HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.The Gant Phase Two
,~
"'"""
,.....". .,.ii"<""
THE GANT
Development History
In January, 1973 Destination Resort Corp. presented a pro-
posal for 153 tourist condominium units on 5~ acres on
Ute Avenue; the project is now knowdas the Gant Condominiums.
Between January, 1973 and approval of a subdivision plat in March
and of a PUD plan by the City Council on 4/23/73 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
OL an attempt
by the city to secure the best possible
site plan without being able to set density.
The product of these negotiations, in addition to subdivision
requirements, was a plan that provided a view corridor;too
Independence Pass; a 30% reduction in parking space to be
subtituted by 2 project operated shuttle buses; 3 employee
housing units; removal of 1 building group to provide useable
common open area; access from Waters Avenue rather than Ute
Avenue; landscaping to shield adjoining residences; phasing
of the development over 3 years. The ruling principle in all
ox these considerations was an effort to modify the impact of
density allowed by existing zoning.
Laee~ufumiApEil, DRC 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
,-."
,-..,
- 2 -
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.
1/24/74
DB
~
,-,
THE UTE CITY PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
The Ute City Protection Association was formed by residents
of the Ute 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 Commission
and to the City Council throughout the Gant PUD procedure,
opposing the project on the following grounds: general impact
of high density on a residential neighborhood and the community
resulting in traffic and circulation problems, additional air
pollution from fireplaces and unacceptable costs of community
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 commit to immediately
undertake a revision of the zoning. . ." (G. J. Daily Sentil1lal,
3/16/73). The Aspen Times -~ilpa,:5i$39>frepertsuofiGmencetmciirlman
at that meeting, ". . . he promised that the Council would
work to review the master plan and amend zoning to reduce
density. II
At its meeting to approve the final PUD plan for the DRC project,
the mayor, ". . . indicated that the Council was forced to make
a 'meiUIRohbiby:y decision, II and that it was, "Recognized that
residents wish to reduce the density, but the city continues
to approve projects without changing the zoning. . . the fault
lies with us not the proj ec t. II
A councilman stated his concern about "unanswered ramifications
of the project on the community involving increases in popula-
tion, traffic and air pollution."
t".
,-,
page 2
An other councilmarr/'addressing those who were displeased
with the proposed project and disappointed with the council's
decision, indicated that citizens could expect action on the
~rt of the city in regard to amending zoning in the master
plan to reduce density."
(All above qqutations are from Aspen Today, 3/21/73.)
On March 8, 1973 the Planning & Zoning Commission passed a
resolution acknowleggm~gthel~eenheona~d 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 economically viability of the Aspen Community, and 4)
the climatic and geologic conditions are such that the
the air pollution problem requires a reanalysis ,..Q,andhil!esolving:
use reThametrl:Iat:!spanpHll:atilni:ng 6~mmlD.ssi8Ji6r@enmmends
that the City Council authorize a major
review of the densities and density dis-
tr~butions suggested by the 1966 ~eneral
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,66repre-
sentatives of the UCPA stated that they were not content with
progress being made by the City @adncil 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.
1/25/74
DB
- ---"':~
i
rtl
"""'.
~
;,;
CITY
aspen.c@!
OF AS PEN
0, a~G~3 liox v
becember 9, 1974
.'~
Mr. Gerry Wrench
First of Denver Mortgage Investors
1810 First National Bank Building
Denver, Colorado 80217
Re: Partial Release of Funds for Destination
Resorts - Aspen, Ltd. Subdivision
Planned Unit DevelQpment Agreement~
Dear Mr. Wrench:
\"
.
In accordance with the above agreement dated
April 6, 1973, the construction required durin~ .Phases I
and II has been inspected, and found to be 100% completed.
The following is a breakdown of the escrow account:
ITEM ESCROW ESCROW ESCROW TO BE
AMOUNT RELEASED RELEASED -
IN 1973 1974
1. Paving on West End $2160.00 $1836.00 $ 324.00
2. Pedestrian/Emergency
Access 1422.00 1422.00 0
3. Ute Ave. Paving 4145.00 0 0
4. Curb, gutter,and
sidewalk 4616.00 0 0
5. a. Catch basin 1500-,00 1500.00 0
b. Storm sewer 4000.00 0 0
6. Waterlines 7800.00 0 7800.00
7. Landscaping and
'Trail 3500.00 1400.00 2100.00
$29143.00 $6158.00 $10224.00
..
~.'-' ..
~:
~.
Page Two
Mr. Gerry Wrench
December 9,1974
The amount authorized for release at this time
is $10,224, the escrow balance should be $12,761 after
this year's release.
fs/
cc: David Behrhorst
John Stanford v
Clayton Meyring
Very truly yours,
S~
'.L)~ M)
Dave Ellis
City Engineer
,',
.
;
,
\
I
!
I
t
I
I
!
I
!
i
r
.
I
"'J!!"'.--.C;;.,'"-
--
.~
)>
~~r
u
February 13, 1974
Destination Resort - Aspen Ltd.
c/o G.G. Behrhorst
P.O. Box 2946
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
The building p18l).s for the second pahse of the Gent have
been reviewed by the PI~'1...~()i;fice for compliance with
the projects approved Planned Unit Development plan on file
in the BuUding Department.
Some contradictions be~een the approved P.U.D. plan and the
building plans submitted for Phase II have been identified.
These differences will require r.evisions to
plans and/or amendments to the P.U.D. plan.
follows:
the building
They are as
1. A variation is shown on t~ Phase II pl,an from
the final development plan' on parking and drive
layout.
2. Tennis courts do not include spaces for planting
of evergreen and shrubs along ~o sides as shown
on the Master Plan landscaping plan.
3. The recreation bU11dtng is not included in Phase
II as shown in the final development plan
development schedule.
4. Buildings "F" and "G" create ,a dignificant dis-
ruption of natural terrain and damage to exist-
ing vegetation.
~~',
,"","'- ;'"
,,~,
-
Destination Resort - Aspen Ltd.
February 13, 1974
Page Two
5. The Phase II buildi~s "F" and '11(;11 plans are
inconsistant with the intent stated in the
memorandum from Destination Resort, Mareh 12, 1973.
6. That parking layout on Phase II plan has not
provided spaces for landscaping as shown on
Master Plan landseaping plan.
Cordially,
~J~~
~ BarteL
r;{t.y/County Planner
HB/bk
:.1'
.-..
June 21, 1973
,-,
.
~
TO: HERB BARTEL, CITY PLANNER
MEMBERS OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM: SANDRA M. STOLLER, 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 IJhase 2 of it"S P.U.D., as aIJproved. The" request
for the IJermit, submitted approximately one year before antici-
pated, has raised Z 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 enforcabili ty by the ci ty. and
2. Will the building permit review procedure and possible
re~oning 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. thf'm) that (1) phasing is not mandatory and, if
it is it merely affects completton dates and not commencement and
(2) no interim measures or rezoning can affect a completely approved
P. U. D. and subdivision 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
--~--.-lC'Etter 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 a,bout staggering impact
there is no problem here. The""second phase will not
be completed prior to the schedule. The permit for-
. phase 2 1S 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 argumeht that phasing
is necessary to allow the city time to act.
',- ~c _...... ...,.. -__.-.~....___....~,.
:<1- ~
,
I
Memo t.O Herb Bartel and
June 21, 1973 ~
Page 2
P &Z Members
($
.~
\
\
\
c. . Phasing is not necessary to enforce the P. U. D.
and, Subdivision 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 guarantf)e perfor-
mance before issuance of a permit for commencement of,
the second phase (but agrees this may not be true for
the thl I'd) becausei t 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. TheP. 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 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, view-
plane and reduced density) and which are sufficient to
estop the city from changing the intended use. I
c. Finally, a P. U. D. must be viewed as a single'
..' enti ty even if there are a series of permits 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 subdlV1Slon 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-
1ation tests were made, plans \~ere 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
,
,
',...._.--~._'._,...,...~."'-~" "','. ...... . ,"
r"
Memo to Herb Bartei"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 t.he 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 Itonconforming use as to the entire
tract." .
.,
(2) Diamon v Orleans, 196 A 2d 36 3 (Pennsylvania,
1964) concerned a rezoning of 150 acres of land
to FF and FFF zones (floating commercial zones)
. following the consideration by cotmty commissioners
of a comprehensive development plan for the whole
tract. Between the last hearing on the rezoning
______.Bnd 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 aEd
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
.....
~~'.-...'~~... "'.~,-~,~ ....,_.,._-.",~'-..;,.. ,"
- - ...... 1---.""
Memo to Herb Bart~and P ~ Z Members
June 21, 1973
Page 4
,-.
clear that, realistically, objection is made to
the entire comprehensive development, not merely
to the CO!lullercial... 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 developmen~ 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 permit~ed in other
adjoining areas. The court disagreed and stated
(dicta being relied on by D. R. C. to prevent
. rezoning): "The maintenance of stabiUty in zoning
and resulting conservation of property value based
upon existing zoning regulations are prime consid-
.'eratiom; in denying applications for zoning changes. II
(the reliance referred to is that of adj oining
similarly zoned property. owners).
"Colllnient.s' on 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 estoppel. The most comprehensive statement of this
doctrine that I have run across was state.d :n "Zoning Estoppel: Appli-
'. cation of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights
to Zoning Dispu tes", 1971 Urban Law Annual 63 (1971) in which the
author stated:
"A local goverr.men t exercising its zoning powers will be
estopped when a property owner
(1) relying in good faith
'..
''''.', --.-......-_..."'.,_..,-~'~..-.....
"r'"""-'~"!
I
~
~
and P & Z Members
,-.".
Memo
June
Page
to Herb Bartel
21, 1973
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 commen~ 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
pO:lnt in time, D. R. C. has made such expenditures and changed
its position so that no rezoning can affect its intended use.
r think it worthy of note that the Telimar case IS A MINORITY
OPINION. There is no case law concern:mg 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
" ."
"rn 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
~ssuance 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. II
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 oj; a bU:lld:lng perm:lt, per se, does not vest such a
property right in the owner that subsequent rezoning is ineffective
as to the property. eity and 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 nght to proceed with a
4evelopment. Some cases on this point follow:
~
..._" ~. .__...._w..-........._"'..
tr-"-"-
,
,~
\
\
Memo to Herb Barte~nd 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.
jec't. 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 112 concerned a rezoning affecting (increasing)
lot sizes. The subdivision consisted of 4 sections, and work
had been comlIlenced 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, storm sewers
and water system installation 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 ,lots."
(3) In Wood v North Salt Lake (Utah 1963) 390 PZd 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
e.ach 60 foot lot. I
(4) Gruber v Mayor and Township Committee of Raritan T6wnship,
'39NJ1, concerneCl 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 (I) the expenditures made
for sections Z. 5 and (2) II the practicabili ty and fai rness of
restricting the residential development to any section or
sections less than the whole."
(5) In Virginia Construction Corporation v Fairman (1962) 39
NJl, l87A2d 1 the court made clear, In another case where lot
sizes were changed subsequent to a subdivision approval, that
these ~annot be included in a calculation of expenses made
in reliance, Hthose made without regard to whether the tract
was 'developed on a one acre or two acre basis. II
~
!lr'~~""""t'
,
Memo to Herb Barte~nd P '~~. Z Members
June 21, 1973 '
Page 7
,-..,
\
\
\
.
(6) Trans-RobIes.Corporation v City of Cherry Hills Village
497 p~j~ lColo. CA l~/2) lS 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 water and sewer lines and
underground utili ties. In addition, there had been a consider-
able amount of street paving and installation of curbs and
gut ters : all 0 f 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 wate"r and sewer collection systems,
. nor could any reasonable combination of lots be put together
allowing construction of. a house on a lot of th.e 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 L..r;rovements 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. II
At this time, it is my impression that D. R. C. has not
accomplished such physical construction as to satisfy the sub-
" stantialreliance requirements as determined by the caselawJ
. !
The Di 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
development.
(1) . First, "it is their argument that by entering into
theP. 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,
Le., all obligations imposed thereby are on D. R.
C. (except to accept and record the plat) and no
counter obligations rest with the City.
---
""~"',"l~'-_~~'-
"n';~"'''""''''~
I .
.
.
J
Memo to Herb Bart~and P ~, Z Members
June 21, 1973 .
Page 8
~.
(b) Paragraph 9 provides that "Notwi ths tanding
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 la\vs .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 ~gency cannot by contract bind itself
. in terms of future governmental functions and restrain-
ing the exercise thereof. Again, the effect of this
pl'incipal on the present situation is. unclear. '
(2) Second, D. R. C. argue~ that the acceptance of dedi-
catedland by the city precludes rezonlng. 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 wnose subdivision
plat had been.approved by the planning board and who in reliance
upon the agreement made, at th~. 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 con~.equences 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) F"ourth, 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 minorI"ty 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 412 P2d 550 (Wash 1970)
the plaintiff petltloned 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'declared:invilid'f6r the 7-1/2 acres (for reasons not
relevant to this discussion) while the P. U. D. done simultaneously
-
~":","":',,-':'.:;';;",:,.;;,~,,="-~~
if-' "i'
~
.
~~
.
.~.
1"""\
Memo to Herb Barte~ and
June 21, 1973
Page 9
~
P &Z Members
with annexation was valid. However, the coort held that where
3/4 of the P. U. D. - could not be accompl ished l...i thin the exis ting
zoning, the remaining .1/4 must also be diszllowed. Jan Krasnowiecki
in "P. U. D.: A Challenge to Established Th:lory and Practice of Land
Use Control", 114 U. of Penn. Law Review 47, agrees that in the
absence of a statute or substantial expenditures, a P. U. D. develop'er
has little protection against rezoning. In Chandler v Kroiss 190
N. W. 2nd 473 (Minn. 1971) the city, in antic~pation. 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 aevelopment plans approved
by the Village Council which are not in confanni ty to the plan
shall be considered as amendments to the plan and shall be so
note-d 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 PZd 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
wi th the surrounding neighborhood, must not jeopardize or reduce
zoning standar.ds in the area and should prrmote 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 Argument that Alternation of Commencement
Date is Discretionary with D. R. C. As, I i~dicated earlier I think
-that our P. U. D. Act specifically establis1es 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
Z4~lO.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.. Stu1.ler
SMS:mw
'..
-'...-.....,..;,~~.....-.......'-~""._.^'"'"" .'., ,'--.-- ._".~..,.~.,..~,-,_. ,-",.,-.
cr"-""'"
,
I
I
. '"'/
/}
\. " j
J
i
,
"
,,,.....,,
~.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
C. If. ~(,~':Ks. ~...',:I! \., c".
R 1 ~l ~.
.egu ar . ee ,_~ng
Planrcing & ,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.,
L
I
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 t~ 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 Street 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 Clappe~ 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.
Trail System Plan - Chairman Adams opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Chairman Adams closed the public hearing.
specifically
Also the
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.
,
Victor Goodhard left the meeting.
James Adams excused himself due to conflict of interest.
"'
~
"
.~
,~.
o
d
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
.,.,..... C,.>HlCK':.B.B.&I..C::l.
Regular Meeting
~
Aspen'Planning & Zoning
A?~i1 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.., ~~. 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 from
, the total park or area.
Janet Landry also stated she felt the corridor should extend to the
ground.
~x. 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.
~,:stinat'ion Resort Corporation - Final Outline Development Plan.
Mr. "Skip" Behrhorst reviewed with the Commission the plan, !1r.
Bartel stated the plan is in full compliance and this matter before
the Corr~ission is a matter of review to see that all requirements
of the preliminary outline development plan have been met. '
Mr. Behrhorst stated th~re were three items which the City Council
reqUest be made a part 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
,
,
Regula):' Hecting
~:- ,"-'-
Public
Restrooms
~._-_....
,
~
'-"',
March 12, 1973
Aspen Citv Council
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; Marka1unas, 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 COllmlission in their recollmlendation 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 Par~. (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 COllmlission 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
property; (4) traffic pattern in the 1966 Master
Plan shows Ute Avenue as a major arterial street
and (5 )tii&pography is principally flat. Because
ef theflexihility of placement of buildings, height:
"etc., decided to doa PUD plan. Buildings were pulled
l
~lar
/r.,~
Meeting
,
/estination
Resot't
Corporation
!
t
---"_.~.
,
^Aspen City Council
,-,
March 12, 1973
back more than is required from the perferia of the
property in order to mi:'.intain 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 ~pace. 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-
plainedthere 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 End Street go through.
Mr. Bartel explained that if it became necessary at a
later date due to additional development in this area
and additional 10' paving mat could be made on West
End Street. ConCern was raised by Council that dp.dica-
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 follow the Master Plan. The
density of this paIn 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 taking 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
m~st 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 basically 'agreeing with the Plan as submitted.
Mr. Cowan questioned Council as to how much further
development is going to be allowed to occur.
U.l.d.:L.. l'.i.C.~l,...L..ll<:'"
;J-
.~
~
'DeS'i::ina'tion
Resort
Corporation
Engineering
Evaluation
Study,
Transit
System
Aspen c~cy ~OU~CLL
~larcn lL, 1:;'/,)
..--
.~.
Attorney Albert Kern representing Destination Resort
Corporation made the following points: DrC is pre-
senting a subdivision that has been approved by the
Planning and Zoning Cot:unission 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 zonipg. The PUD plan has somewhat less
density than ano~~ed 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 An zone, open space require-
. ment was adopted, all 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 density
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
~.
t
~,
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
,-
Mr. Bartel stated he agreed. with this expenditure as
the next phase is an engineering phase, the trans-
portation plan does not state an exact engineering
criteria- trains, lifts, etc.
>
~,
.
t
~.
t
t
\'
Councilman Whitaker moved to approve the expenditure
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.
~
!.
I:
,
,
;
.
I
I
i
1
i
'-
~{;
,",,,"
"1
'"
-,.,..-"...--,,--- If ~.
_.......,~"'-.~..~. .-
1""\
,.,..,\
March 12, 1973
~~
I!~~A~
W{~.~~j.'~
'~:l;;pt ,
f;l
MEMORANDUM
To:
The Aspen City Council
.~'
FroIn:
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 ofthe Site: The subject site. was selected for purchase and develop-
ment as a condominium project because it has been zoned for that pUI'pose 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 congestion in the com-
mercial _rea. Sfhcll the site is generally flat; . it canbedevelopedWlth minimum
disruption of the natnralterrain and damage to thevegetationifthll, PUDpermit
'as recommended by the Aspen Planning Commifision is approved.
III. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval: After lengthy discussions with
the Planning Department of the City of Aspen, Destination Resorts elected to
process for a PUD approval, not for the pm.'pose 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 as allowed
under the existing zoning code.
A. 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
.
',' , ~
-_"-'T.~~"-"I"~
[' ,!q'
'.
.r.
.
. "
,
i
i
I
f
\_,,1
:.",
.
i .
i
,
,
i
!
I
f"
"'.
,.
[:
.'
. ':"0 r'..',
v
>
..',
.
> :o>,..""".......,,_.~.~ '.' .'
.
//
I
)
^
^
The Aspen City Council
~11
1:~il~\
,~ V.A~..J'
~,: "4v;- :"-:'~
. \\(~y
ill
March 12, 1973
2.
buildings. The existing ordinance even allows four-story construction
on the northwest protign 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 allows the buHdingsJol;l-e 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 aesthetically superior to flat-roofed construction with no
height variation.
B.
The location of the buildings on the site and their recommended heights
produce a view corridor from Glory Hole Park to Independence Pass as
proposed by the Aspen Planning Commission.
C. . The t'Ccommended 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
4~q, 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 addi.tion, 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
will serve as anatural 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.
,
. ~"----r-.,.-"'-'--'~'--~' .:.....r':..-~;.......-.,--~".,.-
,-
,1.,
",
'-
.
. ,..
,
,;,....,
I.
L
',.
,
I
,
r".l
,~. >
I
,
,
I
!' '
!
l
f.
r-
i.
f
I
,
.
,
L
,
~, ' '
t
I
I:
I
,
"
~ -..
t'
.".~~"'.
,<' .'
,'"
, .
,:_.~,,.,,., ._--"~'
~-
. ~
.,
. ,
.;
,,'j
I
\"
'1' \
/"'...
,-,
The Aspen City Council
. March 12, 1973
n
t!;:j~
""..A~."'\ ~':::.'0l'lI
\h (,:>~~ jj
~(~Jt~
iJ
3.
F.
The recommended plan includes considerable on site recreational
facilities, including ~."o 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 projecfa 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 eme.rgency 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,
Df'stination Resorts .will provide a pedestrian path along the north and
east boundaries 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.
,.
,
":
,
,-
f'
r',
;
,
,
;,.1
. -,
~ .
'J
"""'-<",.- '@'
i,
i"
%'
!
'r
~
_.__"..c_____'~.~....___,..,....-__.__'__,.
".-.......r...'......_~-"._~
,.
. ~' I
r.
.
. "
,
.i
,
f
,
t:
;:;,\~;.
'.
"
','t
~
,.-."
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;
'/
1""">-.
^
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
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 ColllIllission., 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-
. . >01>
struct~on c'osts.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen
Planning Commission, citing the above listed f~ndings as
its reasons, does hereby recommend that the Aspen City
eouncil 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;
~
t"
.""'\
DRC Outline Development Plan
page 4
3. The applicant shall make written committ-
.-. - 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 ~ittencommittment
to landscape all open areas (wi.th specific
emphasis at the project boundaries) according
<
to the approved landscaping shown on the Final
Development Plan, and that said committment
be guaranteed by a bond or contract with the 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 af 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;
. .
.'
I"'"
~
DRC Outline
page 5
Development Plan
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 faciUties owned in common;
9. The developer shall provide for parking on
the property during construction.
Dated this ilf.- day of fnal1f1A
, '1973.
&~~~6~L~~~-=
Chairman (:,.;'.;' 7/<-/ (7)
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
j
$
,.
.
~.
.
,
~.
t
,
,
,-
!
.t'.
~.
~
~:
~~:
,
K.
-
.~
'it
.
",;
r
,/"
"""
,,0;.
....,~./,.ii/ '
/,:/.'
:1"
''f.'
:. i:;' e.F.IlQECKEL 8. a.& L. Co.
"
,l' .
~.~
,
'? .
r
,
i
~
!
!\
1
1__
f
t-.::"
"
~.
-.<i:'
-J
f.
'I'
t
-t
,
:;:.
,
.
t
r
1
.
.
.,
.'
~
"t ..._
1
I
4
1
f
.
,
i-
o.
i
t
,
.
~- .
i-
f
!
~
r
"
~
l
f
I
",'.
Destination,
Resort
Corporation
Outline
Development
Plan
~
,-,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Adj. Meeting, P & Z, 3/8/73, continued.
There being no further comments, Bruce Gillis
closed the public hearing.
Discussed size of trail- 10' miniinum, 20' mad.'U1.llIl; .
revie'l'7ed by the P & Z of the improv~mentagree-
mant-Commission agreed they wished the opportunity
to do so.
Jordan moved to approve the final development plan
and directed the Planning office to change the re-
solution to include the request by the Commission
for the opportunity to review the agreement, prior'
. to acceptance by Council. Seconded by Goodhard.'
. . All in favor, motion carried. ..
Acting Chairman Bruce Gillis left the meeting.
Charles Collins took over as Acting Chairman.,
J
Mr. Bartel outlined the following action that
has taken place or being requested since first
rev~ew by the Commission: (1) list the buildings
specically that would be reduced in height for
view corridor and state the height of the lower
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, Avenu~ 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) committment 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;
(IO) 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 developme.nt
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.
...
';:;"""'!:ClI:ELlI.\I.oil,C.).
"jI:-
"'lJ:"r,..,
. J.'r
_i'
l':'
" '*".
....
......
.."";"
" ,
j
if
ti.
:,,~.
.:1
i
,
..
.
'f
-'i'
.
-
;
f
i
r
,
.
j
l
f
;-
,
,
.
.
,
- F
l
.
i
.
r
.
J
.
t
i
,
-t
.
!
I
t
f
I
,
t
";
--
I
t
I
,
,'-
--"--'
Ute Cemetery-
Stallard
House
Destination
Resort
Corporation
~,
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leav8s
Adj. Meeting, J,)&Z, 3/8/73, continued.
,:f!:~ .
Mr.'Finholm presented the following findsihgs afth,
Co=ittee: "(1) Because the Cemetery meets che stan-
dards and criteria as outlined in theei.t:)' Zonir'2:
Code for designation as en H-Ristorical Ove~lay
District; (2) because it has significant . iC"G:~t:ance
. historically, architecturally and geographically, .'
(3) because the existing use and developcentof
Ute Cemetery is in the best interest of the .c~tizens
of Aspen, the HPC recommends that public hearings
be held to consider Subdivision, now zoned P, Park."
"
Lewis moved to recommend approval of R-Historic
Overlay District for Stallard House and Ute
Cemetery to the City Council and City Council
schedule public hearing on same for April 9th and
the Planning Department prepare the resolutions
necessary to the City Council showing the findings
of the Commission. Seconded by Goodhard. All
in favor, motion carried.
7ra Lewis left the Commission table.
t, Final Plat consideration and resolutions on the
findings of the Commission relative to preliminary
subdivision plat and outline development plan.
Acting Chairman Gillis opened the .. public hearing
on the final supdivision plat.
Commission reviewed with Mr. Bartel the different
points of the proposed r.esolution approving the
preliminary subdivision plat. .
Goodhardmoved 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)&etaehed to the final /
plat an attachment showing the location of
ewellings, parking lots and lll8'jorfeatures of
~ 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 P~anning and Engineering offices which
will include-such technical requirements as escrow
of funds for curb, gutter, catch basin, drainage
facilities, fire hydrants and utilities, etc.
','lI.
<.'~"."._-~..-,.....,,>
?;.:.,'
.~
I"'-
MEMORANDUl-l
February 15, 1973
To; TIle Aspen Planning and Zoni~ 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 Avonue adjoining the northwest b01llldary 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; Both utility companies have verified that
they have capacity for the project and have indicated approval of the
plans submitted.
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 pr9ject 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
~"1"."'~
.f.
.
. .
,
-
.'"
,'-'
,-,.
Memorand1.lJJl to Aspen Planning 1\ Zoni,ng
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 discussions 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
ci ty, the developer will conuni t 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 conunit 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 primar{ly 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 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.
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
.r.
.
. .'
.
. .
"'I
.
~
""........
Memorandum to Aspen Planning & Zoning
February IS, 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.
1:he project plan alsq. was developed to minimize grading aJlddisturbancel
of the eJd:stiIl'g' V'e5vL",tioll. 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,Connnission.
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, monotonolls appearing
buildings. The existing ordinance even allows four-story constrllction
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 superio~ 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'-
DGBjblr
.r:
.
. .
.
,
J6'
,-~
/"'.
1"".
..
'OR"!~ C. F. MOECKEL D.B. It L Co.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
r Regular Meeting
,
,
;
,
i
f
i
I
!
I
I
i
I
I
!
!
J
!
. ;
;
;
.<
!
i
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
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 recommendinci 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 to~vn
owners. Have tried to keep the development 50' from the
adj acent 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 conments 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.
t,
,
..
I ~
I
I
;
'OIIM" C. F.tlOECI(El. 8. 8. It l. '=,.
1""\
,-..,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Regular Meeting
.
.
i
~ .
!
..;
I
,
.
I
.
j
\
I
I
i
i
!
j
I
I
I
i
i
1 Destination
Resort
Co.r-poration
I
-,
l
I
!
(J
Aspen Planning & Zoning
February 6, 1973
co.ncept before appearing before the Board of Adjustment.
Charles Vidal arrived.
Pro.perty located on Durant across from Rubey Park.
Architect explained parking o.n 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.
'Vidal moved to recommend to the Board of Adjustment the
applicant be allowed to live by the sarne parking regulations
as the C-C zone and all other requirements of the C-l zone
be met. Seconded by Jo.rdan. Allin favor with exception of
Co.llins 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 Commission table due to conflicts of interest.
Mr. Bartel explained this application is in two parts; (15
PUD plan on land zo.ned 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 unde.r consideration to include
condo.miniums under subdivision definition.
Mr. Behrhorst representing the corporation reported the land
is lo.cated on Ute Avenue and contains 5.3 acres. Land under
consideration is surrounded by AR-l property; principal
access will be from Ute Avenue;,12.l:'o.perty steps in grade from
Ute Avenue to. the back of the proper~y 2Q!;,some'vegetation
of trees.. on thea.creage ; 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 additiouallO' along
Ute Avenue to meet the 80' right of way requirement. West
End will be restricted following Phase land 2 develo'pment
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.
'.
;,...---:'
!""\
^
t
t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
rOll"!' c. ,...lllHCl(ElB. B.~ 1... (~
-
~egular Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
~':;.
January 16, 1970
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 Cityl
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.
i7harles Vidal exc~sed himself from the table, conflict of interest.
i Mr. "Skip" Behrhorst and Mr. William Bates representing D~"stin8;tj.QJ1...!~~S?.rt
i Com1;anJ:~ gave a presentation of propos'ed subdivision andPUD plan. Public
! tear~ng 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
i 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 l:,ive the monolitic affect; (6)
i'
, underground parking; (7) will keep.as much l'latural terrain as possible, min-
;Lmi,zecuts 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) reconnnend restriction of West End Street for el'nergency 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
~7ill 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
1 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
i Glory Hole Park and connect to the existing underground storm sewer at that
Jpoint. Present zoning is AR-l.
t
~
Mr. Vidal returned to the Connnission table.
Salvation Ditch State Planning Grant - Mr. Wooden explained the Salvation
Ditch Company had applied for a grant in order to enclose the water flo~ in
a concrete pipe, problems with drainage and flooding. Discussed whether the
grant application includes money for recreation Le.trail along the ditch.
Mr. vlooden 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.
".
("