer line easement will go through Ute Parki Ted Aranstrong is concerned itb\:~. .
possibility of a 'wide excavation from a safety factor. The basic disagreement 1,(:,.
down to two indoor courts or three indoor courts. The planning office has tri(',~;';'.~,"
relate that to the impact of additional use of the building. ' ,
Lh'
~~; t
;;h.!,'"
pL
<::1 :
t ~:':
:'0:,>,;,
l,~.t.';'. ,',
~ln
~.\.~:.
",'i.'
$l::.!
dr,,:
'~'h;
b
Councilman Behrendt asked if the
be underneath the tennis courts.
the lowest level.
other proposed uses for the recreational bUildl!;,:
Paul Kutik answered that the tennis Courts I,o:OU H
t:l~ ,-
in
(I'r
~k;
Councilwoman Johnston asked that. Housing Officer Brian Goodheim address the emplt!',"",
housing, ,Goodheim had submitted a memorandum to Council suggested that 'the f i Vt,'1 ~,
under the applicant I s control at the end of Ute Avenue be considered for employ.,c' ~
ing'. Goodheim suggested that the density be worked out by the planning of f ice _Ii:,!
whatever density is recommended be utilized to meet employee housing for the imp>!.-.
the development. Kane told couni'lhe had not worked out a site analysis. Ba:;l'd!
existing zoning, slope reduction, .and avalanche control, the density Will not tw '.',..
,great. Mayor Standley pointed out the City did not have any regulations that. r"'l'::
developers to include housing. Councilman Wishart stated in going through s~lbd fl,::
it was maintained that Ute Avenue should remain low impact and not create traf( 1.'.' I
therei employee housing would,
~':",~ .
t.'("
~~, '
h {.,
fo
tt,
t"..
1:.
,',:':;
I '..,~, ~
,"'''''.
Kane explained to touncil there had been a gradual change and expansion of tho r ,w; : ^' -04-
The origianl idea had been for a medium range tennis facilities. The addition of !'
third court would add on more automobile traffic, Use of the facility and con9.'~\t.\
that was not part of the coriqeptualsubdivision. Kutik told Council that they \,~" "I:
take care of this problem by providing transportation, pick up station, etc. 'I'lll~;,."
be incluaed in the subdivision ?~!eement~
.ft',
n""
H....
{"..-
wh,;
t . ~
t:~":. .,
dr"i
Councilman Wishart asked if the Council left out the third covered tennis court,
they set up -a mechanism so that the developer could come back later for a third C<).:
Clark answered they could go for an amended PUD. After the, building is in cxint I.':: ',- i
operation for some time, the City can better assess the impacts.
<,
Kit
1'.'1'
.,~: 1 '
.
Councilman Behrendt said between the health club and clubhouse I Kutik is pro po:; io': ' I
90 to 250 people would be on the site at anytime. Councilman Behrendt asked i ( r>:'
had parking provisions to address that. Kutik noted that a lot of people usinq f ::'
facilities would also be living there. Councilwoman Pedersen asked Kutik if any!"
orgra'Ves would be destroyed by the sewer . line going through Ute Cemetery and llt... ;
Ktltik answered he had studied the easement carefully and had agreed to replace ,\1\,/
that a.re destroyed. City At,torney Stuller remarked she had no problems with th'~
SUbdivision.
OIl",
~1:~ ..
O~'"
in",'
(';:;i'
HI",.'
T,' ~'i
f Iv
~'T t.; ,0
Councilman Wishart moved to a.ccept and record the subdivision ptati to authorL:.' ~,(
Standley to execute the subdivision agreement on behalf of the City I and to aut h'
Mayor Standley to execute th'e easement agreementi 'and to include the reservation:;
the' planning office and to incorporate exploring employee housing; seconded.byt\";.
woman P~dersen. Roll call votei Councilmembers Behrendt, naYi Johnston,.aye:; {'dr,i'
ayei Pedersen, aye; Wishart, ayeiMayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
'fo
eo;:.
r,.~.;
!,; ~.,.,
,J'
;I,j,)
th'
Paul Kutik told Council that Callahan I s FHA loan app~icatiort was being withdrd.....n.
700 WEST HOPKINS - Request for exemption from the definition of subdivision
Bruce Kistler, representing 700 West Hopkins, had submitted a letter to council
the petition for exemption from the definition of subdivision and the rCa!'30n:~ y
believe the exemption to be app1'icable. Kistler stated basically there 3rc t.,:!.'
......hy the 700 Hopkins project should be exempt, qther than the fa~t t,hat to i:'~i:';':",'
division obligations on the conversion ofapartroents to condominiums accompll.C,:.,\
valid purpose\1nder the subdivison reg:ulations. Kistler sa.id the law is vrc)"';r' '. .'
There are two standards. The fee must be specifically and' uniquely attribut,"iIL:', .
the subdivision, and there must be some nexus between the .subdivision itself ,1:"
reason for extracting the fee.
Kistler said the new subdivision ordinance fees in lieu of land dedication wi ~ l . !~",
for, acquisition of land or open space. . Kistler asked if the 700 Hopkins. flUb(:l.\,',',...,
attracted a need that may exist in the community for more open space. KJ,st.leJ ','
withconvetsion, there is no such need demonstrated. For that reason, KistJct,~,':
the or~inallce .aswri tt~n isi~legal and,~nc~nstitution'71. Kistler w-:-nte(:~ U~('l_>~'" ',';,; "
recogn~ze tihat the ord~nance ~s unconstltut~onal. It 1S up to the C1ty to t,l.
steps, to rectify this or to operate under an unconstitutional ordinance.
Kist.ler asked for the money back that 700 West Hopkins paid purslwnt to trli,s ~'.lIL"!'
agreem(~nt. Kistler said the facts are not-thereto sustn.in tha'f:. a condoll1in\ \,!m"'"
~;ion esttbliShcs either nC!~us or specifically and uniquc~ly' attributable- Jlp('<L
}:,
(';
~', >, t
l",
,."
""
~h.
-\11.;
d"
,-,,:1
d t~'
,
,,"
)).,
r; \ ~ "
c1,.
/,J,l
<'HI'
"'~:;'!~-,
j
,
i
~
;ty
ci
: .16
',t
;",.1
1'"'\
194-9
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
February 9, 1976
I' '-----
I
Councilwoman Pedersen moved not to have Goodheim involved
of Jenkins' project; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All
Councilman De Gregorio. Motion carried.
in marketing the second. phase
in favor with the exception of
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT
. Mayor Standley said the agreement started during the budget session and it was left that
I the City would be willing to pool a like amount of money 'with the County to the agencies
I' identified. The agencies were to' work amongthernselves and come up .with a program for
the dispersa~ of the funds. Mayor Standley asked if the agreement were consistent with
I the C~tyls budgeting; Fi~ance Director Butter~augh said ye~.
.1
I'
I:
,!
il
II
'I
!I
it
"
h
ii
~i
"
.,
If>
MYI
en."'
tf)C'
HL;
o'>-~
'"
'0
councilman Behrendt said the various agencies had reported on their past performance and
\worked out levels of service they feel will be fair. Through Betty Ericksen's office
the agencies have tr ied to work out a reporting and .:accountabili ty system. Mayor
asked how the minimum service levels relate to the past performance of the various
agencies. Hs. Ericksen said it was close to their performance of last year, and is what
they are comfortable with for this year. It also states they will make an effort to
mainta~n and improve the quality of improved service.
Mayor Standley asked Ms. Ericksen how she felt about the Mount Sopris involvement. Ms.
Ericksen said they are being cooperative, and helpful. Ms. Ericksen said that after the
first paragraph in the agreement Flhereinafter participating agencies" will be added.
Ms. Ericksen told Council she felt all the agencies were quite comfortable in trying to.
provide the kind of reporting the City asked for., , There will be a report from each
agency every month. 90uncilmanDe Gregorio said he did not see any facilities open on
Saturdays. Ms. Ericksen said there was a crises lioe and lots of people on call.
Councilwoman Pedersen pointed out in Resolution there was no mention of the Open Door.
Open Door come~ under Touchstone as one of their agencie's..
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #3, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman
Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #3
(Series of 1976)
.il
ii
!i
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City' Council for their considera-
tion an acceptable AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY HEALTH proposing a joint
services arrangement among the City of Aspen, the Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County, A~en School District RE-l, Touchstone Clinic, Inc.~ Sopris
Mental Health Clinic and Aspen ValleyVi~iting'Nurse Association, and
WHEREAS, that Section 13.5 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter permits
entry by the City into agreements with other governmental units, special
distric.ts or persons for the joint furnishing or receiving of commodities
or services, provided such agreements are ratified by the City Council by
formal resolution, and
'."
',"f
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve such agreement and authorize
the Mayor to execute the same on its behalf,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY.COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
That it does ratify and approve the AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY HEALTH
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and does further authorize
Stacy Standley III, Mayor of the City of Aspen, to executive the same on its
behalf. was read by the city clerk. ..
Councilwoman Johnston moved to adopt Resolution #3, Series of 1976; seconded by Council-
man Wishart. All in favor, motioncarried~
A~95 REVIEW ~ FHA APPLICATION - The Aspen Club
, .'::a-
~1ayor Standley told Council that COG acts as A-95 review for federal fund programs
private sector, or public. In packet there is a copy of A-95 review for an FHA program
and a letter from Andy Hecht to COG. Mayor Standley said the City and County both have
an opportunity to take a COtlrSf-~ of act.ion a.nd convey to COG this action.
",t;
Andy Hecht introduced i\nt,hony Chdo','" r attorney from'i;'il;~hinqton D.C. \vho is rcpresenti.nq
the applicant .for this f.J..nanci.<t',r. .Chase told Counci.l he' was rcprcscntin9 Hoi)crt~Coldsc:':11t
d/b/a/ 'I'he Aspen Club, who hn<.i dFlp1..icd t.o thc~ F(~der<:,l government: t.hrouqh FHA bll.sine~,;.:;
and industry loan .program.for <:l9rant of 90 percent of money sufficient to construct
the facilities. Chase said Federal assistance can be divided into, two categories;
progr?ms that are of guarantee nature, and programs that are of subsidy nature. Chase
told Council ~hat this instance is a ,program developed by the Federal government to
provide certain kinds of term lending not available to small businesses; it is not a
subsidy program. This is not a program that will take money out of some other pocket.
Chase. explained the applicant will repay the long over longtherrn period, not in excess
of 20 years. , Bcc;;wse of :the mcr::-hanics set up by the federal government:, the banks nre
able t.o go ahtc'ldd anil provide ,th:is kind of financing.'l'he lender i~, entering int.Qun
insur.'lncc acran9('''lK'nl; wit.h thc' .fed~~x;'.ll qovcrnincnt.
el,,::-;;}
f, ("':,i
:1 ked to :)r'I,)YO\i(> tiny
j ;; Uir i.'.';'Ll.llr:;,
,1\.),: '",I," ::;L<.:J':dlcy
l'c:L !.i .i:'J I: Ll::u
'.'d. 'il(;:.:;C' aI',,;
"'lit,h t'i-;('
A~-93 prl)CC~Ur,'s,
to) (] C'ounc i 1
,;I.i,d. ,c.,!n.,'li<'d
jn
ac(_"qt'..JailC<,.
"" !..l', t,. l,t: fI(1
,'.-;)_,1,) iTI,_:J ch",: i)' ",J.I
l.:h:~'m :1.'<""1:' f.,,',k:,I' 11 L~irtdjn9
'T'1,,> i j Y lk,~; to V".'; or )l<) .,,,1. i:_L
Ol1(:, j i.: i:n }:-,/, L:Y the' '~"-'C'l'l, .\ 1\
\'~iJc; ril>;;.~!"t":;l t\"-(i'; 1',:'1./!(.\'1 <:H. 'l:l:\.I~'..
wi Jl be ;:cj,r:(:uL,~,,(,(j b;,c!. u.) U,.,~ I ')('il!
f:n-'"
~
~
/ '
l",'hl.-lld 1-)' ')
}\::,l.th.11ICi ty c()uncil
HL:(Jllliir Meeting
. ,....,:.;.
.- .,......;
pr i vat.e as well as l()cal project,s '(';;;M<iYOI: Stim:dleyt.old. Coun,?il thnt i ftll\~ lUl'd j
;'ui)divis:i.on decides to go with a project., t_hat_is th'e dlTectl.on that. COG \."i.1 J I,
~dyur Standley told Counci~l that many FHA projects had come before COG-UI<:IL ;\1\,<1r,
to t.his.
Planner Kane told Council he was not personally i.n favor of the applic,'lt.ion. -(',
will provide an exclusive service. Kane pointed out that r1~. Chase repn>:;~)I)U:('j'
was no federal subsidy involved; however, if the project falls, there is <1 h('d\".,'
involved. Kane told Council that the develop~rshijd repeatedly suggcstd3. th.it: ;,
~ould be an exclusivefacilityan.d will not be a public facility. Kane aSkc,tl 1~
city should be in the business of encouraging federal participation in a projf"C~,
appeals to the recreation, of 200 to 300 exclusive Aspeni tes. Kane sai.d hQ h'l-
affect the City's reputation and posture in, COG being a community that would '
Federal guarantee loan fora',faCility of this type. , Chase said ,this was not' ct . ,
subsidy even if the loan goes into ,default; the' reserves created from premiulns I',," "
loans that ,don't go into default pick up loans that do. Robert Goldsamttold ,<,,::,.
reason fo~ the applicati<:>n to FHA is that this is an unusualprOject.T.heOhj~~;:~~'
this partlcular program ~s to stretch out the loan for the longest possible t :~':". .
reducing the annual debt service, enabling Goldsamt to charge less for the P(;oi"l., .
want to join.
A.qr:['"Kane said the project was presen~ed at conceptual that the homeowners of Call"h.,,, ..
h;f\ have authority over the financial and maintenance arrangements of the club. 'l'h~~ c' '.'
VlAPWV"'~, "facilities would add attractiveness ..and a .marketing element. Kane pointed out !n ...,
Ivr.;.lljV~qmelanguage 'in the application that specifies the intended use of the money ll~:\'
If'Vvv, .. communities that are loosing population; provide economic incentive for develor,:::,-:.:
private business to, help inject capital into communities. Kanesai'd they would ~:,j"\_
speak in specific numbers to understand the financing of this club.. Councilman Iii- ',:,
pointed out the application said this project would provide in excess of 100 jOb:;, : '
has not seen anywhere that would provide housing.
Councilman Wishart asked how the guarantee would be paid for. Chase answered .t!:" ,.
fee is one per cent up front. Councilwoman Johnston quoted from the regUlatil):l~;,
purpose of the program is to improve economic and environmental climate in runl i ".t.:'~'
ties" and said she did not feel this would improve the environment.
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Plat Approval
Hal Clark" planning office, told Council this is a request for a final plat and
development plan, final phase of the PUD, approval of the Callahan Subdivision.
told Council there would be four documents filed; subdivision plat, landscaping
plan showing configuration and outline of the buildings.
c; ,; ~
pl"
it :; ~ .,\
Clark told Council this is a 25 aCEt:_,.proposal with 12 single family dwelling uniu~.
duplex site, 20 townhouses;~:~fl,,~_dic_tlse::<:4-sting home will be expanding into a, club 1"
facility, 7 outdoor tenni.s-'~dourts, and,an,,:indoor court facility. Clark- said tl"\I~.l L,:
court as proposed is ~)W;O~.o_E)qtlCl,,;t:e_Jeet'~ club house is about 9, 400 square feet. .net
approvals'to date ha,?,e been( C-ounty P '&..z ,reviewed waterline extension to the :;i1.:,
City P & Z has given!?oncePtual and preliminary plat approval, qiven stream marq III
approval, appr~ conditiona.lusp fnr tn"" 'r,.QCrc.:ltion buildilVJ in the RR zone it:,,: '
C,lUb house""~n the RR zone.,The....~g\l.n^c.iL..a,gp~2YS:,~'-~_e:PJ;JJ..aJ. <'Inn n11tl in"" npvp.1u;:,"
plans, and acted to annex"twQ 'parcels, rezone the cluh nC'l1lse from R-IS to RR to ill I'
con~t?]1~l u~e to be. app"ruvt:ra: -^
Clarkcompared the original plan, with the final. The handball and indoo)! courts 1;.'1'.
changed significantly. .Origi.:n,al.ly there were ~ight outdoor courts, an indoor faelll:'
of 13,800 for a total of 24-(000 square feet of the indoor'facility. Now the indue,}
facility is approximatelY.f~8, Q})"0~,square feet in size. There 'have been changes ,i n t;".
existing clubhouse buildinSr~th:eoriginal size is about 6, 000 square feet. The Cill ~, .
proposal is 9,000 square feet. The townhouses have changed significantly. Then' ,,"I
20 townhouses of 800 square feet; the number of ,townhouses is the same. The townh(".~1
are no longer three stories high, but l~ to 2~. It looks like they plan to lower t ,~",
vertical impact of the project, but they have spread. the project out on the site.
said these townhouses average out to 2100 square feet. In the previous plan, the t~'...
houses could have been up to 240D square feet.
There is a subdivision agreement submitted in the packet drawn up by city enginf'cr
Ellis and Andy Hecht. Clark outlined the criteria in that agreement; cash dcdica1l
$90,000, trail easement for the county trail, guarantee of Crystal Lake remaininq ., "
amenity to the project, bond for subdivision improvements at $193,000, lining the d ,,!
between lots 8 and 9, acquiring"first right of refusal on some water rights in Hun~FI
~Clark summarized the planning office position; (l)recommend approval of the fini"d ,,:",
and final development plan subject to (a), comments of the city engineer and fire f~;'\:_:
be incorporated in the final plat and subdivision improvement agreement, (b) addit1<," ,~,
landscaping will be revised by the applicant, specifically' 'Zl. more detailed !anch.:c,"q'
plan developed for the west side of the indoor courts (c) the recreation buildinQ )",,1
grown too large, it is over half a block. The planning office would recommend th;l~ ."
approval be given for two indoo,r courts, not, three. The applicant would have. to (iI,'"
a PUD amendment process if the third court were applied for later. ~_plannl~'
the massing of the building is ~,Q.<2-st;r9J)g--.!..
Councilwoman Johnston' asked lfthe reason' this ~project ~as not in the. flood plil i Tl \'i'
the elevation was too high. Kane said the planning office's major cqncern is ~h'l;', \,;-~.
of the senior-junior high school , this would be the largest building. Kane stud ,)1
this does not represent an intensive use of the land. The planning office is i:\ U;o
cerned tha.t the buildings integrate with the landscape.
1''-'\
Ii
II
'.' i!
.,,10n II
II
"
II
II
,I
:1
I'
:1
!:
,i
~
1951
Regular Meeting Aspen city Council
February 9, 1976
"',"~."..,...:",...~..^.-.-.~.-- .,,,..,~".. .-",..",.".,... . "-."..~,..-,"",,.,.,~, .,.,....,".
~ _'_d.. _..._,,,__..
I
I
.__. ..... _~,~_, '.., ,~~...-,-,-,. ..._.. '~., ..~.,..'M',.,'_~-'-'''-'_''',,~, ~,"_.,'"':',~'_.m.'.,"
...".....-.........'"'.-...
i
City Engineer Ellis told Council that the fire marshal needs more access to the building, I
with the presentsitde Planhit is difficult to givehcoveh~age. Elklis dsaid the other ,
important point woul be t e, concurrent easement t roug Ute Par an Ute Cemetery. ii
Mayor Standley questioned the subdivision agreement about underground culvert, and asked 1/
Ellis if he planned' to put the Nelly Bird.in uI1derground culvert. Ellissaid to save the ii
city money, they would put the culvert underground to carry water, 'and would coordinate Ii
this ,with the actual construction. Mayor Standley asked if Ellis planned to do this work
this summer and if it were on the construction program. 'Ellis answered yes he planned
to do the work, and it was not on the construction program, but is an option worth taking
up.
Ii
I,
I'
II
Ii
II
ii
II
I'
"
I!
ii
Councilman De Gregorio asked Kutik to discuss employee housing. Kutik said he had II
discusse.d this possibility with Goodheim,theP & Z, since they had 4 acres on the south I)
side cif Ute AVenue they would be willing to workout some kind of mix between condominiums'
and rentals units. Andy Hecht said at first they ,went to the planning office to try ,I,
to incorporate a housing program. The planning office did not want an ad hoc program !i
but wanted it coordinated with the city and county. The planning office did not want to
deal with housing at this point. Kutik pointed out that the planning office wanted to
study this area with regard to traffic before they gave a positive answer. Goodheim
said the problem is that the area proposed for employee housing is not the type of zone
by definition of the subdivision and zoning code for housing. It is also not consistent
with general planning principles for this' type of density. Goodheim said that the site
is very restrictive.
Paul Kutik told Council the three tennis courts would take approximately 22,000 square
feet; four handball/squash courts, exercise room, locker, would all be settled into
the back area of Benedict's office building, which is 17. feet above grade. Kutik said
the building is sunk down so the top of the building is lower by 2 or 3 feet than the
trees; one cannot see the building unless they are up above it, on Aspen mountain. Kutik
showed Council a.n elevation of the trees' and the building. Kutik also had a model of
the project built to scale; he showed that the townhouses had been dropped to below tree
line.
Councilman De Greqorio question~nrnp pxclusiveness of the cluh. and asked what a member-
~hip'wouldcost, what townhouses 'would cost. Councilman DeGregorio said he did not want
to see 100 jobs provlaea-;--an~"t:rie'''.cTtY .of Aspen has to provide facilities, housing ,etc.
Kutik said he wasn't prepared to discuss figures and costs. This would depend On the "
amount of facilities available and the number of people he can take in. Councilman I:
DeG~egorioasked if it made a difference in cost if the Council support the loan applica~1
tibn. Kutik said it was a consideration because it would enablethe;n to payout in 25 Ii
years. i,:
Councilman Behrendt moved to finally approve the Callahan subdivision and
table the planned unit development plan pending inspection by the Council
approva 1.
simultaneously
and a site
,.
i:
ii
"
that ;:
jI
,I:
Planner Kane said he was suggesting the subdivision plat itself can 'beapproved, but
the PUD be tabled. City Attorney Stuller pointed out this might affect easements,
access roads, and everything else. Piecerneals approva~s can get the City into a bind.
;1
~j
I'
"
Ii
Kane suggested that stakes be placed to show the physical location of the building so Ii
that Council can see how much land is being taken up. The trees could be flagged to show:'
the exact elevation 'of the buildings. City Attorney Stuller, said she had received' I,:
amendments to the subdivision agreements from Ellis, Jim Moran, and Andy Becht. Incorpora;-
tion of all thesecomment"s woul-d be appropriate. '!1
Ii
Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion.
Councilwoman Pedersen~oved to consideration of this project be tablea pending (1) building
being staked out and site inspection by the Council (2) all changes are incorporated into;'
a new subdivision documents (3) an analysis and' comments by City Manager and City Attornei
on 1980 of the Farmers Home Administration lending; seconded by Councilman Behrendt.
CQtln~;]man De Gregorio said he would like adde9 to thisto~udc that there is some
4Vfi;1~hilitv of d~~~~on on prices. Councilwoman Johnston said she would like to see
conversations on housin~inue.Councilwoman Johnston said she felt that the increased
size of the facilities would attract traffic, rather than for people that live there and
mcmbers.
C9lJns::_i,),rn.Cl..n,..J]!?__Gx:e..~o made" a motion to amend the main motion to include some kind of
f)'Slur.e.s.-._QJL,how much rnemberSnl.ps-c<5St, now much tne units COSf;-~ secanaea-by Councilwoman
Johnston.
CQ.!.lQG_iJ,Jftan.J~,.2...r~y,..J2.oiJ1...:tPn ('loT- t-f1P ori<JiTi.Sll concept was not to have a Y camp type situation.
'I't'!,e ...CollnC"il was trying 1:.0 establish th;~("lub not tQ be a traffic ,generator.
--
1\1) in favor of Councilman De Gregorio's amendment with the exception of Councilman
Behrendt. Motion carried.
Mayor Standley pointed out that the third part of the main,motion regarding the FHA
;-Illi'\lysis did not tie in with the subdivisi.on agreement and the site inspection.
COtlnc.i.lwoman Pedersen withdrew part three of the main motion; Councilman Behrendt agreed.
i\ll in favor of the main motion, motion carried.
('.. ~
.... \)\.trlcilwo1l1Dn Johnston asket1if . there W8re some way to pursue employee housing in this
fl/'ojvcl.. Mayor Standley Daid Council had given tbclllc;(ll1Ceptunl ,approv.::ll_; Council would
h"IV~' .In wi Lhdraw concr:>ptu,_l1. approval ,and st.artover: with i.ncreased density. Knne
r)OIl~t('d uut till':> whol(:,pJ.'u~jc;cthds b('(;~n desi~Jncd fox a v(~ry, low traffic situation. 'fhe
1'1 II )<'(:\ 1" l\Ot. CqUiPl'f'd to handle pilrk,inq.
^
,-.,
Spf!ciill 11.;\.'I'-inq
Asp\'m City COL'lnci.1
~3vpt('llIh(>r 11, 1971,)
Hc1yor SUuldley called t:h(~ Sp'~Gj~).1 J\l(.'eLinq to ur'Qt,'r ;:.J,t. 7:0H p.m. \;I.lth Coq!~('i
Johnston, Pa:n:-y,PedVl:S,:'lli Citynir;;j"g~'ol:- ["l.,.:hOfWY:;lhi Ci Ly h.t~()L.I,h.'Y :;tull"l ;f["i~.(H,~nl-.
lU:, ~~tr.__;~~,:L~S'!.t2!.~_._!I.\)~~gX~g~_~}~'?"NEJ_~~
Mayor standley told Council this was a request from the High Scnool to have their
bonfire on the Rio Grande property. Mayor Standley had Chief of Police Ber~hcy and
Sanitarian Bob Nelson check ,it out in terms of the proper place to have this bonfire.
Hershey and "Nelson agreed i: was.
Mayor Standley told Council he had talked to John .Ranyan of the High School and reminded
him that last year's homecoming class did not clean up very well after the bonfirem.
Ranyan had promised Mayor Standley they would clean up thoroughly after the bonfire.
ni!:-,
j ~ :":>;
Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the use of the Rio GrQnde for Friday, September
19, for the bonfire; secoilded by Councilwom;:m Pedersen. All 'in favor, motion carried.
CALAHAN - Conceptual Subdivision Review
,.
;......1
Bill Kane, City/County planner, reminded Council that the applicant wanted assurance
about the club house. Kane told Council that Calahan intended to use Benedict's
house as a club house, and as it stands that is nota permitted use in the R-15 zone;
however, it would beperrnitted in RR. Kane said the planning office would support
a proposal to rezone the property to,RR. RR is a lower density, but. does permit a
number of recreational uses. Kane read the list of permitted uses in the RR zone.
Benedict pointed out that this facility would be a dining room rather than a restaurant.
Councilwoman Johnston said" it was her understanding that this was to bea private club
facility for 'members and guests only. Kane said he had envisioned it that way also.
Jim Moran, representing the applicants, told Council thptservices to club members
would include being able to eat there and drink there. Councilwoman Pedersen asked
what the hours for this club house would be. Moran said this was hard to determine;
it depended on wherr members wanted tennis privileges. Moran said he could anticipate
a harrow time when a meal could be obtained, and a time range on either side where
m~bers could get soup and a sandwich. Moran pointed out that club facilities, in order
to support themselves, had to have some services available.
Moran told Council there would be a licensing problem with the state. Club licenses
are available to either an affiliateofa national organization, or to a club that
has been in existense for five years ,and collected dues from members for five years.
Moran said this clubhouse could either apply for a regular liquor license, or remain
unlicensed and the facility would not have title to liquor and would not sell a drink.
Moran wan~ed Council to be aware that a club facility which excludes the general public
creates a licensing problem. Moran told Council this because there has beerrexpressed
a desire on the part of the Council, the P & Z, and the developer that this area not
be a public restaurant and bar but be a membership club. This facility should also
be private membership rather than public because it will generate less traffic.
Moran told Coun~il the applicant wanted Council to understand that' this facility would
be run on a club basis with dining and drinking facilities in the clubhouse. Moran
told Council the licensing issue would be a problem lateran, anti he wanted Council to'
be aware of this, Mayor Standley said the Council did not have the power to give
this project a liquor license that would be restrictive. The applicant would have to
present assurances to Council that they would be restrictive.
City Attorney Stuller stated that'it bothered her that the term "kitchen facilities"
had been expanded into a restaurant, which would give this ,a very'public and high
profile character. Dining hall and kitchen facilites have a much more limited use;
group feeding, etc., was the intention of the definition. City Attorney Stuller
said this problem of definitlon was brought on by the applicant's broad interpretation
of the wording in the code. City Attorney Stuller said she did not thin~ the City
should compromise the land use considerations ,to accommodate the liquor license
requirements. Moran said he felt this definition was meant for a recreational club,
the type of golf or tennis recreational club.
Stuller read the uses and said she envisioned large groups of people, sports activities,
getting fed along with their activities:. Her interpretation was not a private bar
and restaurant. Stuller told the applicant she wanted the problem of definition and
the liquor license to remain the problems of the applicants for them to resolve.
Planner Kane said he had not anti.cipated this project having a liquor license but
rather being like the Smuggler and Aspen Raguet clubs where people could bring bottles
of wine and the kitchen facilities were very low profile. Kane stated the idea of a
three-way liquor license was beyond the scope of anything the planning office had
discussed for thi$ project.
Moran asked what conditions Kane was talking about that the planning office would
at'tach to the RR zoning. Kane apswered the planning office would not encourage a.
three-way liquor license for this project. Kane confirmed that the Council and
planning office was having a problem reconciling everything that is going to be
involved in thissitc; Kane stated he did not have a problem with zoning the site RR.
Moran asked what. the term '''Recreat.ion clubll means, this 'is a condition use in the RR
zone. Moran asked if "recreational club" meant what the applicant had envisioned Lhis
facility as, or iEthe Council had ano,ther definition in mind. Kane said he felt
"rccreation<?!l club" should be a place where members meet, bring their own liquor and
perhaps meals could be prepared as well.
L0p01~~~
.r"
1851
r"\
special Meeting
Aspen City Council
September 11, 1975
.d
"illl
councilman parry said he envisioned this as a really nice club and faci.lity, nice dining
rooms: not as a YMCA camp. The Council was having trouble determining which facility
they wanted.
Mayor Standley asked Fritz Benedict how many square feet were in his house. Benedict
answered about 4,000 square' feet. Calahan told Council he did not think this would
be like typical country clubs where there isa lot oisocial activity. AndyHecht
told council that maybe when this project cOnies in for a liquor license, the Council
will find they cannot grant one. The applicant is aSking the Council to accept a
recreational club as outlined as a permitted~use ~n the RR zone.
councilwoman Johnston agreed with Councilman Parry and stated she felt it was nice for
people to have a club if they want that kind: of experience. Cit~Attorney Stuller told
council her constraint was 'looking at the defini tionof "recreational club" in the code
and reconcile that with the Rural Residential zoning district. "Recreational club" as
outlined in the code, IrA building devoted to pUblic use including such facilities as
golf clubs, swimming poolclubho~se, tennis clubhouse, playground and play field
activity centers, or clubhouses ~nd may include kitchen facilities, assembly halls,
meeting rooms and locker facilities.1' City Attorney Stulle~ pointed out that definition
has a totally different tone that a leisurely luxury club.
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
,!
"
Ii
I'
councilwoman Pedersen stated she did not want tQ define bar-use at this time and would 1\
not favor any such .definition. If the applicant wants a pr"ivate club, people can have [I
their own locker for liquor. Hecht said that was fine, the applicant just wants to Ii
know what the use is, that food is: okay,: liquor is okay. Councilwoman Pedersen stated ii
that if t'his facility were to be a clubhouse for ,members, fine; but if it were to be II!,
a commercial venture, she objected strongly.
. .
for conceptual subdi vision;~
34 units;. 20 townhquses,
acre site. The applicant i:
The planning office Ii
ii
Ii
,i
Ii
,:
Mayor Standley disagreed and noted that golf country clubs are located in rural areas,
not con~ercial areas. The RR zone is compatible with a golf ClUb-type facility. Mayor
Standley also stated that bar and restaurant is a very logical element in any type club.
city Attorney Stuller read ,the Rural Residential zone definition and told Council that
"recreational club" was a conditional use and, would have ~oreceive P & Zapproval.
calahan tqld Council they planned to operate oria twelvemonth basis and were looking
for local support. Moran told Council that the applicants were attempting to tell
council as much about their contemplati@n of this facility right at the beginning to
avoid setbacks later. Mayor Standley said that' if ,Calahan did no~ dedicate the road
to the City and the City did not accept the road, it is not: illegal to isolate the
liquor license by' not giving public access. Mayor Standley said the City can leave
the burden of proof on the applicant that they have restricted this facility to members
before the Council would grant a liquor license.
Kane reviewed this project, telling" Council this was a proposal
The applicants have sought recognition of the proposed 'density,
10 single family dwellings and 2 duplex units. This is ona 25
also wants recognition of the circulation system of the layout.
recommends that th~ conceptual subdivision be given approval.
Councilwoman Johnston moved thatLthe conceptual subdivision for Calahan be approved:
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
City Manager Mahoney stated that the difference between p~ivate and public is not
relevant until the Council knows what the terms are'. Private and Public is strictly
monetary. It could be,$3,000 to join or it could be $30; th~re could be some other
form of' restriction.
Allin favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to adjourn the special m~eting at 7:45 p.m.: seconded by
Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
kCLY'-'<<70J -4 iL7Zu
Katnryn S. Hauter, C1ty Clerk
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
September 22, 1975
Hayor Standley called the meeting to order .at 5:09 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt,
Johnston, Parry, Wishart, City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney Stuller present.
u.~E.
Councilman Wishart moved, to approve the minutes of
Council meetings: seconded by Councilman Behrendt.
CounciLwQman Pedersen came into Council Chambers.
August 25 and September 8, 1975,
All in favor, motion carried.
~~COUNTS PAYABLE
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the accounts payable fqr September; seconded by
Councilman Parry.
Councilwoman Johnston quest,ioncd thL~ $6,000 expendit.ure for Colorado Division of High:-
"'!.-IY~:;. Mayor Standley said {:;hat. was t,hcCity's share for the H<d_p(~rin stUdy, ,ollld i.~~
il11. .~ncumhrancc f.o has not; y...t l>cen. [;pCJ,lt. Coi.lnci lwoman ~Tobnf: l':,Ofl .;J150 quc~;t.iOJl('d ,t,h(~
(I()lL GOUJ'iH,,;const:nJc"t;.lon under l<1nd Jmf..lr()v\:~ment inst:.cdd of :r('cr(~d.t,ion. t-ldyor StancLlcy
dl'l~.;','h::or(>dd1'1 L the, (Jol.f cour:,;c; WC:H, bought oul of );:t,h penny ~Hhl Lhe imprC1\.'cIl1O'nts wc're
Utlli','J' ~;lxth pc-'nny.
1111 :irl favor, T1Iot,ion c~~rd(>d.
i
Ii
Ii
II
"
Ii
Ii
"
l-
I
I
,
\
I
i
.. i.'
~