Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.The Gant ',:,y "";':i{;~~i'i{t'r "{:ygl ,d!,fI! >, ;;",~ ~-;/:, _'-."l ',c: t.'W.(~I'~L Q. 0.... l.. .~~. --'------"--'---'---:c.;,'.~._ ~=gular Meeting :ant. poD Change ."" / ;'1otion -ooper street Lofts >t<:;onceptual approval) j ::Motion ~.zoning Code Changes -,-'- r>t::\ i'';/,' l .:, , ^ A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Planning and Zoning Comn\ission January.6, 1976 Clark explained that the Gant Condominiums would like to change their recorded PUD plat by removing.a jacuzzi bath as .a recreational amenity and substitute a swinuningpool. The Planning Office feels that it is an "inkind" change of a recreational amenity which would improve the final development plan; thus recommend- ing approval. . Jenkins opened the public hearing. No discussion.. Jenkins closed the public hearing. Hunt moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recmmnends changes to the PUD plat changing the jacuzzi to the swimming pool; seconded by Otte. All in favor, motion carried. Clark explained that they are requesting conceptual subdivision approval of the Cooper Street Lofts located. on the corner of South Aspen Street and Cooper Street. It will consist of 6 studio units on property zoned R-HF and contains 6,000 sq. ft. City Engineer had no comments and planning Officerecorornendsapproval of the conceptual SUbdivision. Dobie moved to approve conceptual. subdivision of the Cooper Street Lofts; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Kane explained the reason for a zoning code change. City Attorney Stuller was arguing that 40,000 sq. ft. was the mininmm lot size for areas in the R-15 zone not sub- divided prior to the inception of the zoning code. There was disagreement of that and was feeling that that was not the intention to have 40,000 sq.ft. be the lot size in the R-15 zone. Clark amended the chart, which is included in the packet. Clark mentioned that when he examined the catagories in the area and bulk requirements in the zoning code and" contacted different people in the staff for their interpretation on it there were several interpretations given. The background for the subdivided and unsub-. divided catagory was that the. original City of Aspen Subdivision law did not include apartments and those projects b~ing built for lease or rent. It was recently amended to include apartments being built for lease or rent. So all the bui.ldings for lease or rent fall under the subdivision regulation. The distinction between subdivided and unsubdivided becomes meaningless because all developments will have to fall under the subdivision regUlations. The arguement was that i.f the project was to be built on unsubdivided land that since the City is not getting a chance to look at water, swere, and roads and have a basic review of the project perhaps it should be 40,000 sq. ft. instead of 30,OOOsq.ft. in the R-30. The. plannin9 Office recommendation was to remove the unsubdividcd and subdivided catagories and leave it just to state each of the zones onthc chart. Clark also recomn1cndcd another change which is in the R-MF zone. It has to do with the different catagori.es under the.minimum lot area. Clark also mentioned that the 3,000 sq.ft. for a duplex di.d not coincide with the 9,000 sq.f.t for duplex. 'l'hus hot understanding the rationale for acquiring 50% more land area for the .~17- I . /' / T k \1" A ':',' CITY, 130 so aspen, s t re e t 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) DATE: December 30, 1975 RE: Gant P.U.D. Change This is a Public Hearing to consdier a request by Destination Resort (Gant Condominiums) to change their recorded P.U.D. plat by removing a jacuzzi bath as a recreational amenity and substitute a swimming pool. The Planning Office feels that this is an "inkind" change of a recreational amenity which would improve the final development plan and therefore recommends approval. 19r/I-Ntct jJr/~ JI(JN 6/ /9,(. /./.c /""---, LEGAL NO'rICE Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Plapning and Zoning Commission shall hold a publi.c hearing on January 6, 1976, 5:00 P.M., Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado; to consider an amendment to the Planned unit Development of the Gant Condominiums to revise future plans to remove a jacuzzi bath and substitute a swimming pool. /s/ Kathryn S. Hauter City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times December 18, 1975. -------.--..-_- ^ ,-" Destination Resort Corporation December 2, 1975 Rocky Mountain Regional Office P. O.Box 2946, Aspen, Colorado 8r61I Telephone (303) 925-4252 Mayor and Members of the Aspen City Council City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Variance Request under Ordinance No. 70, 1975 For The Gant Project Dear Mayor and Members of the Aspen City Council: This letter will outline our request for a variance for a limited time period under Ordinance No. 70, 1975, as it effects the building per- mits for the third and final phase of The Gant. I will appear at your December 8, 1975 Council meeting to discuss this matter further with you. A summary of the background information may be helpful in your con- sideration of our variance request. We applied for and were granted building permits for Buildings G"and H at The Gant on August 16, 1975. This represents the final thirty units approved for construction. Our goal was to complete most of the preliminary excavation and footing work on both buildings this Fall so that an early start on the balance of construction could be achieved in the Spring of 1976. This effort was undertaken so that we could complete the buildings on a timely basis to avoid the pre-Christmas panic which typically occurs with the short building season in Aspen. Construction work was commenced with- in the time period required by the Building Code and we have com- pleted most of what we set out to do this Fall. After our building permits were issued and work had commenced, Ordinance No. 70 was passed October 27, 1975.. The Ordinance re- quires that a builder, after 180 days from the issuance of a building permit, must have 10% of the valuation of the entire project com- pleted, and 10% of the valuation be completed each 60 days thereafter Headquarters: Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone (2 r 3 ) 474- r 5 5 r ~ ,,-, Mayor and Members of the Aspen City Council December 2, 1975 Page Two until completion of the structure. current construction be completed 1976. This would require by February 15 and that 10% of our 20% by April 15, We believe that unless a variance is granted under Ordinance No. 70 severe and unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties will result for the following reasons: 1. It is our understanding that Ordinance No. 70 was primarily directed at those builders who have historically begun con- struction and then pursued no reasonable activity directed toward a timely completion. This is not the case with The Gant. We have completed the previous two phases in a professional and timely manner, and have both the capacity and intention to do so with the third phase. 2. At our present stage of construction and given the time we had to adjust to the new Ordinance, the climatic constraints create such practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships that continuing construction through the winter months in order to meet the 10% and 20% completion requirements is nearly impossible. The application of Ordinance No. 70 to our construction during the winter months is a harsh appli- cation of its basic intention to discourage builders from unnecessary postponing construction work and leaving un- completed excavations for prolonged periods of time. 3. Prolonged construction during the winter months will re- sult in an unnecessary hardship for all involved parties. It will be disruptive to the Gant owners, other neighbors and to winter visitors. Continuing the excavation and concrete work during the winter will result in useless cost increases to future owners faced with already high Aspen prices and pouring concrete in freezing weather will result in reduced quality. 4. This request for a variance does not reflect either our in- ability or lack of desire to complete the construction in a timely manner. On the contrary, the plans are complete, ^ .""'" Mayor and Members of the Aspen City Council December 2, 1975 Page Three we have spent or committed to, spend approximately $60,000 to obtain both construction and permanent financing to insure completion, and we have incurred about $30,000 in actual construction work to date. Contracts are currently being negotiated to insure completion of the project in the Summer of 1976. As an additional indication of our positive intentions, we are not re- questing a general variance; we are only asking for a temporary de- ferral of its application to our current permits until Spring. Specifi- cally, we are confident we w ill comply with Ordinance No. 70 by July, 1976; and that construction will be completed approximately eight months earlier than the minimum schedule provided for in the Ordinance. Consequently, we feel that a variance should be granted as a matter of both reason and right. Our request is only to defer that work re- quired by Ordinance No. 70 from the December through March period to the Spring. We feel that this request is not in violation of the in- tent of Ordinance No. 70 and will save unreasonable hardship to us, our neighbors and future owners. We would appreciate your positive response to this request. Sincerely, ~~ David G. Behrhorst Vice President DGB:hjg cc: Aspen Building Inspector ,....., "......., Destination Resort Corporation November 26, 1975 Rocky Mountain Regional Office P.O. Box 2946, Aspen, Colorado 816n Telephone (303) 925-4252 Mr. Hal Clark Land Use Administrator Post Office Box 2775 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Hal: A t your suggestion, this letter outlines our request for approval of a minor amendment to the Planned Unit Development plan for The Gant which was approved and adopted on April 20, 1973. The amendment which we would like to institute is the adding of a swimming pool approximately 20ft. x 38ft. to the area east of Building G. As a part of the original P. U. D., a therapy pool was approved in this same area. The reason for this requested amendment is that many of the owners at The Gant have felt that there is a need for an additional swimming pool within the grounds. They feel the existing pool area tends to get over crowded at certain times especially in the summer. By adding the proposed swimming pool along with the approved therapy pool the conjested conditions at the existing pool area should be eliminated. The enclosed site plan for Phase III (Building's G and H) shows the revised pool area with the addition of a swimming pool. No additional unit density or building coverage will occur to the original P U. D Plan. This is only a slightly larger pool area than shown on the original P. U. D. and would reduce conjestion for the existing recreation facilities. I would be more than happy to discuss this further with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to answer any questions which may arise. Favorable considera tion of this minor amendment would be appreciated by the present homeowners at The Gant. Sincerely, D~~ Vice President DGB:hjg Enclosure Headquarters: Los Angeles,Califomia 90024 Telephone (213) 474-1551 ~ ~ MAF.!G.t,~' J '~,~,,,,:E _'" .~~ ,ie,' .3"_'''. . .' ~ 'f- -:;t<y,.:.>:-:;[ 'i. ., ~. ;'- ;; ',~: .,:, , 'F -l;-" , ;; ~--~ :( .. '''' .~ .~: " , , " , . . , , " . _'C - _~ , 4- "..r ~c", ~, -.,~ .. . J..e; ~,I.:- . ';'::';:,>- ':"'~r'':-''_'JI< , --j ..\ -/;;""~-, :;, '.~.....~.,:~ ,":> c .~, .~; MAF.!G.t,~' J '~,~,,,,:E _'" .~~ ,ie,' .3"_'''. . .' ~ 'f- -:;t<y,.:.>:-:;[ 'i. ., ~. ;'- ;; ',~: .,:, , 'F -l;-" , ;; ~--~ :( .. '''' .~ .~: " , , " , . . , , " . _'C - _~ , 4- "..r ~c", ~, -.,~ .. . J..e; ~,I.:- . ';'::';:,>- ':"'~r'':-''_'JI< , --j ..\ -/;;""~-, :;, '.~.....~.,:~ ,":> c .~, .~; -~ Mrs Valerie Richter 3233 E. Meadowbrook Phoenix Arizona, 85018 Feb. 1, 1975 Executive Secretary Aspen City Council Aspen, Colorado Dear Sirs: Could you supply m~ with information concerning any agreement made between the Ctty of Aspen, and Destinations Resorts regarding requirements for that company (or for the Gant Comdominium Association) to provide one or more mobl.le units to transport guest~ of the Gant to areas in and around Aspen. I am an owner of unit K~30l at The Gant, and a member of the Gant Condominium Association. As such, I am entitled to information regarding requirements for services for which I -strar'e - i-n -srrpport-tng. I appreciate your attention to this letter and look forward to your reply. .1J;;:::~~. Valerie Richter ~ -~ -' ;YJ~ ~ "" J).'K.C. cru Aspen City Council Special Meeting March 1, 1974 Meeting was called by Councilmembers Jenifer Pedersen and James Breasted for the purpose of reconsidering the question of the issuance of a building permit to the Gant and/or Destination Resort Corporation. Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Stacy Standley with Councilmembers Jenifer Pedersen, James Breasted, Pete DeGregorio, Ramona Markalunas, Jack Walls, Michael Behrendt, city Attorney Sandra Stuller and City Manager Mick Mahoney. Councilman Breasted stated his reason for calling this meeting is that there still seems to be some questions that were not answered at the meeting on Monday, own opinion not really changed. Ask that the City Attorney expound on the cases which she has cited in her memo that are pertinent on whether or not a permit should issue for a building in an area that is to be rezoned. Further stated our whole system is against giving any recourse. Actually do not feel this problem should be brought before Council but apparently members of the administrat.ion must have thought there some reason for turning down the permit. Believe a contract is a contract but it seems incredible that the City cannot protect the neighborhood in the Ute Avenue area. City/County Planner Herb Bartel stated the Planning Office started working on this project in November or December of 1972. About the first time before t~he Planning and Zoning was January of 1973. The approval process took approximately 6 months and four months between the Planning and Zoning and Council. The Planning office does not have any choice but to process a subdivision plan that is consistent with the zoning, no reason to deny the subdivisiion, all requirements were worked out. They agreed to go PUD, at the Planners request. At that time had heigh.t regulations that did not fit the project etc. Indicated to Council on Monday that voluntary PUD has not worked. Government has to identify those areas where PUD should be applied and make it a part of the official zoning. The Planning Office, about September of 1973, started to prepare the first draft for the down-zoning in the County. ute Avenue area is an extension of that program, this is not an isolated case. Planning Department feels that based on other changes that have occurred in that area there is more to justify the proposed zoning than existing zoning. Further stated that when Ordinance #19 went into effect, there 'Nere applications for over 400 units within the City limits and the feeling of the Planning office was we had to take the strongest position from the first day that would go along with the revised zoning for the City. Made the presentation to the Planning and Zoning for the down-zoning in the Ute area and they felt they should not recommend down- zoning but felt the proposal had merit and should be included in the Ordinance #19 land use plan. Attorney Albert Kern stated he had no quarrel with the down-zoning. Mr. Kern gave the 0ackground on the zoning for the Ute Avenue area by stating tha.t the first zoning for Aspen was in 1956 and the area in question was zoned tourist which allowed for twice the units as the Gant is constructing. In 1966 the Master Plan was adopted and after that some significant changes in zoning came about, one being the open space requirement. In 1970 the densities were cut in half and no other density changes have occurred. In 1972, DRC purchased this land; property values are based on zoning. In the later part of 1972 and early 1973 subdivision plans were submitted and approved by the P & Z and Council. When approved by Council for 153 units, DRC did not apply for a permit which they could have done because condominiums were not covered under the subdivision regulations. They did go through the subdivision process and as a result gave up 4% of their land etc.. Mr. Bartel urged them to submit their development under the PUD process which is a significant process. There were certain gives and takes under this process and 143 units were approved (3 of the 143 units for employee housing). Further they had to recognize a view plane and had to relocate buildings. Certain lands had to be reserved and set aside for rights-of-way. An agreement was entered into with the City requiring r"""'. ,-" Page 2, Council, 3/1/74 DRC to do certain things during certain phases, this is an inte- grated project. DRC has designed and installed a utility system to meet the 143 units. Following the PUD process, the project was recorrunended for approval from the P & Z and Council and they did approve it. There was concern at all times by the Council of what would happen to the neighborhood. Not sure the Council had much choice since that was the law then and is today. Councilman Behrendt questioned what exact law prohibits Council from denying the permit. Mr. Kern replied the question is can a City deny a person or corporation who meets the law, the right to abuilding permit. Councilman Behrendt questioned what zoning would apply in a phas- ing situation for future phases under a PUD arrangement. Mr. Kern replied under Aspens PUD regulations, you are required to state your schedule of phasing prior to approval. Understand this was required so the zoning would be known and impacts of the project could be ascertained at that time. Feel the Council is sitting today as a building inspector and feel that is wrong. The building inspector was ready to issue the permit last Tuesday. If Council decides not to issue the permit, would like to know why so response can be given. Feel the law is very clear in Colorado in that if there has been reliance on a decision of a governmental body, you cannot go back and deny on that reliance. City Attorney Stuller clarified the point that when you grant a PUD, you are not rezoning the tract. The contract is nothing but an agreement that says we will accept their plat and they shall do certain things. Last paragraph of contract, "Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred to the contrary, subdivider, in developing the property contained within the plat, and the other improvements as herein described, shall fully comply with all applicable rules, regulations, standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and bodies having jurisdication". It is not the intent of the agreement to give them immunity from other rules and regulations. Its a 50/50 question and the question is when the City granted the PUD and subdivision, did DRC so rely on that that they made such expenditures that the future of the development would be unfair, i.e. sales contracts anticipated, architectual and engineering fees, utilities designed and stubbed in, some street improvements, some land dedications. The question is have they dealt in good faith with us and would it be unfair for us to deny them now. Mayor Standley questioned their trying to beat Ordinance #19 and playing the door game. DRC came in in June of 1973 for Phase #2 when it was actually scheduled for April of this year. Mr. Kern stated he disagreed with Attorney Stullers interpretation on the Dillon case, it does recognize PUD, the reliance doctrine is very important. PUD approval becomes more than a one-way agree- ment and it sayd PUD shall become binding upon the property, the zoning stays the same. Ordinance #19 just establishes general guidelines, the PUD ordinance is a more important ordinance. P & Z can pretty well dictate a project under PUD. The reason for coming in early on Phase #2 was to avoid higher construction costs. City Attorney and Planner were told this and also that the completion date would remain as stated in the schedule and a certificate of occupancy would not be requested until that date. Council questioned the cities position if the permit were denied and the affects on the down-zoning proposed. City Attorney Stuller stated the cities case would depend upon the form of attack taken by Attorney Kern. Mr. Kern could argue, #1 they have immunity from any rezoning; #2 Ordinance #9 is invalid - the recorrunendation from P & Z does not affect his applicant; and #3 the down-zoning of that area is illegal. By denial of second phase would not affect the third phase. The counter argument would be they could not make a reasonable use of their land with the proposed down-zoning. The down-zoning does provide for multi-family structures, it is not limited to single family dwellings. The ~ 1""\ Page 3, Council!__3/1/~i .~ question then becomes could they build a mult.i-familv structure with a limit.ed density and still benefit reasonably from their property. It is possible they could provide some common facilities if they were willing to re-negoiate their PUD. Mr. Bartel stated he could not talk about the down-zoning from a lega~ stan~point, or:ly fro~ a Planners view poin~:. The. Planning cons:Lderatlons are :Lts a s:Lngle family resi dentlal nelghborhood to the north. The Gant is located approximately in the center of that neighborhood and from a Planning point of view thats not the way you usually do things. There was a clear premise in plan of decreasing the density from Glory Hole Park to ute Cemetery and then from Ute Cemetery, the County has adopted a revised master plan and the Commissioners have held a public hearing on the re- zoning. So it was a matter of how this project integrated with the total neighborhood and in that respect the development of the Gant is not consistent with the plan. It is difficult to down-zone wi-thout creating non-conforming uses. Council questioned why consideration of a building permit has been brought before them. Attorney Stuller reported this case gets involved with Council's goals and wished to make Council . aWare of what is happening, not asking for formal action, feed- back only, Councilwoman Markalunas questioned Mr. Bartel as to when the down-zoning plan described was adopted in the City that affects the ute area. Mr.. Bartel explained that would be with the adoption of Ordinance #19 which was in July of last year. Council- woman Markalunas stated if DRC was approved in the spring, fail to see how the down-zoning is pertinent to this already approved PUD. Mr. Bartel stated second phase permit has not been issued. A planner has the responsibility to make every project as good as. he can every time the applicant comes in. Question was asked of Council what the damages may be if the City were to lose this case. City Attorney S.tuller stated that in every case in which the zoning has been challenged, no court has ever awarded,damages against a municipality for their legislative action. What the courts do is invalidate their action. Mr. Kern stated they can award condemnation damages. Attorney Stuller stated that is only in the case where the court sustains the zoning. Mr. Bartel explained the down-zoning does include mandatory PUD, lower densities may not be required to phase their project. Mayor Standley pointed out that if the Council does not approve the down-zoning, then the Gant is no problem. Suggest holding the permit in abeyance until a decision is made on the down- zoning. Councilma.n Behrendt stated he would rather let the courts decide this issue. Councilwoman Markalunas stated she could see no reason for going PUD if there are no guarantees of permits on each phase. Councilm~n DeGregorio stated that he did not agree with more condominium development but feel the down-zoning is a tool that must be applied and until that is accomplished have to issue the permit as it agrees with the law, must be objective and fair. Councilwoman Pedersen stated agreements have been entered into, DRC assumed responsibilities. The major concern in this area is the rezoning which must be done properly and swiftly. Do not want to endanger the down-zoning. Feel the Gant in the case of rezoning will win the prize as the biggest non-conforming use in the area. City Attorney Stuller pointed out the question is whether DRC is immune - do they come under Ordinance #9 or not. P & Z has made a recon~endation on the down-zoning. Attorney Kern stated the P & Z recommended against the down-zoning - at this time - so how can Ordinance #9 come into effect. -, 1'*'\ ,,,,",,,, Page 4, Council, 3/1/74 Councilman Breasted moved the City Council not consider the build- ing permit for the Gant. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Council- members Walls, Markalunas, Breasted and Pedersen aye, Behrendt DeGregorio and Mayor Standley nay. Motion carried. Permit to issue. Councilman DeGregorio moved to adjourn at 7:50 p.m., seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, meeting adjourned. _M.-.._~ . \ ,...,,~./) , / / )/- - ,(.,; ,/ "> "'--->""'7~.....::-;_~/-, l/~."V:A.:-i- ~,- "-.,_,_,-'/Lorraine Graves, City Clerk " V' , K [i ~ f I ~ i ~; ! I ~. ~~. I t , ! t , r } , f ~. ~ , k ~i t , t. , 1 I ~ h t i I r l 1 1 ~ ! , I ! ..---....'-~~_...~_.---_.__.- .'" A 1 2 ~8!7\ co.~,tinu(:;d. Council, R2gU ar. _1..':: _.:...~____.__.. --~---_._- - .---- ~ " language for the filling of vacancies b~ electi~n. Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, mot~on carr~ed. Seconded by (RESOLU'rION #5, SERIES OF 1974 \ Councilman " seconded by , ' ,- - lQ7Ll W~l]s moved to read Resolut~on #5, Ser~es or - ., - d c~u~cilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motlon carrlC . RESOLUTION 1} 5 SERIES OF 1974 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has entered into a contract of purchase and sale with A. Perry Christensen and David E, Christensen for the acquisition of the following described property located in Pitkin County, Colorado: A tract of land being parts of Lots 3, 5, l3, 15 and 16 of Section 8 and parts of Lots 8,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 of Section 7, all in Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Northwest Corner of said Section 8 bears North 17019'30" West 509.9 feet; thence South 56005' East 1083.9 feet; thence South 87008' East 488.5 feet; thence South 170 58' East 136l.2 feet; thence South 250 OS' West 466.3 feet; thence South S70 59' West 3448.3 feet; thenc~ North 770 02' West 948.7 feet; thence North 490 30' West 1264.8 feet; thence North 450 24' East 2514.7 feet; thence North 6So 27' East 644.3 feet; thence North 140 04' East 1058.6 feet; thence North 820 30' East 571.4 feet to the point of beginning, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to make of record its approval of the purchase according to the terms of its agreement recorded in Book 219 at Page 20S and as amended in the instrument recorded at Book 220 Page 460, records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to affirm that its interest in such property, on acquisition, shall be an undivided one-half interest in the property with the other undivided one-half interest being conveyed to Pitkin County, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; 1. That the purchase of the above described property be affirmed. 2. That such purchase shall be according to the terms of its agreement recorded in Book 219 Page 205 and as araended by an instrument recorded at Book 220 Page 460, records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 3. And that as a consequence of the conveyance anticipat:ed by such agreements an undivided one-half interest in such property shall be received by the City of Aspen, Colorado was read in full by the City Clerk. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resolution #5, Series of 1974. Seconded by Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carried. j { VACATION, PORTION OF MILL STREET City Attorney Stuller reported it has been discovered a small portion (about 4000 sq. ft.) of land appears on the East Aspen Addition plat as a portion of Mill Street. Area has never been used as a part of the street and is adjacent to the Schott land land and Lorien land. Mr. Schottland was present and request to purchase the land from the City. Councilwoman an ordinance DeGregorio. Pedersen moved to instruct the to start vacation procedures. All in favor, motion carried. City Attorney to draft Seconded by Councilman I f ( GANT CONSIDERA'l'ION 'I ( City Attorney Stuller submitted to Council the history of this project and case law. direction as to whether a permit can issue of the proj act. a memorandt~ outlining Request fronC ouncil for the second phase Counci 1, Reg'!l:~!__?rq/.?~_~.?nti nuc::~. ...- --., #. The recent event to re-zonc thot 2irea, reported J\ttO:::10Y l\J.bcr'~:, Kern, was not approved by P& Z but rather t:hey r,"i2C()Jnrocnded that the Council amend Ol:dinance #J.9 and th", lanCl U'3e plan. l,ny approach to re-zone that area wouJ.~ he totally unreasonable ar~ illegal. This project received subdivision approval for 153 uni ts from Council and P & Z. The proj ec't went through pun and ended up being permitted to build 144 units. Have complied \'.'i th the PUD plan and all requirements. A subdivision and PUD agr,~ement was signe<i with the City which required DRe to do certain things during certain pha._ses of the proj{;)ct. Phasing was requirE~d so as to lesson the impact on the area. Phase 2 includes the common facilities, i.e. recreational building, tennis courts etc. PUD zoning is binding in that the property is bound to that development plan. Part of the utiliites are in for the entire project. Phase 2 plans were submitted in June and understand they have been reviewed by the Buildig Inspector and Planning Office and do meet the PUD plan. tY Members of Council implied they did not agree with this project but further stated their concern for future projects voluntarily going PUD. Also stated previous actions of Council did approve the subdivision and PUD agreement. Planner Bartel reported volunary PUD looking at areas where PUD should be down-zoning is a continuation of the is not working, presently mandatory. The Ute Avenue d0wn-zoning in the County. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilman Walls submitted report showing changes in the open space regulations of the zoning code. Councilman Walls moved that this proposed change be directed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. Sec~nded by Councilman Breasted. All in f~vor, motion carried. Midland Right-of-way - Attorney Stuller reported the inventory from John Kelly has not been submitted as yet. Councilman Breasted moved to direct the City /1anager to have a yield sign installed at the north side of the Neal Avenue bridge. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman DeGregorio moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m., seconded by Councilman Walls. &1 in favor, motion carried and meeting adjourned. ~->O', // . / ~~N~~ , Lorraine Graves, City Clerk Ms. Lorraine Graves City Clerk .City of Aspen P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado Dear Lorraine: ,- ..-, ALBERT KERN A.TTORNEY AT LAW P. o. BOX 889 WOODS BUILDING ASPEN. OOLORADO.81611 TELBPHoN1il 925.'7411 February 28, 1974 i 8161~ I In accordanqe with our conversation this morning, I am hereby requestinsl a certified copy of ,the verbatim minutes of the City Cquncil Meeting held February 25, relat- ing to consideration qf the Gant Condominiums. ly, AK/pk DELIVERED BY HAND . . ,-,. '" VERBATIM GANT CONSIDERATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 25, 1974 Mayor Standley ~ Okay, Gant consideration. Attorney Stuller - Request for direction from Council as to how we should proceed on the immediate issue; that is, whether or not permit should issue for phase 2 of the project. I gave you an extensive outline of past history and present legal problems, and just asking for some help in making a decision right now. Mayor Standley - Albie, do you want time to explain your position to us? Attorney Kern - Have you all had an opportunity to read, Sandy advised you of the lengthy memorandum which I have not been privvy to, but I also asked her and she put in your post office box a letter sent to Sandy Stuller concerning the Gant's con- cern over the proposed re-zoning or down-zoning or the affect upon them. Have you all had a chance to read that? Yes, Attorney Kern - I just want to get some idea because I'll just touch on the, top points. By the way, I might add that Bob Lowe and Skip Berhorst are here with Destination Resort Corporation as I am, if you have any questions or if they may have some- thing they want to add. I heard Jim earlier in the discussion mention the word equity or inequity. I want to emphasize that very strongly in my talk to you. First of all, I think it is inequitable you have stayed here this late. I think it is inequitable that I should have to be here in the first place. Councilman Breasted - Stop stroking, then. Attorney Kern - Well, you are quite familiar I assume with the situation regarding the Gant. You had recommendations from the Planning and Zoning commission that the down-zoning that was submitted by the Planning Department not be approved and they recommended that you amend or consider amending the Ordinance #19 with regard to land use and density provisions of the land use plan. I strongly, urgently feel that any approach to re- zoning that area, which would include the Gant condominiums, would be totally illegal. Absolutely unreasonable. I think if you have read that letter to Sandy, you will see the history of the DRC project. Originally, the DRC rec~ived sUbdivision approval for 153 units; that was not only approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission but by City Council. The City Planner recommended or requested that DRC go through the Planned Unit Development. This had benefits to both sides. DRC agreed to do that. They went through the Planned unit Development approval, it lasted roughly about 6 months, many, many meetings, and finally it ended up they were permitted to build and their development plan was allowed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by the City Council for 143 units, three units being City employee housin% and they had to conform to a view plane. That was proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As a result of this view plane, they had to move certain of their buildings over in the already approved sub- division for 153 units. They also, the City and the DRC, entered into a Planned Unit Development, subdivision an& PUD agreement. That, I assume, you are somewhat familiar with. I am not sure this was included in Sandy Stuller's memorandum or not, and it's an agreement requiring DRC to do certain things in different p~ases in the project. Jenifer, you said you are not familiar with that agreement between the City and DRC. Councilwoman Pedersen - No. (Handed a copy) .. f""".. ,-, -2- Attorney Kern - I think it a rather important agreement, one that you should be aware of. Basically, the subdivision and PUD agreement between the developer and the City requires the developer to do certain things. Some of them are putting in sidewalks, repaving the City streets, part of which has already been done; it requires them to build the trail which is also required in the subdivision ordinance, in which they have to convey and did convey a certain percentage of their land -- 4% of their land -- to the City. They have reserved out and agreed to convey certain percentage of their landfor Ute Avenue. All of this are part of the things DRC has agreed to do and which they have done. Now this is an integrated project that's required to be done in three phases, only. because the planned unit development ordinance stated that you shall have phasing. I think the reason for the phasing is to lessen the impact on the City, in a large development perhaps in this nature. But it is all integrated. Right now they have built 57 or 58 units and a small part of their common facilities. In their Phase 2, they are building the major substantial portion of their recreational facilities and additional common facilities, and then the remainder of it in Phase 3. But all these phases are part of an integrated project, which have been agreed to by the City, have been agreed to by the Planning and Zoning Commission and have been agreed to by the developer. You will note that in your ordinance, the PUD ordinance which the DRC agreed to comply with, it specifically states that once the property is rezoned PUD, and that's exactly what it is, it's a rezoning pun, it is binding upon the property and it can only be built in accordance with the approved PUD development. So whether you down-zoned or up-zoned, that area, that property is bound by the PUD development. DRC has relied extensively on the agreements made between the City and the approval of the Planned unit Development to the point where they have expended quite a bit of money, certainly a good deal of it beneficial to the City, or a portion of it beneficial to the City. They've planned their utilities and built a portion of their utilities to serve the entire project. The part of the trails have been~orked on, part of the open space; they have done considerable things. I don't want to go through the whole thing because it is all in the letter and I trust that you have read it very thoroughly. It would be totally irresponsible, it seems to me, and illogical as well as, I feel very strongly, illegal to in any way try and stop that project through I don't know what course of action. Certainly the strongest course of action you could take is a down-zoning of the property, and the law, in my interpretation, is 95% clear that when a person has relied or when a developer has relied to the extent that they have relied on an approved PUD, there is no possibility that a rezoning in any way could affect that project. I would also state that the Phase 2 of the development, the plans were submitted in June and has, as Sandy has indicated to me, that they were submitted timely. They have been reviewed by the Building Inspector, they have been reviewed, I understand, also by Herb Bartel. Herb had certain comments that he had concern- ing it, and I understand at this time, they do meet the PUD plan exactly as provided and the building codes. I won't go through the laws of the State; I have already cited you one of your laws with regard to planned Unit Development. When a planned Unit Development is approved, it is rezoned. This was only so late as 1973 in which you rezoned this area. And they have relied on that and gone ahead. You cannot stop a person from starting a house and not completing it. The PUD is recog- nized by the courts. I don't know if Sandy has cited you the Dillian Case or whether she cited you the Denver vs. Buick case which goes so far to say that once an application is in . . . Councilman Behrendt - Denver Buick again. J\,ttorney Kern - Unfortunately, it spoke to a lot of subjects and one of the statement(ii:in' .theDenwer Buick case is onceancap- plication is filed for a building permit, that's the law you look to, not any law that's changed since the time of application. '. ,'-'" '" -3~ I'd like, I hope you consider this very carefully because, frankly, based on the circumstances and the reliances and what's gone on in the past, Destination Resorts has no alternative if you decide you don't want them to have a building permit. In effect, a master building permit was given when the PUD was given. I know your concerns for the down-zoning of that area. I think that if you intended to include them or tried to include them, it would injure or hurt your chances of upholding the down-zoning of that area and perhaps other ordinances that are questionable. I'm not going to go into Ordinance #9, although you may have questions about it with Sandy. I have strong feelings about Ordinance #9 and if it comes into play under these circum- stances. She may have discussed it with you. I don't know if she has or not. But in the interests of your time, I'll be happy to answer any questions or give my comments. I don't know if Bob wants to speak to any points I overlooked, or Skip, or whether you have any questions of them. Mayor Standley - Sandy, would you go through your side of it, your feelings on it, and review for us in simplistic terminology the points that you have eluded to. Attorney Stuller - In the brief, I gave you the political history which of course you are all familiar, and the development history itemizing when permits were applied for and issued and why, etc. I think that the nub of the question is well stated in the Anderson citation which I put in the brief, which is " a land owner will be given immunity when he has made improvements so related to existing zoning regulations and so substantial as to be tantamount to a commencement of use as to qualify him as a nonconforming user". We're not arguing that the improvements he has made he's not entitled to keep. The issue is whether or not the commitments he has made are so interrelated to the whole project that the whole project, in essence, is a non- conforming use and gets immunity from future legislative action affecting that area. It's a very difficult factual question. As I said earlier, my opinion right now is that it could go either way, and it's important to me to know how important it is to you to object to this. You know, if you tell them, I have a vested interest, of course, if you tell me to deny the permit, I don't get my vacation next week; if you do, I will. It's going to take a lot of hard work and a lot of discussion and maybe some laws that we have now will not stand, maybe some will. Maybe it's a good testing ground. It's not the best of cases to litigate; they say that harder cases make better laws. But I know historically, it's been a very impor- tant project, and politically and emotionally maybe it's a very important decision to make. So I just want to bring you in on it. I don't know how I would go if I didn't have the benefit of your comments tonight. Attorney Kern - May I respond to that. I hope this is not a political consideration. I am not trying to be naive, but I'm not sure you're quite aware of all that is going on with regard to Destination Resorts. But I'd rather you consider Destination Resorts unreasonable and the question of what and I can assure you that the courts are going to decide what is reasonable and what is fair, and it seems to me that given all the information that you've got, with what Destination Resorts is going through in getting the PUD approval and what they have done and reliance on PUD approval, I can't believe you can make any other determin- ation. councilman Walls - In all frankness, I think what we are involved in is a political situation. Now I can't agree with you more because to cause anyone to go through a process that, to satisfy both and then to grant this, and then come along at a future date after you have already started the project entered into this thing is really to me an underhanded way in regard to the City treating the people who own the land and what they are trying to do with it. Now if it were a different circumstance, I may be in a different position on this, but at the way this has proceeded for the City to come along and rezone, change the ,-., '" ..-4""" zoning on the remaining portion of that land after you have already entered into a PUD and have worked and expended money in regard to this/is a real sham. Attorney Kern - I think it is more of an unfairness to the people of the City to jeopardize what you are trying to do. I am assuming your general policy is either no growth, limited growth, or controlled growth of some nature, and that's exactly what I think the Council is doing if they hoped to put the Gant under any rezoning idea or Ordinance #9, their phase 2 or, for that matter, their Phase 3. I might add one thi~g I have forgotten. In reliance on the PUD, DRe sold Gant condominiums and part of the contract of sale, in the Gant condominiUms, is their agreed responsibility,tobuildc the balahc~ of3the :decreationalpor-- tions including the recreational building w~iCh is to be con- structed in Phase 2, plus the tennis courts f^Thich are in Phase 2. All of this they have agreed and are contracltual!ly responsible to the people who have purchased the existins units. Plus the fact is they have made certain estimates of cost based on their being able to develop and build the entirePPD project that was approved. I don't know how many times I hav~ to tell you it was approved. I ! Councilman Behrendt - I'm trying not to resp~nd to you, Albie, other than you as a human being representing! a corporation, because the undertone of this, and you have pot really said it, and I appreciate that, is that we are not acting in good faith, that we are somehow being less than fair. Ii think back to the time when this all started and I don't think,a court will or can consider what I am going to say, but theltiming of your application certainly left a question in my find, that the developers had primary concern for the City, I and as to the form of process that you went through -- PUD -- I,think that you did that because it was in your own interest~ I am fascinated with the fact that one-third of the units are built now and yet the commons areas are considerably, you know; they haven't been touched. I have noted from up on the mountain that you did get one pool in. I just think that to expect us to do anything other than, at least, what I shall do, is sort of foolish and I am willing to take this to the courts and test it. It's as good '7 time to test as any. If we are writing b~d laws, let us know It now. ! ! Mayor Standley - That was a statement ratherlthan a question. I think Council should go through and ask questions, that's fine, but I don't think we want to establish a bac1 and forth dialogue. Attorney Kern - I thought he wanted to ask m~ a question. Mayor Standley - Was it a question, Michael, lor a statement? I Councilman Behrendt - Well, it started to be 'land I looked out I and saw several other faces and got angry. i Mayor Standley - Anybody else got any questions or statements? Councilman DeGregorio - I am in a bit of a quandry, because a lot of this took place before I took office on the Council and it was the kind of thing that, were I on the Council then, that I would have tried to effect to stop. Because I was elected on a slow growth, no growth polic~ as you put i~ by the electorate. I feel a responsibility to them to act in a certain manner, but I also feel that your corporation has worked, I think they have honestly tried to work, from what I have read and what I have studied, in good faith with the City. So I am not really quite sure yet where I am at. I hate to really make a decision on this. Councilman Breasted - I sort of agree with Pete. I'm a lot closer to it than Pete, seen how much work has been put into it both from the Council and my business. You know, I just don't r" '" -5- want to see another unit up there, r really don't. But r don't see how anybody would ever come in for a PUD again. Now that is something that we want people to do; we want people to deal with the City, we want them to negotiate, we want them to respond to view planes. You know, you have done all these things and you're damn smart people to have done it this way. ' Attorney Kern - I am not so sure, Jim. If ahead with the subdivision, they could have there would have been no question about it. already been put up. Councilman Breasted - r just have to say that I feel very torn about the whole thing. What is a City to do; it's a quandry to be in. What's a City to do, when you really feel that we are trying to bring things within what r feel to be reasonable, to slowing growth. And I guess that's my statement. they had gone built 153 units, They would have and Mayor Standley - You know, my feeling is I think what he says is right, but I sure look at people like Janet Landry and all the people who live out in that area that tried just as hard and worked just as hard to stop the project, and maybe because they didn't have the money, they didn't have the foreshadow and the forethought,'they didn't get their jOb done. So it came down to the heavies over-powering the will of the people in a particular area. I wasn't on the COuncil when all those votes were taking place, and r don't feel any obligation except for the people who voted for me and the things I ran on, and I sympathize completely with DRC, but I certainly don't feel any obligation to them whatsoever. Councilman Breasted - That's a very good point, but you know r think how planning is done is important. It appears to me that, for instance, that the Ute Avenue Protection Association's petition to have that area down-zoned, it appears to me in my practice of the law as a layman, that that is not legal. That you don't zone anything by people getting together and just, you do in a sense that people elect their representatives and they appoint boards and they go through all these procedures. You know, in a sense, it has a ]21ebiscite quality to it. That has to be one's own personal judgement of what one feels is fair and legal. Mayor Standley - Sandy, you can respond to that; that's referendum. Attorney Stuller - I think there are two different issues here. When this whole thing came up, r did an inventory of all the cases where it was discussed, right of a home rule, statutory or whatever type of City, to have rezoning by initiatives. It appears that home rule cities with broad initiative statements such as ours would permit it and our Supreme Court has endorsed this procedure at least through the back door. They have already said they probably would support it. I think what Jim's point is is that he doesn't find that this is a technique for comprehensive planning and it offends his technique of over-all as opposed to spot zoning. What happens on a referendum is that if it's passed and zoning is passed for apartiqular area, then the City is subject to a suit for spot zoning. It does not get an immunity because it was an initiative or referendum. Councilman Breasted - You put it much better than r can. Councilwoman Pedersen - My comment is that if I had been on Council, which r was not, last year I would have voted against the Gant. I really don't like it, r think it is absolutely ghastly and r wish it hadn't happened in that area. I think the important thing in that area now is the zoning problem. The City entered into an agreement with these people. I feel very strongly that to pull the cord, it really menaces further PUD incentive for anybody. If you have an agreement that doesn't mean anything, then there is not much point in PUD policy. I think unfortunately the Gant is down the drain, this '" '" -6- has all been decided before we were here, and I feel, in the good faith of the City, that the City has to live by this agreement that they have duly executed and signed. Attorney Stuller - I don't think action needs to be taken here. I think I can absorb the feelings of the Council; I'll act accordingly, unless Ramona would like to say something. Councilwoman Markalunas - As you said, I thought we were asking questions. It s~ems tO,me that the reason the Gant was approved at the time is because it met the existing zoning ordinances and complied with the PUD regulations, and the PUD was given to them under those circumstances. And we have no alternative but to live up to the agreement that we're bound by. Herb Bartel - Stacy, I have one comment on the PUD consideration. The premise of it being voluntary really hasn't worked, and what the planners are doing now is identifying areas where it should be mandatory, and then making it mandatory as part of the zoning. This is what the county has done, in its proposed amendment to the code and what the planning office has proposed to the county commissioners in the proposed down-zoning. So there are some significant changes occurring with respect to when PUD is utilized, and I think they depend primarily on the conditions of the land with respect to topography and other natural features of the land. There are a couple of things, and I guess it would be really easier for me if I were quiet, but I can't. When we started Ordinance #19, or when it became effective, there were applications for over 400 units, and I don't even know how many bedrooms that is; we didn't total it. I didn't want to see those decisions of compromise made by the Planning Office. I'd rather have them made by the elected officials or the courts. I think that was too much power to give ,to the Planning Office. Butthe'thihgthat is clear, that~if all ,those_permits would issue,., the City would have really compromised its position in the down-zoning. The other thing that is significant in the Ute Avenue area is that the Gant is substantially located in the center of the ute Avenue neighborhood, and a particular zoning has an effect on the neighborhood adjacent to it. So I think one of the consequences of doing nothing is that I take the exact opposite side of Albie in this matter, because we happen to be working on different sides, 'in that completion of the Gant project may have effects on what happens to the land use in that total neighborhood. Mayor Standley - Herb, John Stanford said at lunch that you supported denying the permit, is that your position also? Herb Bartel - Yea, and again I just feel that if the City wants to proceed with a rezoning, down-zoning proposal, that you have to take the strongest position possible, which means to either let the elected officials make the compromise in individual cases or the court do it in individual cases. Because the Ute Avenue rezoning is a continuation of the down-zoning that is in process in the County, if the County doesn't act on it, then a lot of these discussions here are mute at this point. Mayor Standley - Someone here on Council want to entertain a motion to instruct sandy to deny the down-zoning. Attorney Kern - I'd like to answer to that. I am rather shocked by the fact that the man who recommended the D~C go through PUD, through all the problems, all the turmoil that1PUD has, is a man now who says "deny him" the rest of the PUD, or attempt to deny him and also jeopardize a good portion of what you're trying to do in the future for Aspen. I'm really shocked. This is the man who said go PUD after the subdivision was approved, after they could have gone ahead and built 153 units, and they did go PUD, and now he said deny it. This is the same man who suggested that you recommend adopting down-zoning with mandatory PUD requirements, and then when that person or developer or whoever goes through those requirements, is going to come back and say things have changed. , " ~ '" " -7- Councilman Behrendt - Albie, things have substantially changed. Attorney Kern - Things have not changed to the point, and I'm becoming a little aggravated with the idea of speaking to this point over and over again, so that reasonable men will view this and say yes we have to First of all, I don't think Herb is correct, I don't think that you're permitting. I don't think it's a question of permission, that permission has already been granted. Your permitting it is going to injure any attempts at down-zoning the balance of the area. I don't - know what different projects at different stages are in, but certainly those projects which are at a questionable stage in the law, if the Gant is denied, those projects have much more of a chance of being successful if you force this PUD project that's already approved in accord. And that's the fact of the matter. Mayor Standley - I see that Herb has done the same thing that you guys have done, and that is, he tried to build an ace in the hole, just like you did when you railroaded through the second phase before Ordinance *19. I think it is a point that I made last year when I ran for office, and that was right now the legal tools and enabling legislation are lagging behind the drive and the skill of the developers, and therefore we have to use what tools are available. Attorney Kern - Stacy, there are a lot of responses to it; this use of railroading is absurd. You either don't know the facts, or you're ignorant. Mayor Standley - I just heard the facts from our planner and our Attorney in letters and other things. Bob Lowe - May I say something, please. For those of you who are new on the Council, I am Bob Lowe and I serve as President of Destination Resort Corporation. I would like to respond to a few things you have said. One, we are not one of the biggies who have come to town to force something through. One of our partners lives here, excuse me, my voice shakes, but I have a hard time understanding what is going on. We are a very small company, we came to this town in good faith, buy a piece of property, which we think, is a quality project. We carefully looked at all the property that was available, we looked at only that property that was zoned. We bought property that was zoned, and it's been zoned long before we ever thought about coming here, and I've been told 8 years, been told 15 years. We met with the Planning Department before we bought the property, we've met with the Planning Department several times before we ever went to the P & Z. We went the PUD route for two reasons: (1) at the strong urgency of Mr. Bartel, and (2) because we were also convinced that we could plan a better project under the PUD ordinance than we could under just the subdivision ordinance. We had proceeded, you know the facts and I don't remember how many months or dollars or hours, and we did get it approved PUD. We have since that time proceeded; the major thing that has changed, we have spent from our point of view a fortune in reliance of that PUD. Not only the building that is there, but planning the entire project, we've got commitments of $400,000 to $500,000 alone of things that we were committed to build, people who have bought condominiums because they were relying on our reliance. Ladies and gentlemen, what are people, corporations, how are we going to react when we have done every- thing that the law asked us to do in the best faith we knew how, and that's all we want to continue to do, is finish what we were approved to do and what we proceeded to do. About ramrodding things through, I just want to make two comments. We were, essentially told that we were totally complete, as I recall, in the planning process, and, much of the approval process before Ordinance *19 was at least became known to us. So we didn't ramrod the PUD project concept because of Ordinance *19. On the comment about common facilities, in the approved PUD we couldn't build those until the second phase. We are now obligated and '., ", " r", ,-, -8- we plan to build this early this spring, fJve tennis courts that we are obligated to build, the recreational facility build- ing that has already cost us with the furnishing and so forth $250,000. We're obligated to complete-'almost all of the rest of the common facilities; the only significant thing that will be left after the second phase is a small jacuzi pool at the back end of the property. We couldn't build it even if we wanted to but we are now totally committed to build common facilities that we agreed to. If you can ask me something, if you're still confused as to how we got to here and what we're trying to do, please ask me, and I'll do my best to explain it to you. Councilman Behrendt - Stacy, maybe the best thing to do here is to aCknowledge that the past is the past, and we're stuck with it. Mayor Standley - Yea, we can compromise the City away; we did three condominium projects that way last summer. Councilman Behrendt - That isn't the question. The question is we don't have a motion, we don't have a second, and I think the discussion is over. Mayor Standley - Sandy, you have anything else? Attorney Stuller - No, that's it, thank you. Bill Dunaway - Don't you think the public is entitled to know what the consensus of Council is? Councilman DeGregorio - Do you feel that you have some direction, Sandy? Attorney Stuller - Yea, I don't think a motion is appropriate here. I have to exercise my administrative powers and make a decision tomorrow when I talk to the Building Inspector. I just wanted some feedback, and again, 50% of all this dialogue is to tell you what is happening and why, and I just didn't want to make a decision unilaterally without your total cog- nizance of what is happening. Bill Dunaway - I still don't know what the consensus was. Mayor Standley permit. We're going to go ahead and let them have their ~)~' , / , ~ , ' " , .,' /1/1' /1 ~~ - ,-, MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Sandra M. Stuller, City Attorney DATE: February 19, 1974 RE: Pending Issuance of the D.R.C. Phase II Permit Members of Council: There has been submitted to the building dep~rtment a permit application for Phase II of the Gant project. The application was filed prior to the adoption of Ordinance 19 (therefore exempt from P & z review) and the plans have been fully reviewed by the building inspector, making issuance of.the permit imminent. The P.U.D. phasing plan cites mid-April asa starting date for construction of Phase II, consequently, issuance of the permit is timely. The building inspector, planning office, and myself are in a quandry as to how to proceed in this matter. Issuance of the permit (with additional reliance on the permit by the applicant) as is described later will give D.R.C. a vested inte:J:'e.!lt such as will probably give it immunity from any future rezonings int:l;1e area. Consequently, we would like your connnents as to how you would like us to proceed. At this point options remain open and we need your help in determining which options to exercise. Developme~tiHistory In January, 1973 Destination Resort Corp. presented a proposal for 153 tourist condominium units on 5~ acres on. Ute Avenue; the project is now known as the Gant Condominiums. Betwe.en January, 1973 and approval of a subdivision plat in March and of a P.U.D. plan by the City Council on April 23, 1973, there were 7 meetings with the P & Z, 3 with the Council and numerous informal meetings with the planning office, engineering department and city attorney,. These efforts were the result of an attempt by the city to secure the best possible site plan with_ out being able to set density. The product of these negotiations, in addition to subdivision requirements, was a plan that provided a view corridor to Independence Pass; a 30% reduction in parking space to be substituted by 2 project operated shuttle buses; 3 employee housing units; removal of 1 building group to provide useable common open space ; access from Waters Avenue rather than Ute Avenue; landsca~ing to shield adjoining residences; phasing of the development over 3 years. The ruling principle in all of these considerations was an effort to modify the impact of density allowed by existing zoning. ,-. -. Members of the City Council Page 2 February 19, 1974 Later in April, P.R.C. submitted building plans for the first phase of the project. The building permit application was made for 58 unlimited units, but upon examination of the plans the building inspector determined that the actual unit count was 58 unlimited and 70 limited units or a total of 128. The building inspector required the removal of pocket doors and partitions at interior stairs, sound retardant bedroom door construction and inter unit wall construction in order to correct the excessive density resulting from the "door game." The required changes were made and the plans resubmitted. As indicated above, plans for Phase II were submitted in advance of the effective date of Ordinance 19 to exempt it from the review procedures therein established. D.R.C. has made the changes requested by the Building Department (so as to ,be in compliance with the P.U.D. ,plans) and approval of the plans for Phase II is merely administrative at this time. (Development history provided by planning department). Political History The Ute City protection Association was formed by residents of thelJ'te Avenue area as a response to the application in the winter of 1973 by Destination Resort Corp. for a 143 unit condominium project (The Gant) on Ute Avenue. The group made representations to the Planning and Zoning Connnission and to the City Council throughout the Gant P.U.D. procedure, opposing the project on the following grounds: general impact of high density on a residential neighborhood and the community result- ing in traffic and circulation problems, additional air pollution from fireplaces and unacceptable costs of connnunity services. In one of the City Council meetings considering the Gant, the Ute Avenue group, ". . . called upon the City Council to declare the present zoning inapplicable and in excess of the growth goals, and to connnit to innnediately undertake a revision of the zoning . . ." (G. J. Daily Sentinal, 3/16/73). The Aspen Times (3/15/73) reports of one council- man at that meeting, ". . . he promised that the Council would work to review the master plan and amend zoning to reduce density." At its meeting to approve the final P.U.D. plan for the D.R.C. project, the mayor, ". . . indicated that the, Council was forced to make a 'melancholy' decision," and that it was, "Recognized that residents wish to reduce the density, but the city continues to approve projects without changing thezoniIlg . . . the fault lies with us not the project." A councilman stated his concern about "unanswered ramifications of the project on the connnunity involving increases in population, traffic and air pollution." '" ~ Members of the City Council Page 3 February 19, 1974 Another councilman, "addressing those who were displeased with the proposed project and disappointed with the council's decision, indicated that citizens could expect action on the part of the city in regard to amending zoning in the master plan to reduce density." (All above quotations are from Aspen Today, 3/21/73.) On March 8, 1973, the Planning and Zoning Commission passed a resolution acknowledging: 1) the need to update and revise the master plan, 2) to better balance densities between Aspen and outlying activity centers, 3) that traffic and people congestion is being a threat to the resort character and economic viability of the Aspen Community, and 4) the climatic and geologic conditions are such that the air pollution problem requires a reanalysis, and resolving: That the Aspen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize a major review of the densities and density distributions suggested by the 1966 General Plan. In April, 1973, the Ute City Protection Association submitted an initiative ordinance calling for rezoning of the entire Ute Avenue area from AR-l to R_15. (350 signatures were secured in 1 day.) In a special City Council meeting of April 6 representatives of the UCPA stated that they were not content with progress being made by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to bring densities into line with citizen demand. The initiative petitions were later found insufficient within the required time limit and. the initiative was not placed on the ballot at the general election in May. (political history provided by planning Department.) Legal Issues It is the contention of D.R.C. that no interim measures (Ordinance 19) or rezonings can affect a completely approved P.U.D. and subdivision subsequent to the time of approval, even though the P.U.D. anticipates permit approvals in sequences (or, in phases). In support of this contention D.R.C. makes the following arguments: a. The P.U.D,. and subdivision agreement are a contract binding both D.R.C. and the City of Aspen and any attempt to change uses or densities constitutes a breach of contract. b. D.R.C. has already relied on the P.U.D. and subdivision approval and this reliance is evidenced by the conveyance of interests in land to the City and various concessions made (e.g. employee housing, viewplane and reduced density) and which are sufficient to estop the city from changing the intended use. - - Members of the City Council Page 4 February 19, 1974 c. Finally, a P.U.D. must be viewed asa single entity even if there are a series of pennits issued. In support of this argument three cases .have been cited by counsel for D.R.C.: (1) Telimar Homes, Inc. v Miller (N.Y. 1961) concerned an approved subdivisibnwith lots of a minimum size of 10,000 sq. feet (1/4 acre). After approval the land was divided into 4 sections (to facilitate financing) and the map for section one .and two were approved. After approval of the first section roads were constructed, surveys and perculation tests were made, plans were prepared, model homes were built, and grade and drainage studies were made _all on the basis that it was a single, overall project. The V.k. granted site approval for the development as a single project. A water company was organized and construction of a water works was begun, geared to accomodate 500 homes (the number that could be b.uilt on quarter acre lots). The zoning ordinance was then changed to require 1/2 acre lots. After this amendment plaintiff submitted maps for the third and fourth section, which, were denied. The court sustained plaintiff's argument that he had a vested right to proceed as planned saying: "It is clear from this record that the water system, roads, drainage system, model house construction and advertising were laid out and designed for the benefit of all four sections developed as a single overall tract; that they would have been laid out and treated on an entirely different basis if the development of each section were to be separate; and that prior to the zoning amendment, substantial construction had been commenced and substantial expenditures had been made in partial development of sections 3 and 4, as well as sections 1 and 2. Henc!:! plaintiff had acquired a vested right to a nonconfonning use as to the entire tract." (2) Diamon v Orleans, 196 A 2d 363 (Pennsylvania, 1964) concerned a rezoning of 150 acres of land to FF and FFF zones (floating commercial zones) following the consideration by county commissioners of a comprehensive development plan for the whole tract. Between the last hearing on the rezoning and, issuance of the first building pennit the plaintiffs purchased the land, purchased title insurance and signedal~ase for a department store. The first - - Members of the City Council Page 5 February 19, 1974 permit was issued and the installation of sewage and electrical systems begun. A second permit was issued. At that point a civic group brought this action to stop the issuance of the second and further permits, contending that the rezoning depreciated neighboring property and constituted spot zoning. The plaintiffs contend that they had a vested right in the building permit and the group is estopped, at this point in time, from contesting the rezoning. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, saying: '~hen the permit authorizing construction of the first apartment building was issued . . . . (the group) did nothing.. . . (T)he integrated, comprehensive, staged development of a large tract of land may and should be treated as a single undertaking . . . (I)t is made ab9Ddantly clear that, realistically, objection is made to the entire comprehensive development, not merely to the commercial . . . To allow a complex, comprehensive plan for development ofa large a tract of land as is here involved to be attacked on a piece by piece basis would result in the greatest of inequities to the developers. This is particularly true on the facts here presented, which demonstrated that not only were the residents com- pletelyinformed of all phases and the nature of the developnrentp;t'ogram, but that they were also able to and did participate in the formulation and finalization of the development plan." (3) Norpro Co. v Cherry Hills (Colorado Supreme Court, December 18, 1972) concerned an attempt by a landowner to construct according to a P.U.D. so as to result in a density of 1.3 acres per site in an area calling for 2.5 acres. The owner argued that the present zoning was unconstitutional as applied to him because it (1) bore no relationship to the public health, morals, safety or welfare;: (2) it caused the owner substantial hardship and (3) it denied the owner equal protection because there was greater densities permitted in other adjoining areas. The court disagreed and stated (dicta being relied on by D.R.C. to prevent rezoning): "The maintenance of stability in zoning and resulting conservation of property value based upon existing zoning regulations are prime considerations in denying applications for zoning changes." (the reliance referred to is that of adjoining similarly zoned property owners). ,- ,- Members of the City Council page 6 February 19, 1974 The D.R.C. argument is essentially one of governmental estoppel. The most comprehensive statement of this dictrine that I have run across was stated in "Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel.and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes," 1971 Urban Law Annual 63 (1971) in which the author stated: "A local government exercising its zoning powers will be estopped when a property owner (1) relying in good faith (2) upon some act or omission of the government (1.) has made such a substantial change of position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights which he ostensibly had acquired." At this juncture I would like to make a comment about the first element, i.e., good faith. Concrete evidence of lack of good faith in this matter consists in the attempt to accelerate the development (premature application for phase two) with the knowledge of possible rezoning. The crux of any litigation on this matter would, however, center around the second and third elements and I will center the following discussion on ' these. Substantial change of position. The thrust of the Telimar and other authority cited by D.R.C. is that, at this point in time, D.R.C. has made such expenditures and changed its position so that no rezoning can affect its intended use. I think it -worth of note that the Telimar case IS A MINORITY OPINION. There is no case law concerning both'anapproved subdivision and P.U.D. but there is much case law concerning approved subdivisions and subsequent rezoning. Rathroff in Law of Zoning and planning says: "In the absence of statute, even final approval of a subdivision plat by the planning board does not generally place the lots shown on the plat beyond the power of zoning changes. But, similar to the vested rights which accrue to a property owner whose position has been changed in reliance upon the issuance of a building permit, vested rights may be secured by a subdivide,r in a particular sub- division plat where his position has been changed by installation of improvements or otherwise in reliance upon the grant of final approval thereof." Several cases discuss when a subdivider has substantially relied so as to create an estoppel. The mere fact that subdivision plans were approved by a town prior to enactment of a zoning ordinance does not create a vested right to subdivide as approved. York Township Zoning Board v Brown 182 A 2d 706 (Penn 1962). The issuance of a buildingp:ermit, per se, does not vest such a property right in the owner that subsequent - '" Members of the City Council Page 7 February 19, 1974 rezoning is ineffective as to the property. City and County of Denver v Duffy 450 p2d 339 (Co10 1969). At various stages of actual develop_ mentan owner may be held to have acquired a vested right to proceed with a development. Some cases on this point follow: (1) Murrell v Wolff 408 S.W. 2d 842 (Miss. 1966) concerned an 11 acre development. Construction of 35 multiple dwellings had not been constructed when a rezoning occurred, but a subdivision shopping center had been done. The dwellings where the third (and an integral) phase of the approved project. At the time of rezoning the. owner had graded the land, installed a sewer main and the foundations and utilities laid on the first of the 35 dwellings. $71,000.00 was spent on completirig,the first building. Given these facts the court held the City estopped from. rezoning so as to prevent the use for multiple dwellings. (2) Town of Lebanon ,v Woods (Conn. Sup. Ct. Err. 1965) 215 A2d 112 concerned a rezoning affecting (increasing) lot sizes. The subdivision consisted of 4 sections, and work had been commenced for 14 houses on 2 sections. The court held the owner to have a vested right only for those sections for which development plans had been cOIllpleted, sewage disposal plans made, a water pump house constructed, storm sewers and water system installa_ tion made, some model homes built, and foundations excavations for the 14 homes started: "Neither expenses incurred for improvements which would be required irrespective of the lot size, nor commencement of construction on these sections vested rights in. the developer to develop the balance of the tract in small lot.s." (3) In Wood v North Salt.Lake (Utah 1963) 390 P2d 858 the court held that the city cOUld not increase the lot size where "water mains and sewer lines had been laid down in the streets" and both systems provided connections in front of each 60 foot lot. (4) Gruber v Mayor and Township Committee of, Raritan Township, 39 NJl, concerned an approv~d subdivisi,on which was to be developed in five sections. The owner had begun development of section 1 when the entire area was rezoned for industr.ial uses. The court determined that the developer had a vested r.ight in the first section but remand~dthe case for the lower court's determination as to (1) the expenditures made for sections 2_5 and (2) "the practicability and fairness of restricting the residential development to any section or sections less than the whole~" (5) In Virginia Construction Corporation v Fairman (1962) 39 NJ1, 187 A2d 1 the court made clear, in another case where lot sizes were changed subsequent. to a subdivision approval, that these - ,- Members of the City Council Page 8 February 19, 1974 cannot be included in a calculation of expenses made in reliance, "those made without regard to whether the tract was developedona one acre or two acre basis." (6) Trans-Robles Corporation V City of Cherry Hills Village 497 P2d JJ5 (Colo~CA 197Z) is Colorado's closest case in point. The city rezoned establishing 2-1/2 acre minimum lots. Prior to the enactment the developers had made arrangements for sewer service and installed wate.r and sewer lines and undergroun, utilities. In additiipn,there had been a considerable amount of street paving and installation of curbs and gutters: all of which improvements were made to serve 1/2 acre lots. On the basis of these facts the c,ourt found that the effect of the 2_1/2 acre minimum zoning would be to foreclose any reason- able use of the land in. that no rational system of lots could be laid out on the rezoned property utilizing the then existing system of streets, curbs, gutters, and underground utilities and water and sewer collection systems, nor could. any reasonable combinatibn of lots be put together allowing construction of a house on ,a lot of the required area with the specified set_ back. The cases seem to use one of two tests. The first is called the quantum test which seems to require physical construction. The second is the balancing test in which the court weighs the plaintiff's costs and right to use land against the community interest. I think it fair to say as does Anderson in the American Law of Zoning, Section 19.23, that platting itself does not give immunitybut.relief will be given to a subdivider "whose improvements were s.o related to e:l;:isting zoning regulations and so substantial as to be tantamount to a commencement of use as to qualify him as a nonconforming user." Analysis of D.R.C. P()sition The D.R.C. counsel argue that P.U.D.. approval itself constitutes substantial reliance: The effect of P.U.D. approval will be discussed below. D.R.C. argues that several actions of the City of Aspen preclude any rezoning affecting their development. (1) First, it is their argument that by entering into the P.U.D. and subdivision agreement the city is contractually bound to the use as described in the final development plan. I think it worthy of note that: (a) The document is entirely a one way agreement, i.e., all obligations imposed thereby are on D.R.C. (except to accept and record the plat) and no counter obligations rest with the City. - - Members of the City Council Page 9 February 19, 1974 (b) Paragraph 9 prQvides that "Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred to the contrary, Subdivider, in developing the property contained in the plat, and other improvements as herein contained, shall fully comply with all applicable rules , regulations, standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and bodies having jurisdiction." I am not sure of the consequences of this provision, but it does make clear that outside legal principles are applicable. (c) Finally, I think it quite clear that any governmental agency cannot by contract bind itself in terms of future governmental functions and restraining the exercise thereof. Again, the effect of this principle on the present situation is unclear. (2) Second, D.R.C. argues that the acceptance of dedicated land by the. city precludes rezoning. There is some merit in this contention. Inward v City of New. Rochelle 204 NYS 2d 144, 168 NE 2d 821 the court held that a landowner whose subdivision plat had been approved by the planning board and who in reliance upon the agreement made, at the time of such approval, conveyed 13. 3actes for recreation purposes had a vested right. However, since most subdivision regulations require dedication and it did not seem to affect the cases above cited, its consequences are not exactly clear. (3) Thirdly, D.R.C. argues that the concessions made (employee housing, viewplanes,etc.) preclude modification. This would, I think, depend upon what uses could be made of the land if a rezoning occurred and the development, as planned, did not finish. I will leave to your consideration the extent to which these concessions and their fulfillment would affect the future development of the land in the event of rezoning. (4) Fourth, D.R.C. cont~nds that the P.D.D. approval, per se, prevents modification. This is a contention strongly presented by D.R.C. To support this concept D.R.C. cited Diamon, supra. This case, again, like Telimar,seems to bea minority Qpinion. Again, it is based on the extent of reliance and does not concern a P.D.D. There are cases in which a P.D.D. is viewed as a unit, not subject to frac_ tionalizing, but none in point. For example in Gary D. Lund v City of Tumwater 472 P2d 550 (Wash 1970) the plaintiff petitioned to annex 2_1/2 acres and do a P.D.D. on. it and the ctdjoining 7_1/2 acres (already in the city). The P.D.D. was declared invalid for the 7-1/2 acres (for reasonS not relevant to this discussion) while the P.D.D. done simultaneously with annexation was valid. However, the court held that where 3/4 of the P.D.D. could not be accomplished within the existing zoning, the remaining 1/4 must also be disallowed. Jan - ~, Members of the City Council page 10 February 19, 1974 Krasnowiecki in "P.U.D.: A Challenge to Established Theory and Practice of Land Use Control", 114 U.ofPenn. Law Review 47, agrees that in the absence of a statute or substantial expenditures, a P.U .D. developer has little prote<;tion agauistrezoning. In Chandler v Kroiss lYU N.W. 2nd 473 (Minn. 1971) the city, in anticipation of adopting a comprehensive plan, enacted a P.U.D. act. The petitioner had received a P.U.D. prior to the adoption of the plan. :But the plan specified that "All develop- ments or development plans approved by the Village CounciL which are not in conformity to the plan shall be considered as amendments to the plan and shall be so noted by the P & Z." It was held that this provision allowed the P.U,D. to survive any rezoning accomplished by the adoption of the plan. Our court in Moore V Boulder 484 P2d 134 (Colo. 1971) in discussing the nature of a P. U .D. ' said: "Although its intent is to permit diversification of uses, such Uses must be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood, must not jeQpardize or reduce zoning standards in the area and should promote the generalwetfare of the connnunity." (5) Finally, D.R.C. argues that, under the general principles stated in the cases above, they have so substantially relied on the P.U.D. and subdivision approval that the city is estopped from rezoning their land. They cite the following activities as sufficient to preclude any governmental interference with development according to the P.U.D. agreement. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) they have purchased the total tract in fee with partial releases provided for; however, unless this purchase occurred after approval (which I do not know) it could not have been done in reliance of any governmental action; they have procured a construction loan for the total development; theyhav~ expended $19,000 in permanent loan fees; they have exe<;uted 32 sales contracts (and closed on some whose units are built) each of which contemplated a project of 140 units, each of which connnits them to supply recreational and other facilities (to be built in the second and third phases) and each premised on a sales price that is calculated according to costs being shared among 140 units; the condominium declaration has been recorded describing a full 140 units; they have made a series of land dedications and grants: (i) a 10 foot grant conditioned on the city's widening Ute Avenue (3,913.5 sq. feet). (ii) 9,425 sq. feet of open space was dedicated (under subdivision requirements) and accepted by the city ,- - Members of the City Council Page 11 February 19, 1974 (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) (m) (n) (iii) required their seller to convey to the city ~ of the adjacent alley (2,649 sq. feet) (iv) conveyed a segment of Wagon Wheel Road to adjoin the public right-of-way (if and when established) they have expended $243,000.00 in engineering and architects fees for the whole project at the request of the planning department they applied for P.D.D. in which the following trade_offs occurred: (i) they received a height variance because of the knolls (ii) they redesigned one building to allow for a viewplane (iii) they reduced their density by 3 units (iv) they created 3 employee housing units (one completed) (v) and they agreed to set up a shuttle bus system and build 2,tennis courts some of the street improvements required by the P.D.D. and subdivision have been done toa total cost of $10,000.00 they have expended $55,000.00 on advertising and marketing all utilities for phases II and III (water, gas, T.V., telephone)areIlot in place but stubbed _ electric lines for Phase I hav~ been undergrounded they reduced on site parking and agreed to join any future transportation district common areas and recreational areas have been designed to se,rve, 143 units; to date approximately $87,000.00 has been spent on recreation and common facilities (with another estimated$3l2,QOO.00 to be expended) the first phase of the project has bee,n completed at a cost of $2,100,000.00 for the first 58 units. Again, the issue is whether the project is so integrated, interdependent and so far completed based on the P.D.D. and subdivision approval that the city is estopped frbm rezoning the. area. I am concerned with the fact that (1) sales contracts had been entered into baseq on a 143 unit complex (2) architectural and engineering fees have been expended for the whole project (3) utilities.have been designed and installed premised on a 143 unit project (4) that some street improvements have been completed (5) and some land dedications have occurred (although, arguably, the land could be reconveyed toD.R.C. by the city). Gonclus ion From the above it is apparent that whether D.R.C. is exempt from any rezoning is a terribly difficult and sophisticated legal question. - - Members. of the City Council Page 12 February 19, 1974 The Building Department,Planning Department and I are hard pressed to order issuance of the permit for Phase II (especially in view of the strong political feeling on the part of many members of the council) or withhold issuance (and force, almost certainly, extensive legislation) without some comment from the city council. Consequently, I have asked for council time on February 25th to solicit discussion from the council at that time. Thank you. /.-...., - MEMORANDUM TO: Lorra.ine Graves FROM: Sandy Stuller DATE: February 19, 1974 RE: Attached memo on D.R.C. Lorraine, I think distribution of this memo in the agenda packet should be limited to : Council members Department heads City Manager r~, '" :"-, """,<" (/ ',- CITYc':'OF ASPEN aspen ,cqlorado, 8161,1, box v \~~~""_~ :~:i~:l; ,c'-"'-') December 14, 1973 Mr. Rod Brown First ,of Denver Mortgage Investors 1810 First National Bank Building Denver, Colorado 80217 Re: Partial Release of Funds for Destination Resorts -Aspen, Ltd. Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement Dear Mr. Brown: In accordance with the above agreement dated April 6, 1973, I have inspected the construction required during Phase I and some which was not required until Phase II. The follow- ing are the items inspected and the amount of work completed for which funds may be released from the subdivider's account: Paragraph 1 - The paving of West End Street 85% x $2160 = $1836. Paragraph 2 - Eight foot wide asphalt concrete walkway/emer- gency access drive on Wagon Road 100% x $1422 =, $1422. Paragraph 5 - Storm drain catch basin 100% x $1500 = $1500. Paragraph 7 - Trail through open space, and landscaping of of open space and Wagon Road. (Phase II) 40% x $3500 = $1400. The amount authorized for release at this time is $6158.. V~fY truly yours, G/~~ fJZt41" Dave Ellis City Engineer cc: Skip Behrhors~ Donna Baer ..,." Sandra Stu.Iler DE/dc " 1'*'\ '. "'t "'""" , ~<f " .' CITy>'OF ASPEN aspen ,cplorado, 8161J 'box v , September 20, 1973 Skip Behrhorst P.O. ,Box 5491 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Destination Resorts Aspen Condominiums 10' Buffer Strip Dear Behrhors t: This letter is to confinn the PIa nning Office's interpretation of Planning and Zoning's agreement for the treatment of the 10' buffer $trip along the northerly property boundary. The 10' striP is to remain level and undistrubed to the extent of its existing natural configuration. The trail through the buffer strip should be graded by the developer to the extent needed to permit access from West End Street. A benn, three (3) feet wide, should be constructed between the trail and the northerly limit of the buffer strip as indicated on the PUD final development plan for the property. Landscaping should proceed using the PUD plan as a minimum guide. Yours truly, d1~J .Jt~ Donna Baer Planning Office DB/bk cc: Jim Adams Dave Ellis ,1'*'\ ~ , I I I t . '. (';',t~ r,: >!~~ .~.'~ :'!ife,i.", t1h",J-"Jl~ CITyrOFA'S PEN aspen ,c~lm,~ado, 616,1; box v ... ", :',,-,'" ",'''"''''4;> '"~, '".~ '-' ,~.",:;."" ,^,",-,..- October 31, 1973 Re: Destination Resorts, "The Gant", Buildings E,F,J, & K I f I ~ t , " Destination Resorts, Ltd. c/o D. G. Behrhorst Post Office Box 2946 Aspen, Colo:x:ado 81611 Dear Mr. Behrhorst: ............ In reply to your letter of October 24, 1973 and after considerable thought on my part, I feel that I must rescind my denial letter to you of September 26, 1973. I feel that your plans were prepared in a very professional manner even though International Conference of Building Officials com- ments were lengthy and several items will be difficult to solve. All I.C.B.O. conunents must be corrected before a permit can be issued. A permit, however, cannot be issued until Feb~ ruary 15, 1974 since Sec. 302(d) of the Uniform Building Code requires work to conunence within 60 days of the date of such permit. According to your approved PUD plan PHASE II cannot start until April 15, 1974. Very truly yours, ~ Clayton H. Mey:x:ing 0\ Chief Building Inspector CM/dc cc: Albie Kern Herb Bartel Sandra Stuller t", September 20. 1973 Skip Behrhorst P.O. Box 5491 Aspen. Colorado 81611 Re: Destination Resorts Aspen Condominiums 10' Buffer Strip !,,~' Dear flBehrhors t : This letter is to confirm the Plannin~ Office's interpretation of Planning and Zoning's agreement for the treatment of the 10' buffer strip along the northerly property boundary. The 10' strip is to remain level and undist~ed to the extent of its existing natural configuration. The trail through the buffer strip should be graded by the developer to the extent needed to pennit access from West End Street. A berm. three (3) feet wide. should be coastructed between the trail and the northerly limit of the buffer strip as indicated on the PUD final develop;ent plan for the property. Landscaping should proceed using the PUD plan as a minimum guide. Yours truly. /11 {/}0UUB ~ ~~ aer , Planning Office DB/bk cc: Jim Adams Dave Ellis 1'*'\ ~. TRI-CO Management, Inc. Planning' Design' Surveying' Engineering' Construction and Management of Land July 26, 1973 Clayton Meyring City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Clayton: Confirming our telephone conversation today, this is to certify that building "D" of the D.R.C. con- dominium is no closer, at any point"than 28 feet from the north property line of the D.R.C. develop- ment. This certification is the result of actual field measurements by John Beischel of my office and Lou Buetner of the City Engineer's office. Please advise if you require anything further. Sincerely yours, /-~c --: es F. Reser ~ dob cc: Skip Behrhorst Bill Bates A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation . Offices throughout the West Box 1730 Aspen Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 '" f'\ TRI-CO Management, Inc. Planning' Design' Surveying' Engineering' Construction and Management of Land July 25, 1973 Clayton Meyering City Building Inspector Dear Clayton: This is to confirm that the footers in place on the D.R.C. condominium project are in com- pliance with the P.U.D. plan submitted and accepted by the City of Aspen. -- '-- ~ ._~~ L. S. <E;J/@-1- A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation . Offices throughout the West Box 1730 Aspen Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 ,....". ,~ ,P _,.J"''' ~., / Draft Copy \ July 5, 1973 " , \ .' The City of Aspen P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: D.'ti".t~~rt' . Tha Gant Condominium Project , I Attention: Sandra M. Stuller City Attorney Gentlemen: In April, 1973 the Aspen City Council and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final development plan of our planned unit development for the Gant Condominiums, and rezoned our property PUD AR-l. That zoning grants us the 'right to construct 143 condominium units, of which 3 units are for use as employee housing. The plan which was approved and signed by you shows the location of the eleven buildings and various common facilities which constitute the condominium pro- ject. We have attached a copy of that plan to the original copy of this letter. We have become concerned about certain recent events. It appears to,us that the City, intentionally or unintentionally, ; ,is following a course of action which may ume it difficult for u~ to complete the Gant Project in an orderly fashion, as approved by you. We have consulted with legal counsel in Aspen and Denver, as well as with our general counsel in Los Angeles, and have been advised that we are entitled to build the entire project in' accordance with the approved subdivision and PUD plans. It appears to us that the basic problem is a lack of complete information and/or appreciation by the City for the actual facts of our position. This results in concern to us, not over our inability to complete the project; but of the i.' ;' h. . ...-~. . I j-' I. 1,' . --.~--- ~~' 'I ,"'. ,.". " -. I " ~";"""""'.'...._,.,'" . ,:"-",';';{~'",,.~:;-wi;:;;;:';;';~'ji:i~,~,:i:~~...;i:<'~;"";:';:~~.:r;,V~.;;.:,""~".=,,,,,;;;;,..~,~~,".c,,,:,:,,~,",,_,,"~..;.;;,,~......,_~,~~<>-;.,~,.:<.. .,~.,";;.,;~ '':''__ /""I, ,t", r possibility of developing bad relations with the City and its citizens, and of needless delays and costs to both the City and ourselves from litigation over this issue. The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to review for your benefit the facts as we see them and how they relate to the applicable law. We do not take major exception to the City Attorney's view of the law itself, but we wish to provide all of you with additional facts which are necessary for the correct application of the law to our situation. We hope this letter.will improve our mutual understandings, and set the stage to go forward without continuing disagreement to complete our project; recogniz- ing, of course, the requirements to meet all code and other oblig- ations of our approved subdivision and PUD plans. One wa~ for the City to take official cognizance of our rights is to exclude our PUD from the application of Ordinance 19, should it be approved. During the planning and approval process we attempted to cooperate with the City in every reasonable way. As a result, we believe both parties have reason to be pleased with our approved PUD, plan. We certainly desire to continue to work within this spirit of cooperation. The City should be aware, however, that the 'issues discussed herein have to do with our economic survival; consequently, we must protect our rights with firmness. The Gant Condominiums were carefully designed as an integrated project to be built, in three phases. Our presentations to you always described the project in this manner and the use of planned ~ development zoning clearly reflects this concent (see Aspen Code~24-l0.l(2)(a). Aesthetically, physically and economic- ally, the project only makes sense in its entirety. All our dis- cussions with the City Planning Department and meetings with the - Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council clearly reflected the unity and integrated nature of the project; we believe your ---- -2- - .... ...."". ,1 ----~..~_._,...~'_. ~. ~" . " ~ ,,,;:~.>.,i.:,>;' ',' '.. ......c., >6.;1:<"'''''i..;;.j;:.""..",~,_.:;,.,,'J;';~ ":if" ~,"-/. .- :~;\.,~,.-, "..i....., ",>',,;. , \ .' i'~){,~'-, - ,.:(, t.. (- "", I:' " , , -, r t' '.~ \" I~' 1-, , ;: ~ c, " ! [, i I,. i I " \ :..,h., \.. . I" L.. " " " ,-, \., f I I :' .,', f , , , , , ! 1 r' i- , \ ., ,.~' ",,,' """,M;"""'i.";,',=!,.,=~,,,,,'~"""'~'_~" ."."- " '" - ..~_. approval of our project recognized this fact. We have proceeded with substantial expenditures and commitments in reliance on your approvals of our en.tire project. On May 6, 1973, we entered into a construction contract, with Greer Construction Company calling for the construction of four buildings containing the first 58 units at a total construction cost of $1,716,000. Construction commenced shortly thereafter and it has proceeded at a steady' rate. As of the date of this letter, more than $J05,000 has been paid or is owing to the con- tractor for work in place. We designed the .utility sy/stem to serve the entire 143, condominium units and common facilities to be built in our pro- ject. In accordance with mutual understandings reached at a meet- ing with the City Engineer on May 20th and 23rd, 1973, we redesigned our water distribution system to provide for a single tap on the City line for the entire project;.and on June 28,1973, in accord- ance with that understanding we paid the City a water tap fee of $28,000, the amount due for the entire project. You accepted that payment. In accordance with these approved plans, water, sewer, gas and telephone lines sufficient in size to serve all 143 condominium units are now in place or committed. Most of these lines have been installed or are stubbed for future extent ion to the remaining seven buildings. In consideration of our mutual acceptance of the final PUD plan, on April 17, 1973, we waived our right to build 153 condominium units under our subdivision plan approved by the Aspen City Council on March 19, 1973. As part of this acceptance, we agreed to eliminate one entire building and a portion of another from the initial first phase area; in total we forfeited 16 units from this portion o,f the project. 'A significant consideration to us for this agreement was the approval in .the POD plan to construct " ;; " f"' ! ,', :,', 1;'., I", :;, , [, l' " I, ! I ~ , I j"': " , ' " -3- ___-~.~,.""'1r.~..-.; ,. ....~--.- ,.' .,,'" 'fliJl'-' .~ .1', ' , .P', " ... '... " -... ',-.'C'r"",....~-- r. ~ r. ..,".,.... "<"';"; -;;>c,o". ;;<,:';',;S'",:!i';";:;,~;:;~ .,~:.;,:;~";:;;;,,.;;"~;J;jj~~';:;;T:,ii'~~~~;;;~~;~:,~,k;;;~d,,~..J:ji~'iJL~:,. \ ;.,i,';", "_"'''h'''....'\'.;;;~~..".''.'.M.''''.'.,-.-",-.-.-,''''~-~-- 1'*'\ ~ -- a four-story building plus a partial four-story building in the later phases of the project which will add seven of the units previously eliminated. If we had been advised that we would not be permitted to build our entire Gant project under the approved PUD zoning, we would not have waived our right to build additional units under the approved subdivision plan. As further reliance upon this approval, we agreed to other modifications of the approved subdivision. These include the obligation to construct three employee apartments (one of which is now under construction); the creation of a view corridor through the, site; the reduction in parking and the related oblig- ation to provide shuttle b~s service and to require the property to become part of a potential future transportation district; and the development of additional recreation and common area facilities. The direct cost or value lost as a result of our reliance on the PUD approval is approximatefY $300,000. It is also significant to note that the approved subdivision granted us rights to building permits for the entire project; there was no reference to phasing. We have incurred and~aid a permanent loan commitment fee of $19,000. This fee would not have been paid had you not approved our entire project. Our construction loan was based upon the lender viewing the development as an integrated project and as such is secured by a Deed of Trust on the entire property. The lender's approval of the plans and certain key features of the loan are based on this integrated concept. Indeed, the City of Aspen has benefited from such arrangement by requir:l.ng our lender's agreement to hold funds ,- ,,' , ' ~!'"' . , r.'.." " i ; , , ' I ',.' . -4- . --.... ,,'\ ----.,---.,-...,.....'---;-' ... "of '.1 .. ~ 'tv- ~- ,,';' .:, "r ",,-,-,.-,.", "~',"~ _w ~". .. ~\!'W.';,.~~.,:{~~,,\~.ji::,.,Lic~L,.;:~2~::4k\<J~:~",A;;";":'~f;:";::_"";~;'~;B;o.;~J,,!;;',;dlt~J,: . <,t;..'~L~:t~}> ':':q , " ;';0: .>:"".~,.,-,-,^.""."",:~""",,,,,"~,,,,,,,,,,,..,,- "....." r--., - \ \ to assure completion of improvements as our pnject continues. \ In order to secure approval of the development, we were required to dedicate 9,425.3 square feet of land'to the City of Aspen and Aspen accepted that dedication on March 19, 1973. At the City's requirement, this dedication was based on 4% of the entire project. In addition, we were required to re- serve 3,913.5 square feet for widening of ute Avenue and West End Street. The dedicated~and reserved land cost us more than $56,000. We also obtained for the City of Aspen a deed for 2,649 square feet from Matthew Oblock, Jr. '" ince the date of your approval, we have incurred archi- tectural and engineering fees in excess of $90,000. These costs would not have been incurred had you not approved our entire _ project. The total ar!:hitectural costs to date, all of which were incurred in reliance on existing zoning and discussions with the Planning Department, are in excess of $160,000. In reliance on the approved PUD, our architects have designed common areas (including recreational and office areas) sufficient in size to serve the entire 143 condominium units. Some of those facilities are nOW under construction. To secure approval we were required to agree to perform numeroun obligations for the City's benefit for a total cost of $29,143, as set forth in the subdivision and planned unit develop. ment agreement dated April 6, 1973, a copy of which is attached to this letter. Pursuant, to that agreement, those funds are ~ailable to the City through our construction lender, First of Denver Mo~age Investors. The integrated concept of our project is conceded in the City's approach to requiring these improvements as outlined below. Our entire marketing program assumes. an integrated project. The advertising to date represents the units and faci.lities of the entire project; the approximately fifteen reservations to purchase units have been taken based on the concept of the total project; -5- > " :',.!'; , . " :. ....... ;,. '/ ;' .~ I, '::" , , i , , . " I, ;. . ", l' , \ - , ....~...-_..-......._--'.-.~-~~.-...-.. '. . , ,..-....--.r-. ., I." I' " , . ':'" ....,.. " ~ '" r, "r"". "",,:,;;,~:",,';'::(;;"";,:::"1<>,U'~;;'<-::'~;;"i~i,;;::~t:i:j,*:;,-,;,;i;:";-i.:i-;'J,:':;iii..;:;/'",:;';;.: '.' hill"" .. ,.. .. '- ... .. ",,,,~;:;~2"';;,,;, '''''''',,:':''c;;''';-':'<;':~_:~'_;;;;;;''';;;';;;;j.,::;,:;'\~, \. '.,_'i::;J: ;:..". ,,;.;~~~,,~{OiY""'''''' -- ^ ,,...,, . all marketing plans and materials have been designed and are now being produced ba~ed on the entire project ftan. Approximately $21,500 has been spent or committed based on this reliance. Our entire project was designed and develop'ed in close cooperation with officials of the City of Aspen and was subject to numerous public hearings. It was discussed at meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on the following dates: ~ Meeting With 1/16/73 Planning and Zoning Commission~ .....-/ 2/06/73 Planning and Zoning Commission 2/15/73 Planning and Zoning Commission 2/22/73 Planning and Zoning Commission 3/06/73 Planning and Zoning Commission 3/08/73 Planning and Zoning Commission~ 3/12/73 City Council i/'v/ 3/19/73 City Council 4/17/73 Planning and Zoning Commission v 4/23/73 City Council In addition, we engaged in numerous informal meetings with the Planning Department, City Attorney, City Engineer and others. We believe this letter establishes (a) that we have relied substantially on your approval of our PUD plan, (b) that we have expended or committed to expend substantial funds and efforts in reliance on such plan, (c) that considerable building of the first portions of our integrated project has taken place, (d) that our project was designed and makes sense only as an integrated project, and (c) that our reliance o,n your approval was reasonable. Therefore, we are convinced of our right to complete the project as approved. It seems to us that the appropriate course of conduct at this point would be for you to exempt our PUD plan from the -6- - , -......--..:.- ''''''~''.''''.o:'~--.-,.. :,. .. '. ,,' , 1 .. .,'':''- 'h/ ,- '-;'-';""'<'''' '><J''-O ,;<;;<',~<.i,;.i;"->, ;'-~)";';~;,",,>,,:;'<-';;:';':i~-,,';h,,,;,;~-;;\~::';""'f;;:;s; .. -.. .. . . __ . .. "" ... .... _ ...~...... -"':""""A:~':;'~:::;,',j;'...<_ ~;-'::'-"':'/'d'-'::":~:,:",;' \, .. ~. ..: '~~, :;i':'ifj+::~,'~,-; - > ) .. ,', > (.. \. ,h. . ~ , I '.~: . r . , \',- " t " t i. , , (.... . , - r, ~f' Q':-.....,~ ';,i,~~;.:;l\:"i;.c.'" ~~, "'J0.:~'.,."~;.<'''''''''4'"",,,""'''-''--''-----''---'-'- -- ^ ('" , . - \ \ proposed Ordinance No. 19, thus avoiding future, misunderstandings and controversy. We ~uld be pleased to meet with you to discuss this matter further and to give you any additional facts which you consider relevant or necessary to analyse our situation better. ,> " / .. .' Yours very truly, ',: ' D. G. BEHRHORST, Vice prliSiden t Destination Resorts ',.,1" : ~ '.. . , . . .... ~. :; l' , , ~. .- , I , f ~ ' ~~'''''-''.-'' ~_.'~''f"'-''''A!'.~' ,~~,~ .. \;' " "v" . ", t. - ,- --'.~ .. . ~, ('"', " ""'~~'_.~""--,,,..,~..,-,,,.,,,. 1':'" "";'" 7." ~i,:;~:,<;~tf;~,:,;L~,;,j,;:';;,:,~:b:';;i::;i.i,,':;.,,~:,~;4~.2;::'",~~;,;;;,d)-,::J~,;;;,,':~'a;~~::ij';~~'li:h-'i,;",/t!,.d; ,;;~;;~, \ .~ '.. ;o':;':j:;iJi:>j",i,ii!i.",:,:,;:. L;;',~:;::;:;;;:,:;;;2,-:~)_',~,;;~';:': "~''''', " June 28, 1973 Albert Kern, Esq. P. O. Box 389 Aspen, Colorado Dear Albie: Destination This letter is in confirmation of the action taken earlier by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the appliclltion for the second phase permit on the D. R. C. subdivision - P. U. B. It was my recommendation to them that any anticipatory phasing constituted an amendment to the final development plan such as to require the applicant to petition the P and Z for an amendment, which agency is then required to hold a public hearing and determine if D. R. C. satisfiei the requirements to sustain a petition to amend, all as provided in Section 24~lO.1 of the Aspen Municipal Code. It is my understanding and Z representatives of D. R. C. were attendant at the P and Z meeting at which this matter was discussed and are already apprised of the commission. action. No permit will issue until the requirements for an amend- ment have been satisfied. Very trul~ yours, SMS:mli' Sandra M. Stuller Ci ty Attorney cc: Clayton Meyring Herb Bartel - -',<...,- ,..." ,..." June 21, 1973 TO: HERB BARTEL, CITY PLANNER MEMBERS OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: SANDRA M. STULLER, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: D. R. C. SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR PHASE 2 OF PUD Dear Herb and Members of the P & z: As you are aware D. R. C. has submitted its plans for permit issuance for phase 2 of its P.U.D., as approved. The request for the permit, submitted approximately one year before antici- pated, has raised 2 issues of concern to the city, both of which merit considerable study. They are: 1. What is the effect of a phasing schedule in terms of its enforcability by the city, and 2, Will the building permit review procedure and possible rezoning affect the D.R.C. approved P.U.D. and subdivision.- This letter is an attempt to summarize D. R. C.' s argument (and my reaction to them) that (1) phasing is not mandatory and, if it is it merely affects completion dates and not commencement and (2) no interim measures or rezoning can affect a completely approved P. U. D. and subdivisfu~n subsequent to the time of approval, sequential permit issuance notwithstanding. D. R. C. Arguments and authority 1. Phasing is not mandatory. D. R. C. contends that the l~ter indicating anticipated starting and completion dates is not mandatory and was, in at least this case, merely an afterthought. The City of Aspen has no interest in enforcing such the estimated starting dates for the following reasons: . a, If the city is concerned about staggering impact there is no problem here. The second phase will not be completed prior to the schedule. The permit for- phase 2 IS being sought now only because of the time it takes to acquire a permit and lay necessary foundations. If in fact the city wishes to insure against use prior to the anticipated completion date, it may do so by refusing the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. b. The City has no utilities or other facilities to supply to correspond with the various stages of develop- ment; consequently there can be no argument that phasing is necessary to allow the city time to act. ,'-', ~ Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 2 c. Phasing is not necessary to enforce the p. U. D. and SSuodivision Agreement (e.g. D. R. C. must seal and chip a street section and construct an 8' walkway with the first phase of construction) and guarantJ<!e perfor- mance before issuance of a permit for commencement of, the second phase (but agrees this may not be true for the th~rd) because it has alternative enforcement pro- cedures, namely: (1) It can deny a certificate of occupancy if all requirements are not satisfied and (2) It may withdraw the necessary escrowed funds to make the designated improvements itself, as provided in the agreement. 2. The Permit Review Procedures or rezoning cannot, as a matter of law, affect the intended use of the D. R. C. property. In support of this contention D. R. C. makes the following agruments. a. The P. U. D. and subdivision agreement are a contract binding both D. R. C.and the City of Aspen and any attempt to change uses-oT densities constitutes a breach of con tract. b. D. R. C. has already relied on the P. U. D. and subdivision approval and this reliance is evidenced by the conveyance of interests in land to the City and various concessions made (e. g. employee housing, view- plane and reduced density) and which are sufficient to estop the city from changing the intended use. c. Finally, a P. U. D. must be viewed as a single entity even if there are a series of permits issued. In support of this a~gument three cases have been cited by counsel for D. R. C. (1) Telimar Homes, Inc. v Miller (N. Y. 1961) concerned an approved subd~v~s~on with lots of a minimum size of 10,000 sq. feet (1/4 acre). After approval the land was divided into 4 sections (to facilitate financing) and the map for section one and two were approved. After approval of the first section roads were constructed, surveys and percu- lation tests were made, plans were prepared, model homes were built, and grade and drainage studies were made - all on the basis that it was a single, 'overall project. The V. A. granted site approval -, I~ Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 3 for the development as a single project. A water company was organized and construction of a water works was begun, geared to accommodate 500 homes (the number that could be built on quarter acre lots). The zoning ordinance was then changed to require 1/2 acre lots. After this amendment plain- tiff submitted maps for the third and fourth section, which were denied. The court sustained plaintiff's argument that he had a vested right to proceed as planned saying: "It is clear from this record that the water system, roads, drainage system, model house construction and advertising were laid out and designed for the benefit of all four sections developed as a single, overall tract; that they would have been laid out and treated on an entirely different basis if the development of each section were to be separate; and that prior to the zoning amendment, substantial construction had been commenced and substantial expenditures had been made in par- tial development of sections ,3 and 4, as well as sections 1 and 2. Hence plaintiff had acquired a vested right to a: nonconforming use as to the entire tract." (2) D;iamon v Orleans, 196 A 2d 363 (Pennsylvania, 1964).concerned a rezoning of 150 acres of land to FF and FFF zones (floating commercial zones) following the consideration by county commissioners of a comprehensive development plan for the whole tract. Between the last hearing on the rezoning and issuance of the first building permit the plain- tiffs purchased the land, purchased title insurance and signed a ,lease for a department store. The first permit Was issued and the installation of sewage and electrical systems begun. A second permit was issued. At that point a civic group brought this action to stop the issuance of the second and further permits, contending that the rezoning depreciated neighboring property and con- stituted spot zoning. The plaintiffs contend that they had a vested right in the building permit and the group is estopped, at this point in time, from contesting the rezoning. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, saying: "When the permit authorizing construction of the first apartment building was issued.....(the group) did nothing....(T)he integrated, comprehensive, staged development of a large tract of land may and should be treated as a single undertaking....(I)t is made abundantly --., "'""" Memo to Herb Bartel and P& Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 4 clear that, realistically, objection is made to the entire comprehensive development, not merely to the commercial... To allow a complex, compre- hensive plan for development of as large a tract of land as is here involved to be attacked on a piece by piece basis would result in the greatest of inequities to the developers. This is particu- larly true on the facts here presented, which de- monstrated that not only were the residents com- pletely informed of all phases and the nature of the development program, but that they were also able to and did participate in the formulation and finalization of the development plan." (3) Norpro Co. V Cherry Hills (Colorado Supreme Court, December 18, 1972) concerned an attempt by a landowner to construct according to a P. U. D. so as to result in a density of 1.3 acres per site in an ,area calling for 2.5 acres., The owner argued that the present zoning was unconstitutional as applied to him because it (1) bore no relationship to the public healty, morals, safety or welfare; (2) it caused the owner substantial hardship and (3) it denied the owner equal protection because there was greater densities permitted in other adjoining areas. The court disagreed and stated (dicta being relied on by D. R. C. to prevent rezoning): "The maintenance of stability in zoning and resulting conservation of property value based upon existing zoning regulations are prime consicl- '[erations in denying applications for zoning changes." (the reliance referred to is that of adjoining similarly zoned property owners). Comments orr D. R. C. Contentions 1. Rebuttal of Argument that City of Aspen is estopped from affecting D, R. C. land use. The D. R. C. Argument is essentially one of governmental estepp~ili1 The most comprehensive statement of this doctrine that I have run across was stated in "Zoning Estoppel: Appli- cation of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes", 1971 Urban Law Annual 63 (1971) in which the author stated: "A local government exercising its zoning powers will be estopped when a property owner (1) relying in good faith ,-, ,..." Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 5 (2) upon some act or omission of the government (3) has made such a substantial change of position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights which he ostensibly had acquired." At this juncture I would like to make a comment about the first element, i. e., good faith. Concrete evidence of lack of good faith in this matter consists in the attempt to accelerate the development (premature application for phase two) with the know- ledge of possible rezoning. The crux of any litigation on this ), matter would, however, center around the second and third elements and I will center the following discussion on these. a. Substantial change of position. The thrust of the Telimar and other authority cited by D. R. C. is that, at this pOlnt in time, D. R. C. has made such expenditures and changed its position so that no rezoning can affect its intended use. I think it worthy of note that the Telimar case IS A MINORITY, OPINION, There is no case law concernlng both an approved sub- divE ion and P. U. D. but there is much case law concerning approved subdivisions and subsequent rezoning. Rathroff in Law of Zoning and Planning says "In the absence of statute, even final approval of a sub- division plat by the planning board does not generally place the lots shown on the plat beyond the power of zoning changes. But, similar to the vested rights which accrue to a property owner whose position has been changed in reliance upon the issuance of a building permit, vested rights may be secured by a subdivider in a particular subdivision plat where his position has been changed by installation fo improvements or otherwise in reliance upon the grant of final approval thereof." Several cases discuss when a subdivider has substantially relied so as to create an estoppel, The mere fact that subdivision plans were approved by a town prior to enactment of a zoning ordinance does not create a vested right to subdivide as approved. York Township Zoning Board v Brown 182 A 2d 706 (Penn 1962). T~ lssuance ot a bUlldlng permlt, per se, does not vest such a property right in the owner that subsequent rezoning is ineffective as to the property. €i tyand County of Denver v Duffy 450 P2d 339~) (Colo 1969). At various stages of actual' development an owner may be held to have acquired a vested rlght to proceed with a development. Some cases on this point follow; -- ,- Memo to Herb Rartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 6 (1) Murrell v Wolff 408 S. W. 2d 842 (Miss. 1966) concerned an 11 acre development. Construction of 35 multiple dwellings had not been constructed when a rezoning occurred, but a subdivision on shopping center had been done. The dwellings where the third (and an integral) phase of the approved pro; ject. At the time of rezoning the owner had graded the land, installed a sewer main and the foundations and utilities laid on the first of the 35 dwellings. $71,000.00 was spent on completing the first building. Given these facts the court held the City estopped from rezoning So as to prevent the use for multiple dwellings. (2) Town of Lebanon v Woods (Conn. Sup. Ct. Err. 1965) 215 A2d ll~ concerned a rezoning affecting (increasing) lot sizes. The subdivision consisted of 4 sections, and work had been commenced for 14 houses on 2 sections. The court held the owner to have ,a vested right only for those sections for which development plans had been completed, sewage dis- posal plans made, a water pump house, constructed, stonn sewers and water system installation made, some model homes built, and foundations excavations for the 14 homes started: "Neither expenses incurred for imprevements which would be required irrespective of the lot size, nor commencement of construction on these sections vested rights in the developer to develop the balance of the tract in small lots ." (3) In Wood v North Salt Lake (Utah 1963) 390 P2d 858 the court held that the CIty could not increase the lot size where "water mains and sewer lines had been laid down in the streets" and both systems provided connections in front of each 60 foot lot. (4) Gruber v Mayor and Township Committee of Raritan Township, 39 NJl, concerned an approved subdIVISIon WhICh was to be developed in five sections. The owner had begun development of section 1 when the entire area was rezoned for industrial uses. The court determined that the developer had a vested right in the first section but remanded the case for the lower court's determination as to (1) the expenditures made for sections 2 - 5 and (2) "the practicabi li ty and fai rness of restricting the residential development to any section or sections less tha.n the whole." (5) In Virginia Construction Corporation v Fairman (1962) 39 NJl, 187 A~d 1 the court made clear, In another case where lot sizes were changed subsequent to a subdi vis ion approval, that these cannot be included in a calculation of expenses made in reliance, "those made without regard to whether the tract was developed on a one acre or two acre basis." ,-, ,-, '" Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 7 (6) Trans-Robles Corporation v City of Cherry Hills Village 497 P2d 33~ lCOlo. LA 1~7~) 1S Colorado's closest case 1n point. The city rezoned establishing 2-1/2 acre minimum lots. Prior to the enactm~nt the developers had made arrangements for sewer service and installed water and sewer lines and underground utilities. In addition, there had been a consider- able amount of street paving and installation of curbs and gutters: all of which improvements were made to serve 1/2 acre lots. On the basis of these facts, the court found that the effect of the 2-1/2 acre minimum zoning would be to foreclose any reasonable use of the land in that no rational system of lots could be laid out on the rezoned property utilizing the then existing system of streets, curbs, gutters, and underground utilities and water and sewer collection systems, nor could any reasonable combination of lots be put together allowing construction of a house on a lot of the required area with the specified setback. The cases seem to use one of two tests. The first is called the quantum test which seems to require physical construction. The second is the balancing test in which the court weighs the plain- tiff's costs and right to use land against the community interest. I think it fair to say as does Anderson in the American Law of Zoning, Section 19.23, that platting itself does not glve lmmunity but relief will be given to a subdivider "whose improvements were so related to existing zoning regulations and so substantial as to be tantamount to a commencement of use as to qualify him as a nonconforming user." At this time, it is my impression that D. R. C. has not accomplished such physical cQnstruction as tQ satisfy the sub- stantial reliance requirements as determined by the caselaw. The D. R. C, counsel argue that P. U. D. approval itself constitutes substantial reliance: The effect of P, U. D. approval will be discussed below. b. Acts of the City of Aspen. D. R. C. argues that several actions of the City of Aspen preclude any rezoning affecting their d~,velopment. (1) First, it is their argument that by entering into the P. U. D. and subdivision agreement the city is constractually bound to the use as described in the final development plan. I think it worthy of note that: (a) The document is entirely a one way agreement, i.e., all obligations imposed thereby are on D. R. C. (except to accept and record the plat) and no counter obligations rest with the City. I""" ~ Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 8 (b) Paragraph 9 provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred to the contrary, Subdivider, in developing the property contained in the plat, and other improvements as herein contained, shall fully comply with all appli- cable rules, regulations, standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and bodies having jurisdiction." I am not sure of the consequences of this provision, but it does make clear that out- side legal principals are applicable. (c) Finally, I think it quite clear that any governmental agency cannot by contract bind itself in terms of future governmental functions and restrain- ing t~e exercise thereof. Again, the effect of this principal on the present situation is unclear. (2) Second, D. R. C. argue~ that the acceptance of dedi- ~t6d1and by the city precludes rezon~ng. There is some merit in this contention. In Ward v City of New Rochelle 204 NYS 2d 144, 168 NE 2d 821 the court held that a landowner whose subdivision plat had been approved by the planning board and who in reliance upon the agreement made, at the time of such approval, conveyed 13.3 acres for recreation purposes had a vested right. However, since most subdivision regulations require dedication and it did not seem to affect the cases above cited, its consequences are not exactly clear. (3) Thirdly, D. R. C. argues that the concessions made (employee housing, viewp1anes, etc.) prec1udemodification. This would, I think, depend upon what uses could be made of the land if a rezoning occurred and the development, as planned, did not finish. I will leave to your consideration the extent to which these concessions and their fulfillment would affect the future development of the land in the event of rezoning. (4) Fourth, D. R. C. contends that the P. U. D. approval, per se, prevents modification. This is a contention strongly pre- sented by D. R. C. To support this concept D. R. C. cited Diamon. supra. This case, again, like Telimar, seems to be a minonty opinion. Again, it is based on the extent of reliance and does not concern a P. U. D. There are cases in which a P. U. D. is viewed as a unit, not subject to fractionalizing, but none in point. For example in Gary D. Lund v City of Tumwater 472 P2d 550 (Wash 1970) the plaintiff petItIoned to annex 2-1/2 acres and do a P. U. D. on it and the adjoining 7-1/2 acres (already in the city). The P. U. D. was;decla'red<in'iTa'lid'fer the 7-1/2 acres (for reasons not relevant to this discussion) while the P. U. D. done simultaneously ... ... . ,- --, Memo to Herb Bartel and P & Z Members June 21, 1973 Page 9 with annexation was valid. However, the court held that where 3/4 of the P. U. D. could not be accomplished within the existing zoning, the remaining 1/4 must also be disallowed. Jan Krasnowiecki in "P. U. D.: A Challenge to Established Theory and Practice of Land Use Control", 114 U. of Penn. Law Review 47, agI'ees that in the absence of a statute or substantial expenditures, a P. U. D. developer has little protection against rezoning. In Cha.ndler v Kroiss 190 N. W. 2nd 473 (Minn. 1971) the city, in antic1pat1on of adopting a comprehensive plan, enacted a P. U. D. act. The petitioner had received a P. U. D. prior to the adoption of the plan. But the plan specified that "All developments or ijevelopment plans approved by the Village Council which are not in conformity to the plan shall be considered as amendments to the plan and shall be so noted by the P & Z". It was held that this provision allowed the P. U. D. to survive any rezoning accomplished by the adoption of the plan. Our court in Moore it Boulder 484 P2d 134 (Colo. 1971) in discussing the nature ot a P., U. D. said: "Although its intent is to permit diversification of uses, such uses must be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood, must not jeopardize or reduce zoning standards in the area and should promote the general welfare of the community." In sum, I can find little support for the contention that a P. U. D. is any less susceptible to rezoning than an approved subdivision. However, the factual elements of this particular P. U. D. may require otherwise and I would like to discuss this matter with you next week if it is of sufficient concern. 2. Rebuttal of AI'gument that Alternation of Commencement Date is Discretionary with D. R. C. As I indicated earlier I think that our P. U. D. Act specifically establishes the procedures to be followed by D. R. C. to anticipate phasing. The development schedule is part of the final development plan pursuant to Section 24-10.1. The act further lists 4 conditions one of which must be satisfied before an amendment to the plan can be accomplished. The act further requires an application and hearing. Very truly yours, ~~ Sandra M. S~uller SMS:mw ~ ~';;'--':>;'; -:.:..., .::".., -, , I"'"', ,..." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"'!~ C. F. ~OECKEL e. O. 8- l. co. Recessed Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning June 21, 1973 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bruc~ Gillis with Charles Collins, Victor Goodhard and Barbar~ Lewis. from the Planning Office, Herb Bartel, Fred Wooden, Donna City Engineer David Ellis. Comission agreed to hold bheir next regular meeting on July 10th due to the holiday of July 4th. a,t 5:00 p.m. Also_ present Baer and View Rubey Park Revised slide of the view plain from Rubey Park of Independence Pass was presented by Fred Wooden. Noted the new height of buildings in the view plain would be 17-1/2'. Lewis move~ to approve the change, adopt the res- olution and recommend same to the City Council as amended of Rubey Park view plain. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor,motion carried. Courthouse H Overlay Historic Designation, Pitkin County Courthouse - Mr. Wooden submitted the investigation report of the Historic Preservation Commission recommending n overlay and the approval of the County Commissioners for such designation. Request the P & Z give preliminary approval and schedule a joint public hearing with the HPC. criteria, Bldg. Permit Review Goodhard moved to approve the resolution for H overlay district of the Pitkin County Courthouse and schedule a public hearing for July 17th. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Building Permit Review Criteria - Mr. Bartel inform- ed the Commission second reading of Ordinance #19 is scheduled for Council meeting on Monday and the criteria is a part of that ordinance. Request P & Z tenative approval of the criteria. Changes in the criteria may occur following adoption of Ordinanc,e #19, I.e. requiring market feasibility studies on large complex developments etc. Lewis moved to give tenative approval of the building permit review criteria as submitted. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. Barbara Lewis left the table due to cOnflict of interest on the next agenda item. DRC Phasing Destination Resort Corporation Phasing - Applicant request permission to obtain building permit for second phase of development. Mr. Bartel referred to the regulation under PUD which requires a schedule of development to ,be submitted along with final approval of the outline developement plan. The second phase of this development is scheduled for 1974. ,~ j I v -. "::, ~~;' ,.",2:~1~;~~:::::,.~"'::;:~::,~7'"""~:=,::~;:,=;:'~.,~,,::;~~~~;=J~~2&g~:i~;.:'"=:,;, Applicant stated the reason they are requesting the permit at this time is because the second phase calls for recreational facilities and do not wish to be delayed in construction for next year. Feel foundations etc. can be started this fall and intend to get an early start next spring. - 1 - ~";'j\ c,,,""',;,,'.,,,> ?~~::-'<~'~:L_~ ~ "-~._~~~::::.~._- " .' .1"""\ ...-" ,<l RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS i 100 Leaves i FO~"lI~ C. F. 1l0ECKEL B. B. & L. 1;0: Minutes, P & Z, 6/21/73, continued. DRC Phasing , , 1 Vice Chairman Gillis stated when approval wks given to the schedule the purpose of this scheduling was so that the density and impacts of this dev~lopment on the neighborhood and City facilities would be regulated. Applicant stated they would not be changing the completion dates. Mr. Bartel stated if they wish to change their schedule there is a provision in the code for amendment procedures. Feel because of the drastic change, they should follow the amendment procedures. Further stated the City is going thru some very drastic changes at this time, i.e. investiation of water tap fees., development fees etc., and feel these should be considered. Applicant stated they would be willing to pay any additional fees required ,at the time of occupancy certificate issuance. Mr. Gillis stated this would set a precedent if granted. Concensus of the Commission was applicant shall follow the amendment procedures underPUDif a change is desired in the schedule. Barbara Lewis returned to the Commission table. DFM Sub. DFM Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat - Vice Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing. _I Applicant presented a scale model and plats as required. In addition a commentary on the project. Discussed present zoning (AR) as relates to Jhat is proposed under the revised land use map (mixed residential). co~~ission questioned the parking and access coming off of Highway 82. Suggestions were made as fol,lows: off of Hopkins, eliminate one unit for driveway access, underground parking off of Neal Avenue, eliminate the parking require- ment. Vice Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing. Goodhard moved to table this request and further alternatives be submitted relating to the parking and access arrangement. Seconded by Lewis. All in favor,motion carried. Woerndle Sub. Woerndle Subdivision and PUD Plan - Ms. Baer out- ined to the Commission this subdivision is outside the City limits. December of 1972 prceedings were started for annexation and at the sametime the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the annexation and gave approval in concept of the subdivision with certain conditions. Annexation proceedings have been commenced once again and be- cause of water problems has been taken off of Monday's Council meeting agenda. This last week the city Water Department and Fire - 2 - . 1""'\ .~ Destination Resort Corporation Rocky Mountain Regional Office p, 0, Box 2946, Aspen, Colorado 816u Telephone (303) 925-4252 May 16, 1973 Mr. Herb Bartel City Planner City of Aspen P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Herb: Per our telephone conversation today, this letter will assure you that the deed to the City of Aspen from Matthew Oblock, Jr., for the South 1/2 of the old alleyway next to the north property boundary of the DRC Subdivision will be delivered to you for recording not later than May 25, 1973. Art Daily, Mr. Oblock's attorney, will return to Aspen from his vacation in Mexico on May 23, and I know that it is the intention of Mr. Oblock and Mr. Daily to deliver this deed for the benefit of the City as has been represented in the past. Sincerely, ~ David G. Behrhorst Vice President cc: Albert Kern Art Daily Headquarters: Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone (213) 556-2040 o !, ". ALBERT KERN ATTORNEY AT LAW P. O. BOX S89 GALLUN BUILDING ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 9215.7411 Apdl 25, 1973 Arthur Daily, Esq. City Attorney P. O. Box 1128 Aspen, Colorado 81611 OI,ly C~~'~p (;fflJ Re: ,Destination &esorts-Aspen, Ltd. Dear Art: With the rezoning of the property owned by Destination Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. and in accordance with the approval of the Final Planned Unit Development Plan and Subdivision Plat, I am enClosing herewith Quit Claim Deed from Destination Resorts- Aspen, Ltd. to the City of Aspen covering that property between the fence line and the westerly line of the Destination Resorts property. As you may recall, this is one of the requirements set down by the Aspen Planning Department and tbe Aspen Plan- ning and Zoning Commission. Further in accordance with the Final Planned Unit Development Plan, I am bolding an executed Deed from Destination Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. to the City of Aspen covering that portion of the D.R.C. property which the City bas required be conveyed to it at such time as the City acquires a forty foot road right-of way along West End Avenue. It is my understanding that I will be helding this Deed in escrow and that it shall be delivered to the City of Aspen at such time as the City notifies Destination Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. that they have acquired the above mentioned forty foot right-of-way. I am enclosing a copy of the Deed for your records. If there is anything furtber that the City requires in accordance with the Subdivision Agreement and Planned Unit Development Plan, please contact me. I also understand that you will be delivering to the Arthur Daily, Esq. -2- April 25, 1973 City the Deed from Matthew Ob1ock, Jr. conveying that portion of the alley lying northerly and adjacent to the D.R.C. pro- perty. Yours very truly, ALBERT KERN AK/pk Ene. cc: H. Bartel D. Behrhorst o ALBERT KERN ATTORNEY AT LAW P. Q. BOX 389 GALLUN BUILDING ASPEN. COLORADO 816n TELEPHONE 925.7411 April 25, 1973 Mr. Edward Phillips Pitkin Title Company P. O. Box 3050 Asp~n. Colorado 81611 ('~ \ I ('I"" '- "', ~!~rt::}i , Re: Desttnation Resort COYporatlon Dear Ed: In accordanee with OU$ conversation today, I am enclos- ing herewitb two Partial Releases executed by First of Denver Mortgage Investors and Matthew Oblock. Jr.. for release and recording with the Clerk of Pitkin County. I understand tbat you are holding the 'Prolllbsory Rote and Deed of Trust frOlll First of Denver Mortgage Investors and that you will be con- tacting Arthur Daily who is holding the prOlll1uory Rote and Deed of Trust on behalf of Hr. Oblock. Please advise me when tbese documents have been record- ed and let 11I8 know the book and page numbers. Yours very truly, ALBERT KED ~':PkH. Bartel~' D. Bebrhont A. Daily ',:i I ! I I \" r' II ~ I " I I l t ~l " ~ ~ . <r " , 'i I Rec~rded m':.u.::u.:?~,~:~1;;f.f~~m,~~.~,~.~~?~:::,,:u:u'~:,,:r:,:,:uu""umu',u Rec~ption No.t.:L.........;~hJ~...n.!~\..... n.. .................................L.........................J...........RecOrder. I I:i.'{ THIS I)EED, Made thi~ . ,".51!j day of lip4J'-f ' 19 )3" be~weenpl;lSTIN~mIQ~RESORTS~ASPENL'.rD; . alimited:partne~lshil#jil;lP';i@:;' gol\F:2946 AsJEin' 1,1 I ,,',. 'r' ",p, )} ofthe County of PitJin and State of Colo- rado, of the first part, and CITY OF ASPEN... a Colorado Mun~cipal Corpora,tion, P. :0. Box v, Aspen, ~ ", ,;~ , I ,j of the ' County of Pitkin , and State of Colorado, of the second part; r ~ 1 WITNESSETH, Tha(t the said paitt y of the first part, for and in' consideration of the sum of TEN ($lO'OOlDOLrARS, and other valuable considerations, DelRIl!s, to the said part y o~ the first p t, in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereb~'confe!ised a acknowledged, ha s granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents dOJ',' es "i',il:gr, ant, argain, sell, convey an,d confirm, "un,to the said part y of the second part, its ,'; heifs andssigns forever, all the. following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying a \I beiIlgdn tli County of pi tkin and State of Aco~;:::t:~i\and J~tualL : n the NW~ of selc. 18, 1'10S, R84W of the 6t~ P,M., Pitkinifou~ir' colorado. Said 'tract is more fully des- cr~bed as f011oW~:'M"1 i Beginning at a pJint i~hen('e Corner No. 1 of Aspen Townsite bears S.04050'52" E. 5t,7.07Ii~t.i~ thence N.19001'OO" w.41.84 ft.; thence N.47054,'00" E. 33.12 ;,#t. ;'~lthence S.23011'OO'1 W. 24.13 ft.; thence 40.51 ft. along ~he 1ji~f: 0" a curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 ft. to the :poin.E: of'jkbeginning, containing 367.2 square feet more or less. litH, ill . ~':,+:I!'/ 8:1 SUBJECT TO the restrr~tioB ments shatl be constr~cteQ within the above~desJiibea . ii,!!)., in Together with all and sihgnla~the h~editaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any- wise appertsining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said part y of the first part, either, in I~w or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and lIppurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bar- gained and described, wcjth theapPttrtenances, unto CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal corporatio~\ 2,H the said part y of the second part, its heirs and assigns forevll1" ..' .. ;,! Andthesaid DE$TINATION'RESORTS-ASPEN LTD., a limited partner- ship, party,' of the first part, for itself , its heirs, executors and administrators, doe s I. covenant, '. grant, bargain and agree to and with the said part y of the second part, its Mirs and !tssigns, the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession ofsaid part Y:' of the s'lCond part, its heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claitningllr to claim the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the said part y (!f the first part to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND, IN WITNESS WHli1REQF,~he~aid part y of the first part ha s hereunto set its hllnd' , !md ~@1I1 , ;th@ dfiYllndi'@/j,r tir~tllbov@wrltt@nl.. ' _ , .' '" " ' Sigrted, Sealed and lJ~lIvers~,ip t4,~ presence of .D.E.sJ..1NA'UoNnRE.SO~TS.Lm'tSI!JALl ti""";,, I;~ ASl'EN, L'.rQ., a l~mited "'l':'I,'ii'i,! partnersh~p, 'n.mn"n'h..nhn.nnm.nnmJH,...h;',:,1,j,}~',;'nh*!nm.'nh.m...... hnn'(lJ:j' n.mmnlJ' nn~. nUn mn n.~.. SEALp] tif:';!,;; ;!; , . '\ j/, '1'1 i!~;l Jifft B .L..nn.mmmm:!:mmnmnmnnn~'[SEAL]' "'h'nn.m.nmnmnnnmmnmqmn'J:"..(Cm{!rn'hn'.mmh" y. DESTIN fION RESORTS STATE OF ~f~LO~..,:,;:m,'.,:"",.""!.:,',,, 0'1\,'.' L. ,generat p,artner ' Coun@i of !:i"iPI~KIN r '~';JL 14. The foregoing i~trum.t~ waS~C!inoW~dged before me this .,L. 5' da~ of ' ';>1)1 L.. " 19 73 ,by. DAVID G.k\BE,~~ORijT, Vice President of DE~TINATION RESORTS, General Partner ,1"",1. ',',II, "",., ",j I -:,:r ,1\:;:,;','(1 :1r l My commission eXPires~"~,,,'~(J)'~',"~' . 'i.o esa my handla l~"HI,\ ~ L ~,' ~,,:' " r,,:,:;",":, 'i:( " ;1 RECORDER'S STAMP to run with the on the easterly property. land that no' improve- two and one-half feet / ;,'j I," . ,...-........-.N~ia.;;:.~bii~:... -If by natural person OT pers<Jns, here Ins~rt na,me 01" na.mes: If by person acting in repreJentattve or offlcta.l ca.paclty or as attorney-In-tact. then Insert name of pel"$, on as, executor,a.ttomey-tn-fa.et or ,other capacity o~ description; if by officer of cor- poration. then Insert name ot such otficeror officers, as the president or other officers otsuchi corporatbt, naming lL-,StGtuto", Ackft()tlllcdgment~ Se88W'" 1987;1,: >~,,<,,::: ;,:~: .:.:' No. If SPECIAL WARRANTY trr:,,:'''~blhh~~''':''::~:~.'''t .'1 D~~. 0.,....+._'.' . 'j i ' '.'... ,l ',~ I ",', ~, ,! ! ! " l I . .~_,.,___.___,.-".f -" --- ,,,. .",...", ~- ,,/ ~.- y RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~~.... C. 'f. "OECI(~~ B. o. a ~. !;(). " Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 17, 1973 Meeting was called to order by Chairman James Adams at 5 :'05 p.m. with Charles Collins, Victor Goodhard, Bruce Gillis, Barbara Lewis and Charles Vidal. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Building Inspector Clayton Meyring. Gillis moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 1973, seconded by Lewis. All in favor, motion carried. ' View Control - Chairman Adams opened the public hearing. Planner Bartel outlined the amendment as (1) a general amendment to the zoning code to allow for the establishing of view corridors and (2) specific corridor from Glory Hole Park of Independence Pass. Charles Vidal excused himself from the table due to conflict of interest, also Barbara Lewis. Planner Bartel utilized slides and map to outline the view corridor or plain from Glory Hole Park. Emphasized the line shown on the slide is the bottom of the plain. No building would be allowed in the corridor to exceed in height above the base of the plain line. Corridor is approximately 70' wide within the park and expands as you progress towards Independence Pass. Discussed view corridor vs a view plain. Mr. Gaudino stated he felt a corridor would be from ground level up,.. l<'.r. Bartel further explained the engineers call it a view corridor. The line shown on the slide and as defined in the ordinance is the bottom of the view corridor., It would be impossible to maintain a corridor:Erom . the total park or area. Janet Landry also, stated she felt the corridor should extend to the ground. Mr. Bartel further explained the strongest point for view control is to prctect views from public places. Discussed a corridor through the DRC and Shareholders properties going from ground level. Chairman Adams closed the public hearing. 'Goodhard moved to amend the supplementary regulations to provide for maintaining of mountain views. Seconded by Gillis. All in favor, motion carried. Gillis moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the specific view corridor as recommended for Glory Hole Park of Independence Pass. Seconded by Goodhard. Allin favor, except for , C~ins who voted nay. Motion carried. V'?e.stination Resort Corporation - Final Outline Development Plan. Mr. "Skip" Ere-hrhorst reviewed with the Commission the plan, Hr. Bartel stated the plan is in full compliance and this matter before the Co~~ission is a matter of review to see that all requirements of the preliminary outline development plan have been met. Mr. Behrhorst stated thl:!re were three items which the City Council request be made apart of' the plan: (1) create adequate right of way through West End Street, triangle that will be dedicated to the City; (2)committment to the shuttle bus service - wording on the ',7 "'.'" "''""T" ,~..;,. '. =~ '~"C~'";~,, ~:' ~"'~ r,C ~~-7 I'" ~ . { 1 ;. f I I " ,1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves , , ,'c. 1'. ME'=1tEI. 9. ~.It I.. C~. Regular Meeting planning & Zoning (Cont.) April 17, 1973 J plat was outlined; (3) review at the third phase of development to evaluate the parking as to whether additional spaces should be provided, wording was also outlined on the map. ", Also included in the submission, was the approved subdivision plat, master landscaping plan showing existing vegetation and proposed landscaping, walkways ,and access, the requirement that ,relates to on going maintenance of the common areas, and the time schedule for development and completion. Mr. Gaudino pointed out fire protection, ,storm drainage etc have been overlooked. Mr. Bartel explained that was approved at the time of the approval of the subdivision plat and are covered in the subdivision agreement. That agreement is between the City Council and the developer. ' Charles Vidal suggested that wording be added to the plat that when the City transit system is in operation, perhaps the City may want to negotiate with the developer for them to discontinue their' service and contribute to the City system. Chairman Adams closed the public hearing. Goodhard moved to recommend approval of the final development plan as submitted. Seconded by Gillis. All in favor, except for Collins who abstained. Motion carried; Mountain Queen Subdivision - Commission reviewed the project prior to the meeting. Jim Reser of Tri-Co Management stated there will be less drainage down Monarch Str~et than there is presently following the development. Landscaping will be done where excava- tion has taken place. City Engineer Ellis request the retaining wall and the access be held in abeyance at this time, pending negotiations with adjacent property owners. Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector stated he had conferred with the fire chief Williard Clappel.' and he is concerned about getting proper volume with the existing system. Discussed the size water main to serve the project and under whose responsibility this should come under if a change is required. Commission request Mr. Clapper be contacted again and outline the problem and his solutions to the problem. drainage be more specifically Outlined. specifically Also the Trail System Plan - Chairman Adams opened the public hearing. There being no comments, Chairman Adams closed the public hearing. Commission reviewed the map outlining the 'system. Plan has been adopted by the County. Gillis moved to adopt the plan as submitted and recommend same to the City Council. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. f; , F , . Victor Goodhard left the meetins. James Adams excused himself due to conflict of interest. f" }. , ~ ~ { ... ~ ---.--~~.._-_.,.._--_.. ::: "~-~~- .".,,-'" ~., '"j.~'. .:.,',.. ._...' _ "';"""',. ,.-,'".....",.. ~"'~.~.{...,,'~ -".'"~ c,"'" ".",'1." .,;.,,,,,_.,.~,,,:~2. .. . ,',' ""':~"~"""""';"'-';";''''~'''';~''.r'--'7'\'''"' ".,:, ~__"i~"'~k',;,,,,,,;:, '.;.<~,'.,.~ ..~,~~~,.-~,: ~- \ -, ,-. ;;.~,,, '.",' :-s' '~.".'- . J<#~ STATEMENT OF ZONING CHANGE \ ......,.., ,~~,"'.., . -- '-"..! ,-.. - ,-,:-'---- thence S.Z5017'00"W. 88.00 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lot 4 to the northwest corner of Lot 5 said subdivision; thence S.OZoOO'Z9"W. 56.11 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lot 5; thence S.17048'09"E. 48.94 feet along the westerly bo;undary of said Lot 5 to the northwest corner of Lot 6 said subdivision; thence S.08?40'09"E. 56.16 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lot 6; thence S.27003'33"E. 75.~6 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lot 6 to the most southerly corner of said Lot 6 and the most westerly corner of Lot 7 said subdivision; thenceS.89035'43"W. 38Z.50 feet to a point online 1-Z ~f said Aspen Townsite; thence S.Z80Z8'00"W. 134.56 feet along said line 1-Z to the point of beginning, containing 5.Z7 acres more or less. OWNER: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) S5. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~~ day of April, 1973, by David G. Behrhorst as Vice-~ident of Destination Resorts, General Partner in Destination Resorts - Aspen, Ltd., a Limited Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: I~ 9~o ~~ Notary Pub lC . .;-_ 1'7 ~ <W" '....:a::IGt. . <<v /)~~'4A'J ~' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE CITY OF~EN -"/ ,~, 2 By z,/~ /<,""'M;yor -;..::" City Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of April, 1973 by Eve Homeyer as Mayor and Lorraine-Graves as City Clerk of the City of Aspen. . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: No LaIY Public -Z- \ 'Co "~"'~.;;;'<"_"':~_.,. l' ...ar Meeting ,,' " aBSOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 1973 Initiative Ordinance Encroachments, Public Right-of-Way Holy Cross Acquisition City Police & County Sheriff Consolidation 1"'"'\ Aspen City Council ~ April 23, 1973 Councilman Walls moved to read RESOJ"UTION OF 1973. Seconded by C011ncilman Nystrom. favor, motion carried. #9, SERIES All in "WHEREAS, the owner of certain property known as the D. R. C. Subdivision has submitted, in ac- cordance with th~ zoning ordinances of the City of Aspen, a Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the lands contained in said Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the said Final Development Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that all of the lands contained within the D. R. C. Subdivision be and the same hereby are rezoned AR-I Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Final Planned unit Development Plan on file in the office of the City Building In- spector, and that the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen, Colorado, be and the same hereby is amended acco.rdingly. " Councilman Whitaker moved to adopt RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 1973. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Council took note of the Statement of Zoning which is attached to the resolution. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom, aye; Breasted, aye; Griffin, nay; Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye; Whitaker, aye; Mayor Homeyer, aye. Motion carried. City Attorney Daily reported it has come to the city's attention the affidavits do not specifically state th~t the persons signed in front of the circulator which is the wording outlined in the City Charter. Until the affidavits are corrected, do not feel the City should consider the petition. Councilman Whitaker questioned if zoning can, be changed by an intiative. City Attorney ,Daily stated yes, be- cause it is felt that the procedures for zoning are taken care of by the election process. Council stated their concern tht there are property owners in that. area that are not even aware of the initiative pro- cess that is going on. Tabled until the next meeting. Councilmen Whitaker and Nystrom submitted their re- port using as a basis the report submitted by the Engineering Department previously. Councilman Walls moved to table this item until the next meeting. Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried. City Manager Campbell reported he and the electric superintendent traveled to Glenwood Springs and met with the board. Request at this time authority to offer a price and negotiate with Holy Cross. Councilman Walls moved to authorize the City manager to go ahead and negotiate with Holy Cross. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. All in favor~ motion carried. City Manager Campbell stated the recent offer by the Sheriff and County is unreasonable and not feasible. To utilize the basement of the court house, there would not be any additional room as presently exists. Request Council consider planning begin this year for the construction of anew facility that would also incllide the courts and perhaps be called a "Justice Center". Council agreed to meet with the County Com- mission on this proposal. JlH 1'*'\ ,~ ii Ii I, ;; , 1 ~ L :! SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNITDEVELOPNEt-.'T ACREH1ENT (~_~_:~_~~_.__~:T_3~_EJ~SIC:; (rAy (' b..ks ,(,I '\,0 , " ,.~ n ./'\ THIS AGREnIZi\-.:', made th:is ,'..Pday of ,-~c-l,)i ---,. 1973, by and between tb~ CITY OF ASPEN,' Colorado (berai::,:after sometimes called "City"), a.nd DESTINATION RESORTS - ASPEN, LTD. > a limited partnership, , (hereinafter sometimes called "Subdivider"). WITNESSETH: i ~ i: " .p j! Ii I, "I II II I' I' I !I , !l I' I' ,j 11 I' II p II " 11 i , i i II ~I '\ it II jI I] ,I \; It :1 WHEREAS, Subdivider has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation, a subdivision plat of a tract of land situated .in the NW~ of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado, designated as D.R.C. Subdivision; and WHEREAS, said plat encompasses land located within an area in the City zoned AR-l; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such plat, the proposed development and the improvement of the l&ld there- in, and the requirements to be imposed upon ether adjoining or neighboring properties by, reason of the proposed development and improvement of the land included in the plat; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and accept for recordation said plat upon the agreement of Sub- divider to the matters hereinafter described, and subject to , , , all the requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other laws, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed condi.tions and require- ments in connection with its approval, execution and ac~eptance for recordation of the plat, and that such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhar.ce the public welfare; and WHEREAS, und~.r the authority of Section 20-9 of tbe Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the City is entitled to assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to 'C n ,-., ,-.., " :i Ii I' ,I II ,I " , '\ !! will be faithfully performed by the Subdivider. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein c,ontained, and tb,e approval, execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the City, it is , agreed as follows: ,: " ii U ,: " U :1 1. 'Subdivider shall prime, and place seal and chip surfacing from the existing improvements at the intersection of West End Street and Waters Avenue to the entrance to D.R.C. Subdivision, according tonormal,City specifications, which surfacing shall be the same width as the paved portion of West End Street to be completed with first phase of development. The agreed estimated cost of cons,truction of this improvement is TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY and 00/100 ($2,160.00) DOLLARS. " d ~ : \ ~ H 1\ I Ii " II 11 Ii ,I 'I Ii I! II \1 II 2. The Subdivider shall construct an eight foot (8') wide asphalt-concrete walkway/emergency access drive within Wagon Road from West End Street to Ute Avenue to be completed with the first phase of development, according to normal City specifications. The agreed estimated cost for the construction of this improvement is ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO and 00/100 ($1,422.00) DOLLARS. , 3. Subject to the conditions contained in tas para- graph, the Subdivider shall provide for the estimated cost for construction of asphalt-concrete paving along the Ute Avenue , frontage to the D.R.C. Subdivision for one-half of the Forty-two foot (42') wide roadway. The agreed estimated cost for this improvement is FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE'and 00/100 ($4,145.00) DOLLARS. Payment of this amount shall be made to the City upon the occurrence of one of the following events, whichever first occurs; I Ii 'i II H ;! (1) The City paves that portion of Ute Avenue adjacent to D.R.C. subdivision. (2) Completion of the final phase of development of D.R.C. Subdivision. (3) Three (3) years from date of this Agreement. Provided, hmvever, in the event that any or all .of I I ;j " l' , -2- ,. ..---..-~....~-,.-.t~_~, . . , ,..." ~, the property within D.R.C. Subdivision is included within a Special Improvement Paving or Road District, the said estimate of tha cost of paving shall be either released from theLe~der's commitment, as stated in Paragraph 8, or, if the said monies for this paving have been paid to the City as hereinabove pro- vided, such sums shall be returned to the S~bdivider. ii it d !I II II !I I' II II I , i I I I I 4. The Subdivider shall pay the estimated cost for construction by the City of a six inch (6") vertical curb and two foot (2 I ) gutter pan and a five foot (5 ') wide sidewalk along the-Ute Avenue frontage to the D.R.C. Subdivision, which improvements shall be constructed when the City deems them necessary and advantageous to the development of Ute Avenue. The agreed estimate of the cost of these improvements is FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN and 00/100 ($4,616.00) DOLLARS. 5. Upon completion of the second phase of D.R.C. Subdivision or at such time as the road is paved in the en- trance area to the Subdivision, whichever first occurs, Sub- divider shall construct a storm drain catch basin within the the subdivision right of way deeded to the City, as shown on plat which cost of construction is estimated FIVE HUNDRED and 00/100 ($1,500.00) DOLLARS. Subdivider shall contribute FOUR THOUSAND and to be ONE THOUSAND In addition, the 00/100 ($4,000.00): DOLLARS for the installation cost of connecting the catch basin I to a storm sewer located at the northwest corner of Glory Hole I I, Park, and repair of landscape, at such time as the City 1 connects said catch basin to the storm sewer, but no later than! three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, and no earlier ! I than completion of the second phase of construction. In the i event a storm sewer is located nearer to the D.R.C. Subdivision,' the cost of connection shall be reduced proportionately. At such time as any or all of the property located within the D.R.C. Subdivision becomes part of a Special Improvement Stor~ Drain District, the City shall maintain the storm drain catch basin or bypass the catch basin and .connect to the storm drain system. 6. The subdivider shall construct water mains six inches (6") to service fire hydrants (2) within the D.R.C. -3- . ...-.-.;..;_",....._"l:;."..~ ,..." , :':/"~ ~ Subdivision to be completed with second phase of development. The agreed estimated cost for these improvements is SEVEN THOUSAND EIGh~ HL~IDRSD and 00/100 ($7,800.00) DOLL~RS. ';'1 ; ~ ; ~ q '\ '. :1 ':1 'I 8. It is estimated that the aggregate cost of con- structing and installing all of the improvements hereinabove described will not exceed TWENTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED VORTY-THREE and 00/100 ($29,143.00) DOLLARS. In order to secure the performance ,of the construction and installation of improvements hereiq agreed to by the Subdivider and the City, the Lender, First of Denver Mortgage Investors, shall guarantee, by acceptance of this Agreement, that funds in the amount of the aforesaid estimated costs of construction are held by it for the account of the Subdivider for construction and install- ation of improvements herein described. By signing this Agreement, First of Denver Mortgage Investors, Lender, agrees that so long as any of the improvements herein described have not been completed or the condition,s have not been met' as here- inabove provided, it shall withhold from disbursement Elnd withdrawal so much of said funds as is estimated, from time to time, to be necessary to complete the construction and install- ation of said improvements. In the event , however, th8,t any portion of the work and improvements have not been installed according to the conditions contained herein, then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining work and improve- ,ments completed in such means and such manner, by contract with or without public letting, or otherwise, as it may deem advis- , able, and the Lender, First of DenVer Mortgage Investors by :! -4- :: ......-,,~". ~, . ,,\ fP~..;.:::i ^ , signing this Agreement, agrees to reimburse the City out of the funds held by it for the account of Subdivider for City's costs incurred in c0~pleting said work and improve~ents; pro- vided, however, in no event shall First of Denver Mort<>a<>e '" <:> Investors be obligated ~o pay to the City more than the aggregate sum.of TWE~7Y-NINE THOUSAND O~~ HL~~RED FORTY-THREE and 00/100 ($29,143.00) DOLLARS, less those amounts previously paid and approved by City by reason pf the default of Sub- divider in performance of thecterms, conditions and covenants herein contained~ From time to time as work to be performed and improvements to be constructed hereunder progresses, Sub- divider may request that City inspect such work and improve- ments as are completed and may submit to City the cost of such completed work and improvements. When the City is satis,- fied that such work and improvements as are required by Sub- divider to be completed, in fact, have been completed in accordance with the terms hereof, the City will submit to the Lender, First of Denver Mortgage Investors, its statement that it has no objection to the release by First of Denver Mortgage Investors of so much of the above specified funds as ~ necess- ary to pay the cost of work performed and improvements install- ed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The procedures for completion of improvements and work by City and reimbursement to City therefore by First of Denver Mortgage Investors shall apply whether there be one or more defaults, or a succession of defaults on the part of the Subdivider in performing the terms, conditions and covenants contained in this Agreement. .' ii !I I' ,I :/ I' " Ii 'j !, I, Ii' Ii Ii II Ii tl II 'I II II I I I I I I n 'I Ii a Ii 9. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or re- ferred to the contrary, Subdivider, in developing the property contained within the plat, and the other improvements as herein described, shall fully comply with all applicable rules, regulations, standards and laws of the City and other govern- mental agencies and bodies having jurisdiction. 10. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto and by First of Denver Mortgage Investors, and provided all other conditions as herein contained have been met by Ii H I ~ " ;\ . -5- , . _,_~:. .1" ,~.. - . ".'. ~ .' t, I!. ' , [I . ." . . , t ' , it ATTEST, ~ 'i .' .~d' "'. ,-', ',ii"" J~',,' ~".....J , . -...4-",.,- City Clerk Ii I \ . ' .-, ,~ 1''''1 .\ ,~."'- I il I. :! II , , , Subdivider, the City agrees to execute the plat of D.R.C. Subdivision and accept the same for recordation in the record- ing office of Pitki:: County, Colorado, upon payment or record- ing fees and costs to City by Subdivider. ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and sealS the day and year first above written. CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal Corpora~ion, :/ ' ,..",,- By: " c r ,(,/ v ..,../ // '!o-:-'.--__ i.:\ Mayor !. I " I Ii II I DESTINATION RESORTS - ASPEN, LTD. a Limited Partnership, I l ' j ~ '. 1"'\ I." f i Ii'!' J /1 ,! ,); By:C /(,ti,,-!,f ./b. 10<.{~,J(I-:'i-" , t. p. DESTINATION RESORTS, General Partner Where applicable to the undersigned, the 'conditions and covenants "hereinabove set forth are terms " approved. ( . ~ .;.. INVESTORS, this :' and accepted by FIRST ,: . t day of v.... I . . " ~ " OF DENVER MORTGAGE , 1973. By: .i, -. { . fI . J .~" C(~'" ,/ ':_::~tL" K,!ii ',./, J'I i/ P.p :< i~ J- u'~"".' :.:.. (Title) '-f , f/ 1/, rJ il I' .I " II ii " " ;; I' !! " t I I I I , , -6- -. - April 2, 1973 The City of Aspen P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: City Planning Office and City Attorney Re: Consent to Modifications of D.R.C. - P.U.D. Gentlemen: In accordance with the City of Aspen's approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan of D.R.C, Subdivision on March 19, 1973, the applicant, Destination Resorts - Aspen, Ltd., hereby consents to the following modifications of said plan as requested by the City of Aspeh: (1) West End Street shall be widened to pro- vide a suitable right of way to Ute Avenue to be determined and established by the City Engineer. (2) The applicant shall provide no less than two shuttle buses for the use of the condominium owners principally for transportation to and from the Aspen Airport. The Condominium Declaration shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of this system. (3) In the event it is determined by the City Planning Office prior to the construction of the third phase of the subdivision development that it will be necessary to provide additional parking spaces, the applicant shall revise the parking to adequately meet the parking needs for the sub- division, but in no case shall there by more than one parking space for each residential unit. Yours very truly, DESTINANTION RESORTS - ASPEN, LTD. By:~llWJ'v.p. Destination Resorts, General Partner -,,.,.., .~1tinued Meeting I"""". Aspen City Council ,-, March 19, 1973 Meeting was reconvened and called to order by Mayor Eve Homeyer at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmen Scott Nystrom, James Breasted, Ross Griffin, Ramona Markalunas, Jack Walls, Francis Whitaker, City Attorney Art Daily, City Manager Russ Campbell and Student Representative Timber Dick. The following consists of questions and answers between Council and Applicants as relates to ,the subdivision plat and outline development plan. Question- Total number of employees required? Answer- Maximum during the periods of Easter and Christ- mas of 20 to 25. Question- Will all units contain a fireplace? Answer- Yes. Question- What type of ownership will there be of the unitsZ Answer- Selling mostly to second home buyers, renting of the units would be a choice of the owner. Question- The reduction in parking spaces is being re- placed by the shuttle bus system; what assurance is there that the shuttle system will in fact stay in use once it is implemented? Answer- Will be providing two shuttle type vans which will run principally from and to the airport. The lo- cation of the property is inclose proximity to the downtown for walking and also the bus system for the ski areas. Question- HOW can the a~surance of the shuttle system be made a Fart of the requirements? Atiswer- This could be incorporated in the condominium declaration and a responsibility of the o~mers. Question- Has underground parking been considered for this project in order to le ave additional open space? Answer- Yes and based on the following ~~ points de- cided not to go underground: (1) substantial grading would be required which would disrupt the vegetation; (2) escalating construction costs which would increase the price of the units thus the marketability would be limited. Mr. Bartel informed Council the subdivision plat has met with all the conditions of the subdivision regulations. The subdivision agreement has been prepared in rough drafts, awaiting for confirmation on exact figures from the City Engineer. The outline development plan is an option of the applicant, require Council approval of the subdivision plat. Councilman Walls stated he would like to see West End Street kept open so that there would be an alternate route. Mr. Bartel explained this would require adjust- ,ment to the curves that are now existing. City Engineer pointed out approximately how much land would be needed for this adjustment. Councilman Nystrom questioned if the parking could be phased along with the construction phases so that it is found additional parking is needed, the open space that is now included which originally was shown as ,~";:' " ~" ..-. ~~~tinued Meeting Destination Resort Corporation Resolution It5, Series of 1973 ~ r""'. Aspen City Council March 19, 1973 parking could revert back. to parking spaces. Ap- plicants stated this is possible. Councilman Nystrom moved to approve the final subdi. vision plan for Destination Resort Corporation condi- tioned upon the extension of West End Street to an ade- quate right of way with the approval of the City Engineer. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Councilman Breasted stated Tri-Co Management (his em. ployer) has done the survey on this project, he has not had any personal connection with the project. Roll call vote- Councilmen Nystrom, aye; Breasted, aye; Griffin, nay; Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye; Whitaker,aye; Mayor Homeyer, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Nystrom moved to approve the subdivision agreement subject to varification by the City Engineer on figures. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote- Councilmen Whitaker, aye; Walls, aye; Markalunas, aye; Griffin, aye; Breasted, aye; Nystrom, aye; Mayor Homeyer, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Whitaker moved to approve the outlined devel- opment plan subject to review of parking in the third phase of construction and adjustment be made to fit the additional right-of-way and the agreement on the shuttle bus operation be included in the condominium declaration. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Roll call vote. CouE~:il- men Griffin, aye; Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye; Breasted, aye; Whitaker, aye; Nystrom, aye; Mayor Homeyer, ay,e. Motion carried. COUi'1cilman Griffin moved to consider Resolution It5, Series of 1973. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. All in favor, with exception of Councilman Walls who abstained. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 1973 was read by the City Clerk as follows: "WHEREAS, THE City of Aspen has entered into an Agreement to purchase approximately 11.5 acres of ' real property within the City of Aspen from James R. Trueman & Company, an Ohio corporation, for a total pur- chase price of $1,750,000.00 the closing of which trans- action is scheduled for July 5, 1973; and WHEREAS, in accordance with standard real estate sales procedures, the aforesaid Agreement requires that the City make a ten (10%) per cent earnest money deposit in the amount of $175,000.00 upon the execution thereof; and WHEREAS, since the Sales Tax Revenue' Bonds with which the City intends to fund this acquisition will not be is- sued until early July, 1973, the City must borrow the earnest monies until such Bonds are actually issued; and WHEREAS, Section 10.2 of the Charter of the City of Aspen provides that the City may borrow money with- out an election in anticipation of the collection of taxes and to issue short-term notes to evidence the amount so borrowed, so long as such short-term notes mature before the close of the fiscal year in which the money is borrowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of ,the City of Aspen, Colorado: THAT the appropriate officials of the City of Aspen be and the same hereby are authorized to borrow $175,000.00 ~' .,", .._~----... ~' , Regular HeE:ting Public Restrooms ,.... _...__.'-"0 ^ ~ Aspen Citv Council March 12, 1973 Councilman Breasted moved to go ahead with this pro- ject at Wagner Park and Mr. Armstrong bring in color chips to the Council at the time when this decision must be made. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Council further requested Mr. Armstrong submit the costs ,for winterizing. Roll Call vote- Councilmen Nystrom, aye; Breasted, aye; Markalunas, aye; Walls, nay; Whitaker, nay; Mayor Homeyer, aye. Motion carried. Destination ~r Homeyer open~d the public hearing on the PUD Resort Corpora- Outline Development Plan. tion, Subdivision Plat and PUD Outline Development Plan City/County Planner Herb Bartel stated there were two parts to this submission- Final Subdivision Plat and Outline Development Plan. Explained the Sub- division plat contains 5,.2 acres on land located at Ute Avenue by West End extended. Mr. Bartel out- lined the specific requirements place by the Planning and Zoning Commission in their recommendation for approval as follows: (1) Access to this development be off of West End Street extension as condition of the first phase of development, paving ,of 10' in width of West End to Ute Avenue, Ute Avenue has a 60' right-of-way and have requested reservation for an additional 10' right-of-way- deeded to the City not earlier than June of 1975 and not later than June of 1978. (2) The 4% public land to meet that dedication of land has been met by providing a trail on the eastern boundary of the property which does meet this requirement. (3) Plat shows catch basins_ and filtration at the northeast corner of the pro- perty which drainage will be conveyed to the City's storm sewer system at Glory Hole Park. (4) Sub= division offices, including such technical require- ments as curbs, gutters, utility placement, berm, etc. Council discussed the traffic circulation in that area. Resolutions of the Planning and Zoning Com- mission were submitted. Mr. Bartel further submitted the entire file compiled through the Planning and Zoning Commission proceedings. Pointed out there were many letters in the file, all basically con- cerned with the density in that area of the com- munity, not necessarily against the subdivision as outlined. J Outline Development plan was outlined by the ap- plicants. History on why this piece of property was purchased for this development was stated and following points ,made: (1) established zoning of AR""l for a period of 18 years; (2) located near. the 'core of the City and allows for pedestrian ac- cess; (3) utilities are in close proximity to the pr,operty; (4) traffic pattern in the 1966 Master Plan shows Ute Avenue as a major arterial street and (5) topography is principally flat. Because of the flexibility of placement of buildings, height etc., decided to doaPUD plap.. Buildings were pulled ,. ,c' .,<:c,.,-;;,';',..;'" ';,;. ,.......,:.,. '..;. ":'1,.".j".~.-..,.:.. ,;..."",,'~';""""';''''''''''''. ,,,,', ,lIar Meeting f ~/ " )estination Resort i Corporation .-......---- , ^ ~ Aspen City Council March 12, 1973 back more than is required from the perferia of the property in order to maintain a buffer between the development and the single family residences that are adjacent. Used the saddle of Independence Pass and the trees in Ute Park to establish a view cor- ridor of Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park. In that corridor the buildings are two story. Request for more useable open space was met by eliminating one building. Plan contains a recreational building, swimming pool, tennis courts, children's play area, etc. Total open space minus the parking and buildings is ,55%. Statistics based on 10 projects in the same general vicinity were given to the Council relating ,to percentage of building coverage, floor area and open space. Parking was reduced by 30% upon request by the Planning and Zoning Commission and in exchange have established a shuttle service that will tie into the transportation plan, providing 100 parking spaces on the premises. Agreed to provide three employee housing units and plan shows 140 condominium units with the major number of units being 2 bedroom. It was ex- plained there will be three parking spaces provided off of Ute Avenue for service trucks only. Question was raised by Council why traffic is not fun- nelled onto Original and have West Eild ~treet go through. Mr. Bartel explained that if it became.necessary at a later date due to ad,ditional development in this area and additional 10' paving mat could be made on West End Street. Conc!,!rn was raised by Council that dedica- tion of these streets be made now rather than waiting for dedication at the time of subdividing. Mr. Feeley representing the Ute City Protection Associ- ation read a letter (see file) outlining grounds that the density in the Aspen area should be declared in- valid since it does not fallow the Master Plan. The density of this paln is .in access%of the goals of Aspen. ' Mr. Bill Coates stated the main objection be the land- owners in this area is density. As relates to this project do not feel the density is worth having in Aspen, applicant is tak~ng advantage of the AR zoning and hope that Council will table this until the Mas- ter Plan is up-dated. Feel West End Street should be a continuing street and available to the people of Aspen. With the <access as outlined do not feel it is adequate for emergency equipment access. Plan does not provide for service roads within the project. Basically concerned with the traffic in the area. Mr. Bill Gaudino submitted pictures taken off of West End Street showing the ,traffic problem. Stated Council must think of the impact on the total area by this pro- ject. The problems of parking. on Waters, Ute, West End and Original should be solved now. Letter from the Board of Realtors was read by Don Piper blisically'agreeing with the Plan as submitted. Mr. Cowan questioned Council as to how much further development is going to be allowed to occur. .. ,~ ',:. ,;' .,",';: c., ',"',,';; bi' '.... ";".,.;.;..,':.j"'~':;.,'i;'~,:,:",;:;"~",:",,,,;,,,;,,;;,;;.:~~,;:~ ;.~, ,,{,>, ,,'C' ,. .~u. ",',;;;.",,:.:~-;;..:; Co .,;;.... '0""-"',8 " '," '." .c'';';' "1'_._,' ";"" ".~;" '. ,_' "'" ~".<,h ,'..,\'i:' , '~-:''7:'r.llar Heeting ~~ I . . Destination Resort Corporation Engineering Evaluation Study, Transit System "" . ~~.~., Aspen Ci,ty COl17:1cil ,....." ,..." March 12, 1973 Attorney Albert Kern representing Destination Resort Corporation made the following points: Dl'.C is pre- senting a subdivision that has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and in addition an outline development plan. There is no provision un- der review of the subdivision plat for density con- sideration, that should be done through the City Council by zoning. The PUD plan has somewhat less density than allowed since, the P & Z requested more useable open space. The figures outlined by the Ute City Protective Association relating to voiding of the zoning are incorrect in that there have been many annexations to the City since that time, densities were cut in half in the AB. zone, open space require- , ment was adopted, ail happening since the adoption of the Master Plan. The application before the Coun- cil is not density but rather a matter of whether the subdivision requirements have been met. Mr. Feeley stated DRC did in fact go along with all the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Com- mission. When they were asked to reduce the dens~ty they only reduced the density from 153 to 140. In Aspen occupancy' for two bedroom unit~ usually have six people. There being no futher comments, Mayor Homeyer closed the public hearing. ..... Councilman Walls moved that the decision in regard to this request for PUD and subdivision plat be continued to an adjourned meeting on Monday March 19th at 5:00 p.m., seconded by Councilman Whitaker. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Homeyer recessed the meeting for five minutes while members of the public left the meeting. Meeting , reconvened. r ~: ~ f Mr. Bruce Oliphant stated Snowmass American Corpora- tion ,and the Aspen Ski Corporation have agreed to donate funds for the engineering evaluation and are requesting 1/3 of the expense to be split between the City and County, City share $1,650. County fur- ther agreed to reimburse the ski corporations if this study comes through with actual implementation. ; ~" t. ~ * ;t' , l' j,;" ~< ~ ! Mr. Bartel stated he agreed with the neJl:tphase is an engineering portation plan does not state an criteria- trains, lifts, etc. this eJl:penditure as phase, the trans- eJl:act engineering Councilman Whitaker moved to approve the eJl:penditure of $1,7000 for this engineering study. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. Roll call vote- Councilmen Nystrom, aye; Breasted, 'aye; Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye; Whitaker, aye; Mayor Homeyer, aye; Motion carried. ~ 0'1- .,~,~';'~';;;;';'~'h(~r';':"~"'; ,,,,,,,:;:;l<"':Jti ..'~ ,'~.~,.- .....,.~"..",.'''~"~".'"'~.",,'.,, '" , AsPEN BOAAD OF REALTORS ASPEN. COlORADO a16' 1 March 12, 1973 The Honorable Mayor Eve Homeyer The Aspen City Council Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen and Madam Mayor~ In reference to the planned unit development sub- mitted by Destination Resort -- Aspen Limited's project on Ute Avenue -- the Aspen Board of 'Realtors sincerely believes a principle of good government is at issue, and would like to offer a statement in that regard. In our opinion we support any developer who has done a complete and considerate plan under the zoning ordinances, building codes and 'recommendations of our City Planning Office. We further feel that in all equity, deficiencies in our City planning and corresponding changes in our zoning, building codes and demands on publ ie facil ities are tharesponsibility of our governing bodies and citizens to resolve, in advanc,e of ,a developer's efforts. The application of evolving, criteria to a developer who has already proceeded under the letter of our law and the spirit of our Planning Office's direction is an unjust burden to ask the developer to bear. We believe that the City does need good, thoughtful private enterprise to achieve its goals just as the private entrepreneurs need c,are in planning and consideration from the gov- erning bodies.' We unanimously request that this thought,be consid- ered in the judgm€nt of the matter before you. Sincerely yours, W~Q..~~Of\ William C. Mason President MEMBER NATIONAl.. AND CQLORADO ASSOCIATIONS OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS '\ I i I \ Ul Z 0 ~ c:: "" t,; n Ul t,; W '" i-' "" . . t,; n 0 'I:l' H,:'> t,; t,; "" Cj o I-' >< ~ 't:; 0 C I-' rt t,; 'I:l ::1 ro ro t:; ro 0..'I:l Cj Cj Cj Pl Pl 1-'. 1-', n rtrtCj 0 0 0 '< 1-'. ?;' Cj Cj Z o 1-'. '" ::1 ::1 Ul Ul 0 Ult)q .0 .0 ~ . . . H Ul'b' z '"'J '"'J H rtPl rt rt c:: Pl Ul . . ~ 1-" ro ;; Cj 0.. S S ro ro rtO Pl Pl 'd 0::1 Ul Ul Ul :;: C C ro w Cj Cj >S Cj CO ro ro ~ Ul CO S S ro ro ~ III Ul ~ ::1 ::1..0 rt n p... :.> 0 0 t" rJ '"'J H, H, n o rt e::: ~ . I~ g" S O'l:l 1-" ::1 ro I-' H ':i t:!J p.. ~ Pl 1-" ':i'l:l 0 ::1 Ul ro III 0 OCI Pl ~ ':i 0 Ul H, '"'J b"I-" g C ::1 1-" 0 I-'.OCI ::1 ::1 'd I-' () 0.. t,; o..Ul i-' III Z 1-" rt C rt ::1 III 0.. 1-" :.> 0CIf-' 1-" 0 "" Uli-' ::1 ::1 r;: OCI Ul 1-'. 1-" CH, Ul ::1 :.> b" rt rJ Z rt::1 III ~ t:; Cj 0 1-'. III rt Cj 0.. '" () 1-'. c:: rtUl rt ::1 H ro;:r 0 OCI t-< 0..0 :;: t:; H,~ ro Ul H Cj rt Z Cj Ul III C) o 0 1-" S ::l III Cj n ::1 ~ rtn 0. rt o 0 0 M rt::1 rJ :;: ~ III 0. ,0 ro f-'O ~ Cj 3 Ul M Ul 1-'. 0 .g ::1 ::1 III '" 1-'. ::1 >< III C III 0. Cj S Cj Si ro ro rJ ~ III 0 C) ~Nl ~ H b" Ul 0'-' C "' rt. 1-'. ::1 M III f-' Si 0CIb" 0.. III ro C 1-" Cj t:; 1-" ::1 ro Of-' OCI III M H,o. Ul Z 1-" g' C) Jg H 1-" Z f-' t,; 0. M 1-" "" OJ GQ ~ 'd", I. r+ t::r:I I.". ''0 (0 0 , III C rtro Cj rt ! OCII-" III ::1 ~ f:. rof-' :1-' 0. Ul ~~ 01-" C)'I:l H,:::I Cj III ",OCI 0 rJ OCI 1-'. C ro ro f-' 0 n ::1 0.. rto o.Pl 0 1-" III <: Ul H,::1 f-'ro :.> >-;lOCI: Cj Cj III C)1ll ro o~ 'lOCI III 'd rtPl 0 ro ro Pl f-' C Cj f-'f-' ::1 III 'WrJ ~t:!J o..Ul '-'ro ::1 :'>Pl rt 0 0 Cj III C 0 ro 'd OCI ::1 Cj Pl ro ro o.Ul Cj '-' ......rJ 0 :.> i-'ro H, Cj III '-'::1 ro Ul I III ~Ill '" '-' ~ " '" ~ en en *- *- *- , I-' '" -!= -!= co * N *- *- I-' N N -1= '" " co *- *- *- i-' f-' ~ -!= I-' co co *- *- ~, I-' N I-' w en " co *- *- *- i-' w i-' w ~ '" CO *- *- -!= co , -!= ~ " w *- *- w ,~ -!= ~ co ~ *- *- *- I-' w N w en N co *- *- ''*- f-' N ~ W " <0 " *- *- *- N N f-' " " co w *- *- *- N W I-' w i-' i-' '-'J : '0 0 ,......, 0, *- ~ DRC-PROPOSED,EUD 0 ~ '"'J 0 ~ > 'd AVERAGE of Existing t:; t,; H '-< z Projects Shown ;;; ~ Ul ~ M ~ H ::i ~ n 1.' M Silver Glo* '" ~ i<' c:: H t:; '" t" e::: t:; Ul H Chateau Snow* H "" t-< Z ~ t:; C) 'd H Ul f;; i!5 H Z 0 n Little Nell* '"'J 0 "" ::;:: ~ is '0 I > i-' ~ "" H Midland* N 8 Ul 0 0 z z Z M t:; Ul H Z C) Le Clair Vaux, Old One Hundred Chateau Eau Claire Chateau Roaring Fork d - ./rJ (\ South Point Lift One '- c'-, ..' .~ .:....>,"....~:,,-.->>...,.,- ., ~. .. ~ r"""'\ .:% March 12, 1973 MEMORANDUM Qra' 'S) j) · To: The Aspen City Council From: Destination Resorts There has been much written and said about the Destination Resort condominium project proposed for the approximate 5.3 acre site located along Ute Avenue immediately east of West End Street. This memorandum will briefly outline several of the primary considerations regarding this project. I. Ownership of Property: The subject property is currently owned by the developer, Destination Resorts-Aspen Ltd., a partnership in which Destination Resorts is the general partner. Destination Resorts is a developer of quality resort facilities with permanent offices in Aspen, Colorado and Los Angeles, California. II. Selection of the Site: The subject site was selected for purchase and develop- ment as a condominium project because it has been zoned for that purpose for many years and this multi -family use is consistent with the zoning of the sur- rounding property. All utilities required for the project are available in the area; the property is within normal walking distance to the Little Nell ski lift complex and the commercial core of Aspen, and is convenient to the existing bus service. This should minimize the need for residents of the project to' use the automobile, thereby limiting additional parking congestiol! in the com- mercial area. Since the site is generally flat, it can be developed with minimum disruption of the natural terrain and damage to the vegetation if the PUD permit as recommended by the Aspen Planning Commission is approved. I,} III. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval: After lengthy discussions wit/1 the Planning Department of the City of Aspen, Destination Resorts elected to process for a PUD approval, not for the purpose of increasing density but for the purpose of allowing for the development of a superior project both for the residents of the subject development and for the Aspen community. As recom- mended for approval by the Aspen Planning Commission, the Outline Develop- ment Plan has several advantages over constructing the project al' allowed under the existing zoning code. ' A. Both the existing and proposed city height ordinances, wh~ applied to this site, would result in undesirable grading; damage to the natural vegetation; and the construction of flat-roofed, monotonous appearing " '," >" ,~' ....".",'. ,..~,...-~-'_._~_., ---.,. ''''''-';'',''1"1'''- ""7'I'-'--.....,......~-""T....!il. :"""'~~'^''"''W'~''.~'''''''~ " 1'*'\ ,......, '".,0Il'. March 12, 1973 ,.I'l (w' ..l."~',~ ."..,;).:..'., ",,~~~,k':,J' ",', .(~l"~' '",<. ,71 'i;j" The Aspen City Council .. 2. buildings. The existing ordinance even allows four-story construction on the northwest protion of the site where it would be least desirable from a planning standpoint. The buildings in the recommended plan have an average height of less than 27.5 feet, which is below the 28- foot limit. The advantages of this plan as recommended are as follows: 1. It alIows the buildings to be developed in proper relationship to the natural contour of the land. 2. It minimizes undesirable grading. 3. It minimizes damage to existing vegetation. 4. It enables construction of buildings with variety in the roof lines which is aestheticalIy superior to flat-roofed construction with no height variation. B. The location of the buildings on the site and their recommended heightll produce a view corridor from Glory Hole Park to Independence Pass as proposed by the Aspen Planning Commission. C. The recommended plan results in considerably more open space than similar projects in the immediate area and in other AR-I zones. The open area for the subject project (total land area less buildings and parking) is 55% as compared to 29% for the ten sample existing projects. The building coverage for the subject project is only 26% instead of the 42% coverage in the sample developments. D. The recommended plan includes 140 saleable one, two, three and four bedroom condominium units plus three employee apartments instead of the allowed 153 saleable units. E. The project was designed to minimize the disturbance to adjoining property. The buildings along the north boundary of the 'site have setbacks ranging between a minimum of 55 feet and an average of 65 feet, instead of the required five feet. In addition, much of the project open area adjoins the north boundary. and the developer has agreed to landscape the old alleyway as an additional buffer along its north property line as discussed with the City Planner. The natural vegetation along the northeast boundary of the property largely will be undisturbed and thereby wilI serve as a natural separation to those adjoining properties. As a result, the building setbacks along that property line are a minimum of 22 feet with the majority of the buildings set back 40 or more feet. -"-~""'7"'.'""!'1'f'IJ""" ."'I."'.....,-~t'.._._......_-.......... .:.' .,......,... '''','''- -'-'-'~-"'.-.""---''-T7"-:i7i.--^--''---~--''-''-''''~~~''"~ .'u.......'"-.._~...,.....__,.......,..._..~.,~,.,......-r-,' /.. I"'" ,,......,, The Aspen City Council March 12, 1973 3. F. The recommended plan includes considerable on site recreational facilities, including two tennis courts, swimming pool, jacuzzi, children's play areas, natural open spaces and a complete recreation building with lounge, game room, sauna and meeting areas. G; The buildings have been sited so as to maximize open areas while maintaining a reasonable relationship between the units and the parking. This has been done in order to give the entire project a more open and natural appearance and to provide open views from all units. As a result, the two major building clusters are 140 feet or more apart. H. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the major automobile access shall be from Waters Avenue via West End Street at the north- west corner of the subject site. The balance of West End will be land- scaped by Destination Resorts as an attractive mall in such a way so as to provide emergency vehicle access and maintain the public right of way. I. The recommended plan requires a 30% reduction in the required parking spaces to further discourage the dependence on the automobile by Aspen visitors and to improve the general aesthetics of the entire development. Reliable Aspen visitor surveys suggest this will not cuase an increased parking load on adjoining public streets and the project will provide a reasonable shuttle service for its visitors. J. Also, as required in the recommended Outline Development Plan, Destination Resorts will provide a pedestrian path along the north and east boundari~s of the site, will provide a landscaped berm between its north boundary and the homes on Waters Avenue, will landscape the open areas within the project and shall provide on site parking during construction. IV. Utilities: As outlined in the memorandum to the Aspen Planning and Zoning ,Commission dated February 15, 1973, the respective authorities have verified that water, sewer, gas and electricity supply is in the area and adequate, and that plans for fire protection have been approved. V. Consideration Requested: Destination Resorts respectfully requests the Aspen City Council to consider the Final Subdivision Plat and Outline Development Plan both as recommended by the Aspen Planning Commission. .,..'"'."'""'.,..;'''>t.''........1T.''-~.''\'.-.'- ,.,......... '. """' - Final Draft March 8, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DRC SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT WHEREAS, an application has been made for preliminary plat approval of a subdivision by Destina- tion Resorts....Aspen,:L1:Fl. f()r a 5.27 acre" ttactof land situated in the NW ~ of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West on Ute Avenue a.t West End Street extended, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Commission has met in public hearing after giving proper public notice and has duly considered all statements and comments con- cerning said preliminary subdivision plat application, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning Commission hereby approves the preliminary plat for the DRC Subdivision with the following conditions:' I, The major access to the subdivision shall be from an extension of West End Street, south from Waters Avenue. West End Street, south of where it enters the applicant's property to Ute Avenue, shall remain a public right- of-way but shall be malled by the applicant according to an approved landscaping plan with provision for clear access for emergency vehicles; 2. The applicant shall agree to the dedication of the 4% public use area at the time of final plat approval; -. -. DRC Subdivision page 2 3. The final plat of the DRC Subdivision shall show the location of all proposed dwelling structures, parking areas, structures for common. use and principal landscaping features; 4. The applicant shall agree to dedicate to public use, when required by the City for the widen- ing of Ute Avenue, a ten (10) foot wide strip of land which parallels Ute Avenue on the north between June, 1975 and June, 1978. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning Commission hereby indicates that the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for DRC Subdivision, required by Section 9 of Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code shall provide for the following as minimum requirements prior to final plat approval: 1. Construction of street improvements adjacent to the subdivision; 2. Construction of drainage improvements necessary to serve the subdivision; 3. Installation of utility facilities necessary to serve the subdivision; 4. Construction of a pedestrian trail within the easement indicated on the preliminary plat; 5. Landscaping of the interior of the project, the maIled portion of West End Street and a 10' strip of land north of the project and adjacent to lots A-I, according to an approved landscaping plan. Dated this____day of , 1973. Commission !~ ". .If'-o,,\ ,-, Final Draft March 8, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DRC OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, application has been made by Desti- nation Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. for approval of an outline development plan showing multiple family dwelling units and related recreational facilities on 5.27 acres of land located on Ute Avenue at West End Street, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Commission has met in public hearing after giving proper public notice and has duly considered all statements and comments for and against said outline development plan, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Commission has reviewed said outline development plan according to the standards of approval as set forth in Section 10.1 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code entitled PUD, Plan- ned Unit Development and finds that: 1. The applicant has submitted information in sufficient detail to enable the Planning Commission to properly evaluate the proposed development in accordance with Section 10.1 (PUD) ; 2. The outline development plan as submitted includes variations in the building height; 3. The outline development plan as submitted includes a variation (reduction) in the number of off street parking spaces required by the zoning code that serves to deemphasize use of the automobile as the primary trans- portation mode; , ,-" ,-, DRC Outline Development Plan page 2 4. The applicant is the owner of the property involved; 5. The planned unit development constitutes an area of at least 27,000 square feet; 6. Through the deletion of Building Group as shown on the outline development plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the development includes suffi- cient open space for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and common land that favor- ably affects the long term value of the pro- ject; 7. The project has been redesigned to provide for a view plane corridor of Independence / VI Pass from Glory Hole Park but will result in the removal of some vegetation in the bluff area in the eastern portion of said project; 8. The project is not in harmony with the sur- rounding single family sections of the neigh- borhood, but is in harmony with surrounding multi-family developments; 9. Major access from West End Street, as shown on the outline development plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, will result in traffic circulation that does not require street improvements to Ute Avenue and results in a smaller street network that will thereby . , - -, DRC Outline Development Plan page 3 lower both public and private street con- struction costs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning Commission, citing the above listed findings as its reasons, does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council approve the outline development plan as submitted by Destination Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. with the following modi- fications: 1. The roof line of Building Group~ and a por- tion of Building Group H shall be lowered as shown on the outline development plan recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission, in order to protect the view of Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park; 2. The major access to the project shall be from Waters Avenue via West End Street and shall dead end on West End Street ,before its juncture with Ute Avenue. A single minor access to the recreation building and three (3) parking spaces shall be allowed from Ute Avenue. West End Street sahlI be retained in its present status as a public right-of-way but the applicant shall be allowed to mall West End Street, according to an approved landscaping plan, provided it be accomplished in such a way as to allow emergency vehicles clear and through access along the length of West End Street from Waters Avenue to Ute Avenue; ,-, !"", DRC Outline ~evelopment Plan page 4 3. The applicant shall make written commitE- ment to establish a landscaped and bermed (3 feet in height) buffer area, per an approved plan, between the access from West End Street at the north boundary of the project and the homes on Waters Avenue; 4. The applicant shall make written committment to landscape all open areas (with specific emphasis at the project boundaries) accor~ing to the approved landscaping shown on the Final Development Plan, and that said committment be guaranteed by a bond or contract.wLththe City or other acceptable method which will ensure that landscaping is accomplished at the end of each construction phase; 5. One employee housing unit (designed to accom- modate at least 4 persons) shall be required in each of the three planned phases; 6. Having recommended a 30% reduction in the number of parking spaces required by the zoning code on the outline development plan recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission, the developer shall make committments to pro- vide a transportation shuttle service for con- dominium owners and guests as an alternative to the private automobile, at a level of service adequate to serve the project in lieu of the automobile; ,-.., - DRC Outline Development Plan page 5 7. The final development plan shall indicate the three contemplated construction phases for the project; 8. A condominium owners association shall be formed to provide for the maintenance of all facilities owned in common; 9. The developer shall provide for parking on the property during construction. Dated this~~day of ~hfi~ , 1973. .~ C~i_n (4mNG . Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission J ,"-'" ,..." March 8, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DRC SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT WHEREAS, a final plat has been submitted ~y Destination Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. for approval of subdivision of a 5.27 acre tract of land situated in the NW ~ of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West on Ute Avenue at West End Street extended, and WHEREAS, the conditions of preliminary plat approval have been met by the final plat, and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to enter into a written agreement covering such subdivision improvements that may be authorized by the City, and WHEREAS, specific recommendations shall be made by the Engineering and Planning staffs concerning improvements which shall be considered for said subdivision agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Final Plat of the D. R. C. Subdivision is hereby recommended for approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby requests the opportunity to review the Subdivision Improvement Agreement prior to final approval by the City Council. DATED THIS ~ DAY OF ~, 1973. - :;]~~~ Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission '.,.:;''',,.OEOl.El....II;llrL;-cO' ^ ,~ RECORD. OF PROCEEDINGS . 100 Leaves ,if: ,,,,,'v, ~~{" Ute Cemetexy- Stallard House ~:'-:'".z, '- ./" ~',--'''' .~"*, . " ; __ ,t- 'i -.;::'-'1' , : ,;I , , '" ci; '-~ . . " l , t ; Destination Resort Corporation t, t , i i. , , -'ll , } ~ I f t I , t l t 1 ?"':',~{~'-';,",:': < .~ .... '>,--, "'" ",'-- ",' .. Ad;. Meeting.1!&Z,,?'i$/13'. continued. Mr; 'FinhQIm presentee! tltE!,' foll.OWing flndsings of' th, Connnittee::: tl{l)Becal.1$e..th~,C~tery meetsche stan- dards aIle!. criterill a~:out.l.i!,-ed: in the City Zoning Co~efo:rdesign~ti'pn as<Elnfl-H;istoricalQverlIfY District;'C2}b.ecause it hastsignifi.cant, importance , his,torically, architecturally ane! geographically, , (3}because the eXisting use and development ',of Ute Cemetery is.:in the b~st .iriterestof the citizens of Aspen, ,the HPCreconnn~ds that public hearings be 'held to consider Subdivision, now zoned P, Park." Lewis moved to ,reconnnend'approval of H-His:toric Overlay District for StalJ.ard House and.Ute Cemetery to the City Council alid City Council schedule public hearing on same. for Apri19:th a.nd' the Planning Depa:rtmentprepare the resolutions necessary to.the City Council showing the findings of the Connnission. Seconded by Goodhard. All in :favor, motion carried. .,'~ra Lewis left the Commission table. ~inal Plat consideration and~eSolutionS on the firidings of theConnnission relative to preliminary subdivision plat and outline development plan. Acting Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on the final su1?diVision plat. Commission reviewed with Mr. Bartel the different points of the proposed resolution approving the preliminary subdivision plat. ' Goodhard moved to approve the resolutions on'the preliminary subdivision plat dated March 8, 1973 and same be referred to the City Council. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ,Resolution on conditions for final plat approval was submitted and reviewed with mr. Bartel. Mr. Bartel made the following comments: (1). entrance off of Ute Avenue be for access to the three parking spaces only; (2) final plat shall have attached to same, a deed conveying 10' of the alley to the City; (3) attached to the final / plat an attachment showing the location of dwellings, parking lots and major features of .. the site; (4) dedication to the City the 10' . strip on Ute Avenue no ,earlier than 1975 and no later than 1978; (5) improvement agreement with the City. Improvement agreement will be prepared by the~lanning and Engineering offices which will include'such technical requirements as escrow of ftmds for curb, gutter, catch basin, drainage facilities, fire hydrants and utilities. etc. >' .. ---'".------~..------"-- -'-~,- ....~........:-~,~:~~,~_ --~-, ,,,,'''l..~:.~,~,,'.\'n''';..'.. ",j;",:,.-__> ., ,',.,". '~~:>::~~~4~"c,;,.,,:..;L;;;'::'~;"FJlif~'~"~~~~~~~:'~:';""'-'~___ .-- ---, ,- ,-,-.--,-.'-. r '1/ /J:':'" Jifi';~ It' .,;#' :'L"",\,p;-i;^"'<."~F.HOEeK!t.8.",&L._Ca. " ." . ,.,~ Pi>:'.' -; '';' ";:, -".., -.>c. ',;,:re"" i ij- ..1 * '.;"'~ ,c,-," .\ l' ,.f.-..,;.., ,-':'- ~, L' . ~ i j ! . ! , ' , 'r .-J .. i, t I 1 I ; 1 ~ ~i ~, " I f . t f f, t i. i i ! I I ! f l Destination, Resort Corporation outline Development Plan - """" ~ RECORD OF. PROCEEDINGS tQOirLeaves M.i.Meeting,p &,Z, 3/8/73~ condnued. The;re being no further., comments, " Bruce' Gillis close'd. the pubUc hearing.' Discussed size of traU- 10' minilnum., 20' max~;, reviewed by.. the P, & Z, of the improvement agree;.. ment-Col1llllission agreed they wished theoppor~il:Y 1:0 do so. ' ' Jordan moved to approve the final developmentp1a~ and directed the Planning office to changethe,re.. solution to include the request by the COl1llllission for the opportunity to review the agreement, pr.ior ' to acceptance by Council. Seconded byGoodha~. ,All in, favor "motion carried. Acting ChairtllanBruce GUUs left the meeting. Charles Collins took over as Acting Chairman';;.' Mr . Bartel outlined the following action that has taken place or being requested since first rev:iew by the COl1llllission:, (1). . Ustthe buUdings specicallythat would be reduced in height for , view corridor and state the height of the l~' buildings for Council if they wish to make a field inspection; (one building group was' re.. moved as per requaest of Commission), (2).major access from Waters Avenue and three parking spaces off of Ute Avenue, West End Street as a public right-of-way but at this time with only a ,10' paving surface; (3) COl1llllittment to berm the area to the, north; (4) written committment to do the landscaping; (5) employee housing units on the revised drawings (3); (6) revised plan shows 30% reduction in parking and as a condition a transportation shuttle be provided sufficiently in lieu of the auto; (7) phasing of the project; (8) condominium association ,formed; (9) provide for construction parking on the lot; (10) removal of one building group. Mr. Bartel stated he felt all conditions pro- posed by the Commission have been met with the exception of the five parking spaces on the north side. ' Jordan moved to approve the out~ine developmept plan with the, following change or amendment: re- location of the five parking spaces on the north side of the project and relocate the trail south of the berm. Seconded by Goodhard. Roll call vote- Jordan aye;, Collins aye; Goodhard aye: Lewis abstain. Motion carried. ... ,..-"...-; ~:' ','" .~ TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ,..." ."""'" ME~lOF-q.NDUM Herb Bartel, City - County Planner Dave Ellis, City. Engineer D. R. C. Subdivision Agreement March 1, 1973 .z.;~, The conditions and requirements listed below for the D. R. C.Subdivision Agreement are my understanding of our discussion on 2/27/73. 1. Developer shall impJ;ove West End Street from existing improvements at Waters Ave. to entrance ofD. R. C. SUbdivision with a primer and seal and chip surfacing. Surfacing shall be same width as paved portion of West End St. A performance bond for 100% of the estimated cost will be required. 2. Developer shall construct a 9' wide, 6" reinforced concrete walkway/emergency access drive within Wagon Road from West End Street to Ute Avenue. A performance bond for 100% of the estimated costs will be required. 3. Developer shali escrow funds for construc- tion of asphalt concrete paving along the Ute Avenue frontage for'one-half of a 42' wide roadway. Improvements shall be con- structed when the City of Aspen deems it necessary and advantageous. 4,. Developer shall escrow funds for construction of 6" vertical curb and 2' gutter pan and a 5' wide 'sidewalk along the Ute Avenue front- age. Improvements shall be constructed when the City of Aspen deems them necessary and .. . ,..." i""'\ advantageous to the developement of ute Ave. 5. Developer shall escrow funds in an amount equal to the cost of constructing storm drain facilities from Access Point "A" to the storm sewer at the northwest corner of Glory Hole Park including any costs to re- habilitate damaged landscaping. This escrow amount shall be used by the City of Aspen to construct offsite storm drain facilities as necessitated by site runoff. Developer's engineer will provide calculations for runoff, storm drainage campacity and estimated cost. 6. Developer shall provide a performance bond for the construction of water mains and fire prote>ction system in the> amount of 100% of estimated cost. 7. Items 1 and 2 shall be completed during phase 1. Items 3, 4, 5, & 6 may be adjusted to follow the develo~ment phasing and the planne>d Unit DeveloPment Agreement. 8. Escrow e>stim~tes for Items 3, 4, & 5 shall in- clude City of Aspen enginee>ring and construction supervision fees. 9. All improvmen,tsi constructed by the Developer shall meet City of Aspen specifications and shall be subject to inspection by City of Aspen during construction and before> release> of bond. , -~, ... ,..." - ,..-" J JJE l]~PEj) JJjl]E~ Box E Aspen, Colorado PROOF OFPU8L1CATION SIl'ATE OF COU)tR.U)O ) ) 88. County of Pitkln ) I. ..W.1.J..l1,SIII-..Ji......Dunsway..... do solenmly swear !.bat I am the ...J:;4U,Qr....If;...F..llbl1.sharof THE ASPiElN TIMES; that the so.me Is a weeJ<ly newsp&per printed, In whale or In pa.t't. and published In the County of Pltkln. stOote of Colorado, o.nd ha.s a generaJ eIrculo.tion tbereln; that sa.\d newspaper bas ,been pub. IIsbed contdnuously a;nd u1ntermptedIy In sa.\d County of P11:1dn, for a period of more lihan flfty,two ""IWlecutive weeks next prior to the :llXI3t pubIlco.tion of the anooxed 'iega.i notice or advertise- ment; tblllt sa.id newapaper has ,been admitted to the Unlted StOotes mo.tls as soeon<l-class matter under the Pl'ov1slims of ,the Act of March 3, 1879, or any a:mendmenls thereof, and that sa.id """"- paper Is a weekly newspaper duly qualliled for publishing legaJ notices and advenIsemenls with l:he m_g of the laws of the State of Colotl'ado. That the annexed legaJI notice or advertisement was pubIlsl1ed In ,the ,..guIar and entire Issue of every number of said weekly n___pers for the period of"'_h~"""'" consecutive ,lnsert!om; omd that the flrst publication of sa.ld notice was In the Issue of sa.id newspaper ooted F.e.brltar.y.h.22........ A, ID., 19 h2J and that the r'ast pubUcatlon of said noti-ce. was in the issue ,of said news- paper dated ...................h.......'..........,.... A, ,IlL...... .........d!.!ff.......h........h_...__h.... __..........., lSUbscribed and sworn to before me, a notary puIb Ie: ,tn and tOIl" the Oounty of Pl.tkin. State ,of Colorado, this h,~...3_...,... day of q~""'h'" A..D., 18]3__ __......f3_~~'h...~......mh"'"'' Nota,ry' Public My commission expires '~'h~.~,L/..7.3 Copy of Notice 'c' lEGAL;;'NOTiCE"WI~l ~"'; .~,\' I,. ~ll'1 ....). [.\. ""(=:1 ,,' pi,lhl.:: nt"':U'II:" ....IJ: ;~~:::.t..,~.. ?:: ;:.~:r~,(;,I\!~~S~~;~; ~~,t~:'i}~lit;;" ' I . ,r'\,'!':!:-I..~'I '!.PI,':OI.l:h' 1)(.:'.I.IOp!:lI"j'PJiI;l ~:~:)..}I;~;r ;:.!~'\h'~'~'. i~~};~~;:I~:i.;i ~I~;C!~~ .\~~'r:, " !,. ':-.,,"C".lli: 1,\, !~)...o!,'~;II:~ I" :i>ilu~n, R::a~(,1 f1~, ' j~~\~:~~~f~~~ (,;r.\crcl""IC\' "", ',""." ... .". I""", 'r' .. b '~ 7..... , .... ,. .. . 'In,;" !'l:t~ !,,(,I ru,'lr:. :?.!, I'"" ~, '" <<~-- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves _.~ C.F,f+OECI<;:LB.e./tI.,co. ._----~---~ Open Space Interpretation Reg. Meeting, P&:z, 2/20j73,continued. that Mr. Meyringhas before him. It was generally agreed that the application before the Commission does in fact meet the intent of the open space requirement in the zoning code and the concensus of the Commission was that Mr. Meyring should issue a building permit for this particular application. ~stination Resort Corporation - Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Outline Development Plan Barbara Lewis and Charles Vidal left the Commission table due to conflicts of interest. Bruce Gillis left the meeting. Mr. Adams reminded the Commission that a public hearing had been held and this meeting is for the purpose of drafting the Planning and Zoning recommendations to Council. The alternatives are: approval, disapproval or approval with mod~ations. Destination Resort Corp. Mr. Wooden submitted a suggested list of Planning and Zoning findings prepared by the Planning Office. It was decided that the Commission would go through the list point by point in making its recommendations for the outline development plan. Point No. 1 - The roof line of the bank of units adjacent to West End Street shall be lowered in order to create a view corridor that protects the view of Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park. Point No.2 - The major access to the project shall be from Waters Avenue via West End Street. The portion of West End Street from where it enters the project south to Ute Avenue shall not be vacated but the developer shall landscape and mall said street in such a way as to allow emergency vehicles access to and from Ute Avenue. One minor access point for the recreation building and three parking spaces shall be allowed from Ute Avenue into the project. Point NO. 3 - The developer shall agree to land- scape and cOnstruct a berm within the 10' strip of vacated alley north of the project adjacent to the homes on Waters Avenue. Point No. 4 - The developer shall agree to land- scape the project according to an approved landscaping plan and shall enter into a bonding or contractual agreement with the City that insures ,this landscaping is done on a phase by phase basis.- 1 , :4 .~, ;! 1 ~~P~i~{.<,~i,,~1,11~!ti11~~J~J!$;!~~,:,~;;~D~j;;:m;~~~...,~,J.lIl;~",!,.=~~ Point No. 5 - The developer shall provide one employee housing unit per construction phase (3 phases are indicated.) " - 2 - ~i! _,'4.~lClc.. ~m:\!tl?H1Wms:':"-E\*'.;~21J:n"";,. ';""^"!"'\'~S"!-'_";~";"i1:Ji'),!!'i:~' _L ,.','..,',..,',' '..,....___..".,".."..'"...._,...._..',...,.'.,,_.0..'1:,,,,,,",,-_:;_.>_,.-.', .'" . '~'. ......,~u._~"""--'~~..,.__._... ,..." "''''''-'-'.'''''-'-'--~'' .... _.,u_~"-';.,; ~ ,-., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FllllM \~ c.. F. HC(CKf.... il. B. Ii'L.o <;0. Destination ,Resort Cqrporation Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 2/20/73, continued. ~bint No. 6 - The developer shall agree to vote. for and participate in any special district or other method of funding street improvements, drainage improvements or mass transportation in the general area as they. relate to the project in question. Point No. 7 - The developer shall reduce the number of parking spaces required by the zoning code by 30%. Collin's moved to recolll!llend that Council approve the outline development plan as presented and attach the six conditions listed above and further direct the ~lanning Department to prepare a resolution outlining said approval and conditions. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. Goodhard moved to approve the preliminary sub- division plat with the following conditions: (1) major access be from Waters Avenue via West End Street; (2) dedication of the 4% public use land requirement be done at the time of final plat approval; (3) final plat sahll indicate the location of all proposed dwelling structures; parking areas, strucutures in common use and principal landscaping features. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Collins stated that he felt the outline dev- elopment plan should carry as a condition of approval the recommendations by Planning and Zoning that density should be reduced in order that useable open space be provided within the interior of the project. Goodhardleft the Commission table due to a possible conflict of interest that was pointed out by a member of the audience. There followed a discussion as to how best useable open space could be provided. Mr. Wooden pointed out 'that because one of the members had removed himself from the Commission table that new motions should be made and passed. '.~" "$ Jordan then made a motion to recommend approval of the outline development plan with the seven points that were previously listed and adding a number 8 as follows: In order to provide useable open space within the project, the . developer shall decrease the nuw~er of units proposed (151 dwelling units) by 25% or by eliminating one building group, whichever is less. Seconded by Collins. Roll call vote -Collins aye; Jordan aye; Adams nay; Vidal abstain; Lewis abstain. Motion carried. i Collins moved to amend the motion to include the 1,', point that reference be made to the plan as submitted t Seconded by Jordan. Roll call vote - Collins aye; I Jordan aye; Adams nay; Lewis abstain; Vidal abstain. J< Motion carried. _ 3 _ ~~:::;~y*:\",_.~t!':'c'r~.;i,~~,,,.,""~",,",,;,,',l7!~f.:<fi.ii~1i1.~~~t,~~~h~~!Jl'~1 -~~~~<l:."'~"'~'~';"'~iID~~~'g~1~';:>:,i IrS;,,;;~'Z;\-~:.:;':~- ':.t:e,(y';t~' ""..".',,,"':;' .~..,._--_.._-,-.. ,..." ,..." 40,,_~~ :- } 1 , 1 .~ I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'i\I C. F. ~OEC1\E~ e. e. & L. co. Destination Resort Corporation P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 2/20/73, continued. Jordan moved to approve the preliminarY sub.... division plat with the three conditions as origin- ally stated. Seconded by Collins. Roll call vote.... Adams nay; Jordan aye; Collins aye; Lewis abstainr Vidal abstain. Motion carried. JOrdan moved to instruct the Planning Office to prepare resolutions that point out the deficiences in the. present zoning pattern within the City and suggest that the City Council take immediate ' action to remedy these definiences. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Lewis moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Vidal. All in favor, meeting adjourned. ') '-,/,~l ./ , ,,/,-/',..., ' " . ~ ,------- 'Y,J., ' ~ / ~~\~ ~ ",/~;~!lm...~"ILttm!I!!. ~;~"".......~(~I!!_~.~"""~,i\~.,,.,-..._,w.~~.~ - !! ,~.t'W"'; 1I:~..~~~.:sn~~;:~~:~",~"""",~-""~"-r"~:,.,,,:"':'\?-"~i::':Xt;);~~~:~ ..",-_"'V',,,'-,:~_.-.'.F_""~"""''''''_'____''''_''''......~...,_~. f 1""\ ,-., February 20, 1973 PITKIN COUNTY WARRANTY DEEDS CONTD. GRANTOR GRANTEE 68 C:)l";Joration Graham~ Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. 68 Corporation Graham, Clifford C. DUE DATE AMT. &0 DBSC. $3.09 fee, Condo Ut.204, Bg.H, Crestwood $3.39 fee, Condo Ut.203, Bg. H, Crestwood $6.89 fee, Condo Ut.202, Bg.H, Crestwood $4.59 fee, Cond Ut. 106, Bg.H, crestwood $2.99 fee, Condo Ut.105, Bg.H, Crestwood $3.29 fee, Condo Ut. 104, Bg.H. Crestwood $5.19 fee, Condo Ut.202, Bg. G, Crestwood $5.10 fee, Condo Ut.102, Bg.G, Crestwood $6.99 fee, Condo Ut.105, Bg.F, Crestwood Page 8 1/16/73 1/16/72 1/16/73 1/16/73 1/16/73 1/16/73 1/16/73 1/16/73 1/16/73 TRUST DEEDS Andrus, Burton C. &Ioan M. & Rosquist, Wm. C. & Janet M. United Mtg. ,Co., Dvr. 12/1/2002 $257.35 - Coni,. LIt.307, Bg.H, Crestwood Baxter, David A. & Donna M.--Ist Westem Mtg. Corp.. Ft Worth, TX--425.60 mo--$58000.00 - Lt.2, Sneaky Lane Sub. Bockwinkel, NicholaS W. & Darlene A.--Majestic Savs. & Ln Assoc.,-1/1/98--$13500.00 - Condo Ut.102, Ute Condo Bradley, Merrill N. & Julia H.--Majestic Says. & Ln Assoc. 12/1/97 $47000.00 - Condo Ut.303, Aspen LeafBg. The Top of The Village Breasted, James H. III Breasted, James H. Jr. $45500.00 - Lt.12, Bkl, Red Butte Sub. Breasted, James H. III Heldman, Wm. H. & Nancy B. $9000.00 - Lt.12, Bk.l, Red Butte Sub. Cemohouz, Thomas Charles Bk of Aspen 120 mos. $25000.00 - Lts O&P, Bk.17 /Destination Resort Corp. l$t of Dvr. Mtg. Investors 2/1/76 $2000000.00 - See Doc. /'Destination Resort Corp. OBlock, Matthew Jr. 1977 $731672.00 - See Doc. for Desc. Levinson, Dan Bernard .. Lynn~ '1. --Majestic Says. & Ln 1/1/2003 $48800.00 - Res. Area Tr. C25, Red Mtn. Ridge 1/15/73 lvlagiclands SnG',,'",ass American Corp. 11/1/82 $7344.00 - Lt.5, Wildridge Ut. Two 1/15/73 Magiclands Snowmass American Corp. 11/1/82 $21787.20 - Lt.6, Wood Run Ut. Three 1/15/73 Martens, Ernst R. & Wilma Bk of Aspen 84 mos. $35000.00 - Lts. A, B, C, Bk.87, Aspen 1/15/73 1VIitcheIHJev. ',Corp. 'l"ransamerlca Title 'Insurance Co; -,$43889. 92 yrly--$236535.46 - See Doc. for Desc. 12/29/72 Mitchell Dev. Corp. Transamerica Title Insurance Co.--$65835.08 yrly--$354804.31 - See Doc. for Iiesc. 12/29!?2 ,~ Mitchell Dev. Corp. Transamerica Title Insurance Co.--$43917.34 yrly--$177401.09 - See Doc. for Desc. 12/29/72 Mitchell Dev. Corp. Transamerica Title Inscrance Co.--$60348.79 yrly--$325237.10 - See Doc. for Desc. 12/29/72 Ott, Elizabeth Ringle, Ruth A. 2/1/88 $106500.00 - Lts.N, 0, P, &Q, Bk.74 12/29/72 Peterson, Eimer H. Jr. Glenn Justice Mtg. Co., Inc.--12/1/2002 $41600.00 - Condo Ut.I01, Lift One Condo 1/12/73 Reap, Edward G. & Kraai, John W.--Ist Westem Mtg. Corp.. Ft. Worth, TX--270.49 mo--$32900.00 - Condo Ut.19, Snowmass Villas 12/29/72 Ruggles, Donald H. & MadelynF.--Colo. & Wes:em Properties Corp.--4 yrs.--$21500.00 - Res. Lt.19, Red Mtn. Ridge 12/29/72 Ryerse, Dorance D. Jr. & Mary L.--Colo. & Wester Properties Corp.--4 yrs.--$16875.00 - Res. Lt.31, Red Mtn. Ridge 1/12/73 1/12/73 12/29/72 1/15/73 12/29/72 12/12//73 12/15/73 12/12/73 12/29/72 MISCELLANEOUS TRANS. OF JUDGMENT DOCKET Lloyd M. Arbogast, Jr.-vs-Jan Christensen, $5102.82 1/9/73 CERT. OF SATIS. OF JUDGMENT D-A Luqricant, Inc.-vs-Grant & Co. Satis of 6/6/72 1/12/73 Zemlock & Son, Inc-vs-Grant & Co. Satis of 6/6/72 1/12/73 ORDER VACA TING DEFAULT Leonard E. Chesntt-vs-Grant & Co., Esco Dev. Corp., & Oliver t.aw;,ead Default Judgment JUDGMENT entered 7/27/71 1/15/73 CERTIFICATE OF LEVY Natalie V. Anderson-vs-Donald D. Anderson, Ut.4F, North ofNel Condo (11/14/72) I/IS/73 CERT OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION Bk of Aspen-vs-Greta M . Lum & High Co. Lbr. Co.. 12/14/72 1/16/73 RELEASE OF MECHANIC"S LIEN \<7est Village Assoc., Inc.--Jeffre,)' M. Pease ~ Cond. Ut. "0;. Bg.Ilp$tonebridge Condo 1/12/73 West Village Assoc., Inc--Carl Jurew, Condo Ut.IOI, Bg.D, Crestwood Condo 1/12/73 West Village Assoc.. Inc.--68 Corporation, Condo Ut.206, Bg.B, Crestwood Condo 1/12/73 West Village Assoc., Inc.--68 Corporation. Condo Ut.204, Bg.B, Grestwood Condo 1/12/73 TRANSFER OF LIEN 1st Westem Mtg. Corp - Ft. Worth Mtg. - TD of 12/9/72 by Carl & Betty Jean Curtis, $32800 I/12/73 1st Westem Mtg. Corp.-Ft. Worth Mtg. - TD of 12/4/72 by Benson K. & Christine M. Buffham, $26400.00 1/12/73 1st Western Mtg. Corp.-Ft. Worth Mtg.- TD of 12/29/72 by Alan J. Goldstein $75000.00 1/12/73 1st Westem Mtg. Corp.-Ft. Worth Mtg,-. TD of 12/21/72 by Wm. H & Nancy B. Heldman, $42400.00 1/12/73 1st Westem Mtg. Corp.-Ft. Worth Mtg. - TD of 12/22/72 by David A. & Donna M. Baxter, $58000.00 12/29/72 ., '" *f.< '" *,~ " " " " '" CREDIT BUREAU OF GLENWOOD SPGS.. INC. Box 0:0 945-5486 ASPEN DIRECT LINE 92572373 .1' .: ;,( ....--..' 2/20/73 .1"""\ ..-- Po. Z FINDINGS: D. R. C. OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~l. ~ -;z. That the roof, line of the bank of units adjacent to West End Street be lowered to protect the view of Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park. Our suggestion would be to stack the displaced second story units above a portion of, the units which are located east of the central parking area. That the major access to the project be from Waters Ave. and Dead End on West End before its juncture with Ute Ave.J JR" but Wesc End St. is not to lose its " ~ .~status as a public right of way and ,- , , ...d/'- though the South End of West End St. I ~ if may be maUed by the developer it must. ,,,"'-0 be done in such a way as to allow emer- A/~,",-., r:: ' gency vehic les to exi t or enter to and L~" ,'I, ..." ~;;f" '" ' from Ute Ave /C - /,/'1' 1b.,.,' .'t' ",-,,-uf Y'"", ( "Y,t~.- The feeling of the commission is that the 't1!e. ~/' traffic generated by the D.R.C. project and any future project between Glory Hole Park and West End St., should not at this ' time cause the City to expend monies for street widening in the area of Original and Ute Ave. ~3. ~, i. " i" , ". ",. No encroachment of the already established buffer between ~he buildings in t~e project/t and the homes qn Waters Ave. cornm~ttments VJ to landscape and"belDU the nor~' h ~. de Of, \ ,,\j,iI' the parking lot in this area. ' . , ((\- '-." , _ 8rlS'<" - ~. ~', =/1,,0 )' ~...,-" ~?<;l.z'-" ;(-*b ~ -L--..,-;7L..----- ..----....--- " We also suggest that landscape commit- ~ ments be made in all other open area/ of the develoPE~~ J1yd that money be 'P~d . set aside in ~o insure that these / ~ commitments are met on schedule. ~.../ We suggest that on site employee housing ~ ~.IL' be provided at a rate to be developed by 1~~- ."~ the Planning Department.. ..' CL ~ .." ;~:~~c~~~~~di~e~ac~;m.~~:~,. Z--~~ other method of nding street improv ~ V-T/ /~~4 ments or draina e improvements in th '(/"'~~~!1eral .r;'-rea as they relate to property fif questwn: the position that by building t it is impossible to achieve adequate, u l~~,~~ abl70pen space for the benefit of the oP, r> _!Y entue tract. \01), V' ,(, ':;; I'" ,......" - 2 - ~. ~ (9 ;k f'f' . .; ^".j ". !:{6<"'" fN. ,. A".iif.'"'Y, . ',-'/! /J. 7JJ! _.I' F-,' #' , p/w J - ~ like to inform Council that the studies and con- siderations of this project made by the commission indicate that any future high density development east of Ute and Childrens Parks would create intolerable burdens on the city's financial resources and on the city's physical ability to adequately handle directly related demands for transporta- tion services and circulation avenues. P & Z therefore wished to recommend to Council that all la within the city limits and east of Ute and Childrens Parks immediately down zoned to the lowest possible density and that the Master Plan be so amended. P & Z also recommends that a Master Plan amendment committee be-apPointed immediately to deal with other zoning ina,dequacies within the City of Aspen which are indeed threatening the city's basic ability to survive as a well organized, attractive com- munity. , . ~ ,-, . - 3 - And P & Z further recommends that recent studies and consi- derations made by the commission indicate without a reason- able doubt that the city's, circulation and parking space requirement needs will be totally inadequate to meet present and future needs, summer and winter, without acquisition or control of the major piece of the railroad property. /""". .,-., To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Janet Landry, Secretary, Ute City Protection Association Date: February 20, 1973 Subject: Recommendation for Master Plan Amendment Committee. 'The Ute City Protecti1:ln Association commends and who1e-heartedlY supports a recommendation by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to appoint a Master Plan amendment committee immediately. There are indeed inadequacies within the City ,of Aspen which threaten the city's basic ability to survive as a well organized, attrlilctive community. We sincerely hope that this recommendation will be accepted and acted upon immediately, ,..." To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Janet Landry, Secretary, Ute City Protection Association "-'. Date: February 20, 1973 Subject: Recommendations for revision of Destination Resort Corp- oration proposed plans for development on Ute Avenue. Tbe suggestions that were made at the February 15 Study Session and ,the considerations of view corridors, density, parking, traffic circulation and employee housing were very much in the spirit of good planning. We feel that they indicate thinking over and above the minimum requirements of the present zoning regulations which represent only basic minimums and a portion of those considerations which make up good planning. It does indeed reflect the spirit for maintaining the quality of our physical environment in Aspen to consider the questions raised in terms of: 1. Traffic Con~estion and Circulation: We support'the Planning and Zoning Commission's request that the developers plan their primary access off West End Str~et. '. ,We support the plan that the right of way for a through street be obtained and retained by the city, and kept open. We support whole-heartedly the suggestion to discourage the auto- ,mobile completely and experiment with the developer supplying the transportation for their guests. We understand that the open space for parking would be left anyway, and we think it is im- portant that some sort of covenant be made that would perpetuate this agreement in case the property changed ownership. ,2. Maximum provision for view consideration: We support the request that the developers show the Planning and Zoning Commission those design considerations which relate to the view -- although we would be inclined to think that the view should go both ways -- east and west for the park, and north and south for Waters Avenue. We agree that at this point, the plan looks like a big, impacted area. 3. Density: We feel the suggestion that Destination Resort Corporation cut down the number of units by 25% is a step in the right direction. on the basis that this would b~ing the proposed develop- ment closer to an acceptable density, and more in line with future zoning requirements. 4. Employee Housin~: We hope the Planning and 'Zoning Commission will require employee housing be set aside, a minimum for which would be one unit that would house 4 people for every 30 units, as was mentioned. 5. Three-Phase Planning: As was suggested at the February 6 meeting by a member of the commission, we concur with the recommendation that the approval for the third phase be withheld at this t.tme to be reviewed in view of the impact of the two initial phases. " ), 1.,<11 I""". ~ MEMORANDUM February 15, 1973 To: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Destination Resorts This memorandum is a written statement to accompany the PUD application of Destination Resorts for its proposed project on 5.3 acres located on Ute Avenue. It is supplementary to the plans, sketches and other exhibits pre- . viously submitted to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. I. Ownership of Property: The subject property is currently owned by the developer, Destination Resorts-Aspen Ltd., a limited partnership in which Destination Resorts is the general partner. Destination Resorts is a developer and operator of quality resort facilities with offices in Aspen, Colorado and Los Angeles, California. II. Proposed Project Schedule: It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in three phases. Construction of Phase I is planned to begin in May of this year with completion anticipated in December. The total project should be completed by December, 1975. III. Utilities and Services to Project: A. Water: The plans for the project have been discussed with the City of Aspen, and they have reported that there is sufficient water available for it. The project system will connect with the existing water line at Waters Avenue adjoining the northwest boundary of the property, as shown on the drawings submitted to the city engineer. B. Sewer: capacity to review. The Aspen Metro Sanitation District has verified its handle the project. Plans have been submitted to them for C. Gas and Electricity: they have capacity for the plans submitted. Both utility companies have verified that project and have indicated approval of the D. Fire Protection: Plans for the project have approved by the Fire Chief of the City of Aspen. be installed as recommended. been reviewed and Fire hydrants will E. Roads: Circulation within the project will be provided by private drives as shown on the plan, and all parking, as required by the zoning ordinance, is accommodated within the site. The permanent, principal automobile access to the project is planned from Ute Avenue as sug- gested by the Aspen City Planner and shown on the plans. Access for + ~.. f"""". ,-, Memorandum to Aspen Planning & Zoning February 15, 1973 Page 2 the first phase of the project will be at the northwest corner of the site from West End Street and Waters Avenue. When the permanent access is available, this drive will be closed except for emergency vehicle traffic. After dis~ussions with the City Planner, we agree that West End Street should be closed to automobile traffic except for emergency use, and that it be made as a pedestrian and bicycle path. As suggested by the city, the developer will commit to use the money normally required for curbs, gutters and sidewalks to landscape this area along West End as an attractive pedestrian walkway. Also, at the request of the City Planner, the developer has agreed to provide for an additional ten-foot right of way along Ute Avenue. This dedication will be made when re- quired by the city between June, 1975 and June, 1978. The developer further agrees. to commit its pro-rata share for the improvement of Ute Avenue from its easterly property line to Original Street when this work is done. IV. Description of Plan: A. General: The total project will contain 153 one-bedroom, two- bedroom, three-bedroom and four-bedroom condominium units in three- story buildings located on the site as shown on the plan, plus a recreation and administrative facility to serve the project. Because the units will primarily be one- and two-bedroom units, the ground coverage by the buildings is substantially below the limits of the zoning ordinance. The buildings.cover approximately 27% of the total site, and the roads and parking area cover an additional 23%, leaving 50% of the property open. B. Building Locations: The buildings have been sited so as to maxi- mize open areas while maintaining a reasonable relationship between the units and the parking. This has been done in order to give the entire proje.ct a more open and natural appearance and to provide open views from all units. As a result, the two major building clusters are 140 feet or more apart. The project was designed to minimize the disturbance to adjoining property. The buildings along the north boundary of the site have setbacks ranging between a minimum of 55 feet and an average of 65 feet, instead of the required five feet. In addition, much of the project open area adjoins the north boundary, and the developer has agreed to landscape the old alleyway as an additional buffer along its north property line as discussed with the City Planner. The natural <ot . t ~~ ~ ,-, Memorandum to Aspen Planning & Zoning February 15, 1973 Page 3 vegetation along the northeast boundary .of the property largely will be undisturbed and thereby will serve as a natural separation to those adjoining properties. As a result, the building setbacks along that property line are a minimum of 22 feet with the majority of the buildings set back 40 or more feet. The project plan also was developed to m1n1m1ze grading and disturbance of the existing vegetation. Care has been taken to produce a total project which will have outstanding aesthetic characteristics when viewed both from the site and from adjoining properties. C. Building Height: As a result of the developer's attempt to maxi- mize the design qualities of the project, some of the buildings extend above the proposed 28-foot building height limit. The building heights are noted in detail on the plans previously submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Both the existing and proposed city height ordinances, when applied to this site, would result in undesirable grading; damage to the natural vegetation; and the construction of flat-roofed, monotonous appearing buildings. The existing ordinance even allows four-story construction on the northwest portion of the site where it would be least desirable from a planning standpoint. The buildings in the plan have an average height of approximately 27.6 feet, which is below the 28-foot limit. The advantages of this plan as presented are as follOWS.: 1. It allows the building to be developed in proper relationship to the natural contour of the land.. 2. It minimizes undesirable grading. 3. It minimizes damage to existing vegetation. 4. It enables construction of buildings which will have variety in the roof line which is aesthetically superior to flat-roofed con- struction with no height variation. The proposed plan does not result in more density than is allowed by the existing zoning, nor does it result in the construction of more floors in any building than would be allowed by the 28-foot height limit. DGB/blr ......_,.. . I""". ~ .1 ~_.. To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Fr:om:' Janet Landry, Secretary, Ute City Protection Association Date: February 15, 1973 Subject: Height variance requested by Destination Resort Corporation for their development on Ute Avenue. I. The question of the height variance requested by Destination Resort Corporation for their development on Ute Avenue is difficult and important. At the time the present height ordinance was adopted there was considerable discussion of the problem. The Ute City Protection Association urges the Planning and Zoning Commission to review these discussions. Since this is the first proposed development in Aspen of this scope ,and on a piece of land large enough to have distinctive contour problems, it is important from the point of view of establ ishing 'precedent. 2. We would like to remind the commission that at times in the past the height regulations have been stringently enforced and on at least one occasion the result was considerable hardship for the b~ilder. Also, in the past variances have been considered on the basis of hardship, rather than aesthetics. 3. The argument that the height variance is needed for the sake of aesthetic value is attractive. The possibi I ity of bul idozing the si-mflat in order to accommodate the height regulation is unattractive. However, the variance re- quested is considerable, and it may be appropriate to psk if so much of a variance is needed for the sake of aesthetics. 4. If the Planning and Zoning Commission sees fit to grant a variance on the basis of aesthetic value, and since the primary need for the variance seems to be for the first phase of a three-phase construction plan and the variance is requested on the mean height of the entire project, the Ute City Protection Association INSiSTS that the entire plan be completed and a written agreement drawn' up be- tween the city and the corporation to the effect that there wi I I be no changes over the three-year construction period, before a bui Iding permit for the first phase is issued. 5. The stakes placed on the property indicate that the project wil I indeed not obstruct the view of the mountain tops from Glory Hole Park, but they in no way indicate the mass of the project, and it behooves us to ask if in light of the surrounding neighborhood, wi I I it stick way up, I ike a sore thumb? ,-, ^ ,. To: Aspen P I ann i ng and Zon i"ng Corrm i ss ion '. From: Janet Landry, Secretary, ute City Protection Association Date: February 15, 1973 Subject: Traffic congestion and circulation in the area of the southern termination of Original Street and Ute Avenue, a double-ended dead end. The problem of the traffic congestion and circulation on the corner of Original and Ute is not solved. The offer of the Destination Resort Corporation to provide access for their proposed 153-unit development on Ute Avenue off West End on the north, and to deed to the city a iO-foot strip on Ute Avenue on the south, does not provide a solution. Congestion already exists at the corner of Original and Ute, any further development east on ute is going to compound it, and circulation sti' I consists of turning around and going back the same way you came. WEST END MUST BE EXTENDED AS A THOROUGHFARE THROUGH TO UTE AVENUE, sufficiently wide to accommodat~ parking on both sides and two lanes of traffic. If the present road belongs to the city because of use, through proscriptive rights and the fence' ine, it is not wide enough. If Destination Resort Corporation is unwi I iing to cooperate in widening this street on the conten- tion that their development does not warrant the need and they in effect would be acco~modating future development further east on Ute Avenue, then the city has a problem. _ ~ut the city MUST NOT enter into any agreement that would in effect close West ~. End between Waters and Ute Avenues to through traffic and full use. . . r". !""'\ ~ To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission . From: Janet Landry, Secretary, Ute City Protection Association Date: February 15, 1973 Subject: AR-I Zoning. The density resulting from the present AR-I zoning within the Aspen city limits is untenable. It must be reviewed and the zoning revised immediately. ~ ~t' .. * "- ~. (\ i'. ~ t .f" , ~ ~ - . "" } ~ ~ . . \ , y . . . ~ . .'.' ... ';.' , \It '. S' \l[ '~ E) , " ,..., . .' ) " I . I " . , , -- . " . f"""". ~ <...'.------...-. . MEMORANDUM To: From: Herb Bartel, City County Planner Dave Ellis, City Engineer DRC Subdivision preliminary Plat Comments on P & Z Study Session 2/13/73 2/15/73 Re: Date: The attached copy of Dick Fallin's letter summarizes the agree- ments made regarding fire protection and utility easements. The only addition, is that the developer shall maintain the closed portion of Wagon Road so that emergency vehicles will have access in the winter. He will be sUbmitting a letter of understanding on that item separately In regard to the minimum width on Original Avenue by Glory Hole Park, it is 57't for a dist~nce of about 110'. I would support the use of access Point "A" as the prime access to the site, but would not agree with improving Wagon Road to accomodate anything other than emergency vehicles. On water costs, a 4" tap would cost $10,030. and the m~n~mum monthly charge on a commercial basis is $39.70. That portion of the water line extension (West End Ave.) not anticipated by the City prior to development. of DRC Subdivision will be aprox- imately 125' of 6" cast iron pipe @ $8.00/L.F. ($1,000.). The two fire hydrants would be reasonably required without the DRC Subdivision for existing developmenL -' ~ t'"'\ ... DRC CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT NO. 72-37 Memorandum 2-9-73 To: Skip Behrhorst, Destination Resort Corp., Box 2936, Aspen From: Dick Fallin, Benedict Associates Incorporated Subject: Fire protection, DRC Condominiums ~ite. I met with Willard Clapper, Aspen Fire Chief, and Dave Ellis, City Engineer, this morning with regard to Willard's recommendations for fire truck access and fire hydrant locations on and around the site, and Dave Ellis's recom- mensation for location of water main and easements for Phase I ~,d future phases. The fOllowing summarize their recommendations: Water Main and Easement 1. After studying in more detail the proximity of existing water mains. Dave agreed that extending the main from the Waters Ave. area appeared to be a more logical method of serving your property, especially Phase I, than serving off of the planned extension along Ute Ave. Dave indicated that his department is considering looping the two mains and that the method described below would accomplish their needs, as well as the fire department's and DRC's. 2. It was suggested that by providing a 20-foot utility easement within the site street system extending from Site Plan access point "A" at the northwest corner, throu~l the lower level portion of the center parking area, to access point "D" at Ute Ave., at the south, the desired loop system would be effected. 3. It was agreed that the city would provide a fire hydrant along the water main extension at the northwest which would be adequate for Phase I, and another fire hydrant in the clubhouse area when the Ute Ave. main is extended. DRC is to provide two fire hydrants within the site during Phases II or III, one each to be located at each end of the center parking area on the upper level. 4. Willard indicated his overall approval for the abovewith regard to the fire department's requirements for truck, hose and ladder access, provided that West End St. has emergency access, and that paths or sidewalks are designed around all building perimeters. He suggested that landscaping be used along West End St. that could be driven over in lieu of any gates, chains or knockdown barriers that could hinder the entry of trucks. s. I requested that if agreeable to both Willard and Dave, Benedict Associates prepare a memorandum of our conclusions for this meeting for initialling. Both indicated approval. READ AND APPROVED: RAF/blr . 4,/' a~~hjljf1 namel ~3/"'3 ' fflceL! f""'\ ~ Box 262 Aspen, Colorado February 15, 1973 Mr. James Adams, Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen V Aspen, Colorado Dear Sirs: The Ute City Protection Association is concerned with the maximum height of the roof lines of the proposed development of the Destination Resort eorporation. The view of Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park is finer than from any other park in the city. Also the homes on West End and Waters avenue face toward the fine views of Independence Pass and Ajax mountain. We feel that these fine views are in jeopardy. We respectfully f;quest the Planning and Zoning Commssion to ask ....wlit1 for an elevation of the three story buildings, at the maximum height, as viewed from Glory Hole Park and from waters Avenue. We feel that the two poles designating height, do not adequately give the impact of the roof lines as would the perimeter lines. of a vertical projection. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, #~L?~ Barbara C. Lewis Member- Ute City Protection Asso. .~ .~ Destination Resort Corporation Rocky Mountain Regional Office P. O. Box 2946, Aspen, Colorado 816rr Telephone (303)925-4252 February 13, 1973 City of Aspen c/o Herb Bartel Director of Planning P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sir: This letter is in response to Item III B in the memorandum from Dave Ellis to you, regarding the DRC Subdivision Preliminary Plat dated February 6, 1973. We hereby agree to landscaping the Wagon Road area adjoining our property. We agree to spend the money that would otherwise be required for curb, gutter and sidewalk in this effort; such dollar amount to be reasonably agreed to between you and ourselves. We feel that spending the money in landscaping this area will result in a much more pleasing appearance than installing unnecessary curb, gutter and sidewalk. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter further if it would be helpful. Yours very truly, ~~ DAVID G. BEHRHORST Vice. President DGB:sjm cc: Bruce Sutherland Albert Kern Headquarters: Los Angeles,California 90067 Telephone (213) 556-2040 , ~. .~ ,." ,-, ,. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 13, 1973 Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman James Adams with Charles Collins, Victor Goodhard and Bruce Gillis. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Building Inspector Clayton Meyring, and City Engineer David Ellis. " Review of technical requirements of the subdivision plat and PUD plan. Acting Chairman Adams stated the public hearing has been closed, letters received since that time will be referred to the City Council public hearing. Further clarified the point, the re- quest is not for rezoning but a project covered under the sub- division regulations. Applicant pointed out on the preliminary plat where the perman- ent corner monuments have been placed and the names of the re- '"maining adj acent property owners which were not on the plat when it was submitted. City Engineer reported the placement of utility easements, water, electric, gas, meet with the approval of the City. Escrow money will be set aside for side- walks, curbs and gutters that will follow phase 3 of the devel- opment. Possibility an agreement could be reached with the City that the money for curb.and gutter could be used for landscaping. Engineer Ellis reported there would be 2 hydrants located on the site, Cities water plan calls for a 12" main on Ute Avenue which would serve this project. Developer would be responsible for the tap off the main and lines within the project and 2 hydrants. Drainage Discussed a catch basin being located on the site until such time as the City has a storm sewer system constructed. During the 1st phase this would not be too much of a problem, problem will exist at the time the project is completed. Mr. Ellis reported the developer will have to pay for treatment of the run-off, estimate of cost is not available at this time. Anthos Jordan arrived. Applicant reported the 10' strip along the Ute Avenue would be deeded to the City per agreement between 6/1/75 and 6/1/78 for right-of-way. The south ~ of old alley now existing will be deeded to the City at no cost to the City. Mr. Bartel reported the City will need a committment from the applicant that if and when any improvement district is formed in this area, the owners will participate in that district, i.e. street paving, storm sewer district. Suggestion was made Wagon Road be landscaped with pedestrian walkway such as the area in front of the Alps. Mr. Bartel explained Ute Avenue connection to Original fits in with the over-all transportation plan. Architect for the project and applicants stated they coul~ stay flexible on access for about a year or so. Adjacent property owners stated their grave concern of the large amount of AR zoning in this area and congestion that now exists and will become critical with this type of zoning. Mr. Bartel stated he felt Ute Cemetery and Ute Children's Park "-.::.."': ,. s.c..,...:...., ';':iii;;';0.:~'~,,;:J~;~;J~dJ:i;,-;<s.:~~:~.:;..;QC~~iit~~.k1;i~f~~~,~~:Mi~~;"'~<&;b_~~:l~~~',:'Ai-: , ...... ...:,... ..:". :,z< :;i~~.i;;,f/;,,,.i;~i~~-)i::;L{:<~&ii~::,"i,:ti~;~::' .-" -.., Box 262 Aspen, Colorado February 13, 1973 Mr. James Adam.s, Chair:man and Members of the Planning; and Zoning Commission Ci ty of Aspen, Box V Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Dear Sirs, The ute City Protection Association is concerned with the high density of the proposed development of the Destination Resort Corporation and its subsequent effect on traffic, fire protection, sewer fascilities, schools, the hospital and other services pro- videO. for by the Aspen community. '"e are also concerned with the fact that these three-story buildings will obstruct the view cf Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park and other public places as well a.s our own views of Independence Pass and Ajax mountain. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission is revlewi~ the Zoning code and looking on for rezoning, we respectfully request the Connnission to postpone their decision until they have had ample tilll8 to ccnsider the impact of present zoning density on the future of the town of Aspens Thank you. ,~~e~ Barbara Co Lewis Member of the ute City Protection Association, I I , ., r ... """ '1'. ..~.ber. .f the o..p.. 1'1.....t.1': ...d lO.i"liI C..-i..i... R.,. tho prep..d tor 1~3 luxv...,. co..d....i..... ..p..........". t. b. d....el.p.d by lJ".'ti.~ti.... R....... Gor~. at L... 1\n,t1.. ill Oblocla ~."d.... in .1':..1. ""'1"0" . n......,b.r.f ....t... u.~b,. be"....i_i'.......d _'ol.y....ftbi. 10",. d......l.l'...t. rill ..it....t '1u..tl... odd to .I..op..'. ~lr."d,. bod ...p: ..01 t....tHe !'robl..... Co..e for... ..1.;:_1,.01 160 ."'PI.,.... (tlaar.. i... ...plo,._..l.hD".!.!,: pla"...d by 1.10. d....l.p.r.) ..01.. uU...tecl _"i.... d,llt Tidhu U... ,--""'V 168 u..-:Ih h /1:...., t. b.,.......yi_.....uruhl::r t. ..,. .aU,t".. .r oddbg _..oprabl... to. Ur....d,......rl...d.d tro.tfic cirelli.'tloe t. \.01'.... Fritz 1I...dtct, "rcbitact hr Dod."ti.. lI.uor1;'.1.53 ...it.......id , ....,. ti... publ1~1 tht .. '1".11t,. oki r.....t o"ould bYe tourht bod, ~ t.1I_t. !Or. h bd......,. with tJo. ....1 r..ciltu., t_..dh.t.dJ" ..Td1..bh (i.... I wit.lIi. ...dkhl( dht....ce). .\lru<ly tII...... "r. ~.. uU...t..d 12 U 1-4 1.110.......<1 to..rid, bd. witllb _Up" thelt. Th..t h 'beu, t.1o..... h riTe U... .. __,. ....1..... ... upe. Mou.t..l. "".11 lleT """".ed_1.. to,,""III"111.y" "kii_(. Jo...L...... t.~.. 'l'illh. IlJ"" 2 - 12 - 13 .,ClA-p..Tt.... 1l'"Mtl, l.eP'1I I ('> (') - - ----- ,-, ~\ To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Janet Landry, Secretary, Ute City Protection Association Date: February 11, 1973 Subject: Review of the density, existing and potential, its effect and implications on traffic congestion and circulation in the area of the southern termina- tion of Original street and Ute Avenue, a double-ended dead end. Existing buildinRs using Original street and Ute Avenue as only access: 4 buildings of the Aspen Alps Condominium Apartment complex. 3 houses on Alps hillside. Dean Billings apartments. Manor House Apartments. 10 housing units further south on Ute Ave. The Stevenson place. The Aspen Alps, when the new building is completed, counts 250 "sleeping areasl! in their complex. For example, 2-bedroom units (59 out of 79, the rest 3 or more bedrooms) are considered to accommodate 8 people, because the living room is a "sleeping areal! for 4 people. The Alps payroll, plus l"aurice and the Health Spa, lacks three of be.ing on a one-to-one ratio, employee for unit -- at present, over 80 employees. 'Dean Billings has 6 units and'there are 12 at the 1';anor House (den'sity unJc.nown). ' Potential development, zoned AR-l, using Original Street and Ute Avenue as primary, or only, access. Proposed Destination Resorts development of 153 uliits. Hoag Subdivision -- 5 lots ranging in size from 133,219 sq. ft. (steep) to 15,811. 1'17- ;(11 5fj. /f 1'1 -;:;11 Lot 6 of Hoag Subdivision, owned by Fritz Benedict, 184,370 sq. ft. (flat). Mine dump and !all property. 612 ()(lK15, 31"1' /Pl ('JJ,;2 3,+ 1ft. eoui1lj Property on south edge of Glory Hole Park. CJ/YJ!-ox, 65; ')60 5r, jl. Property surrounded by Billings, Al~s and N~nor House. . YO/a/lC?s/1/rz Un !/rl1'/ hJJ Uh~J-5 . fJ-d J:on: (1;1: imdsJ, SOi./fh of r/UZr- cJoo (j)Qrrcs ;-OUN'SI- If{ Cbul1ly; /f"?c/t.ldad In Cbmmic:55loiJus 295 Clt({ a of /l?1l17te,;/rak (fOF'.c:n-n. ;to €x!tZ!?sion., for vie Avowe ~y (for.JPl 7' 2017([ c-( IJdon..- ArJf/U jJJ;:;Hft12c./ . /6-3 /31 /;;<:2., 1'82 L.j-3 '") 637 .' f""', 1'1 J{~tC?M . ff/v Association, ,a group vitally.' ' We represent the Ute City Protective concerned with the preservation of the Aspen community in view of the proposed maximum density development by the Destination Resort Corporation of Los Angeles ,in East Aspen. Of particular concern are the impact on co~~unity services such as police and fire protection, schools; traffic congestion and circulation in the immediate area, and the potential pollution of the environment of 153 units on 5.3 acres with a possible $ J population of 1000 or more, mld their employees. . We, therefore respectfully request the Planning and Zoning Commission^-"' ,,0v'vU\<>1A.~=L . .' ... ask for~mpact study before granting at;Y.preliminaI"J approval or disapproval, and to give the Protective Association time to seek legal counsel. We are firmly opposed to this development.. ~, """" J:-IL; ......,..-"'"' /j7~~Zmf C'~~,~ A~J~, ~ Ad~ Ck~~i/l~ /11: ~~';-;"'cd/~ ~s (';;0' J)eCV1 ~' rJ- /30C2Ad ~~/ fd~ 3-73 9 ~u~/Urdr r~ ItL ~~?' r~J c ~ ~t!&L~ /Urk Jl r~ /S3 ~~- / 'tvt ~.&r/~ %-.~ /U'- r1 ~&' ~d ~U~ ~" M ~ ./;( r ~CV1c/ C2d (~~ Cl4 ~~d cd1J~ / ~, ~/-ZP ~ ~ ~adA;~ ~~~ v, 2;) /~ ~ Odz qCJ?~d~ ~&U~ ~ ~ ~/~ aP~ ,{~~I/~Ja~ ~d a c&~ ~~~r~ af!~~ ;;;;h,.~/ .~,~5~ ~' {7~ /.2- ~cd~ m?.4-r,- CreJ. ,- ~ Box 1123 Aspen, Colorado February 8, 1973 Planning and Zoning Board Mr. Jim Adams, Chairman Aspen, Colorado Dear Sir:- I am writing as a member of the Ute Protective Ass'n and a property owner and resident of the Calderwood subdivision for nine years. I am asking that the Board postpone ~y definite action as to the approval of the proposed condominium plans of Destination Resort for the acreage on Ute Avenue pending a much more detailed study concerning the impact of such a development on the entire east end of Aspen. This is a charming rural setting adjacent to the old Ute Cemetery and could and should be developed with larger homesites thus with less density preserving more of our vanishing green space at the foot of Ajax. TharL~ing you for your consideration, Very14~Jd ~. ~~ Mrs. Kwnneth Chalmers Lot #2-Calderwood. ,Xv 1'.. ,-"",,\' . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I 100 Leave$ f1'0flM ~ c. F. HOe:Cf(e:~ o. o. a ~. <:0. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 6, 1973 concept before appearing before the Board of Adjustment. Charles Vidal arrived. Property located on Durant across from Rubey Park. Architect explained parking on the site is not practical because of curb cut and for maneuvering of cars. Mr. Vidal explained past actions of the Commission have included trying to discourage parking in the downtown and to de-emphasize the auto. .This property is adjacent to the C-C zone. Destination Resort Corporation Vidal moved to recommend to the Board of Adjustment the applicant be allowed to live by the same parking regulations as the C-C zone and all other requirements of the C-l zone be met. Seconded by Jordan. All in favor with exception of Collins who stated he had a potential conflict. Motion carried. ~iminary Subdivision Plat and PUD Plat. Acting Chair- man Adams opened the public hearing. Barbara Lewis and Charles Vidal excused themselves from the COlllIltission table due to conflicts of interest. Mr. Bartel explained this application is in two parts; (1) PUD plan on land zoned AR-l for the purpose of providing flexibility in site planning and height of buildings pro- posed; (2) preliminary subdivision plat. plat submitted in anticipation'of ordinance now under consideration to include condominiums under subdivision definition. Mr. Behrhorst representing the corporation reported the land is located on Ute Avenue and contains 5.3 acres. Land under consideration is surrounded by AR-l property; principal access will be from Ute Avenue; property steps in grade from Ute Avenue to the back of the property 20'; some vegetation of trees on the acreage; attempting to create smaller build- ings and keep open space; trail system along the east side of the property to connect with Glory Hole Park and to the Roaring Fork River. Providing an additional 10' along Ute Avenue to meet the 80' right of way requirement. West End will be restricted following Phase 1 and 2 development and will be landscaped by the owner. First phase includes 45 units, luxury condominiums, owned by out of tmm owners. Subdivision plat showed the exchange of easements with Mr. Benedict for access. 3. . ;.,;;,;~~r,~~~~~~~~':'~'1,~~~~~L""{f,~~"~~t~'~~Ws.1;~~~,!~:n;:7~~';;'~,,~~;,'.=!i"~~~~~~~~tr.[~:.:) ~. '--.- i I I 'f I FaRMllI C.F,HOECKELe.B.al.:.Co. ^ ,-, RECORD OF PROCEEplNGS 100 Leaves i '1 J Regular Meeting ;1 1 1 I I I I i i i , [ i i . I , f I I , I I ! ! 1 \ I Parking Stand- ards, Building Inspector Aspen Planning & Zoning February 6, 1973 Ms. J. poachman was present representing property owners in the Calderwood area and request consideration by the Com- mission be tabled until they could obtain counsel and have sufficient time to review the proposed. (Ute City Protective Association) Concerned with the impact on services, public facilities, environment. Adjacent property owner stated the property isn't quite surrounded by AR property. The Calderwood area is all deed restricted to residential single and duplex develop- ment. Concerned with the fire place pollution, view of Independence Pass, 150 cars with only one access, trail mentioned goes through an asphalt parking lot, sanitation problems, drainage problems, this will affect the entire community. Ms. Janet Landry stated the known average employees for luxury condominiums is one employee per unit, question where these people will park. Mr. Bartel explained the P & Z is only a recommending Board, further considerations will have to be given to the final plat by the P & Z and approval by the City Council. Applicant stated the units would be unlimited unit, average people per unit would be 3.5 and the maximum in this devel- opment could be 500 people. View of Independence Pass would not be blocked from Glory Hole Park. Condominium development parking is usually only 50% used since they are out of town owners. Have tried to keep the development 50' from the adjacent properties. Acting Chairman Adams closed the public hearing. Commission request the applicant stake out the spot of the highest building that would be in line with view of Indep- endence Pass from Glory Hole Park. Mr. Bartel suggest the Planning and Zoning Commission mem- bers comments be discussed at a special meeting and findings be heard at the next regular meeting. Too many technical problems to be discussed at this meeting. Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on February 13th at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Meyring submitted proposed standards to be utilized by the building inspection office. Many spaces are being pro- vided but are impractical to be used. ~ ~ TO: FROM: HERB BARTEL, CITY-COUNTY PLANNER DAVE ELLIS, CITY ENGINEER DRC SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT RE: DATE: February 6, 1973 The following are deficiencies and recommendations for the DRC Subdivision: t. Preliminary Plat & Survey A. Ownerships needed for property adjacent on the north. B. Angle points on north boundary are not perman_ ently monumented. II. Dedication of Right_of_Way and Easements A. The 10' strip for widening of Ute Avenue should be dedicated now and not reserved. B. Trail through public open-space does not presently connect with either Ute Park or the Roaring Fork River. C. Further waterline"and utility'easements will be required after definitive design. III. Street Improvements A. Sidewalk will be required on Ute Avenue frontage with paved driveway entrances. B. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are required on Wagon Road; however, consideration should be given to applying an equivalent amount of money toward landscaping or such improvements. C. The closing of Wagon Road to motorized traffic would not harm circulation. D. Excessive grades exist in parking area unless heated ramps are used. IV. Utilities A. Water is not now available in Ute Avenue; comple_ tion of proposed lines may be fall of 1973. B. Water line plans should be submitted to City. C. Sewer plan should be submitted to Aspen Metro San- itation District. D. Remaining utilities should be given site develop- ment plan for comments. V. Drainage A. What provisions have been made for existing ditch and water rights, if any, on east portion of parcel? B. Drainage must be carried to existing storm sewer system on west side of Glory Hole Park. C. An agreement made to contribute toward the cost of future storm water treatment facilities on the basis of developed land. Unnatural surfacing will amount to 3.36 acres. VI. Fire Protection A. Submit proposed locations of fire hydrants and fire lanes to Fire Chief. ~,w ',;'", ",,,<+ ,..". "c~<,:,-id.\.".:"'> .00,.-,.'; "'~~';",;iiCi;,:/;;':;'~'>:"'-;;;;"~;",:,,~iii1<"'";l''''~'''.~~ . " ,'-'" r'I TO: FROM: HERB BARTEL, CITY-COUNTY PLANNER DAVE EL~IS, CITY ENGINEER DRC SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT RE: >....... ..------ .. DATE: February 6, 1973 The following are deficiencies and recommendations for the DRC Subdivision: t. preliminary plat & Survey A. Ownerships needed for property adjacent on the north. B. Angle points on north boundary are not perman_ ently monumented. II. Dedication of Right_of_Way and Easements A. The 10' strip for widening of Ute Avenue should be dedicated now and not reserved. B. Trail through public open_space does not presently connect with either Ute Park or the Roaring Fork River. C. Further waterline and utility easements will be required after definitive design. III. Street Improvements A. Sidewalk will be required on Ute Avenue frontage with paved driveway entrances. B. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are required on Wagon Road; however, consideration should be given to applying an equivalent amount of money toward landscaping or such improvements. C. The closing of Wagon Road to motorized traffic would not harm circulation. D. Excessive grades exist in parking area unless heated ramps are used. IV. Utilities A. Water is not now available in Ute Avenue; comple- tion of proposed lines may be fall of 1973. B. Water line plans should be submitted to City. C. Sewer plan should be submitted to Aspen Metro San- itation District. D. Remaining utilities should be given site develop- ment plan for comments. V. Drainage A. What provisions have been made for existing ditch and water rights, if any, on east portion of parcel? B. Drainage must be carried to existing storm sewer system on west side of Glory Hole Park. C. An agreement made to contribute toward the cost of future storm water treatment facilities on the basis of developed land. Unnatural surfacing will amount to 3.36 acres. VI. Fire Protection A. Submit proposed locations of fire hydrants and fire lanes to Fire Chief. .. ..'. .. . ~ '.',. ,., " '., ., ;,,~\,,'~i':';;(;;':~;:.i~,,);,;;~,>lii."::""1i'3i'~;i!:1~{,:ii> ,;. ." ~,., ;",-''^ i.", "";:'i,,.(;'~' ti.,;;;~'c:~,,).,.,'.i: .. ".,...(....' '~~..,'....;."..'1"~'..;.~,.."";,.,." i'.';,~<,',,;,...';.,\.;:,';,.i:;'~., ."., r..~.'..' .~ ..0_ . .._._ _... - - -" ,. - .... - ",,",.- ../;. ~ f"""". r-, . " /IJ~J C1L~ . 1-31-7~~( I ~dfa Wi-dt~~ -:& -t:er.b .....-_...---.:.m:..~.:..-:j -:-P~~Jj~.~-c--~' w~_:-__":~. .. ___.~.,-I ":~..___:~:-:_~~__:=~=_::-_' ;V~. ~ .~~ . ...... _ ~ I' ...____. _.'_'_'''''__.' ..._._.___.._. _ .__ "_'___ _____... ..... Twf~la- / f ~~ ~_._~______~~Z;~~V~ .. _ 1.._ _._ __" ______________._.9<10___ i/~ ))~ ~ _ _ .____.__.. _____._.__.._~_.J);u.,~/~~ 902/0,/ \ .P;di .. //.2__=~~~~~~ ~~-=~~=~~~~:~~~!f:::~:~:l~~~ ... kA' . ~ 800so .......---...--...1-.-------.-----..--... ...... ........ ......... ......J-....... ......... -........ .... .p;:.J.-?-1 ...~:~:~::~~=~:~=-=~~: ..- - - '__ -.__ - ..-.__~____.__.___._ PQ~.~___..::L_9...3_ _.___..__~____u___ _. .... _......_ .._.....u_.u~-.~~k.....'6/c;.l( PJ----,.- i-~-7--------------.----.~:LiJJ,..:Jjj;.;l--~ .1 _H_m~mH" ... . ... ...... . if 'f . . m... ........_._...............~.---muu--.u... I f2. ; ~c27'? . _. ___n.'" ... ..__~'m___._~"._..__,,____ .__. _~_...__.__"._... .....____..__......,__.. I ~.._..-.-.-.. ...... ..'n. .... -,.-'..'_...____.~___.__.".._._..,__....._.._____....m____.__"....__._._."a........,.__..."'" -iT~~:=.::=;:;;;,~.:c[lG:I(...__~-- ./ ...... I"-'-._-'~;I~ .... ........._ I n~____~ T ~ tIC/( t~~=~~~I~~I[~.--=..::-=.-:~~:-;;;;;;k::::~~:-:.:=-=:.-:-- I ..---. .f/,A,.,... .rJ-c . ~~,......... .. '/0 ;l~. .. O..I'N1-... SD~iLQ p~ ./~/-r~. 77oo~ '(.1;1 ; [ 1 ."-' ~ . ,....., r--, . '. \bJ '" pi AJtU<<R.-1 ~ -- ~ !' -~- ~s-.-_.-.--~-- ,.-----. - -. 'n_ .J ---- -- --- - . on --'-fd - - - --. n PMJcf ~ 'I'a/ 3"- ... . ...~~i:::"-.> L - ~C1.J I f M ~~n________.__/ ~~t .-. ~ PaJ- -_ __ _J,81:l.~ .', j 3./~l-lL----c_.__~m~-<JI..~_~d{)fZ.._ '.._U. _,__. ..,__m,.,___ . .. _,..".".,..." ._m."_'.m ._...___.___._._ ..,.__,_'___'.~._._ _ _._ ..__...._._. ,." ".__..._."..___,...._,~.._~... '.......____.......,..._...._...,_......_ . ... ....__~_..__......_..._ .,____. ,~,_...., _._,.,.__.....,_... .. ...1J4~)]i1;:d ~. - _. ..~./7'D ---... ... ........... ._.m....-._.. ff-~~.-i-~~rf/GjL....__ ....,-~.. ~C-~D;E-............~-~~~~ ~._. =.~ 1==j.~======._=-=j3d..~(.;,====____.=.==:=_ __.__...___ .._nn.... ....__~ 1.....~__~/b!I._.____..___ ~---U L 1: ...?;.d-.-.---..-..-~~;--=;~-n./i.-M...--... .-..-_........ -. .-.----..-t. -'_.=~~~--.---~" g;;;.~..'... :;9~1-...'...."....'.-=~_=.._-_..._.....~.....=-.=='.' _._.____._.__ ._.___.__.___ _~).--~-.[lt,jl--..--- .............. . .Ld I~~~?=_ _=~::!fr;i;.?!!~?_-====._' .__.__._..__.____. _..___.__._____~~-~&-:--Qlt,/L---...---. · ~-Jr"---- -:;.--.... --.n--../(;~;/f-:;y,-~&-;J~~ ~OX I (3 V __ _.1 '1'1/7.. ~ _ S;tt;- ~-+ , om_ _ .... .. I/rVlA1~ __ 7 U~ 9'tiOS-8 .~.. T-z::;;---- ........- ". -.--.... ..-----------.--------- . ~"A' g ~ c.' -~-".--..-.-.-~...-fj---~~[j~_---~.H-----d I I I' .... .~. I .... ... 0;;, ... . '_~J() ..~~ ~ ~Q..- r=oJ/~~ 6 t)O 1s- v'. .. , --~ ~' f"""". ,-,. . '.. . \i)' P I ;1J ~ f r1tk4<J ___.~.._.r:it. -J)i_E___~"__________.~.__/f:_____~C...~ , ~ ~b237 . _"-:~_. .._______. .j~-::~_..:-~__-__.. ---=~.~=_~_-:.--_~~-__..~;,..-::~---i;~-/( .. I~ . ul........==---.zJ~:=i- ()~ ..- ...... -- - ~<. __- ~=~ -.= -~=~~~=~~~ -~. ~:t2-3 7 _-. _~ .. __ ,,- u__. ,.........____._._.-I.____.______~/ .~..__~/t/f ;.~.~-~===~==::E;;r=-~-- , ~. ~. 8'/~/1 ::=:=-=1 =~-..........-=:.=.:=: '::::=~=====.-"-.--- ..... -~..q'-1~i\\-.....---S-:l..J$-: ---.7!l:-:.:.-."7-~: ._. ..~.. ....I.___._________--~--.-,---j--...... J..~~_... . ~ 67 . _---_'_:'..v~ ..-.--..--.-----.u......~;-=~:...~..i'j~.!~.:---=--.__'_:=:,: . . ';";:L# .___.__.v___."__,,... G~'R. ...-.. .. .., . ._-~..-;::-..._----------_. ...-...-....--.-...---.-./.. ....,.. . ..... ......----.--.".-------... _. ___.__..._...___..__~F;.; .. . c. );h%ded~ ............. "-'. ;U~ L, . ~ - ..---....-.-.----,,-- ... ........ . ........... . . .' . . .~. ...._ ~~:.=j=----=:-%.iJ:::t;-b~~-~,~..-. .., 1---- &dS;--. -; . /.-.' . ... . _._._.._..___._~~~,-~/ .~ (lt7t/ ~- ,....."....---- ..... 'A.~Zc;;;i- 15u~_. .. ..........__ P /1A 11...........________...... ._t=/?,zL_.. .c..,...__~..__ .. ''''___',_, ... .... _'^__I_==:=~()~=g;?j;-_._-- x 1 i I t ! I ! I I I ! r I "~,"".".--.,.....,,., ..",-.-..". 1"""\ ^ SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM " Date (h; /7-3 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision F.egulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. . This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the ?lat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of returned to the City of Aspen Planning mission no later than ~/Jh.3 / the plat must be and Zoning Com= . Remarks: I am enclosina a letter sent to the County Plannina and zoninQ Commission pertaininQ to areas of concern of the Board of Education as related to proposed subdivisions. Under present policy, there would not be bus service for the area of this proposed subdivision. However. every consideration . should be given to safe movement of school children within the area. ~~ ./? ./i "~ _.<(# Signature dtJ!Ag ncy . . 5" ll..,,,,,;,,<~. iI/!'/j'. 1""""-. 1""'\, . ASPEN SCHOOl DiSTRICT NO~ 1 Box 300 Aspen, Colorodo 816ll Richord W. lee lei; 303-925-2972 superintendent of schools /" 22 January, 1973 Mr. Peter Guy, Chairman '. Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Box 694 Aspen, Colorado 816]] Gentlemen: Under provision of current Subdivision Regulations, the Board of Education wishes to react to proposed subdivisions within the school district on the basis of: I. Transportation of students a) Safety of proposed loading and unloading areas b) Number of students and safe access to established routes c) Quality and maintenance (safety) of roads over which buses might be required to travel .d) Adequate pu]]-offs or turn around'areas, if required . e) General traffic hazards including sight lines, steepness of grades, width of road, density of traffic, etc. 2. Number and location of potential school students a) Provision of school sites in areas of population growth or in strategic geographic locations b) Density or location of subdivisions which would obviously be detrimental to the health or safety of children The Board of .Education has indicated strong opposition to any subdivision that does not make adequate provisions in the areas of concern listed above. Definite emphasis will be placed on safety factors related to the trans- portation of potential students from the area. This concern would be for safe access to adequate bus stops as well as safe transportation to and from the bus stops. .....J-f '. '.:,""" -,.- .1--'(;(. '...i,.), ~"" ~ Pitkin County Pla,.. ,ing and Zoning Comn,ission Page 2 Strong emphasis will also be placed on provisions for. school sites in the areas affected. Preferably such sites could be provided under the Sub.... division Regulations requirement for 5% of the space to be allocated for public use.' Even small subdivisions should be expected to contribute to their share of an overall solution which might include purchase of a site not immediately adjacent to the subdivision. A rating check list will be used to give specific .reaction in the above . areas of concerl"l to each proposed s.ubdivision. Sincerely yours, Richard W.' Lee Superintendent' of Schools RWL:lb >1 .. ;.' t t., L ,. ~. \ 1 ~j ..\;. ,.; "~'.." .~, '.,. '... ..., "'1' I""". ~ SUBDIVISION p~~ CHECK FORM Date /hoh..3 , . / Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the site, making co~ments, concerning the placement of easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of returned to the City of Aspen Planning mission no later than ~~u>~~~ / the plat must be and Zoning Com= . Remarks: ~.!;~~k. . -- 1""'. ~ SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM Date /Z:U}/7 ~ ,/ Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. , ..~- This form with attac~ed copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect. the plat and the site, making co~~ents, concerning the placement of easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com= mission no later than .,;2.....(i':"4 " ,/ ,/ Remarks:. c-P ~ -I2uc o-s-, ~~~~J~ A~~~ 0;:-"0- ~~~ ~ ~>-r~;!) ~ 1,)~AA_~e 0/ ~~ IA) h~ .r-?~ o_A ~?J ~ A.~ L";~, J-/) t/ /) \ ~&4 4. J'M;-e(V~--& ~~.4, {/ ~~~~ S~gnat re 0 1',g .'Z ~ ':>>vf.. ~tv1~.s ($, . -. ." .- ~ ~ Destination Resort Corporation PRELIMINARY PROJECT SUMMARY January 29, 1973 To Whom It May Concern: Rocky Mountain Regional Office P.O. Box 2946, Aspen, Colorado 816rr Telephone (303) 925-4252 Attached is a preliminary project summary and plat of the D.R.C. Subdivision which will be presented before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb- ruary 6, 1973. We would appreciate it if any comments which you may have re- garding utilities and access be given to Fred Wooden at the City Planning Office (telephone 92S-2020) prior to the February 6th public hearing. Location: A 5.3 acre parcel of land zoned AR-l, lying on the northeast corner of Ute Avenue and West End Street. Project: A condominium development consisting of approximately 45 units in Phase I, (beginning on the western portion of the property), in three-story buildings of frame and timber construction. Balance of 108 units in future phases projected over an additional two-year period. Parking and Access: Mixture of surface and underground parking will be provided with permanent access from Ute Avenue and temporary access from West End Street off Waters Avenue during the first two phases. Utilities: Locations shown on the attached preliminary .subdivision map, in- cluding gas, water, sewer, electricity and telephone. Supporting Facilities: Lobby/recreation/conference center with swimming and therapy pools, saunas, steam bath, exercise room, meeting and general recreation rooms. Open Space: A. A parcel of land corresponding with a proposed trail system con- necting Glory Hole Park with the Roaring Fork River greenbelt would be dedicated to the City of Aspen. B. A proposal to restrict the use of West End Street between Ute Avenue and Waters Avenue to pedestrians, bicycles and emergency vehicles only. Architect/Planner: Benedict Associates Incorporated. Owner: Destination Resorts-Aspen, Ltd. General partner: Destination Resort Corporation (Aspen, Colorado, and Los Angeles, California). Principals of DRC have been involved in most areas of the real estate field over the past ten years, with particular emphasis on planning, development and management of resort areas, including Snowmass Resort and Sun Valley. Victor Palmier~, Chairman of the Board Bob Lowe, President Fred Cochrane,;oBxecutive Vice-President Skip Behrhorst,. Vice-President (Aspen) Jerry Luebbers, Vice-President. DGB/blr Headquarters: Los Angeles,CaIifOJ;nia 90067 Telephone (213) 556-2040 ~ . ,-. ..-, LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given a public hearing will be held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 6, 1973, 5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to consider a preliminary subdivision pl<:it submitted .by Destination Resort Corporation; a tract of land situated in the NN~i of Section lB, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, pitkin County, Colorado, said tract bem~g all of Lots 23, 24 and 42 and part of Lots 25, 43 and a portion of that lot or block designated 120 Ute Addition to the City of Aspen and a portion of Lot 6 said Section 18, formally known as t.ne 0 I Block property. Complete :::ile is on file in the office of the City/County Planner, City Hall. /5/ Lorraine ~raves City Clerk Published in the I,spen Today January 17, 1973 ,., , A, r- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIl'" ~ c. r, flO~CKEL 11..&. II< L. CO. ; Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 16, 1970 1 Mr. Bruce Gillis was appointed Acting Chairman for the meeting. Meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Acting Chairman Bruce Gillis with Charles Collins, Charles Vidal and Barbara Lewis. Also present Assistant City/ f County Planner Fred Wooden. Mr. Wooden gave the following reports under old business: (1) City Council will be holding a study session on the 18th of January regarding task force for the master plan and regional planning commission; (2) public hearing on method of height measurement has been scheduled for February 20th; golf course master plan not ready at this time, next meeting. j~harles Vidal excused himself from the table, conflict of interest. I Mr. "Skip" Behrhorst and Mr. William Bates representing Destination Re.Il.ort , Compa~gave a presentation of proposed subdivision and PUD plan. Public !learing on the preliminary plan scheduled for February 6th. Plan outlined and comments made as follows: (1) will follow PUD plan for condominiums although this is not yet law; (2) total project 153 units, first . phase 45 units; (3) main access off of Ute Avenue; (4) total acreage 5.3 acres; i (5) buildings. will be jogged in order not to give the monolitic affect; (6) underground parking; (7) will keep as much natural terrain as possible, min- imize cuts and fill; (8) facilities will include a recreation room, clubhouse, hand ball courts, etc.; (9) will create a pedestrian and bicycle path to be included in the 4% open space requirement of the subdivision regulations; (10) the needed right-of-way on Ute Avenue of 80' will be reserved, presently exist- ing 60'; (11) recommend restriction of West End Street for emergency vehicles and used as bicycle path and pedestrian path which will be landscaped and main- tained by the applicant; (12) main height of buildings will be 3 stories and will not exceed at any point more then 2~' above the height limit requirement; i (13) aiming at 2nd home market; (14) ask that the subdivision process and PUD be reviewed simultaneously. Preliminary plans will include utility locations and drainage patterns. To cover the open space dedication would like to put a deed into escrow that the applicant would deed to the City not more than 5 years hence. Mr. Bates stated he discussed with the City Engineer the drain- age problem and decided the drainage would be directed toward the edge of Glory Hole Park and connect to the existing underground storm sewer at that point. Present zoning is AR-l. Mr. Vidal returned to the Commission table. Salvation Ditch State Planning Grant - Mr. Wooden explained the Salvation Ditch Company had applied for a grant in order to enclose the water flow in 8, concrete pipe, problems with drainage and flooding. Discussed "Iolhether the grant application includes money for recreation i.e. trail along the ditch. Mr. Wooden to check out. Lewis moved to give approval of the grant application contingent on the fact trails are not included. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. f'.":.' :"';_i,',_, ,;,i;.t:;pu.:~,~~:" ~;.':i';i~,,';;g~j91'~$;,~:~~i::~i:~~~;;~:1i:j.c~~;~~~~~~;>;~i;;~il,fi;;)~;;1;{<iU0;i:i \ ,. ,. .;'.~ ;>k"','~""';\':S:::;';,;<. '. ,.;,,,,j,.':_..'..' "<;i~"i.:,;.:;;o.~' .' .~'i":'>;~. ,{~;;" ;;;:i:.,. 'r);. :~:";'.c' --"'/ ,"""". .1"'.. Pa:~ ~- !~ ! ??3 ) ,~.. ~ ~,."t .."., ., .o~ " .. ..,,, "".''; '" .. ..,_ ~ "'""...... ..'..'~,...,,~, If ..,..", "".'''.... .u_,.,.. . ."," _.-de);.' .ftt 'll.....t t:..~' -:d 1 .;< ,'" ..~'" ...IIChar~e,s VLa " "t): :0"'. d ". - '- z: l'"z:ed Woo en. "., f;' I" t tllH1e -5:1.0 p.m... by Act1.I'\g and Barbara Lewi.s. ~~:~n;;::8:: ;.*-' *~:lt .~..~ ~"'.~ , ' ^..\~-;...."":,~. .;\ ,~' ."' j.,,:,.. \400den g~ve the followin~reports under old business: (l~ City Councn & ,.:ill be ho1dmg a study sess~on on the 18th of January regard~ng task force t for the master plan and regional planning commission; (2) public hearing on imethod of height measurement has been scheduled for February 20th; golf course imaster plan not ready at this time, next meeting. Mr. Charles Vidal excused himself from the table, conflict of interest. Mr. "Skip" Behrhorst and Mr. William Bates representing Destination Resort Company gave a presentation of proposed subdivision and PUD plan. Public hearing on the preliminary plan scheduled for February 6th. Plan outlined and comments made as follows: (1) will follow PUD plan for condominiums although this is not yet law; (2) total project 153 units, first phase 45 units; (3) main access off of Ute Avenue; (4) total acreage 5.3 acres; (5) buildings will be jogged in order not to give the monolitic affect; (6) underground parking; (7) will keep as much natural terrain as possible, min- imize cuts and fill; (8) facilities will include a recreation room, clubhouse, hand ball courts, etc.; (9) will create a pedestrian and bicycle path to be included in the 4% open space requirement of the subdivision regulations; (10) the needed right-of-way on Ute Avenue of 80' will be reserved, presently exist- ing60'; (11) recommend restriction of West End Street fur emergency vehicles and used as bicycle path and pedestrian path which will be landscaped and main- tained by the applicant; (12) main height of buildings will be 3 stories and will not exceed at any point more then 2J;a' above the height limit requirement; (13) aiming at 2nd home market; (14) ask that the subdivision process and PUD be reviewed simultaneously. preliminary plans will include utility locations and drainage patterns. To cover the open space dedication would like to put a deed into escrow that the applicant would deed to the City not more than 5 years hence. Mr. Bates stated he discussed with the City Engineer the drain- age problem and decided the drainage would be directed toward the edge of Glory Hole Park and connect to the existing underground storm sewer at that point. Present zoning is AR-l. Mr. Vidal returned to the Commission table. Salvation Ditch State Planning Grant - Mr. Wooden explained the Salvation Ditch Company had applied for a grant in order to enclose the water flow in a concrete pipe, problems with drainage and flooding. Discussed whether the grant application includes money for recreation i.e. trail along the ditch. Mr. Wooden to check out. Lewis moved to give approval of the grarit application contingent on the fact trails are not included. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, moti.on carried. ~ J -- /~ g.....z 7?1'~ 00j Destination Resort Corporation Rocky Mountain Regional Office P. O. Box 2946, Aspen, Colorad; 816II Telephone (303) 925-4252 PRELIMINARY PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW January 12, 1973 Location: A 5.3 acre parcel of land zoned AR-l lying on the northeast corner of Ute Avenue and West End Street. Project: A condominium development consisting of approximately 45 units in Phase I in three-story buildings of frame and timper construction. Balance of 108 units in future phases. Parking: Mixture of surface and underground parking will be provided with access from Ute Avenue. Supporting Facilities: Lobby/recreation/conference center with swimming and therapy pools, saunas, steam bath, exercise room, meeting and general recreation rooms. Open Space: A. A parcel of land corresponding with a proposed trail system connecting Glory Hole Park with the Roaring Fork River greenbelt would be dedicated to the City of Aspen. B. A proposal to restrict the use of West End Street between Ute Avenue and Waters Avenue to pedestrians, bicycles and emergency vehicles only. Architect/Planner: Benedict Associates Incorporated. O"ner: Destination Resort Corporation (Aspen, Colorado, and Los Angeles, California). Principals of DRC have been involved in most areas of the real estate field over the past ten years, with particular emphasis on planning, development and management of resort areas, including Snowmass Resort and Sun Valley. Victor Palmeri, Chairman of the Board Bob Lowe, President Fred Cochrane, Executive Vice-President Skip Behrhorst, Vice-President Jerry Luebbers, Vice-President Headquarters: Los Angeles,California 90067 Telephone (213) 556-2040' 16 January 17 January 6 February 7 February 13 March 14 March 6 April 17 April 24 April 25 April ~RC - ViE jJ~~ January 11, 1973 . PLANNING AND ZONING '--PrB-sent"anCt d'Is"cuss' "ketch 'plan Notice of 6 February pUblic hearing on pre- liminary subdivision plat given to: 1. Aspen Today, 2. adjacent landowners PLANNING AND ZONING Reviews and accepts: Reviews and accepts: P.U.D. outline plan Preliminary subdivision plat Notice of March 13 City Council hearing on P.u.b. outline plan given to Aspen Today for publication on February 14 'CITYCOUNCIL Public hearing on P.D.D. outline plan. If ap- proved, Council tentatively rezones property, ---'-tneni-'-"---'------.-'---..--- --- . .---....--.------- ---- --...--- Notice of 17 April P & Z public hearing on P.U.D. final plan given to Aspen Today for publication on :n March 8 copies of final subdivision plat to secretary of P & Z PLANNING AND ZONING Public hearing on P.U.D. final subdivision plat. final plan and review of If approved, then: CITY COUNCIL Council may rezone property. Council review of final subdivision plat. If accepted, Plat and statement of zoning change filed for record with pitkin County Clerk and Recorder Building permit may be issued. r , . ASPENGLO','i S'G--XV2Y ,- 1970-71 SKI SSASO~ I ....., 1. \{here are you fr'om? ".--..." 13.40% 6~_03~ 9.. 55'J~ 22:0'2% 2.2.. G 8'~2 16..31% 7.29% .53% 1"59% \'18S \: COilS\: (California, Oreeon, Washington) . Roc](v l'-~ount.;:.in (Colo., Nev. ~ Idaho, Utah, Mont., Wyo.) SOti"tS1:'r?st (i\riz., Oh:la. ,N .M., Texas) No-r-t:"1 Ccntrtil (:I:nc1., :'I,'V. ,?'iich., Nise., Ohio) rtic}\.rest (Ill., rOlla, .I<an., !-'Zinn., Mo., Neb., S.D., N.D.) East & l\'ort'heast (Conn., N.J., Del., N.Y., Maine, 'Penn., ~ Md., R.I., Xass., Vt., N.H., Va., DoC~) South (Ala., La., Ark., Xiss., Fla., N.C., S.C., Kentucky, Tennessee) Ea"h'ni 1. CarlClda 2. If you .are from out of state, how did you reach Colorado? 2.1fl?~ 29.31% 5.J.l1% 27'-Q~ 1.67% 3~ 219~ 1:29% 54.50% train private car rental car schedu:V~d bus chu rtered DUS private plane chartered plane commercial .air '. 'imich commercial airline? . 16.33;(, 4:37'% 44. 3J.';~ 5. fl3~~ 5:25% 14.29;G -7 0,-7;:;; .{"I ,'l 1.75% T\'IA \'ies.tern Uni ted Frontier American Contir.ental Braniff '"':::) ~ v .l.o' ...ocK:y "oun..aJ.n . . , . '. 3. . Hm,.. did you arrive in the Aspen area? 32.35% 2T:f~ .2.t..QO% By way of. 25.0Q';~ 4.11~~ (- , \.. private car rental car. scheduled bus 6.91% 21.03% 4.85% Grand Junction Colorado spri:i.gs -le- chartered bus cOr:imercial air private plane 8.68% . " . . . ~ 65.54% -5-3-01 . . =>70 Denver Other ) .' ~ '- , Stapleton/ .Express,Bus :~ .I\r: - ASP;'NGLO\1-2.Y,WBY. I""'; .~ 1970...71 SKI SEASOl'1. 3. Continued l~lich commercial airline? 611~90% 2 ^ -"O-;:i ~2...~ 1.33i{, 3,31% Asoen Air'\{()ys Roehl' Moun.tain Monarch Front:.ier o 66?,~ -3 <':.-;'7'" ..':J i') -1:;'-;-;;; II' J,.J!O 4. Did you attend sJd s:'1o;,:s t.his season? 80.13% 19 .87~~ NO YES ..~.of those indicating YZS: , . ,~ .' T\'lA Uni .ted Continental ... 4;54% 1f.. ?~i~~ 10. 39(;{, 1;-9-5% . -2"'-3-0(,/ .J II: ~ \.J/u ^ 8-0--,'0- ~.t I: :)/:J San Francisco' Los tmqeles Ne\{ York Seattle Chicngo Other 5. 'How many ni~hts did you stay in the Aspen area? 6644/800.average" 8.31 days 6.' }lm1 many days did you sJd at: . "'7 '7CO, ~---!.-~ 20,22% 1~spGn Mountain Bu tterrrii 11c '12 '1'9'7r;'~ 3 9.J~17~ Asp.en Highlands SnO"i\r;TIn.ss , 5490/6644 average" 6.87 days or 82.63% of total days 7.. How do you clas,sifY yourself as a sJder? 65.43'% Int.ern~ediate 25.28% Expert: 9.29% Novice I 44.13% of those responding to su.rvey reported takin'g a lesson. 8. Ho;{ many days of ski lessons did you t:.aJ~e? 928/5490 .. l6.90~~of days sJded I,t i{hic!'. mountain: 11. 05~G "'3 1")":>,/ ~ . ~ 10 AStJcn Mounta.in Buttermilk 2Q..J.:.l % 35 .69~~ Aspen Highlands SnOi'/lr,aSS 9.. ,,rhich of the fol1o\{in~ did you contact. for help in making your lodgi.ng reservation? 'f"" '\ ,:-"" 1 7 . 6G~{' 47921Z 1,CVB . Airline's . 8.. 81.l9~ :2.58'}1 Trav'31 Ag0nt Sno,.:rnt'iss Central Reserva tio.....s ...~' 0, -2c- '. ~ 6.o!~~1~ 14.52,}~ Direct to lodge' Other 9. Continued .-, In what n\onth? \. 1 ~.!.:}2~ lO..5t.,~:'G 5.9].% 2..08% Jan. Feb. Nar. Apr. .!tnt,'f 2. 72'?~ -1~~ '-J t 9S;b Xc~Y June . JUly Aug. 10. W~reyou on the Aspenglow Package Plan? """\ 87. J.1% 1,2. 8~)% , , NO YC:S 11. Were you staying iri? 56.2'l'?{,' -8'-r:r?;7 _....-.!-.~ 3.. 35;~ -21 -8"-;;; ~ '...1., 10 Lodqe Dormitory House Condominiu:n l~llat influenc.ed your choice of lodginq? ,18.21% 19. Tiiii ..16. 93';~ -6-:Yi~~ Close to lifts Close. to to....tn Price . Only choice 17.81% -2" -.ic)o.1 .L" ~ '" a:-15% ~llat.type of lodqing do you prefer! . 2.fl. "..pit, 6 t 7()';() -'6 2";;; . .~},o 28.47~Z c LodqG Dor.mitpry House. Condominium Was your 10dqing in? 33.21~~ 66. "i9% SnO\{mass~a t~Aspen Elsewhere in Aspen .12. Did you use a car while here in Aspen? .39.68~~ 60. 32'~ y NO y;:;S.....of tr.ose indicating YES; Did you feel it 'Was nee.ded 7 ... 49.09% NO " --- 50. 'll'i{,. YES :. ',' '.:' -3c- ,. .~ 10.38% -12-6-,0; ~~~ 16.77% 15.66<J~ " Sept. Oct. Nov.' ,Dec. t Stayed t"here. before RecommQr..oed Extra facilities .. " . 53. 69;~ 46.31~~ " Own cur Ren~al car .. " L , ,......, ~ ,. 13: Did you rent s1cis in Aspen or did you bring your own'? .' .83.'76% 16.24% . i. Brought OIffi sids Rented skis in Aspen 14. Were you here with? .' 9. 097~ . --9 -) 7.o,i ~ ... . I() '-4 6'/07 . .".) 17 .17~~ Or9anized group S(~w~ra1 men Several women As a couple . . 15. Was this your first trip to Aspen'? 60.19% . 39.81% NO y.::s ; _ 15.91% -2-/ ~Oc~:i ... I) )10 16,,29% If YES, where clid you hear about.As:;:.en? 35. 53~(, Horcl of mouth 15-;80% Advertising,.m~g. 14~~7~ Brochures T12%' "Ski . sr.o,<rs 7.1R% -8-:00% -9-'-" 3',,; .. _) 10 3.29% 16. l\'hat magazines do you read reg-\llar1y? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7: 8. Slti '1"'i.rn8. Life SKii.ng Ne\vs1leek . Sports Illustrated Playboy New Yorker 17. 79.92% 20 -0"-;;; . . \)10 " Xale Female . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. '16.. . , , . Several couples F.amily Came alone . SKi shops S.ki films 'Fe~ture stories Other '. . XcCaB_'s Loo)( US N(~"rs National)G8oqraphic Header's Dicest Business HeeK Fortune Saturday Review Marded: 18. Total expenditures at Aspen for: , 18.53% -32--;;:--:V _. "tt);" . Io-:itT% -S--Oi:Coi . '..,)/() . Restaurants l,c>c1gi'nq C10thinq s. Equi)?t. Ski Rer).tal Occupationl I\S.71% 13-:-7.97'~ -~r: r; n .y~ -1'-?2~(~i .... ", i1.. 1.97<" 51'9n,:~ Professional Mar. Qr Proprietor S;ll0.f; Service wori<:ers Student Other -4c- 37.8f1')bNO 62.12% YZS . 4.52% r6-:-8'~il:1, '-S-:-;r1"", ~ . ..~. ,!..l 6:9"3% 1.10fJG -1.;1- (j(;~ -2 -,,-p:;v _9;J III) -"-E'. "1-""; I. )1 ,'''' 2.56% . . . Groceries Skiing' Entertainment Other C1.eric<l1. Cr<\ftsIl\i\n Mili ti1r.y House\.ri fe , Retired ~.,' . /' . /\,.) ~ .'. ' '_J .,.!\. ,', ";',' V c< '.' .:, ,~ ~-...,_.,......~^- f""', .,J,. ~" : v-.;' ,J~ <..1,\'.., >,..;<.:.-,'..;.,,-~ 18. Continued , . . ?' Totul ye~rly ~nCOffie of your faffi~ly. 3.29% ~-:47% 11.81% . Under ~5,000 $5,001 - 9,999 $10,000 - 14,999 12.21% ':""4--8":01 J.. . .L/O 45~41% $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 '. 19,999 24,999 <. over .... 19. What do you particularly like about the Aspen area? (listed in order) \ 1. Skiing 2. "Atmosphere 3. Snow Conditions 4. Food 5. People 6. Higl;.t Life 7. Variety 20. Would you return to Aspen? ,3. 73'~6 1':0 96.27% YES '. " " ..... . 21. H~ve you ever taken a summer vacation in, the ASl?en: area? 81.85% 18.15% :-JO" Yi>S Have you ever considered a! su,,~er or fall vacation here? .') 51. 47% 48 53% _e...-- :-JO YES 22. Are you aware that Aspen has: 69.3Fli~ . 43. OO~ . 54.63~{' '52--:83%" ^ v' ~ ' 1 t,spen ..USl.C .'est~va ~lo\lntain jeep rides Summer lift rides Conference facilities '20.50% 49--:-50"% 31.50%' 41. 25% " ; * * * 'it * * * * '. '- :,,\ . Photoqraphy school ".l- t t. J:" . ' ,.~\"'n rou ..::~snl.ng Art school Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies NOTE: Th8 Aspenglm1 Survey began mid December to MilY 1st. Approxi- ma te time' involved: 20 wee )(5 ......i th 70 Aspeng'lo...... Surveys sent out each 'Wee)(. In total, there \1ere ..1...:1.90 surveys ......ith a return of 800 responses, approximatelY 57%. . -5c";' . . ' '. ,:'-' -.' -,