HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.404 Park Ave.3-81
""'.
~
."
'1<otdecl sl -,
~O/J'lil
.. .~~
.,.-.,
'lIe..
No. 3~K\
CASE LOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
STAFF:..JllllVl RichWllif\
1. DATE SUBMITTED:
2. APPLICANT:
3. REPRESENTATIVE: GiOJM KALtt!\\a!l\ 13c>~ [bOOI ~I CO <6'1(012..-
,
4. PROJECT NAM~: ~\.tvnI5 S~di\JIS\OV\,
5. LOCATION:_Lot 3! ~unYl~Suh~iVjSHJh
,
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
~SUbdivision
Excepti on
Exemption
70:30
~ Residential Bonus
____Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
View Plane
Conditional Use
Other
rl\drJ.~i5rY 1'00
7. REFERRALS:
-i.-Attorney
~Engineering Dept.
LHousi ng
X Water
____City Electric
Sanitation District School District
X Fire Marshal ~Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks ____State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric ____Other.
Mountai n Bell
~~ Fr~l~ (~~S re,:Sm~\lf Q{CUlcth~ 1\t\v\)
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
,
~
f
!
[
!
i
,
,
I
,
f:
. ,-
. .
'-'.
9. DISPOSYON:
P & Z
Approved
/
Denied
. Date oJ\;}-t{ t{{1
S-eL ~~ ~
Counci 1 /
Approved ~
Denied
Date ~ \ '\ \ ~ I
~
<:..-u-
~~
!
!
!
I
I
,
I
I
!
i
I
!
I
I
!
i
I
10. ROUTING:
Attorney
/ Building
/Engineering ,/ Otherw"'~f.i...
>r
1""'\
CIT
-,
H':.:..
PEN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 11, 1981
TO: Alan Richman
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE: Werning Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization)
Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of Section 20-22.
PJT: mc
~
;
1""\ .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Werning Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization)
DATE: June 9, 1981
Lot Size:
Zoning: R/MF PUD
Location:
Background:
Engineering
Department's
Comments:
Planning Office
Review:
17,555 square feet (0.4 acres)
Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision (160 N. Park Circle at Park
Avenu(!) .
At a special meeting on February 24, 1981, you gave conceptual
approva 1 to the appl icant "s previous proposal to upgrade and
expand the Werning Apartments. The applicant intended, at
that time, to remodel eight of the existing thirteen units
and, by taking advantage of the Residential Bonus Overlay
provision, to build twelve new units, with ten of the twenty
total units being deed restricted as employee housing. One
condition of your approval was that "A very high concentra-
tion of low income units be provided among the proposed ten
deed restricted units".
Council, at their meeting on March 9,1981, took this idea
one step further by requiring that all ten units be deed.
restricted to low income guidelines due to the high density
being requested at th.is location. The applicant has deter-
mined that he is incapable of following through on these
conditions and instead is proposing to condominiumize the
existing thirteen unit apartment complex. The applicant
intends to make substantial improvements to the existing
buildings prior to the sale of any condominium unit.
The reviewing engineer, in a memorandum dated May 28, 1981,
indicates that the improvement survey submitted with the
application is not an adequate condominium plat. However,
the engineer recognizes that the applicant intends to make
substantial modifications to the property following condo-
miniumization and would prefer to have these improvements
completed prior to recording the plat. It would therefore
seem appropriate to require that the applicant prepare a
condominium plat suitable for recordation prior to the sale
of the first condominium unit. This procedure will insure
that the purchaser of the unit is protected by the subdivision
record while also giving the applicant the flexibility to
improve the premises prior to mark~ting the units.
As a proposa] to <;ondominiumiz~ an'~xisting residential. complex,
the applicant must demonstrate full compliance with Section
20-22 of the Code. The applicant has provided a letter to
the Planning Office, attached for your review, stating that
he will comply with 20-22(a) and (b) which require that
1. Existing tenants shall be given written notice when
their unit is offered for sale with a 90-day option
to purchase their unit at preliminary market value.
Tenants shall be provided a 90-day right of first
refusal to purchase their unit; and
2. All units shall be restricted to six month minimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per
year.
,.....
'-'.
MEMO: Werning Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization)
June 9, 1981
Page Two
Building
Inspector's
Comments:
Planning Office
Recommendation:
Furthermore, the applicant has addressed the question of
impact on the supply of low and moderate income housing
(Section 20-22(c)Lwith the following comments:
1. No tenants have been required to move involuntarily
within eighteen months preceeding this application;
2. The rental price of the condominium units will not be
sUbstantially increased after condominiumization;
3. A tenant who does not wish to purchase a unit will be
allowed 180 days to relocate; arid
4. Of the 13 units to be condominiumized, only one has
rented at a price which falls within the guidelines
for deed restricted housing during the previous eighteen
months. This unit (number 1) a four bedroom, 2303 square
foot unit, has historically rented within moderate
income guidelines. The other 12 units have exceeded
the middle income maximum of $0.63 per square foot
prior to November 1980 and $0.68 per square foot subse-
quent to November, 1980. The applicant has agreed
to deed restrict Unit 1 for five years and should be
required to limit it to moderate income housing guide-
lines and occupancy.
The letter, and accompanying table, attached for your review,
addresses each of these' concerns in detail,
The Building Inspector performed an inspection of the prem-
ises.. and will be prepared to report to you on the results
of that site visit. No condition is recommended to be
attached to the approval of the condominiumization based on
this inspection in keeping with the new administrative
procedure in this regard.
The Planning Office recommends that you approve the appli-
cant's request for subdivision exception for the purposes
of condominiumization, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant preparing a condominium map to meet
the specifications of the Engineering Department for
recordation prior to the sale of the first condominium
unit;
2. The applicant giving existing tenants written notice
when their unit is offered for sale with a 90-day
option to purchase their unit and a 90-day right of
first refusal;
3. The applicant restricting all units to six month
minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies
per year; and
4.. The app 1 i cantfoll owing the measures proposed to mi t i.-
gate the impact on the supply of low and moderate income
housing including, but not limited to deed restriction
of unit 1 to moderate income guidelines for a period
of less than five years.
~.
1""""'\,
*MEMORANDUM*
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office
FROM:
DATE:
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ~
May 28, 1981
RE:
Werning Condominiumization, Lot 3, Sunny Park
Having reviewed the above application for condominiumization,
and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has
the following comment:
The improvement survey submitted with the application is not
an adequate condominium plat. The applicant should be required
to submit to this office a condominium plat for review and
recordation prior to sale of any units.
-"
,-'.
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON L KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
May 4, 1981
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
Sunny Vann
Aspen/pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Condominiumization of Lot 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION/
John R. Werning
Dear Sunny,
This letter is submitted to the Planning Office in
conjunction with the application of condominiumization for
the above referenced property in order to demonstrate the
applicant's compliance with the requirements set forth in
~20-22 of the Aspen City Code. If condominiumization approval
is obtained, the applicant-owner of the property, John R.
Werning, will comply with the requirements set forth in sub-
sections (a) and (b) of ~20-22.
The condominiumization of the above referenced property
will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing.
There will be no tenant displacement as a result of the
conversion. No tenants have been required to move involuntarily
within eighteen (18) months preceding the date of this
application. The rental price of the condominium units will
not be substantially increased after condominiumization and
therefore persons who are able to afford renting these units
prior to the condominiumization will continue .to be able to
afford renting these units. In the event any of the units
are placed on the market after condominiumization, a tenant
who does not wish to exercise his or her option or right of
first refusal shall be allowed at least one hundred eighty
(180) days to relocate.
The condominiumization of this property will not result
in the loss of any low, mOderate-income housing as only one
(1) of the thirteen (13) units has been rented in excess of
the maximum rentals for the low, mOderate-income guidelines
-
~,
Sunny Vann
May 4, 1981
Page Two
and applicant will be willing to deed restrict such unit for
a five (5) year period in accordance with the requirements
of the Aspen City Code. The chart attached hereto and
incorporated herein demonstrates the rental history of the
property.
I believe the information provided to you in this
letter adequately demonstrates that this application complies
with all the requirements set forth in the Aspen City Code
to allow for condominiumization of the property. A property
survey has been submitted with this application and not a
complete condominium map because applicant plans to make
substantial renovations to the property and thus the condominium
map will not be prepared until these renovations are completed.
Should you need any additional information, please let
me know.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN
GK .kw
Enclosures
.
"""'.
-,
f-'
W
f-'
tv
f-'
f-'
f-'
o
""
co
...,
'"
Vi
....
w
tv
f-'
z
c::c::
s:z
ttlH
i:'j8
~
0
"J
Ul Ul Ul
rt" rt" rt" ttlZ
C C C i:'jC::
0. tv tv 0. tv tv f-' tv f-' W 0. f-' .... Os:
.... .... .... ~ttl
0 0 0 Oi:'j
0:;0
s:
00
"JOO
tv 010
- OC::
w CO Vi W CO Vi W CO .... CO tv Vi w liP"
CO w Vi '" W Vi CO Vi '" f-' .... ..., 0
..., Vi tv ..., Vi tv ..., 0 Vi "" .... tv w 0Gi
i:'j
0
<I> >-3C:: C!
f-' OH r
- 0 .,J
tv Vi W tv Vi W tv Vi tv Vi f-' W .... f-'i:'j --- Gi
.... tv .... W tv .... .... w "" f-' Vi '" Vi f-'I:"< ""
w '" ..., f-' '" ..., w Vi tv Vi W 0 0 '-H ~ Z
coz 8
CO 0 ..., tv 0 ..., CO Vi "" "" ..., w CO Oi:'j :J>
f-' Vi '" f-' Vi '" f-' 0 Vi ..., tv '" "" 00 I:"<
:II
H
00
f-' 8
0 0
<I> :::'Gi ~
w Vi .... W Vi .... W Vi W '" W W ""
Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi 0 0 ..., 0 \DZ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vi 0 1>-3
. f-':J>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:"<
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-00
CO
0
f-'
<I> f-'0
f-' '-c::
- COH c
tv Vi W tv Vi W tv Vi W Vi f-' w Vi 00 .
'" '" ..., .... '" ..., '" ..., f-' Vi '" CO '" li:'j '"
w ..., Vi "" ..., Vi W CO '" '" Vi CO '" ""I:"< -
Gi!21 '"
f-' CO W Vi CO w f-' 0 tv "" "" "" 0 /.0
'" 0 '" '" 0 '" '" 0 0 tv tv '" .... OOi:'j
i:'jOO
Z
>-3
f-'
0
'-
<I> g;~
f-'
- IZ
w Vi Vi W '" .... w '" w '" w .... f-' "">-3
..., ..., 0 Vi 0 Vi ..., 0 Vi ..., CO 0 0 Gi~
Vi Vi 0 0 0 0 Vi 0 0 Vi 0 0 0
0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i:'j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z
>-3
" .
-',
-,
APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION
FROM
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of JOHN R. WERNING,
(hereinafter referred to as "applicant") under ~20-l9(a) of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, subdivision regulations for
approval through the subdivision exception process of applicant's
plan for condominiumization with respect to real property
described as:
Lot 3,
SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION
An exception in this case would be appropriate.
The application involves subdivision of an existing
structure. Requiring strict compliance with subdivision
regulations for the subdivision of a lot. with a thirteen (13)
unit residential building on it creates conditions which
will deprive the applicant of reasonable use of land. If
this exception application is granted, owners of the property
will have a common interest in the land; and there will be a
condominium declaration applicable to the property which
will not in any way increase the land use impact of the
property. An exception in this case will not conflict with
the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations which
are directed to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated
development of the City of Aspen, to ensure the proper
distribution of population, to coordinate the need for
public services and to encourage well planned subdivisions.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations, as it is clearly
... o. ..
.-.,
r,
within the area intended for exception under ~20-19. The
building is already in existence, and there will be no
change in density, which is presently in line with the
desired population density for the property.
A follow-up letter addressing the ~20-22 implications
of this condominiumization application is being submitted with
this application.
The applicant would appreciate your consideration of
this application at your next regular meeting.
Dated: April 30, 1981
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN
By
G~ eon Ka an
Attorneys or Applicant
611 West ain Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8166
- 2 -
J>
(p~....,-..\. ~~O'1i'
-~\~\~ \
~~_...& <,~~ .\.- '.
~e.V\.
1. The applicant's provision of
.r-f low income housing~'alrtong the/"""('oposed ten deed
restricted units;
2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed
10,000 square feet of open space, said area .to be
shown as part of the subdivision plat;
3. Agreement by the applicant to provide a water systam
interconnect. between the King Street and Neal Avenue
lines;
4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road right-
of-way following consultation with the City and County
Engineering Departments;
5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage,
further consi derati on will be gi ven to the 1 andscapi ng,
massing and bulk and their relationship to the request
for Resi denti a 1 Bonus Overlay. The approval of the
RBO shall be based on the provision of ~-t(,..'"
~ low income units among the 10 deed restricted
units proposed for the site; and
6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate planned
road improvements in the area with construction of curb,
gutter and sidewalk, which shall be provided by the
applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle.
- - - -- - ---
~
r"""",.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Werning Subdivision Conceptual Review
DATE: March 2, 1981
APPROVED AS TO
Zoning:
R/MF PUD
17,555 square feet (0.4 acres)
Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue at Park Circle)
This application is for conceptual subdivision review for the
Werning Subdivision for the purposes of remodeling and
rebuilding the units at a higher density. The property
currently contains 13 free market residences and the appli-
cant is requesting approval for a total of 20 apartment
units on the site. However, the applicant proposes that
10 of the 20 units would be employee housing units and
thereby requests that the addi ti ona 1 density be permitted
through rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay rather than
through GMP. The hearing for RBO will occur at the prelimi-
nary plat stage before P & Z, although the actual rezoning
is a function of Council.
Lot Size:
Location:
Applicant's
Request:
Planning
Office
Revi ew:
In a memorandum to P & Z dated February 10, 1981, the Planning
Office expressed several concerns regarding this application.
These concerns i ncl uded on-site open space and. setback 1 imita-
tions, curb cut and drainage inadequacies, problems with
traffic congestion in the area, water service needs and the
high density of development proposed. At P & Z's meeting of
February 24, 1981 the applicant submitted a revised site
plan which addressed several of these concerns. Specifically,
the applicant's proposal now shows 20 parking spaces on-site
for the 20 units without the continuous curb cut prohibited
by the Code, provides adequate drainage facilities and
documents that no setback violation exists. The applicant
further demonstrated that 35 percent of the site is proposed
to remain as open space and that a lease is to be obtained
for an adjacent 10,000 square foot parcel :to be landscaped
and maintained by the owner for 30 years without development
potential. The applicant questioned the need for the
requested water system interconnect to improve service in
this marginal supply area due to the presence of an 8" line
along the p~rimeter of the property. Finally, the applicant
documented that while the unit density will increase from
32.5 units per acre to 50 units per acre, the actual bedroom
count will drop from 22~ (with studios counting as 3/4 of a
bedroom) to 18~ bedrooms.
The Planning Office remains concerned about the proposed
density and open space on the site, particularly in terms
of the mass of the buildings required to provide twenty
units on this site. In addition, since the applicant is
required to provide on-site parking, much of the site is
impervious surface, with open space visual relief confined
to the outskirts of the development rather than being part
of the development mix. P & Z, however, expressed overall
approval of the added density at the site, provided that a
very high percentage of the employee units be deed restricted
as low income employee housing.
Memo: Werning
Page Two
March 2, 1981
P & Z Action:
Council Acti on:
-,
.~
Subdivision Conceptual Review
At a special meeting on February 24, 1981. P & Z took the
following actions:
A. Exempted the Werning subdivision from mandatory PUD
procedures, as provided in Section 24-8.13 of the Code;
and
B. Approved the applicant's request for conceptual sub-
division review. subject to the following conditions:
1. The appliGant's provision of a very high concentra-
tion of low income housing among the proposed ten
deed restricted units;
2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed
10,000 square feet of open space, said area to be
shown as part of the subdivision plat;
3. The applicant agreeing to provide the necessary
water system improvements i.f the Planning Offi ce and
Water Department determine that improvements are
needed;
4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road
right-of-way following consultation with the City
and County Engineering Departments;
5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage,
further consideration will be given to the land-
scaping, massing and bulk and their relationship to
the request for Residential Bonus Overlay. The
approval of the RBO shall be based on the provision
of a high concentration of low income units among
the 10 deed restricted units proposed for the site;
and
6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate
planned road improvements in the area with con-
struction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, which shall
be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue and
Park Circle.
In response to these conditions, the Planning Office contacted
the Aspen Water Department to reconfirm the need for the
requested system improvements. Verbal comments from the
Water Department indicated that despite the existence of an
8" water line in the area, there is definitely a need for
improved facilities if additional development occurs in this
area. It was also stated that the cost of the requested inter-
connect should not cause an undue burden in additional cost
for the applicant,
If Council agrees with P & Z's recommendation. the appro-
priate motion is as follows:
"I move to approve the request for conceptual subdivision
approval by the Werning Subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant's provision of a very high concentration
of low income housing among the proposed ten deed
restricted units;
2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed
10,000 square feet of open space. said area to be
shown as part of the subdivision plat;
3. Agreement by the applicant to provide a water system
interconnect between the King Street and Neal Avenue
1 i nes ;
,-..,
.~
Memo: Werning Subdivision Conceptual Review
Page Three
March 2, 1981
4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road right-
of-way following consultation with the City and County
Engineering Departments;
5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage,
further consideration will be given to the landscaping,
massing and bulk and their relationship to the request
for Residential Bonus Overlay. The approval of the
RBO shall be based on the provision of a high concentra-
tion of low income units among the 10 deed restricted
units proposed for the site; and
6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate planned
road improvements in the area with construction of curb,
gutter and sidewalk, which shall be provided by the
applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle.
P & Z Action:
!"""'\
-
At a special meeting on February 24, 1981, P & Z took the
following actions:
A. Exempted the Werning subdivision from mandatory PUD
procedures, as provi ded inSect ion 24-8.13 of the Code;
and
B. Approved the applicant's request for conceptual sub-
division review, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant's provision of a very high concentra-
tion of low income housing among the proposed ten
deed restricted units;
2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed
10,000 square feet of open space, said area to be
shown as part of the subdivision plat;
3. The applicant agreeing to provide the necessary
water system improvements if the Planning Office
and Water Department determine that improvements
are needed;
4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road
right-of-way following consultation with the City
and County Engineering Departments;
5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat
stage, further consideration will be given to the
landscaping, massing and bulk and their relation-
ship to the request for Residential Bonus Overlay.
The approval of the RBO shall be based on the
provision of a high concentration of low income
units among the 10 deed restricted units proposed
for the site; and
6. The app 1 i cant agreei ng that he shaHcoQrdi nate
planned road improvements in the area with con-
struction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, which
shall be provided by the applicant along Park
Avenue and Park Circle.
,-.".
.-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office
RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision and Exemption from Mandatory P.U.D.
DATE: February 10, 1981
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. In terms of the requested exemption from Planned Unit Development,
it would seem that the application is deficient in terms of the intent
of P.U.D. Specifically, the proposed development results in a unit
count in excess of the underlying zone without retention of open
space. While the RMF zone does not have an open space requirement,
improved amenities and retention of open space through clustering
are goals of the P.U.D. avoided by this application.
2. As a conceptual application for subdivision;
a) Parking shown along Park .Avenue utilizes a continuous curb cut
in violation of section 19-101.
b) If the new parking shown off Park Circle is to be paved, on-site
drainage will be required to facilitate storm runoff.
c) The project should provide curb, gutter, and sidewalks along Park
and Park Circle.
r'\
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision Presentation
DATE: February 10, 1981
Zoning:
Lot Size:
Location:
Applicant's
Request:
Background:
Review Concerns:
R/MF PUD
17,555 square feet (0.4 acres)
Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue at Park Circle)-
This application is for conceptual subdivision approval and
mandatory PUD review for the Werning Subdivision. The applicant
is also requesting an exemption from GMP by providing a 50-50 mix
of employee and free market units through rezoning to Residential
Bonus Overlay. However, from an administrative standpoint, the process
would be better served if the request for rezoning were held by P & Z
at the preliminary plat stage, since a public hearing is required
atthat stage of the review process. The adva(ltage _ _____-
of Thlsprocedure is that It glves botn the P & Z an-d-Couhcn-
an opportunity to hear a presentation by the applicant and to
recommend appropriate modifications to the proposal before hearing
the issue of rezoning. The applicant has agreed to this procedural
change. The Planning Office does feel that an informal consider-
ation of the density issue at this time by P & Z would provide
valuable guidance for the. applicant- in later submJssions.
The applicant previously came before you at your meeting of'
September 2, 1980 for a preliminary discussion of his conceptual
subdivision proposal. Asa.result of several concerns raised
by the Planning Office, the Engineering Department and P & Z,
the applicant has slightly.modified the request, although the
overall concept is similar to that which you have previously
reviewed. The current application does meet the informational
requirements for both conceptual subdivision review and concep-
tual mandatory PUD review.
The current application has been reviewed by the City Engineering
Department, Water Department, Acting City Attorney, County
Engineer and the Planning Office. As a result of these reviews,
the following concerns have emerged:
1) The application does not provide for retention of open space,
as per the intent of the PUD ordinance.
2) The parking shown along Park Avenue utilizes a continuous
curb cut in violation of Section 19-101 of the Code; the
parking shown off Park Circle does not provide for on-site
drainage.
3) The road system in the vicinity of the project is poorly
maintained, has limited rights-of-way and is in need of
reconstruction. Future improvements of the road as well as
provision for curb, gutter and sidewalks along the perimeter
of the project will need to be coordinated.
4) The proposed subdivision is located in a marginal water service
area which will need to be improved for purposes of water supply
and fire protection.
5) The proposed site plan meets the front yard setback provisions
of the Code but does not meet side yard requirements.
6) The density of the proposed development, 20 units over a 0.4
acre site, amounts to fifty dwelling units per acre.
Each of these concerns is addressed individually below.
Memo: Werning Conceptua~,
February 10, 1981 .
Page Two
-,
Open Space - There is no open space requirement in the R/MF
zone district, so the provision in Section 24-8.3 of the PUD
procedures allowing variations from the Zoning Code open space
requirements does not apply to this request. . However, in Section
24-8.1 of the Code, preservation of open. space is defined as a
purpose of PUD and the applicant's site plan, in its present
configuration, does not meet this provision. The applicant
refers, in the application, to securing a lease of 10,000 square
feet of adjacent property to mitigate the removal of open space
from the current site. The extent to which the application meets
the requirements for a PUD is questionable in that this arrange-
ment does not meet the intent of the PUD ordinance to preserve
open space by clustering buildings and mixing in undeveloped areas,
instead providing only visual relief nearby. The Planning Office
recommends that additional open space be provided on the site as
part of the development mix.
Parking - The Engineering Department, in its memorandum of
February 10, 1981, raises several objections to the present
parking configuration on the site. The continuous curb cut
shown on Park Avenue violates the maximum width of curb cut
specification of Section 19-101 of the Code. The parking shown
off Park Circle, if it is to be paved, does not provide on-site
drainage for storm runoff. The Planning Office recommends that
the conceptual submission be revised by the applicant to cor-
rect these identified problems. P & Z should also recognize
that the applicant is requesting a one space variation from
the parking requirement-for the site as part of the rezoning to
RBO. The County Engineer, to whom this application was referred
due to his role in planning road improvements in the Smuggler
area, is quite concerned about the lack of off-street parking
in this area and the relationship this has to future road
improvement plans.
Roads -The County Engineer, in a memorandum of January 27, 1981,
indicates that the Smuggler area road system needs reconstruction.
He also states that the site plan, as shown, involves encroach-
ments into the public right-of-way, which is already quite limited
in this area, as well as an unworkable snow removal system. Since
the City Engineer is recommending that curb, gutter and side-
walks be provided along the perimeter of the site, the Planning
Office recommends that the applicant be requested to agree to
coordinate the site improvements with those planned for the
neighboring roads, thus also eliminating the encf'oachments shown
into the Park Avenue right.of-way.
Water Service - The Aspen Water Department, in a memorandum dated
January 31, 1981, recommends that the applicant provide an
interconnect between the 6" King Street and 6" Neal Avenue lines
to improve water supply and fire protection pressures and flows
in the area.
Setba.cks - According to Section 24-3.7 of the Code, the front
yard setback on a corner lot may be reduced by 1/3 of one of
the frontsides of a corner lot. Therefore, the applicant's
setback of 10 feet from Park Avenue and 7 feet from Park Circle
is in accord with Code provisions. However, the setback on the
south side of the property, toward Midland Park, is only 3l:! feet
from Unit 5A and Band 4 feet from Units 6A and B, which does
not meet the requirement of a 5 foot side.yard setback. The
Planning Office recommends that the applicant adjust the concep-
tual site plan accordingly or seek a variance from the area and
bulk requirements of the zone through the PUD process.
Density - At the present time, 13 units are located on the 0.4
acre site. The applicant could, without requesting additional
density allowances, renovate' these units and retain them as free
market residences. Instead, the applicant is proposing to add
Memo: Werning Conceptua~,
February 10, 1981
Page Three
^
seven new units, while demolishing and rebuilding five others, for
a total of 12 new units plus eight renovated units. The total
of 20 units is well below the maximum density of 35 units, which
could be permitted on the site if rezoning to Residential Bonus
Overlay wereeventually approved. However, this amounts to an .K
overall density of 50 units per acre, an increase of over 50
percent above the current density of 32.5 units per acre.
Among the 20 requested units, ten are to be restricted to
employee housing guidelines (category not yet designated), while
ten will remain as free market units. The issue before P & Z at
the present time is not whether to approve a rezoning, but rather,
whether the 20 units on the 0.4 acre site is an acceptable
density at the conceptual stage. Section 24-8.13 of the Code
establishes review criteria in mandatory PUD districts for
reducing (but not increasing) the allowable number of dwell ing
units on a site. These criteria include the adequacy of water
pressure, the capacity of roads for fire protection, snow removal
and maintenance, site suitability and drainage, each of which
has been addressed above as limitations of this proposed subdi-
vision.
Section 24-10.9 provides criteria for evaluating RBO requests,
including compatibility with surrounding neighborhood design,
bulk and density, compliance with PUD, degree to which the pro-
posal discourages automobile use and provides unique measures
for on or off-site storage of cars,and minimization of environ-
mental and social impacts. The Planning Office feels that the
site plan presents an unacceptable density in terms of reduced
open space, increased impervious surface necessitated by removal
of on-street parking in this already congested location, and
minimal or substandard setbacks from front and side yards. The
Planning Office further believes that the gain in proposed
employee housing units does not offset the severe impacts which
would be generated by this project on the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Office recommends that any further consideration of
this application by P & Z be predicated on a reduction in the
proposed density at this site.
Summarizing these concerns, the open space and setback concerns
appear to be best addressed through variances from PUD provisions,
the parking design, roads and water service concerns through
revisions to later subdivision submissions, and the variance from
parking requirements and density concerns through rezoning to
Residential Bonu? Overlay. Based on these conclusions, the
Planning Office recommends that the applicant not be exempted
from either full subdivi si on or mandatory PUD procedures.
Instead, the Planning Office recommends that the applicant's
request for conceptual subdivision and PUD be approved, subject
to meeting the following conditions prior to conceptual review
by City Council:
1) Revision of the site plan to provide additional open space
on-site, as part of the development mix;
2) Revision of-the site plan to eliminate the curb cut violation
and provide for on-site drainage facilities;
3) Agreement by the appl i cant to coordinate planned road impr:ove-
ments in the area with~ construction of eUi'h, gutter and sldewalk as
recommended to be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue
and Park Circle;
4) Agreement by the applicant to provide a water system inter-
connect between the King Street and Neal Avenue lines;
5) Revision of the site plan to meet the minimum five foot side
yard setback of the R/MF zone district or submission of a request
for a variance from area and bulk requirements through the PUD
process; and
6) Reduction of the proposed project density prior to request for
rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay.
,.-,
-,
TO:
Alan Richman
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Werning REO Application
The Housing Office supports the concept of the Werning application.
It renovates an older structure in the community while at the same
time proposes build-out in an area of existing multi-family
structures.
The community can only gain by the proposed concept.
now exists 13 free market units, this total would be
and at the same time adding 10 deed restricted units
pool.
Where there
reduced to 10
to the secondary
I have met with the applicant and have had the pre-application conference
on the REO. Although the RBO ordinance states a preference for under
or undeveloped sites, I believe its application on this particular site
is appropriate.
The arguments have been presented time and again that development
should take place within the existing corporate limits, as opposed to
annexations such as the Marolt property. There seems to be a catch 22
involved if our code then disallows additional employee development in
already built up neighborhoods.
My recommendations for deed restrictions will be made further into
the process after more information is available.
JR:ds
~
MEMORANDUM
r"\
TO:
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ~
FROM:
DATE:
February 3, 1981
RE:
Werning Rezoning to ResidentiaL Bonus Overlay
Having reviewed the above application for residential bonus
overlay and made a site inspection, the Engineering Depart-
ment has the following comments:
1. Transportation - while the property is located on a
bus route it is also located in a densely populated
area which is already suffering from poor traffic
circulation and deteriotated roads. The site plan
maintains an improper parking configuration in Park
Avenue is violation of Section 19-101 since we would
require curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Park and
Park Circle. Additionally, the plan is one parking
space short of the code requirement.
2. The site is located adjacent to utilities which are
probably adequate, subject to specific comment by
the individual utilities.
3. It should be noted that the application is for a site
in an already dense zone adjacent to many built-out
sites.
DA'fE:
TO:
FROM:
RE;
r..
-,
MEMORANDUM
February 3, 1981
A.lan Richman
Bob Edmondson
Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application
Speaks to the ordinance.
RBE:mc
'0
,-.
,-"
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ALAN RICHMAN-PLANNING
JIM MARKALUNAS
WERNING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
LOT 3 SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION
JANUARY 31, 1981
DATE:
The proposed application of twenty units located directly across the road from
Tract 4 Sunny Park is in a marginal service area. As per my recommendation
regarding Tract 4 Sunny Park Application (reference my letter of December 12, 1980
which is attached), it is my recommendation that the Werning application, along
with the Tract 4 application, be required to interconnect the 6" King Street
line with the 6" Mill Street line in order to improve pressures and flows.
Perhaps both these developers can get together and do this work jointly. As
stated in the December 12th letter, if the proposed interconnect is made, I
foresee no problems for water service at thsi location.
,-.,
-,
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 81611
!1I!1.Q..B.~B.QQM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Patrick Dobie, County Engineer
January 27, 1981
00'
\ i ~
\
RE: Werning Subdivision
The information provided is inadequate to assess the impacts of
this proposed development. What is needed is a survey of the lot
and vicinity map, a topo of existing grade conditions, a drainage
plan, and a clear distinction between what is existing and what
is proposed.
What is shown on this site plan is several encroachments into
the public right-of-way and an apparent unworkable snow removal
system.
Since the Smuggler area road system is in dire need of reconstruction,
coordination with future improvements should be coordinated.
^
--..
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Ci ty Engineer
Pat Dobie, County Engineer
Jim Reents, Housing"Director
Aspen Water Department
Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application
DATE: January 13, 1980
The attached application requests approval for the rezoning of the Werning
property (17,555 square feet located in the Sunnypark Subdivision) to
Residential Bonus Overlay in order for the applicant to remodel and/or con-
struct a total of 20 units. This item is scheduled to come before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17.; 1981; therefore, may
r please have any comments concerning the proposal no later than February 3,
1981? Thank you.
-,
-,
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
January 5, 1981
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8 1 66
sunny Vann
Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Werning Application, Lot 3, Sunnypark Subdivision
Dear Sunny,
Please consider this letter An Application for
Designation of a Site or Area Within Housing Overlay Designation
pursuant to ~24-l0.7. Mr. Werning's application provides
for present and future housing needs of the community by
developing bona fide low-moderate, middle income housing,
free from speculative investment influences, for primary
residential use by local residents.
This application involves Lot 3, SUNNYPARK SUBDIVISION,
which contains 17,555 feet and is situate in the RMF zone.
This lot meets the minimum lot area requirements for the RMP
zone. This project involves "pure" residential, qualifying
it for residential bonus overlay. Since it is situate in an
RMF zone, multifamily is a permitted use. The applicant is
willing to deed restrict one-half (1/2) of the total dwelling
units on site within the terms of ~24-ll.4(b) (3). Since
one-half (1/2) or more of the dwelling units constructed on
the site will be deed restricted, the applicant qualifies
for the minimum lot area per dwelling requirements set forth
in ~24-10.5(b) (5). Minimum lot widths, front yard, side yard
and rear yard setbacks have all been complied with as well
as maximum height requirements for the underlying district.
There presently exist on the site thirteen (13)
units. All these existing units are free market units
without any employee restrictions. The applicant intends to
remodel eight (8) of the existing units and to build twelve
(12) new units. Under allowable density, this site would
support seventeen (17) units. By taking advantage of the
full bonus density, applicant could construct thirty-five
.-,
-,
Sunny Vann
January 5, 1981
Page Two
(35) units. The applicant, sensitive to the site and the
neighborhood, seeks only twenty (20) units, ten (10) free
market and ten (10) employee, only three (3) units more
than the allowable density and only seven (7) units more
than presently exist.
Of the twenty (20) units, thirteen (13) will be one-
bedrooms and seven (7) will be studios. The site plan.
prepared by Welton Anderson, which you have in your office,
denotes the location of the structures on the lot, the
density, parking, landscaping, open space areas and trash area
in compliance with the requirements of ~24-8.7(d). The site
plan also indicates general landscaping, elevations, exterior
design, bulk of the development and its relationship to
terrain features on site as per the requirements of ~24-
8.7 (e).
Nineteen (19) parking spaces are shown on the site
plan. Twenty (20) spaces are required, one (1) per bedroom.
The applicant will seek a variance to reduce the required
parking spaces by one (1) as is allowed and provided
under the overlay ordinance and PUD ordinances.
The Planning Office has expressed its concern about
open space which I think should be addressed in this application.
The underlying zone district of the property in this application
is RMF. There is no open space requirement for the RMF
zone according to the Code. Therefore, taken by itself,
there would be no requirement for open space in this application.
The bonus ordinance does however tie in to the PUD ordinance
and there is mention in the PUD ordinance about maintaining
and preserving open space as development occurs. It
is important to note, however, that in the very next section
of the PUD amendment, it talks about variation from zoning
code requirements and it specifically states that open space
may be varied under the PUD process. There are areas where
variances are not permitted, but open space is not one of
them.
The intention of the PUD open space amendment is
to comply with the open space requirements of the underlying
zone. Since there is no underlying open space requirement
in the RMF zone and since the PUD process does allow variances
in open space requirements in zones where there are open
space requirements, it seems one can comply with the
requirements of bonus overlay district and PUD provisions
of the Code without providing great areas of open space. It
is important to note also that the applican~being sensitive
to the question of open space, is on the verge of securing a
/""";.
-,
Sunny Vann
January 5, 1981
Page Three
long term lease from the Midland Park Owners' Association for
10,000 square feet of open space adjacent to his property
although he is not required to do so. He will be landscaping
and maintaining this land as open space and this will therefore
provide a large amount of open space contiguous to his
project.
I think if we look at the review criteria this
project clearly meets the requi~ts of the ordinance
for bonus density. The applicant clearly has the right to
renovate the thirteen (13) units and to sell them on the
free market. The applicant has instead chosen to come in to
seek seven (7) additional units which would result in ten
(10) employee units and ten (10) free market units. The
applicant, by his own volition, is reducing the number the
free market units that he could have. Examining the review
criteria, the project is located in an area already built
out, not a single family neighborhood, but in an area where
multifamily dwellings already exist. It has proximity to
transportation since there is a bus stop at the corner.
Adequate utility service is available there since the project
is already partially constructed. The applicant is not
maximizing his build out and applying for thirty-five (35)
units but rather, applying for twenty (20) units, three (3)
over the permitted number of units he could build without
the overlay density bonus and only seven (7) units more than
presently exist on the property.
The construction quality and unit size will meet the
requirements of the ordinance. The geographic requirement
is complied with for it sits in an area of other multifamily
dwelling units most of which are free market units. The project
meets the adopted housing plan guidelines and the overall
intention of the PUD.
I look forward to this application being placed on
the next P&Z agenda. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
~~
Gideon Kaufman
GK kw
cc: John Werning
-
.
..
.,....."
.
}'l
.p '}
,: .'"
" L~
t'), . .'
r."" 1'"....'
l-;f^)<-...:,~" ~.
.,....", (
-,.
, 'r
\-ll€..
,
CITYOJF ASPEN
130 south galena hreet
aspen, colorado 81611
"
.
Mr. Jeff Costley
.Archdeacon Ltd
Box 884
'Aspen, CO 81q12
December 12, 1980
Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park
.'
Dear Jeff:
As per our discussion on 12-12~80, it i- my understanding that you wish to
construct a 14-unit project consisting of 7 PMH and 7 free-market unit~ and
that said project will be located adjacent to an 8" maim in Gibson Avenue or
a 6" main in Park Circle. Therefore, w1'lter would be available from either
of the aforementioned lines.
However, since this project is located very near a margin1'll service are1'l, and
since the project will, no doubt, have an adverse effect on the existing
f1'lcilities, it is my recommend1'ltion that the Planning Office encour1'lge you,
as a condition of 1'lpproval, to connect the 6" line on King Street to the 6" line
on Neal Street. This is a rather short section of line1'lnd would increase the
reliability of service to the project, .as well as increase flows during peak
periods of consumption.
If the proposed interconnect is m1'lde, I see no problems for the Water Department
.regarding this project and would cert1'linly recommend its approval.
M'~'<w~.
'~arkalunas
Directot
Aspen Water Dep~rtment
cc: Planning Office '
,...,.
,...,
c. welton anderson & associates
architects / planners 76
box 9946/ aspen ,colorado 81611 /(303) 925-45
,
t De ~ ec:;:.
(2L'. \V~IAl6f ApAI2-7'f..fEAPT'S - OENSny BONUS, OUEfZUJ<-/
'D~ SUt1..,y)
"'l'H-t!- 'Zo Au6;us-r /q 130 NB-Jo pee THE A&Ve:
APPl-ICAA/T
F=t>UoW/A/tI,
I"> P->A'SI,cAUY UAI.c.J.lAArt!fEa e;'U~EFJr r61Z ~
L "TE-_ S
I). ;.If) LA-MO c/>v'-O 1i3E A~lJII28;::1 r~M ,MID~ P4~s
CDNQo 4SS4e"""4.c./,1 7~AiJ.E.'
1). I" ,e..,r~ -r#,tM/ ;!(t.- t::.;M!<; CA~?3E P4dvIOEP en/
"SIre.. I CbA/;Se:~To/:
.,) '/tJ7.4t.. 8~ 4VAJ7 I+*'s BrEH ,L!EPu4!F:o TO ~ 0
/Z';'~/~Mtf A- tee.twEsr R'~ A- "A~A/ if ~p~,.(,/
d,.c ~ ~/9~-AI?""'.ew~~ ,/z .
4), ro-r/lt.. (.1/./17 'S,E HAs P>EEv ~p~ / A-A/O $~
puw /ZEVISI5'P ,lZE1{/'-1'iA/~ N'( Ho/2E I!JPE# S~A'~
,4.l..4.U~ ,?4u:.. A-IIEMJE-~
fZ.EkSe -5~~ ~/A/~5 ~,tL .4p.PmtlA/A<. .oA-~ / A~o
fZ!:vlji!'O .A-PI'ut:.47lN./ F412:. Ex .c.ep?/~A./ ,=te-o"1 ,FUt.L
?()&:>>ws/w j7i1!.g~0v12e~,
77f1l-A/iC )It17-\. J=iP'C ANY m;2.p
Wdh-
f"""...
^
c. welton anderson & associates
architects I planners
box 9946/ aspen, colorado 81611/ (303) 925- 4576
~
~
~GlllITY !Y1AP
OCALE: I" =4<:0'
~ !9'\%. t:UEavI~
~
.. .. )\
. -_"M.~
r;;;;:j. .,~~\t
~~ ~'~.
f ~f;;5 ~.
I 'VI r,\." 'C:. . . ___~_. ,-.
: ~/'V"'" "_ . ~.,:." .'...
l ~ '-'Lt: :::)'='~~
. r;;::s ~l. l. 1-,
. II', '- "7
~ l'-!YivyV" A,~;j~u.ir----.. 't~el
f.::2j~ ~'\'~jj1-----::J(,{~~ "j' ~:(
~':::::::::--J ~ J;;;;;:JI 'r. r-------____..: , I
r;;::s :;1, Q '/~! ~\ .~.
I' ;" ~ -<'" \ ;?
Co:)~.;:~~ , I ( ) 11.) -1 \ \:1_
~ ~ ~~ 5C:::SIiL,t;;;;;;;]. ~T-------~\', ~~1f,
~ ~,: '""-' .'>i:::::::::~__lil\ II-r--,
~ -~.>-- :5 ~--~S;I .. --:;;~L'LLU1~
I
I
J
,
:!
!i
PF:DP. "
I:
,I
"
Ii
II
,
~.
,.-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Werning Apartments, Preliminary Discussion
DATE: August 26, 1980
The applicants are proposing to redevelop the Werning Apartments, which are
located at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle, under the City's
new Residential Bonus ordinance. Ordinance #16-80 provides for an increase
in density if 50% or more of the dwelling units are deed restricted within
the City's low" moderate or middle income housing guidel ines. The Werning
Apartments currently consist of 13 units, 8 of which would be retained under
the proposed redevelopment. An additional 12 units would be constructed on
the 0.4 acre lot for a total density of 20 units, or approximately 50 units
per acre. As a result of several concerns raised by the Engineering Depart-
ment and the Planning .Office with regard to the proposed redevelopment, the'
applicants have requested this preliminary discussion prior to proceeding.
The application would be processed as a full subdivision, and the applicants
wish to discuss some of the more salient features prior to proceeding to
Conceptual Subdivision. The Planning Office will provide preliminary site
plans at your September 2, 1980 meeting, and is prepared to discuss the pro-
posed project in greater detail.
"
.
-,
-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hanunond, Engineering Office ~
DATE: August 25, 1980
RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision and Exemption from Planned
Unit Development
Having reviewed the above application and made a site
inspection, the Engineering Department has the following conunents:
- .
1. In terms of the requested exemption from Planned Unit Develop-
ment, it is clear that the application is deficient in terms
of the requirements of P.U.D. Specifically, the proposed
development results in maximum units without significant
retension of open space. The RMF Zone does not have an open
space requirement, however, encouraging open space through
architectural clustering is one of the intents of the P.U.D.
Zone and this proposal avoids such qualities.
2. As a conceptual application for subdivision, the Engineering
Department has several specific problems with the application
as presented:
A) Parking shown along Park Avenue utilizes a continuous
curb cut in violation of Municipal Code Section 19-10l.
Although the parking is currently existing, an app-
lication for development of this magnitude provides
an excellent opportunity to correct code deficiencies.
B) If the new parking shown off of Park Circle is to be
paved, on-site drainage will be required to facilitate
storm runoff.
C) The conceptual sketch as submitted includes no 400
scale location map and no disclosure of ownership.
D) The project should provide curb, gutter, and sidewalks
along Park Avenue and Park Circle.
,.
-"
,......"
The Engineering Department recommends conceptual approval
of the Werning Subdivision providing the concerns under Item 2
above are addressed at the preliminary plat stage.
-,
~
t.1[WJRJl.NDU~1
TO:
Dan McArthur, City Engi rI{.~ ~eJ
Ron Stock, City Mtorney II
FROM:
Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE:
Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application
DATE:
cluly 30, 1980
The attached application.is a conceptual proposal to be located at Park Avenue
and Park Circle. As directed by the Municipal Code, the application must be
processed by the Planning Off'ice in 14 days; therefore it has been scheduled
to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on August "::'9, 1980.
i'lay I please have your written comments concerning this application'no later
than August 8, 19807 Thanks beaucoup.
:'W
"-Z
"/1A;
t-(~
~~';1::i;:;::"~
"
-I
o
-I
:>>
....
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
C>
'"
....
....
....
~
~
'"
'"
~
I
~
'"
~
"'"
..~
X
....c
0'"
'" ...
roll)
...
..,
..... r-
""0
..'"
~'"
;;r
o
c
..
..
C>
o
C>
Ig;
'"
'"
..,
3
X
n
o
c
'"
~.
'"
'"
3
."
G>
.
c,.~
o
...
;;r
..
...
"'T1 ." .,,("')
c...J N.........
....
'<
"
..."''''
C> '" '"
\0 U'l -'
~
...
'"
""
,
:;::
."
:2
~
'"
'"
In
."
....
'"
C>
C>
3
."
?t
.
'"
,
CT
..
""
2 Q5 ~,~
~"
~
'"
;0 ;0
o .
~ '"
'"
2
4!
2
Q
'"
'"
In
."
....
"'"
...
C>
e:
..,
.
'"
C>
'"
...
...
In
."
....
'"
"'"
g
..,
r-.
rn rn rn
N ~.
tTI 'fT'1 rrl l'T1 tTt l'T1 fTl
\O(X)""-JO'lCJ'1+:-W
~~e'e22~l'T15"~
3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ -' 0 ~ ~
g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
=tt:("')to:P'"'5~
... .., 0-
;;r
I>> ..,
.. I>>
ro ...
7<'
."
.
~
W
'"
'"
~
~
'"
"
-
<:
on
.
n
o
c
'"
~,
In In
3 -
C ~
'" <
<0 ..
~ ...
.. ^
... ~.
'"
3<0
X
..,
I>>
...
7<'
'"
'" '" C>
o C> "'"
~
'"
Ul 0 o.
~ '"
"'" '" C>
'" C> ...
(:) (:) 0 0 0 0 0 g: \.Ol~I~I~
'"
....
0> 0>
I>> I>>
" "
.
Q)(.ta~~~ClO""
W W CJ"t
ClOJWOJ. co..;::..
n 0 (') CJl ..
. . s>>. 0 l.O
n 01 \0 <.n
o Ul N
.
""
.
~
'"
n
o
c
::>
Gr
:>>
"T1
.
~
'"
""
on
"T1
;0
,.
~
'"
....
'"
o
'"
o
n
o
c
'"
Gr
C> '"
C>
3
."
n
o
c
::>
Gr
;0 ;0
. ,
~ ~
'" '"
..,
e:
o
n
o
c
'"
~
..,
e:
o
n
o
c
'"
~
~
"'"
In
"T1
w W
In ~
"T1 e:
r-
....
'"
"'"
o
<xl
....
>- ::t> ::0 ;:0
::;0 ;:0 I I
I 4 -"-'
N N c.n c.n
:>>
~ 2
~
~
~
o
'"
e:
....
....
~
0>
'"
~
....
n
o
c
.'"
tt
tTl -"
'" ~
In
."
2
~
In
~
...
"'"
3
"T1
I~ 0 0
~
C>
N
.1>>
"
2
~
In
..,
:>>
....
3
X
..,
_w
~ C>
'" "'"
In 3
.;:!."T1
3
<5.
:c,
~.
~
~
~.
I>>
to 1;0,3
N ~..
~ wl~
'"
~ ~
. .
"'" '"
'" '"
<.0 '"
".
;0
I
'"
n
o
c'
'"
~
;0 :<>-
o ,
~ ~
'" '"
n
-
~
n
o
c
'"
~
'" ...
U'1 (,I),
~~
'"
:0
e:
-0
.~
~
"f'
C>
^
"T1
~
I>>
> )> )>("t
W N ~ CIt
'"
...
'"
C>
....
...
"
'"
"'" " '"
"'" '" '"
. . .
...., 0 c.n
'" '" "
o '" ~
7' 7'
'" ~
'"
n
-
~
n
~.
~
"
In
."
....
~
"'"
o
e:
..,
_IN
Ol ~ ,1.0 10'\
'"
,
'"
C>
n
~.
~
'"
In
~
~
C>
o
e:
..,
~
'"
In
"T1
....
'"
'"
o
e:
-0
~
'"
Ie: 2
"''''
-...
...~
..'"
<0
l.
'"
'"
".
0-
0-
c..... -"
::::SC"+\O
..........~
...0 '"
"''''
I>>
~
w
'"
Ie: -I
"'0
--I
('10,)::>
'" ....
ITl
X
c: ...;......,
"'''''''
.....r+co
rt --.0
..'"
<0
~
...
-
'"
~ ~o
\0 -i, \o-s
coo.......,n>
C> "'I>>
..
..
~...:>>
. ...
..
..,1>>
...
Nn
oc
"'...
~....
",ro
'"
...
~N. n3- ci'
OC('1oth
:::J-S'VtClt
-~ ......
::::Sr'l>c:::r:r
"''''-
...0.'"
"'.
...
o In.
~...,!,
II.:':'
Ie v/
0-
C'"
"0 <0
~-
..'"
x
~
a
-
~
'<
33
X"T1
. .
i!f~
CT~
~....
-".;.a.
'"
"T1
XI>>
03
a ~.
"'~
'<
cO'
....'"
....
.
.
c:
"'0
~'"
-..
3
~'<xl
...'"
(O.,c.
0....
o
","0
a
'"
"'....
0.-
...a
o ~.
0...
a",
'" 0.
In
3
c::
G>
'"
....
ITl
;0
".
;0
ITl
:>>
'"
c::
-
r-
o
,
C>
e:
-I
-I :" f'11r-:m. m t"T'\ rrr ',":,', m mm C n ,""'" '!"
p \0 "" J 0')' tn .;:. W N. --' ~ .
0
-I 0 if .:2 "" 2 '" e 1ft '" )> 0 1ft 1ft 0
)> oo~ <+ c c _. :> <+ 3 ~ ~. ,...
r x :or 3 '" 0" :or :or :or -' :> :or c -' -,'
rc '" '" '" ~ :> " :> < 0 '" '" '" < -' "Tl
0:> .., :> ::s '" ro '" '" ..., " .., '" ro ~ ...
:> <+ ;' -' -S '" '"
rom ." ." ."n "" n '" )> :;:: n '" ,... '" "'3 )> )> )><+
.,,' W N -' ~ ... ." _. 0 -S -. N -' V> W N -' '"
~ :or '" c :>
-.r 0> :> :;:: '"
:>0 '" ." ~ X
'" :> '" '"
'" .., ."
:or - ,... '"
0 < ..,
c ,...
V>
'"
N -' ....
... .... '"
..... ..... ....
,.a::. W.l.O
\0 '" -'
N .... N .... -' '" '" ... ... CO '" -' w ... CO -' -'
'" .co w .... '" 0 C> ... '" 0 ... CO '" CO 0 N '" ...
0 ... '" ..... ... ..... '" N ..... '" -' '" .....
-' ..... -' ..... -' ..... -' '"
. '" '" w ... ... -' '"
w ... ... '" '" .'" '"
'" 0 <0 ...
'"
'"
,
..
-~. ." .., ." ." ~ ." '" '"
:;:: :;:: :;:: :;:: :;:: I I
:J: :J: X X X :J: -' -'
.'-r-J '" '"
)> )>
n n
_. _.
~ ~
CO '" .... N '" W
0 C> !il 0 '" '"
:;:: I 0 1ft 1ft
"Tl (.oJ :;; :;:: ~ ~
~. -n
N ...
"Tl N ...
0 0
:;:: :;::
-n -n
... - _.;....~
C
:> ."
0..,,0
Nctl 0"0
O-SC"+C
::I (1)--'
....n:3O>
::Ie"""
"1...........
-Sl:U'O
*ro -'::S
:>
<+
.'
w
'"
w
...
... '"
...:." Ul
...
o
'"
'"
...
...
o
.
-'
... N <7' ... '" ...
w ... ... '" ... <0 '"
... '" I '" 0 N '"
W '" ..... .....
I ... '" w
... <0 ....
'" ... '"
'"
CO
j
~."
roo:;:
N"''''
Otn,X
::1-....
,-...0" 3
::s. -.t'e
"'3
;c
C'D::I"'O
"'.....0
<+'"
NVlcn
o ~
:>CO"
....:::1-'
=,.0- (1)
'"
..,
n
c
..,
'-S -
N("t(1) ::s
00::10
:> <+ -s
....2 CD
::tmNl:1J
~'Ol/J
:>ro
~
:>
'"
..,
o
.:;<:I:rl"'O
C'DCDO-
:E;.:;::I"'O::S
<+cO
N..........-S
o ~'C> C'D
::s -'("tal
..... .....VI
::lcom
:>:>0.
0.
"'"
..,
Clft
C -no
""
.
.~,
C""",..
c::il'
..,'"
......
"''''
"
~
a
~
...
'<
:;:::;::
:J:-n
. .
:;::""
oc
0"'"
-.<+
-'~
'"
-n
:J:'"
03
3....
ro'"
'<:
V>
CO :;::
r'" c:
r '"
. CO>
. r
c: '"
:>0 '"
...:> )>
~.ro
3 '"
-.'" '"
<+ro )>
'" 0. .'"
0...,
0 c:
,,"0 -
a r
'" c
"'r I
o.~ 0
..,a c:
o~. -I
0<+
3'"
'" 0.
..
n
o
:>
<
'"
..,
'"
-.
o
:>
...,
'"
o
<+
o
-s
'"
c:
'"
'"
0.
"'w
. .
....'"
..,'"
"''''
..,..,
"''''
00
::s::s
"''''
"'..,
"''''
..,..,
3'"
c ~
...:>
<+'"
......;..11
''''
...,
.....,
SAt
~3
...~
~~
c
::sc
~::s
<+~
<+
~. ....
~
~
No. 35-80
CASE LOAD SUMMARY SHEET .
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED:
7/30/80
STAFF:
5' .. ~~~A-
- UlIlIY varni
2. APPLICANT: WernlngApartments
3. REPRESENTATIVE:
Welton Anderson
-
4. PROJECT NAME: Werninq Conceptual Subdivision
5. LOCATION: Park Ave. & Park Circle
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
x P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
x Subdivision
Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
____Stream Margin
____8040 Greenline
____Vi ew Pl ane
____Conditional Use
Other
Conceptual Stage
7. REFERRALS:
~Attorney
~Engineering Dept.
____Housi ng
_Water
_City Electric
Sanitation District School District
Fire Marshal ____Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks _State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric _Other
Mountain Bell
8. REVI.EW REQUIREMENTS:
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
!
~
/'-""\
.~
.....~'^,..:'., .
"",H
-'<~
~ .-,
/
....,. 4' ... '..
^
1""'\
9. DISPOSITION:
p & Z j Approved j
~\ 'L)<e",,-~\-& I'>.-r6'\\(A~
~') \\ \,,,,s.,
0[)'
Denied Date
~ "-D ~ IN'- ".....&1>.\ 0 "-'\
?-l~L~1
PIvl.O
<...."'-'.~&)V\<;.l,g.........
..,. l.'-'1l
o ~ \ow
N2.- ,~ ^"'-kfL v '" J-S
~ A-t.t., Hlo w o~ fLNI
Denied
It-'\ Ace,OVL ''"'C-
-\-o "-'I""~ -\.e.", \0-,,) I.-LO~<c'
^-<> :...,~ W "\.L\.\.,...,;L.".- \
'^"""-\+ iU)\I'k.. ""J-wz. <; <,~ 1","~U>"''^<-.5t
10. ROUTING:
Attorney
~ilding
Engi neeri ng
Other
r
.~
/'
/r
~~