Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.910 W Hallam St.A006-03THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS A006-03 2737-182-29-121 Sagewood Condominiums PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION PUD & Rezoning REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8/18/03 (Record date) CLOSED BY Amy DeVault II II I I I III II III III III III 88 8/2003 03:26P SILVIP OPVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 ORDINANCE N0. 31, (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR ENCLOSURES OF TWELVE (12) BALCONIES, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER AN ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS , 910 W. HALLAM -PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-1 82-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; and, WHEREAS, .the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standazds, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approvals of the development proposal aze consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 6, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) recommended City Council approve the Planned Unit Development .and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the applicable referral agencies and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, I IIIIIIQ~Ililll IIIIII VIII III IIIIII III VIII IIII IIIIO 08/818/020 0003:26P WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the application for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map meets or exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, by a vote of five to zero ~ - 0), approves a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council fords that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/NIF', subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file the approved PUD plans in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits for the Sagewood Condominium building or its individual units, the owners of units with balcony enclosures that were constructed without a building permit shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Deparment For review and approval to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and noted on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. <.. III II II II IIIIII VII I IIII III IIIIII II VIII II II,I / 8~/ 8 2003 03: 20P SILVIP DPVIS PITK IN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visiUwalk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, will be required to be brought into compliance. 8. All applications for building permit for balcony enclosures shall include a letter from the Sagewood Condominium Association approving of the enclosure design. 9. The Aspen City Council approves a partial waiver of the land use review fees for the portion related to the review of the rezoning. As the rezoning constitutes approximately 40% of the total review, the applicant shall only be required to pay for 60% of the costs of the entire review. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on this ordinance will be held the 14`h day of July 2003 in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 9`h day of June, 2003. „=, _ -- IIIIIII VIII III IIIIIII III VIIIIIII IIII O818p 090 3:26P IIIIIII VIII ITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 - -- ---- ----------- LEU D~SCRI9TI~?v~F~RaP~i T~ -- ------- - -- EXHIBIT "A" All eleven (11) condominium units as shown on the Condominium Map for the "Sagewood Condominiums", appearing in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin ,County, Colorado in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as described in that Condominium declaration for "Sagewood Condominiums Association", appearing in such records in Book 282 at Page 438, more fully described as: Lots Q R, and S of Block 4, City of Aspen, with the exceptions of a parcel of land lying on the westerly boundary of lot Q, being 7.16 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5.95 feet wide at the northerly end, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said lot Q, Block 4, Township of Aspen; thence south 75° 09'11" east 7.16 feet; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of said lot Q, which point lies south 75° 09'11" east 5.95 feet from the northwest corner of said lot Q thence north 75° 09'11" west 5.95 feet to the northwest comer of said lot Q; thence south 14° 50'49" east 100 feet to the point of beginning. I IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII III IIIIIII III VIII IIII IIIIO 4$ 8 2003 03 26P 0.00 ;,`\,~ QF, aJ,e~y a ~fN >: ~+ C~ p, FI~iV~.~i`~Y, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 14~' day of July, 2003. `~. ., . W~. _ ~C bAAp Clerk AS TO FORM: He en K ~ Kl eru Mayor 4lehn`Worcestor, City Attorney RESOLUTION N0. 11, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE EAST ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R- 6 TO R/MF FOR THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, 910 WEST HALLAM STREET, A PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-1 82-2 9121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a 'Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this Resolution fiuthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0); and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 6`h DAY OF MAY 2003, THAT: ~. Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, pazcel identification of 2737-182-24121, the Aspen Planning and. Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Deparhnent shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visitJwalk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 6Tn DAY OF MAY, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ~~ I ~ ~ /' City Attorney V Jasmine Tyge, Chair ATTEST: O J kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk - - -- -- --- _ ---- L-~-bESCRZPTI~N OFYR~YER'I'~ EXHIBIT "A„ All eleven (]1) condominium units as shown on the Condominium Map for the "Sagewood Condominiums", appearing in the records of the Counry'Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as described in that Condominium declaration for "Sagewood Condominiums Association", appearing in such records in Book 282 at Page 438, more fully described as: Lots Q, R, and S of Block 4; City of Aspen, with the exceptions of a parcel of ]and lying on the westerly boundary of lot Q, being 7.16 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5.95 feet wide at the northerly end, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said lot Q, Block 4, Township of Aspen; thence south 75° 09'11" east 7.16 feet; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of said lot Q, which point lies south 75° 09'11" east 5.95 feet from the northwest comer of said lot Q, thence north 75° 09' 11" west 5.95 feet to the northwest comer of said lot Q; thence south 14° 50'49" east 100 feet to the point of beeuuting. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Commlutity Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planne~ RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMllVIUMS, (2"° READING - PUBLIC HEARING); PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; ORDINANCE NO. 31, SERIES 2003 DATE: July 14, 2003 The south elevation of the Sagewood Condominiums with US Highway 82/ Hallam Street in the foreground. , ~ ~ ~~{rEs1~~1Q~~~3N-©MLTTIUMSi~ ~~ +`' , - , : ,y REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD overlay to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks, height, floor area, - and minimum lot azea per dwelling unit for the condominium as conforming and to allow enclosure of twelve balconies and construction of a roof structure over the entrance on the east side of the building into the setback, and to rezone the pazcel from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use. P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions (Vote: 4-0) on May 6, 2003 APPLICANT: Sagewood Condominium Association LOCATION: 910 West Hallam Street STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO RECOMMENDATION: THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, WITH CONDITIONS SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 ` ,~ r REQUEST SUMMARY: The Sagewood Condominium Association, represented by its Secretary, Scott A. Gallagher, has submitted this land use application requesting the following: l.) PUD overlay of the. property to establish the existing, non-conforming dimensional standazds (floor area, height, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and pazking) for the structure as conforming; and 2.) PUD to approve the expansion of the floor azea of the structure by 660 squaze feet by enclosing twelve balconies (55 squaze feet each) and construction of a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building (setback encroachment); and 3.) Rezone of the property from R-6 to R/MF to make the existing, non-conforming multi-family use a conforming use. 4.) Waiver of the fees related to the rezone of the property (see discussion below). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Sagewood Condominiums, known originally as the Sagewood Apartments, were constructed in 1970. At the time, it was constructed legally in the AR-1 (Accommodations/Recreation) Zone District, which included multi-family dwellings as an allowed use. In 1973, the City approved the apartments to be condominiumized~On April 28, 1975, the City rezoned the property from AR-1 to R-6 as part of amendments to the land use code. As the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family uses and has different dimensional standazds than the previous AR-1 zone district, the Sagewood Condominiums became a legal, non-conforming .use and structure after those amendments were approved. This status meant that the structure and use would be allowed to continue in its present state, however, no significant improvements or additions could be made to the property. Subsequent to this change, no legal land use actions have occurred on the site. Based on review of the City Council minutes during the code amendment in 1975, it is not clear why this property was rezoned; however, it appeazs as though the rezoning was part of a series of broad changes to all of the zone districts in the city and perhaps the fact that such action made this property non-conforming was not recognized by the City or the owners at the time and only recently discovered. There aze also six balconies on the structure that have been illegally enclosed over time (mostly by previous owners of units), which means that they were constructed without first receiving a City of Aspen Building Department permit for the enclosures, or approval for expanding their floor azea. One owner was recently red-tagged by the Building Department during illegal construction of one of the enclosures and was required to remove their work. The other enclosures were built over ten years ago and aze more integrated into the unit, so their removal would be more involved. Regardless, the Building Department is requiring, through this application, that the owners of such enclosures contact the Department to schedule inspections to determine whether or not they aze in compliance with the current Building Code. This .step must be undertaken SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 ~.~ prior to the Department signing off on any permits for exterior improvements to the building. PROPOSAL' The Association's ultimate purpose for submitting this application is to make exterior improvements to the thirty-three yeaz old structure, as its existing siding is outdated and in disrepair, as well as to legalize the existing illegally constructed balcony enclosures and allow the non-enclosed balconies to be enclosed. To that end, the Association has been recently approved for a construction loan for the siding improvements; however, they aze unable to obtain the necessary permit approval from the City to do the work because of the illegally constructed balcony enclosures. Also as part of this application, the Association desires to legalize the non-conforming dimensional standazds and use, even though the non-conforming use and structure status do not, in and of itself, prevent the re-siding (as normal maintenance is still allowed for non-conforming uses and structures). The reason for this request is to simply "clean up" this situation so that such status will not preclude more significant improvements in the future. According to the Section 26.312.020 and 26.312.030 of the Code, non-confomung uses and structures may continue to operate as they aze, but only normal maintenance procedures can be conducted and no extensions or expansions aze allowed. According to the definition of "normal maintenance", only maintenance necessary to preserve the safety and structural integrity of the building are allowed. The exterior siding improvements that the Association wishes to do aze not necessary for structural inte~nty, however, it has been past City practice to approve such activity on a building despite its non-conforming status. In this instance, though, because. the re-siding work would include the illegal balcony enclosures in addition to the building, staff cannot approve the re-siding on the grounds of normal maintenance, thus the need for this application. If the current PUD application request of additional floor area for the existing balcony enclosures is approved and if building permits aze obtained for the illegal balcony enclosures, then the Association will be allowed to apply for. the permits for exterior siding improvements. In addition, if the PUD is approved to expand the existing floor azea, then the remaining balconies may be enclosed should the owners choose to do so (according to the application, however, none of the owners have made this their current intention-they simply want the option for the future). The Association would also .like to construct a small roof over the entrance to the east side of the structure for protection from the weather. There are two slightly different proposals for the design of the structure, with one being cantilevered and the other being supported by columns (see application in Exhibit F). The applicant hasn't chosen which design they prefer and propose that either option be allowed by the City. Both structures would encroach to the east property line and require PUD approval. Finally, the applicant is also requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning portion of the application because they contend that the rezoning of the property in 1975 that created the non-conformity was not their fault. As noted below (under Review Process), the City has the ability to waive or reduce land use review fees. SAGEWOOD CONDOMWIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGES Below is a summary of the proposal, land use actions necessary, and purpose: ILLEGAL BALCONY PUD APPROVAL & RE-SIDE THE STRUCTURE & ENCLOSURES BUII.DING PERMITS LEGALIZE THE EXISTING BALCONIES AND ENCLOSE REMAINING BALCONIES NON-CONFORMING USE PUD APPROVAL AND LEGALIZE THE NON- AND STRUCTURE REZONING CONFORMING USE AND STATUS STRUCTURE SO THEY CAN DO MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FUTURE NEED ROOF OVER EAST PUD APPROVAL TO VARY CONSTRUCT ROOF OVER EAST ENTRANCE TO SETBACK FOR ROOF ENTRANCE BUII.DING REQUEST FOR PARTIAL CITY COUNCII. APPROVAL RECEIVE RELIEF ON FEES WAIVER OF FEES RELATED TO REZONING REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described ab 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD); According to Section 26.445.040 of the Land Use Code, establishment of dimensional requirements and density may be approved with the adoption of a Final PUD development plan. In this case, the applicant proposes a PUD to establish the existing floor azea, height, off=street parking, and minimum lot azea per dwelling unit as the allowed standazds and then to increase the allowed floor azea to allow the enclosures to twelve balconies and to allow a setback encroachment from the east property line for a small roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building; Final Review Authority: City Council 2) Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; According to Section 26.310.020, an application for amendment to the official zone district map may be initiated by a group of people who own more than 50% of the property subject to the development application and proposed development (the applicant has received approval from over 50% of the affected property owners). A public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a public hearing with City Council is required in order to approve such amendment; Final Review Authority: City Council 3) Partial Waiver of Fees; Per Section 26.104.070, land use review fees may be waived or reduced by the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposals by a non-profit organization, or in cases where she determines that the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. In this instance, however, the Director feels that the request is too significant for her to waive the fee and is requesting that the City Council make the determination of whether the portion SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 of the land use review fee dedicated to the rezone should be waived in entirety or in some sum thereof. Final Review Authoritv: Citv Council STAFF ANALYSIS' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Staff finds that the proposed PUD complies with the applicable criteria (see Exhibit A for full Staff Findings). The following aze the dimensional standazds that the applicant is requesting to establish as part of the PUD and staff response: FLOOR AREA: The structure currently exceeds the allowable floor azea ratio (FAR) for the proposed R/MF zone district and proposes, through this application, to increase it by 660 squaze feet with the 12 balcony enclosures (55 squaze feet each). Including the twelve balcony enclosures, the FAR will be 1.3:1, whereas the R/MF only allows 1:1 :(without including the balcony enc]osures in the calculation, the FAR would be 1.25:1). In terms of squaze footage, the total with all of the balconies enclosed would be 10,860 square feet, as opposed to the existing 10,473 square feet (which includes 6 of the balconies akeady enclosed). The north side of the building where three of the six balconies have been illegally enclosed~P' approved to enclose all of the balconies on the structure (a total of 12) in a legal manner, the Association will use the design of the balcony in the upper right as the preferred design for future enclosures. Staff believes that because the existing building (not including the proposed balcony enclosures) was constructed legally and made non-conforming later during a blanket rezoning of the entire community, that it should be allowed to become conforming through the PUD. Rather than dwell on what the existing floor azea is (as it's already there), staff believes it is more pertinent to discuss whether it is appropriate to increase the allowed floor azea to accommodate the proposed balcony enclosures. It is staffs opinion that the enclosures will not be too visually obtrusive and will be beneficial to the occupants of the small units. Despite the structure being located on Highway 82 at the entrance to the community, the building itself is not very visible due to the existence of very mature evergreen trees and other landscaping including a row of shrubs along the south property line. When viewed driving west on US 82, there is no cleaz view into the property and when driving the opposite direction, the glimpse of the SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 ..~.. -", ~... structure is very brief and only conspicuous if you aze purposely looking for it. Because the primary landscaping is in the form of evergreens, it can be expected that the screening will exist yeaz azound. The other six enclosed balconies will be located on the north elevation, which is essentially an alley view and out of public view. Additionally, the enclosures will provide valuable additional space for these small units (mostly in the 600-800 squaze foot range and one 1,300 sq. ft. unit) which function primarily as housing for locally employed residents. Enclosing the balconies is one way for the owners to improve their units while not requiring any expansion of the building footprint or increasing the height. View of the property as if you were traveling west on Hallam Street. Note the obscured view into the building from this angle. Staff believes that the mature, evergreen trees and other vegetation screens most of the view of the building. The addition of balcony enclosures, whi]e not the preferred choice for the structures, would / appeaz to not greatly detract from the aesthetics of the building. HEIGHT: The height. limit of the proposed R/MF zone district is 2S. At 30' (as the Code measures height: from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to a point halfway between the cave and the ridge of the roof), the Sagewood Condominiums exceeds that limit by 5'. The building is not proposed to become any taller as part of this application. When the structure was built in 1970, the AR-1 zone district that it was located in also had a 25' height limitation. How the structure was built over this limitation is uncleaz. Regardless, staff supports the PUD to establish the existing height as legal because the height is not conspicuous from the street due to the existence of the even taller evergreen trees and it is not too incompatible with its immediate single family neighbor to the west. In addition, it is unrealistic to expect that the 5' of additional height is going to be removed from the structure anytime soon because it would require a major redevelopment project. Building a new building and replacing the locals housing would likely make the project not cost effective. So it is relatively safe to assume that the structure will continue in its current form well into the future. If the non-conforming status is removed from the property, the applicant will be able to make much needed improvements to the exterior of the property, which will help mitigate the impacts of the higher-than-allowed height. OFF-STREET PARKING: According to the Code, two off-street pazking spaces aze required per each dwelling unit, so 22 spaces are required for the existing 11 units. Only SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 . ,, 9off-street spaces are actually provided. Originally, there were 11 pazking spaces, even though the Code at the time required 1.5 spaces per unit for multi-family dwellings (for a total of 16.5 spaces). Again, its uncleaz from the available City records why the required amount of spaces were not built. Two of the 11 pazking spaces originally provided were located directly off of Hallam Street. When the structure converted from apartments to condominiums, the City required that those two spaces be removed due to the danger of vehicles backing up onto a highway. According to the applicant, there is an informal agreement among the residents that allows the seven owners who live on-site to use seven of the spaces and the other two aze rotated among the renters of the other five units. The other renters apparently pazk on the street when they don't have access to the on-site spaces. Although this situation is clearly not optimum, it is physically impossible to rectify the deficiency on-site as there is no room to accommodate two more spaces. Possibly, the Association can lease the use of some spaces on an adjacent site. If not, the current situation will have to be endured. Staff does not see, however, how the parking problem will be ameliorated by maintaining the non-conforming status and supports making the nine spaces provided the legal dimensional requirement under the PUD. MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the proposed R/MF zone district, the minimum lot azea per. dwelling unit is determined by the number of bedrooms in a structure. In this case, 19,800 squaze feet of lot azea would be necessary to accommodate the combination of bedrooms in units of the Sagewood Condominiums. The site only contains 8,344 squaze feet, so it is non-conforming with respect to this requirement. Staff supports the establishment of the existing site squaze footage as the minimum lot azea to support the 11 dwelling units because it met the requirement for minimum lot azea when it was constructed (at the time, 750 squaze feet per dwelling unit was required, or 8,250 sq. ft., in this case). The only reason it is non-conforming with respect to this is due to the rezoning in 1975. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Staff finds that the proposal for rezoning from R-6 to R/MF complies with the applicable review standards (see Exhibit B for full Staff Findings). COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning complies with the review criteria because it is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), is compatible with the surrounding land uses and .the community chazacter of Aspen, will not create traffic congestion, and has been subject to a changed condition which supports the rezoning. The area in which the subject parcel is located is chazacterized by a mix of different uses where no single use is predominant. Because of this existing chazacter and because the proposed zoning amendment will only reinforce this mix by legalizing this mu16-family use, staff believes that it will be compafible with its surroundings. The changed condition that supports the rezoning is the blanket rezoning of the property by the City in 1975 which made the Sagewood Condominiums anon-conforming use. It is staff's opinion that this was done without consideration of the impact that the rezoning would have on this property and that it should be rectified with this proposal. A rezoning to R/MF will not create spot SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 .~, ,~~,, ~.~: zoning because there is a lazge swath of R/MF directly across the street from this project, at the Aspen Villas. PARTIAL WAIVER OF FEES: As part of this application, the applicant is requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning. According to their application, they believe that the rezoning that made the property non-conforming in 1975 was done in error and that they shouldn't have to beaz the cost to correct it. To date, the applicant has incurred approximately $3,500 in land use review fees, of which, approximately 40% has been devoted to the review of the rezoning. This equates to about $1,400 that could be waived (Note: this amount is as of the writing of this report and may increase due to additional work). Section 26.104 states that: "Land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non profzt organization, or in which the fee maybe excessive for the work proposed. " The Community Development Director has recommended that the decision of whether to waive the fee for the rezone be made by City Council. Condition #9 of the Ordinance includes the waiver of the $1,400. If Council does not believe it is appropriate to waive the this fee, then this condition should be removed from the final Ordinance. Based on incomplete documentation, it is difficult to discern what the rationale was when the City took the rezoning action in the mid-1970's. It is possible that the rezoning the property to asingle-family zone district was done consciously by the City in order to make the property non-conforming so the multi-family use would go away someday and the azea could be redeveloped with single family residences. However, when you consider that the City approved the Sagewood complex to be condominiumized in 1973 - two yeazs prior to the rezoning - it is difficult to imagine the City would want the multi- family use to go away. For this reason, it is quite possible that the rezoning was part of widespread changes to the zone districts of the entire community and it was not recognized by either the City or the owners at the time that it would make this property non-conforming. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2003. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. No major issues were raised at the meeting. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF for the Sagewood Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development (PUD) -Staff Findings SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 .. Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map -Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Approved P&Z Resolution Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes Exhibit F: Application City Manager Comments: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 ,~-. -~~ ORDINANCE N0.31, (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR ENCLOSURES OF TWELVE (12) BALCONIES, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER AN ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parce[ ID: 2 73 7-1 82-2 9121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Officia] Zone District Map; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, 1 WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Depaztment recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approvals of the development proposal aze consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a regulaz meeting on May 6, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) recommended City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the applicable referral agencies and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the application for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map meets or SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE lO exceeds all applicable standazds and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, by a vote of _ to L-~, approves a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/IvIF, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file the approved PUD plans in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits for the Sagewood Condominium building or its individual units, the owners of units with balcony enclosures that were 'constructed without a building permit shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Depaztment for review and approval to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and noted on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance ai' a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a .site visit/walk-through. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 ,~,. .--~. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighfing that is determined by the Depaztment to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, will be required to be brought into compliance. 8. All applications for building permit for balcony enclosures shall include a letter from the Sagewood Condominium Association approving of the enclosure design. 9. The Aspen City Council approves a partial waiver of the land use review fees for the portion related to the review of the rezoning. As the rezoning constitutes approximately 40% of the total review, the applicant shall only be required to pay for 60% of the costs of the entire review. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abat r~iient of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shat] not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided bylaw, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 9°i day of June, 2003. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 14`" day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 ..~. „~,~ EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES The proposed development is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regazd to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need fora "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioningof the community. _ - _-- ~ 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the surrounding azea. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The chazacter of the existing land uses in the azea is a mix of single-family and multi- family residences interspersed with a restaurant and government offices. As a multi- family residence, the Sagewood is consistent with this character of mixed land uses. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal, which proposes to make the condominium a conforming use and structure and allow for balcony space to be enclosed, should not have an adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding azea. Parcels on all four sides of the structure have been developed and should be able to expand in the future without being inhibited b this buildin . 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments aze available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The expansion of overall floor azea with the proposed balcony enclosures is exempt from GMQS, in accordance with Section 26.470.070.A.1. of the Code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements aze listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: ' Required amount of lot azea to support the existing 11 unit condominium development of 4-1BR units, 1- 3BR unit, and 6-2BR units. = The allowed density depends on whether the units aze studio or one, two, three, or more bedrooms. The 11 existing units, however, would exceed the allowed density in this zone district. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 Shading indicates areas ofnon-conformity. ~.~ a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding azea. b) Natural or man-made hazazds. c) Existing natural chazacteristics of the property and surrounding azea such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the sun•ounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has existed in this location for thirty yeazs and is located in an azea of mixed types of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family. It appears that this use has been and will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and natural and man-made chazacteristics with the ro osed PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the chazacter of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding azea. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed dimensional requirements seek to establish the existing dimensions as the ]egal standazds for the property and expand that allowance slightly for the balmy enclosures. There will be no appreciable change in the size or character of the structure. Although the existing height exceeds the allowable height in the zone district by 7' and has more floor azea than is allowed, this is an existing structure built legally under rules in effect thirty yeazs ago. Despite the increased height and floor azea, the structure exceeds the minimum front and reaz setback (of the proposed R/MF zone district) by twice the required amount, which lessens the impact of the structure from the highway. The R/MF requires 20' of total side yard setback with a minimum of 5' on either side, whereas the structure provides about 13' total, but maintains a minimum of 5'6" on both sides. This places some impact on the neighbor to the west, but does not effect any structure to the east as it is on a corner. Mature landscaping on the west property line somewhat helps to mitigate the closeness of the condominium to the neighboring single- fami] residence, which was ~ust constructed last ear. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common pazking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT .PAGE 16 STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES There are currently 9 parking spaces for 11 units, which means that some units do not have access to anoff-street parking space. While this is somewhat of an untenable situation, it is the reality that the owners and the City have to work with. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on the site to fit an additional two spaces and it is not realistic to expect that two units can be eliminated from the site to make the pazking comply. However, given that the structure is located on the bus line and is a short walk or bike ride into town, there aze options for tenants who don't own cazs or who don't need them very often and have an alternate place to park their vehicle. Staff does not want to have this unfortunate situation continue to be considered non-conforming and have it be a barrier to other improvements to the structure. Staff supports legalizing the situation and encourages the Association to continue exploring parking alternatives. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There aze not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the review by the Development Review Committee, there exists adequate infrastructure capabilities to the structure. 5. The maximum allowable .density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features: Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD maybe reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding azea and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES TT COMPLY? YES There aze no natural hazazds or critical site features impacted with this structure or with the proposed balcony enc]osures. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 ,.~ and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific azea plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subpazagraphs 4 and 5, above, those azeas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and chazacteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The density is not proposed to be increased. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which aze unique, provide v~ a] interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town aze preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING DOES IT COMPLY? YES No changes are proposed which would impact any natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There is only one structure on the site, so clustering has already been achieved. 3. Structures aze appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehiculaz and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure is oriented parallel to the public street and is setback farther than what the zone district requires with mature vegetation, which softens the appearance and size of the structure. 4. Buildings and access ways aze appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. SAGEWOOD CONDOMWIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE IS STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fire and emergency service vehicle access is adequate to serve their needs. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES/NO There aze sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the property providing good pedestrian access, but there is no specific handicap access. The structure was approved and constructed at a time when handicap access was not a requirement. To make the upper units handicap accessible an elevator would be required, which would only be feasible as part of a lazger redevelopment request when there would be more of a nexus between the proposal and the request for such improvements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Site drainage appears to be accommodated properly and does not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings aze appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. ~ STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following:. 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen azea climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing vegetation on the site is mature and ample. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may sigt-iticantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual chazacter of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed azchitecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of neazby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solaz access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- orless-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES Although the design of .the building is starting to become outdated, it was likely appropriate when it was approved. Still, there are many condominium and lodge structures of the same era in Aspen that all contribute to the local azchitectural chazacter and are appropriate for the environment in .which they aze located. If the PUD application is approved, then the Association will undertake fapade upgrades. The Association has already applied and received a construction loan for such improvenaChts. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glaze or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standazds unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOE5 IT COMPLY? ~ YES Staff has not yet reviewed the outdoor lighting for the building. Consequently, a condition of approval has been added requiring inspection of the lighting prior to sign off on any building permit and the bringing of any non-compliant lighting into G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 --~ ._ ,. L The proposed amount, location, and design of the common pazk, open space, or recreation azea enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in atl common pazk and recreation azeas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of yeazs) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similaz manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent caze and maintenance of open spaces, recreation azeas, and shazed facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Open space is provided between the Hallam Street property line and the structure which provides a buffer for the residents from the heavily traveled street and provides visual relief for those on the street back towards the structure. The PUD establishes 35% of the site as open space. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not ~' ur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public fac4fIties associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements aze provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational traII facilities and minimizes the. use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other azea dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has direct access from a public street, 8°i Street off of Hallam Street. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 ,, . 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and pazlting arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads aze proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No traffic con estion is created b this develo ment on surroundin roads. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and' shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical azeas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? _ NOT APPLICABLE No phasing is proposed. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 22 EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Section 26.310.040 -Standards for Review of a Rezone: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff is unawaze of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regazd to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need fora "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people th different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will le alize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need. in the functionin of the communi C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. IT COMPLY? ~ YES The azea in which the Sagewood Condominiums are located is a mix of single- family and multi-family residences with a restaurant and the US Forest Service offices nearby. Because of this mix of uses has existed for many yeazs in a seemingly compatible manner and because this amendment will not alter that character, staff finds that the continuation of this use in the azea would maintain and reinforce the D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 23 w,.. ~.. `.../ STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment will have no impact on traffic generation or road safety as the use of this PUD only seeks to legalize the conditions that have existed relatively unchanged for thirty yeazs. Additionally, no new units aze proposed to be added. While each unit will have the option of enclosing their balconies with this proposal, it will only add 55 squaze feet to each unit. It is unlikely that this extra square footage would add additional traffic as the space is generally too small for an extra bedroom In addition, there aze not any extra parking spaces on site with which to ark an extra vehicle. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Based on the feedback from the Development Review Committee (DRC), which !~ reviews issues related to public facilities, there is not anticipated to be any additional demands on public facilities as a result of this PUD Amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would resu~in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not expand the size of the footprint of the building, therefore it will not result in an~_additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. _ _ _ G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community chazacter in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES For the most par[, the community chazacter of Aspen includes a mixing of different types of uses, including residential (both single-family and multi-family), retail, office, and, in some cases, industrial type uses. In the vicinity of the Sagewood Condominiums, this character is evident, with other multi-family structures and single family residences co-existing side by side, as well as commercial and office uses close by. This amendment will serve to legitimize the existing multi-family use on the property and to continue the community pattern of mixed uses. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pazcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 24 ,,,.. , ~, The Sagewood Condominiums were constructed in 1970 as a legal use in the AR1 (Accommodations/Recreation) zone district in use at the time. In April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6, as part of a change to a new land use code. The rezoning had the effect of changing the Sagewood Condominiums from a conforming use into anon-conforming use because the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family residences as an allowed use. Appazently, the multi-family uses on the south side of Hallam Street were rezoned from ARl to R/MF at the time, but the Sagewood and another condominium structure in existence at the time, the Aspen West End, were allowed to be rezoned to the R-6, leaving both as non- conforming uses. It is mmcleaz as to why these two properties were rezoned as they were. Possibly, it was an oversight on the part of the City or maybe it was a conscious decision to have these types of uses removed over time. Staff would submit that the changed condition was the rezoning of the subject pazcel which made the use non-conforming. The use did not go away and does not appeaz to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the owners wish to establish the use as conforming again so that they can make improvements to the exterior of the structure and to their individual units, both of which lend permanence to the use. Because this area of town includes mixed uses and because the units house locally working residents, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the community to legalize the use and allow it to continue. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest end whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To staff's knowledge, the multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums has existed in harmony with its surrounding for the thirty years it has existed. Rezoning the pazcel to R/NIF so that the multi-family use can be legalized again will allow the use to continue as well as allow the owners to make improvements to the property and structure. Staff believes that because this structure houses many local working residents and is located on a prominent site at the entrance to town, it is in the public interest to allow this use to continue and for the residents to be able to improve the outward appeazance of the structure. Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Title, which is to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens" Allowing the locals who live here to continue to improve their units and the exterior of the structure, which is very visible at the entrance to the community, is helping to protect the safety and welfare of the citizens. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2$ "~, ~ ~ .~ EXHIBIT C DRC Mu~roTEs DRC COMA3ENTS: Engineering Department • Existing Dumpster: Existing dumpster is to be moved out of the ROW. If no onsite dumpster location, as a last resort the Engineering Deparhnent may issue an encroachment license to enable the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. 2. Building Department • Building Permits:. A building permit will be needed for existing illegal construction. men Sanitation District • Inspection: The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visit/walk-through prior to issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to -the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specifications that aze on file at the district office. 4. Zoning The Sagewood is an existing multi-family non-conforming use and structure located in the R-6 zone district. The complex, which consists of 11 condominiumized units, does not comply with the use, height requirements, parking or density of the underlying zone district. Outlined below aze the non-confomities. Dimensional requirements: Dimension Reguired (R-6) Required (RMFI Proposed Floor Area NCU* 1:1 (8344.5 sq. fr.) 10860 sq. ft Height 25' 25' 32' Parking NCU* 18 9 (existing) Density NCU* 19,800 sq. fr 8344 sq. ft. *Non-conforming Use The applicant is proposing to remedy these non-conformities by rezoning to RFM, which will grant relief from the non-conforming use status, and by going 4hrough the PUD process to establish the dimensional requirements proposed above. Residential Design Standards: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 26 Since there will be no substantial change to the exterior of the building the residential design standazds do not apply at this time. Impact fees: There aze no applicable impact fees with the project. Lighting Code: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use code. Illegal Construction: The enclosure of seven of the balconies to date has been done without proper permits, inspections and approvals. The applicant(s) will be required to submit the necessary. permits to "formalize" the enclosures and ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 27 Exhibit D: roved P&Z Resolution RESOLUTION N0. _, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, AND FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE EAST ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R- 6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-29121 WHEREAS, the Community Deyelopment Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received rural comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Plazmed Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of four to zero `- 0); and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 6`h DAY OF MAY 2003, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures azid standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, parcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the open Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visitlwalk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Cormnission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the ~, ; ~ same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 6TTr DAY OF MAY, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: / City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: .Tackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Sagewood Condominiums. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. Scott Woodford distributed a site plan and two different elevations of the proposed roof over the east entrance: One had a flat roof and the other a pitched roof. Woodford explained that the application was for a PUD overlay to establish the non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming. The non- conforming standards were FAR, height, off-street parking and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The PUD would also include the expansion of allowed floor area to enclose the balconies for living space; to.approve the 6 that have already been built but also approve 6 additional enclosures, when and if the owners wanted to enclose those balconies. Another part of the PUD was to allow a setback encroachment for the roof structure on the east side, represented on the drawings. The third aspect was to rezone the property from R-6 to RMF to bring the non- conforming multi-family building into conformity. / "'` Woodford stated the condominium complex was originally built in 1970 and in compliance at the time, but in 1975 there was a new code that rezoned the property to R-6, which made it anon-conforming structure and use because of different dimensional standards and because multi-family is not an allowed use in the R-6. Since the property is non-conforming only maintenance can be done without any significant rehabilitation to the building (up to 10% of the value of the building). The homeowners association would like to do some exterior improvements but the non-conforming status is holding up that process. Woodford said by the PUD the applicant hoped to establish the non-conforming structures to conforming and the rezone to establish the use as conforming, which would eliminate the non- - conformity status. Woodford said that somewhere down the line 6 balconies were enclosed and since the additional FAR was not approved by the city and there were no building permits obtained, the City would not allow the homeowners to obtain a building permit for the exterior changes until the illegal balcony enclosures were approved. The applicant also wants the option to enclose the additional 6 balconies, which were each about 55 square feet each (a total of 600 square feet to the entire building). There would be a standard design for any future balcony enclosures that owners would have to comply with. Staff supported the proposal. Woodford stated that local employees occupied the units even though the units were not deed-restricted. The units are about 600 square feet or so. The building stood 30 feet as the code measured it and the RMF zone district allowed 25-foot 3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Sagewood Condominiums. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. Scott Woodford distributed a site plan and two different elevations of the proposed roof over the east entrance: One had a flat roof and the other a pitched roof. Woodford explained that the application was for a PUD overlay to establish the non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming.. The non- conforming standards were FAR, height, off-street parking and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The PUD would also include the expansion of allowed floor area to enclose the balconies for living space; to.approve the 6 that have already been built but also approve 6 additional enclosures, when and if the owners wanted to enclose those balconies. Another part of the PUD was to allow a setback encroachment for the roof structure on the east side, represented on the drawings. The third aspect was to rezone the property from R-6 to RMF to bring the non- conforming multi-family building into conformity. / Woodford stated the condominium complex was originally built in 1970 and in compliance at the time, but in 1975 there was a new code that rezoned the property to R-6, which made it anon-conforming structure and use because of different dimensional standards and because multi-family is not an allowed use in the R-6. Since the property is non-conforming only maintenance can be done without any significant rehabilitation to the building (up to 10% of the value of the building). The homeowners association would like to do some exterior improvements but the. non-conforming status is holding up that process.. Woodford said by the PUD the applicant hoped to establish the non-conforming structures to conforming and the rezone to establish the use as conforming, which would eliminate the non- conformity status. Woodford said that somewhere down the line 6 balconies were enclosed and since the additional FAR was not approved by the city and there were no building permits obtained, the City would not allow the homeowners to obtain a building pernut for the exterior changes until the illegal balcony enclosures were approved. The applicant also wants the option to enclose the additional 6 balconies, which were each about 55 square feet each (a total of 600 square feet to the entire building). There would be a standard design for any future balcony enclosures that owners would have to comply with. Staff supported the proposal. Woodford stated that local employees occupied the units even though the units were not deed-restricted. The units are about 600 square feet or so. The building stood 30 feet as the code measured it and the RMF zone district allowed 25-foot 3 C!L "'1 Dylan Johns said that in the Resolution there was no mention of the entry canopy and asked if this was the first step in adding features. Woodford replied that the enclosure should have been mentioned as part of the PUD request; the enclosure structurally encroached to the east property line. Tygre stated that balconies were not included in the FAR of buildings and they were meant to add interest to the outsides of buildings rather than just square boxes, but a few times a year people do come in for variances to enclose balconies. Gallagher stated that it would be very expensive to takeout the enclosures that were already done and would be a significant hardship on those owners; he asked if those could be allowed to remain: Tygre stated that created an inequitable situation rewarding the people who built without permits and punishing those who did not expand their units buy not allowing them to expand. Hoefer stated that if this was not approved the non-conforming enclosed balconies would have to be removed. Ruth Kruger stated that she would vote for the proposal to get this building into conformity as much as possible. Allgaier said that the commission should,~Sk themselves if this zoning was appropriate, should the applicant be allowed the ~,`,''''''! extra 660 square feet of floor area for the building taking in the circumstances. of the neighborhood and the building. Allgaier stated that the PUD set the dimensional standards for the project. Tygre stated that the enclosures would not affect the building in any way but she stated concern for the enclosed balconies. Eric Cohen agreed and asked what were the extenuating circumstances and asked what were the positive benefits. Cohen answered that the building housed a lot of employees and was located in a highly visible place at the entrance to town. Cohen said the negatives were the building. was already above the FAR. Hoefer noted that the commission decision should be based on the criteria, not what was best for an individual. Tygre noted the use was made non-conforming by the change in city codes. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #11, 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums, 910 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado with the addition of a condition for the east side entrance cover; seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting adj ed 5:45 p.m. v kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 w.~, ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plann~ RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, (lsr READING); PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; ORDINANCE NO. _, SERIES 2003 DATE: June 9, 2003 The south elevation of the Sagewood Condominiums with US Highway 82/ Hallam Street in the foreground. 0 ' ~ ' ~"~ 5„~-.. `,rF~ ~~"'_'.f';`s~ A'G~~VOO)3 ~ `'~ND()11'IIlV I'U ~ S ~` ' ~`~` a'"' ~~` . , ....: ,tw. ~: ~ ~ ~;. r , . M . . ~~ , v 5' ;=: REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD overlay to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks, height, floor area, and minimum lot azea per dwelling unit for the condominium as conforming and to allow enclosure of twelve balconies and construction of a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building into the setback, and to rezone the pazcel from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use. P&Z AcrtoN: Approval with conditions (Vote: 4-0) on May 6, 2003 APPLICANT: Sagewood Condominium Association LOCATION: 910 West Hallam Street STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO RECOMMENDATION: TIIE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, WTTH CONDITIONS SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 .T. -^~,. .., REQUEST SUMMARY: The Sagewood Condominium Association, represented by its Secretary, Scott A. Gallagher, has~submitted this land use application requesting the following: 1.) PUD overlay of the property to establish the existing, non-conforming dimensional standazds for the structure as conforming; and 2.) PUD to approve the expansion of the floor azea of the structure by 660 squaze feet by enclosing twelve balconies (55 squaze feet each) and a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building (setback encroachment); and 3.) Rezone of the property from R-6 to R/MF to make the existing, non-conforming multi-family use a conforming use. 4.) Waiver of the fees related to the rezone of the property (see discussion below). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Sagewood Condominiums, known originally as the Sagewood Apartments, were constructed in 1970. At the time, it was constructed legally in the AR-1 (Accommodations/Recreation) Zone District, which included multi-family dwellings as an allowed use. In 1973, the City approved the apartments to be condominiumized. On April 28, 1975, the City rezoned the property from AR-1 to R-6 as part of amendments to the land use code. As the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family uses and has different dimensional standards than the previous AR-1 zone district, the Sagewood Condominiums became a legal, non-conforming use and structure (with respect to allowed floor area, height, off-street parking, and minimum lot azea per dwelling unit) after those amendments were approved. Subsequently, no land use actions have occurred on the site. Based on review of the City Council minutes during the code amendment in 1975, it is not cleaz why this property was rezoried; however, it appears as though the rezoning was part of a series of broad changes to all of the zone districts in the city and perhaps the fact that such action made this property non-conforming was not recognized by the City or the owners at the time acid only recently discovered. There aze also six balconies on the structure that have been illegally enclosed over time (mostly by previous owners of units). This means that they were constructed without first receiving a City of Aspen Building Department permit for the enclosures, or approval for expanding their floor azea. One owner was recently red-tagged by the Building Department during illegal construction of one of the enclosures and was required to remove their work. The other enclosures were built over ten yeazs ago and aze more integrated into the unit, so their removal wou]d be more involved. T'he Building Department is requiring that the owners of units contact the Deparhnent to schedule inspections to determine whether or not they aze in compliance with the current Building Code. This must be done prior to the Department signing off on any permits for exterior improvements to the building. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT pAGE2 PROPOSAL' The Association's ultimate desire is to make exterior improvements to the thirty-three yeaz old structure, as its existing siding is outdated and in disrepair. To that end, the Association has been recently approved for a construction loan for the improvements, however they aze unable to obtain the necessary permits from the City to do the work because of the non-conforming use and structure status and because of the presence of the illegally constructed balcony enclosures. If the currently proposed PUD to legalize the non-conforming dimensional standazds and the rezone to legalize the existing non-conforming use is approved and if building permits aze obtained for the illegal balcony enclosures, then the Association can apply for the permits for exterior siding improvements. In addition, if the PUD is approved to expand the existing floor area, then the remaining balconies may be enclosed should the owners choose to do so (according to the application, however, none of the owners have made this their current intention-they simply want the option): Finally, the Association would like to construct a small roof over the entrance to the east side of the structure for protection from the weather. There aze two slightly different proposals for the design of the structure, with one being cantilevered and the other being supported by columns (see application). Both structures would encroach to the east property line. According to the Section 26.312.020 and 26.312.030 of the Code, non-conforming uses and structures may continue to operate as they aze, but only normal maintenance procedures can be conducted and no extensions or expansions are allowed. According to the definition of "normal maintenance", only maintenance necessary to preserve the safety and structural integrity of the building aze allowed. The exterior improvements that the Association wishes to do aze not necessary for structural integrity, however, it has been past City practice such activity on a building despite its non-conforming status. However, the presence of the illegal balcony enclosures would preclude that possibility because that additional floor area has never been approved. As part of this application, the applicant is also requesting that the City waive the land' use application fees for the rezoning because they contend that the rezoning of the property in 1975 that created the non-conformity was not their fault. As noted below, the City has the ability to waive or reduce land use review fees. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following ]and use approvals for the project described above: 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD); According to Section 26.445.040 of the Land Use Code, establishment of dimensional requirements and density may be approved. with the adoption of a Final PUD development plan. In this case, the applicant proposes a PUD to establish the existing floor azea, height, off-street pazking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit as the allowed standards and then to increase the allowed floor area to allow the enclosures to twelve balconies and to allow a setback encroachment from the east property line for a small roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building; Final Review Authoritv: City Council $AGEWOOD CONDOMMIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 2) Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; According to Section 26.310.020, an application for amendment to the official zone district map may be initiated by a group of people who own more than 50% of the property subject to the development application and proposed development (the applicant has received approval from over 50% of the affected property owners). A public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a public hearing with City Council is required in order to approve such amendment; Final Review Authority: City Council 3) Partial Waiver of Fees; Per Section 26.104.070, land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by anon-profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. The Director feels that the request is too significant for her to waive the fee and is requesting that the City Council make the determination of whether the portion of the land use review fee dedicated to the rezone should be waived in entirety or in some sum thereof. Final Review Authority: City Council STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Staff finds that the proposed PUD complies with the applicable criteria (see Exhibit A for full Staff Findings). The following aze the dimensional standazds that the applicant is requesting to establish as part of the PUD and staffresponse: FLOOR AREA: The structure currently exceeds the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the proposed R/MF zone district and proposes, through this application, to increase it by 660 squaze feet with the 12 balcony enclosures (55 squaze feet each). Including the twelve balcony enclosures, the FAR will be 1.3:1, whereas the R/MF only allows 1:1 (without including the balcony enclosures in the calculation, the FAR would be 1.25:1). In terms of square footage, the tota] with all of the balconies enclosed would be 10,860 squaze feet, as opposed to the existing 10,473 squaze feet (which includes 6 of the balconies already enclosed). SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 i F The north side of the building where three of the six balconies have been illegally enclosed. If approved to enclose all of the balconies on the structure (a total of 12) in a legal manner, the Association will use the design of the balcony in the upper right as the preferred design for future enclosures. Staff believes that because the existing building (not including the proposed balcony enclosures) was constructed legally and made non-conforming later during a blanket rezoning of the entire community, that it should be allowed to become conforming through the PUD. Rather than dwell on what the existing floor area is (as it's already there), staff believes it is more pertinent to discuss whether it is appropriate to increase the allowed floor area to accommodate the proposed balcony enclosures. It is staff's opinion that the enclosures will not be too visually obtrusive and will be beneficial to the occupants of the small units. Despite the structure being located on Highway 82 at the entrance to the community, the building itself is not very visible due to the existence of very mature evergreen trees and other landscaping including a row of shrubs along the south property line. When viewed driving west on US 82, there is no cleaz view into the property and when driving the opposite direction, the glimpse of the structure is very brief and only conspicuous if you are purposely looking for it. Because the primary landscaping is in the form of evergreens, it can be expected that the screening will exist year azound. The other six enclosed balconies will be located on the. north elevation, which is essentially an alley view and out of public view. Additionally, the enclosures will provide valuable additional space for these small units (mostly in the 600-800 square foot range and one 1,300 sq. R unit) which function primarily as housing for locally employed residents. Enclosing the balconies is one way for the owners to improve their units while not requiring any expansion of the building footprint or increasing the height. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE S ~~ F"^~ View of the property as,if you were traveling west on Hallam Street. Note the obscured view into the building from [his angle. Staff believes that the mature, evergreen trees and other vegetation screens most of the view of the building. The addition of balcony enclosures, while not the preferred choice for the structures, would appeaz to no[ greatly detract from the aesthetics of the building. HEIGHT: The height limit of the proposed R/IvIF zone district is 25'. At 30' (as the Code measures height: from natural or fmished grade, whichever is lower, to a point halfway between the eave and the ridge of the roof), the Sagewood Condominiums exceeds that limit by 5'. The building is not proposed to become any taller as part of this application. When the structure was built in 1970, the AR-1 zone district that it was located in also had a 25' height limitation. How the structure was built over this limitation is uncleaz. Regardless, staff supports the PUD to establish the existing height as legal because the height is not conspicuous from the street due to the existence of the even taller evergreen trees and it is not too incompatible with its immediate single family neighbor to the west. In addition, it is unrealistic to expect that the S of additional height is going to be removed from the structure anytime soon because it would require a major redevelopment project. Building a new building and replacing the locals housing would likely make the project not cost effective. So it is relatively safe to assume that the structure will continue in its current form well into the future. If the non-conforming status is removed from the property, the applicant will be able to make much needed improvements to the exterior of the property, which will help mitigate the impacts of the higher-than-allowed height. OFF-STREET PARKING: According to the Code, two off-street pazking spaces are required per each dwelling unit, so 22 spaces aze required for the existing 11 units. Only 9 off=street spaces are actually provided. Originally, there were 11 parking spaces, even though the Code at the time required 1.5 spaces per unit for multi-family dwellings (for a total of 16.5 spaces). Again, its uncleaz from the available City records why the required amount of spaces were not built. Two of the 11 parking spaces originally provided were located directly off of Hallam Street. When the structure converted from apartments to condominiums, the City required that those two spaces be removed due to the danger of vehicles backing up onto a highway. According to the applicant, there is an informal agreement among the residents that allows the seven owners who live on-site to use seven of the spaces and the other two aze rotated among the renters of the other five units. The other renters apparently park on the street when they don't have access to the on-site spaces. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Although this situation is cleazly not optimum, it is physically impossible to rectify the deficiency on-site as there is no room to accommodate two more spaces. Possibly, the Association can lease the use of some spaces on an adjacent site. If not, the current situation will have to be endured. Staff does not see, however, how the pazking problem will be ameliorated by maintaining the non-conforming status and supports making the nine spaces provided the legal dimensional requirement. MINIMUM LoT AREA. PER DWELLING UNIT: In the proposed R/MF zone district, the minimum lot azea per dwelling unit is determined by the number of bedrooms in a structure. In this case, 19,800 squaze feet of lot azea would be necessary to accommodate the combination of bedrooms in units of the Sagewood Condominiums. The site only contains 8,344 squaze feet, so it is non-conforming with respect to this requirement. Staff supports the establishment of the existing site squaze footage as the minimum lot area to support the 11 dwelling units because it met the, requirement for minimum lot azea when it was constructed (at the time, 750 square feet per dwelling unit was required, or 8,250 sq. ft., in this case). The. only reason it is non-conforming with respect to this is due to the rezoning in 1975. AMENDMENT TO THE UFFICL4L ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Staff finds that the proposal for rezoning from R-6 to R/MF complies with the applicable review standards (see Exhibit B for full Staff Findings). COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning complies with the review criteria because it is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the community chaaacter of Aspen, will not create traffic congestion, and has been subject to a changed condition which supports the rezoning. The azea in which the subject pazcel is located is characterized by a mix of different uses where no single use is predominant. Because of this existing character and because the proposed zoning amendment will only reinforce this mix by legalizing this multi-family use, staff believes that it will be compatible with its surroundings. The changed condition that supports the rezoning is the blanket rezoning of the property by the City in 1975 which made the Sagewood Condominiums anon-conforming use. It is staff's opinion that this was done without consideration of the impact that the rezoning would have on this property and that it should be rectified with this proposal. A rezoning to R/MF will not create spot zoning because there is a lazge swath of R/MF directly across the street from this project, at the Aspen Villas. PARTIAL WAIVER of FEES: As part of this application, the applicant is requesting that the City waive the land use application fees for the rezoning. According to their application, they believe that the rezoning that made the property non-conforming in 1975 was done in error and that they shouldn't Have to beaz the cost to correct it. To date, the applicant has incurred approximately $3,500 in land use review fees, of which, approximately 40% has been devoted to the review of the rezoning. This equates to about $1,400 that could be waived (Note: this amount is as of the writing of this report and may increase due to additional work). Section 26.104 states that: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 "Land use review fees may be waived or• reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. " The Community Development Director has recommended that the decision of whether to waive the fee for the rezone be made by City Council. Based on incomplete documentation, it is difficult to discern what the rationale was when the City took the rezoning action in the mid-1970's. It is possible that the rezoning of the property to asingle-family zone district was done consciously by the City in order to make the property non-conforming so the multi-family use would go away someday and the area could be redeveloped with single family residences. However, when you consider that the City approved the Sagewood complex to be condominiumized in 1973 - two yeazs prior to the rezoning - it is difficult to imagine the City would want the multi- family use to go away. For this reason, it is quite possible that the rezoning was part of widespread changes to the zone districts of the entire community and it was not recognized by either the City or the owners at the time that it would make this property non-conforming. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2003. The minutes from that meeting aze contained in Exhibit C. No major issues were raised at the meeting. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF for the Sagewood Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development (PUD) -Staff Findings Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map -Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Approved P&Z Resolution Exhibit E: P&Z Minutes Exhibit F: Application SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT - PAGE S ORDINANCE N0. _, (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR ENCLOSURES OF TWELVE (12) BALCONIES, AND FORA SETBACK ENCORACHMENT TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER AN ENTRANCE AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CTfY AND TOWNSTI'E OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182-2 9111 WHEREAS, the Community Development Deparnent received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received refeaa] comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standazds, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zonebistrict Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approvals of the development proposal aze consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 6, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) recommended City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the applicable referral agencies and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the application for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map meets or SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIl1MS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 ^~ exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, by a vote of _ to L-~, approves a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to R/MF, subject to the following conditionsi 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant xo Section 26.445.070(C). Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. The applicant shalLfile a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and noted on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. SAGEWOOD CONDOMIIJIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 . 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighfing will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdicfion, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 9`~ day of June, 2003. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 14~' day of June, 2003. ATTEST: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT - PAGE 11 . ~. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney ^^~, ,~ Helen Kahn Klanderud, Mayor SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 a ., ExaIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES TT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with al] applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regazd to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need fora "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the communi 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the chazacter.of existing land uses in the surrounding azea. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The chazacter of the existing land uses in the azea is a mix of single-family and multi- family residences interspersed with a restaurant and government offices. As a multi- famil residence, the Sa ewood is consistent with this chazacter of mixed land uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal, which proposes to make the condominium a conforming use and structure and allow for balcony space to be enclosed, should not have an adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding azea. Pazcels on all four sides of the structure have been developed and should be able to expand in the future without being inhibited b this buildin . 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments aze available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 r~ r"~. The expansion of overall floor azea with the proposed balcony enclosures is exempt '~ from GMQS in accordance with Section 26.470.070.A.1. of the Code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements aze listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) ~'~3 ~~ ` ` '~'t„ ~~ s~ ~ ' r r `~:.~:v ~~ :,, ~P~oposed~tew~ ~~~ Existing ~ ~~,a u ~ a £3~"n s ~ -~+ `~~ ~r~~° ~' Existtn ~unc~ .~~ °. ~ - x Yllle ~19~17Ct ~ ~~ h ; . ~On(~1tlOII$~'-"~ ~ a ~ ,~unens~onaJ~tequireme~t.~=i ~ ,.District {~t ~ i %~,Ik~~°`~ ~roposed~I7~~` x. { ~y 11~0.eJF~ ~ U y +,~~~{a '~'~11 ~ , y(y, -.;~ir:. ~_h '3 *t " ~ . ; '4 ~. 6i'~ „~'> 1M uirement., PY~'13tandar~.Qi Minimum Lot Size (squaze feet) 6,000 6,000 g 344 ~irsmt~ ~x Ar er F3we11tn ~ ` ' ~ 19 80© ~ .$..:344 zr ~ITii[t>~''~ ~ r ,zz ,.~ u• Maximum Allowable Densit N/A VariesZ 11 units Minimum Lot Width 60' 60' 84' Minimum Front Yazd Setback 10' 10' 21' Minimum West Side Yazd Setback 5' S' S'6" Minimum East Side Yard Setback 5' S' 6'6" Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback 10' 10' 20' 1lfauraum.l:7etg3lz ,~ ~~, ~~ ~r `'233"° ~' a~" 25 ~~+`'~r ~ ` ~ r~~ 31 ~ ~ ~"a~ ~y µ t , .. , : .. r Minimum Distance b/w Buildin s 5' ] 0' N/A Minimum Percent of Open Space No 35% 40% Re uirement ..Allowable Floor~irea FA;'t . c3dltl . _~ ` 1,1 l:•d.3 y. zet Palkeng fJ'u~ Nll:ntmum Q :. ~Z S~/aC2S {~Z '.~ `~" y? ~2 Sj1ACYS ~ s ~ r ` ` ~x:. ~'; ~ spaces a , ~ L g ~ - spaceslun[d S x , ~- sPaces~urul J Y * x a?S ~f ~~ ~ T. .'~.. S ~. dR ~ ~yN(e M~ } ~,$.4 ~m{ ~R~ .. V •r Shading indicates areas ofnon-conformity. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: ~ Required amount of lot area to support the existing 11 unit condominium development of 4-1BR units, I- 3BRunit, and 6-2BR units. The allowed density depends on whether the units aze studio or one, two, three, or more bedrooms. The 11 existing units, however, would exceed the allowed density in this zone district. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 a) The chazacter of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding azea. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made chazacterisrics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, pazking, and historical resources. DOES IT COMPL The structure has existed in this location for thirty yeazs and is located in an area of mixed types of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family. It appears that this use has been and will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and natural and man-made characteristics with the proposed PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and. site coverage appropriate and favorable. to the chazacter of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding azea. DOES IT COMPLY? The proposed dimensional requirements seek to establish the existing dimensions as the legal standards for the property and expand that allowance slightly for the balcony enclosures. There will be no appreciable change in the size or character of the structure. Although the existing height exceeds the allowable height in the zone district by 7' and has more floor azea than is allowed, this is an existing structure built legally under rules in effect thirty yeazs ago. Despite the increased height and floor azea, the structure exceeds the minimum front and reaz setback (of the proposed Ii/MF zone district) by twice the required amount, which lessens the impact of the structure from the highway. The R/MF requires 20' of total side yard setback with a minimum of 5' on either side, whereas the structure provides about 13' total, but maintains a minimum of 5'6" on both sides. This places some impact on the neighbor to the west, but does not effect any structure to the east as it is on a comer. Mature landscaping on the west property line somewhat helps to mitigate the closeness of the condominium to the neighboring single- family residence, which was just constructed last yeaz. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cazs used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common pazking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMRJIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 ~. There aze currently 9 parking spaces for I 1 units, which means that some units do not have access to anoff-street pazking space. While this is somewhat of an untenable situation, it is the reality that the owners and the City have to work with. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on the site to fit an additional two spaces and it is not realistic to expect that two units can be eliminated from the site to make the parking comply. However, given that the structure is located on the bus line and is a short walk or bike ride into town, there aze options for tenants who don't own cars or who don't need them very often and have an alternate place to pazk their vehicle. Staff does not want to have this unfortunate situation continue to be considered non-conforming and have it be a barrier to other improvements to the structure. Staff supports legalizing the situation and encourages the Association to continue explori~ pazking alternatives. 4. The maximum. allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the review by the Development Review Committee, there exists adequate infrastructure capabilities to the structure. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not. suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the .terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There aze no natural hazards or critical site features impacted with this structure or with the proposed balcony enclosures. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negativephysical chazacteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those azeas can be avoided, or those chazacteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattem compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and chazacteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The density is not proposed to be increased. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which aze unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town aze preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No changes aze proposed which would impact any natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There is only one structure on the site, so clustering has already been achieved. 3. Structures aze appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehiculaz and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure is oriented pazalle] to the public street and is setback farther than what the zone district requires with mature vegetation, which softens the appeazance and size of the structure. 4. Buildings and access ways aze appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT ~ PAGE 17 ~. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fire and emergency service vehicle access is adequate to serve their needs. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES/NO There are sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the property providing good pedestrian access, but there is no specific handicap access. The structure was approved and constructed at a time when handicap access was not a requirement. To make the upper units handicap accessible an elevator would be required, which would only be feasible as part of a larger redevelopment request when there would be more of a nexus between the ro osal and the re uest for such im rovements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Site drainage appears to be accommodated properly and does not negatively impact surroundin ro erties. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing vegetation on the site is mature and ample. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFP REPORT PAGE 1$ other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the Final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a chazacter suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of neazby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES Although the design of the building is starting to become outdated, it was likely appropriate when it was approved. Still, there aze many condominium and lodge structures of the same era in Aspen that all contribute to the local azchitectural chazacter and aze appropriate for the environment in which they aze located. If the PUD application is approved, then the Association will undertake fapade upgrades. The Association has already applied and received a construction loan for such improvements. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and .general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glaze or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. Al] exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standazds unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES Staff has not yet reviewed the outdoor lighting for the building. Consequently, a condition of approval has been added requiring inspection of the lighting prior to sign off on any building permit and the bringing of any non-compliant lighting into G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 ,.. ~,, 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common pazk, open space, or recreation azea enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation azeas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent caze and maintenance of open spaces, recreation azeas, and shazed facilities together with a deed restriction .against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Open space is provided between the Hallam Street property line and the structure which provides a buffer for the residents from the heavily traveled street and provides visual relief for those on the street back towazds the structure. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING; DOES IT COMPLY? YES This development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other azea dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has direct access from a public street, 8~' Street off of Hallam Street. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 2. The proposed development, vehiculaz access points, and pazlting arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No traffic congestion is created by this development on surrounding roads. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan. is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical azeas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing is proposed. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 r EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Section 26.310.040 -Standards for Review of a Rezone: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff is unawaze of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. DOES IT COMPL The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable e]ements of the AACP, specifically with regazd to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need fora "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of ]ocal employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the community. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with sunounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES The azea in which the Sagewood Condominiums aze located is a mix of single- family and multi-family residences with a restaurant and the US Forest Service offices neazby. Because of this mix of uses has existed for many yeazs in a seeming]y compatible manner and because this amendment will not alter that chazacter, staff finds that the continuation of this use in the azea would maintain and D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 22 The proposed amendment will have no impact on traffic generation or road safety as the use of this PUD only seeks to legalize the conditions that have existed relatively unchanged for thirty yeazs. Additionally, no new units aze proposed to be added. While each unit will have the option of enclosing their balconies with this proposal, it will only add 55 squaze feet to each unit. It is unlikely that this extra square footage would add additional traffic as the space is generally too small for an extra bedroom. In addition, there aze not any extra pazking spaces on site with which to pazk an extra vehicle. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, pazks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Based on the feedback from the Development Review Committee (DRC), which reviews issues related to public facilities, there is not anticipated to be any additional demands on ublic facilities as a result of this PUD Amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not expand the size of the footprint of the building, therefore it will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community chazacter in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES For the most part, the community character of Aspen includes a mixing of different types of uses, including residential (both single-family and multi-family), retail, office, and, in some cases, industrial type uses. In the vicinity of the Sagewood Condominiums, this chazacter is evident, with other multi-family structures and single family residences co-existing side by side, as well as commercial and office uses close by. This amendment will serve to legitimize the existing multi-family use on the property and to continue the community pattern of mixed uses. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pazcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 23 ,. ,.y .,.~ The Sagewood Condominiums were constructed in 1970 as a legal use in the ARl (Accommodations/Recreation) zone district in use at the time. In April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6, as part of a change to a new land use code. The rezoning had the effect of changing the Sagewood Condominiums from a conforming use into anon-conforming use because the R-6 zone district does not allow multi-family residences as an allowed use. Appazently, the multi-family uses on the south side of Hallam Street were rezoned from ARl to R/MF at the time, but the Sagewood and another condominium structure in existence at the time, the Aspen West End, were allowed to be rezoned to the R-6, leaving both as non- conforming uses. It is uncleaz as to why these two properties were rezoned as they were. Possibly, it was an oversight on the part of the City or maybe it was a conscious decision to have these types of uses removed over time. Staff would submit that the changed condition was the rezoning of the subject parcel which made the use non-conforming. The use did not go away and does not appeaz to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the owners wish to establish the use as conforming again so that they can make improvements to the exterior of the structure and to their individual units, both of which lend permanence to the use. Because this azea of town includes mixed uses and because the units house locally working residents, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the commurrity to legalize the use and I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To staff's knowledge, the multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums has existed in harmony with its surrounding for the thirty yeazs it has existed. Rezoning the pazcel to R/MF so that the multi-family use can be legalized again will allow the use to continue as well as allow the owners to make improvements to the property and structure. Staff believes that because this structure houses many local working residents and is located on a prominent site at the entrance to town, it is in the public interest to allow this use to continue and for the residents to be able to improve the outward appeazance of the structure. Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Title, which is to "protect the health, safety, and welfaze of the citizens." Allowing the locals who live here to continue to improve their units and the exterior of the structure, which is very visible at the entrance to the community, is helping to protect the safety and welfaze of the citizens. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT - PAGE 24 Ex~BIT C DRC MINVI'ES DRC Col~rnt>;lv~rs: 1. Engineering Department • Existing Dumoster: Existing dumpster is to be moved out of the ROW. If no onsite dumpster location, as a last resort the Engineering Department may issue an encroachment license to enable the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. 2. Building Department • Building Permits: A building permit will be needed for existing illegal construction. 3. Aspen Sanitation District Inspection: The applicant must contact ow customer service representative to schedule a site visibwalk-through prior to issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify ow records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specifications that are on file at the district office. 4. ZOn1nE The Sagewood is an existing multi-family non-conforming use and structure located in the R-6 zone district. The complex, which consists of 11 condominiumized units, does not comply with the use, height requirements, pazking or density of the underlying zone district. Outlined below aze the non-conformities. Dimensional requirements: Dimension Required (R-61 Required (RMFI Proposed Floor Area NCU* 1:1 (8344.5 sq. ft.) 10860 sq. fr Height 25' 25' 32' Parking NCU* 18 9 (existing) Density NCU* 19,800 sq. fr 8344 sq. fr. *Non-conforming Use The applicant is proposing to remedy these non-conformities by rezoning to RFM, which will grant relief from the non-conforming use status, and by going through the PUD process to establish the dimensional requirements proposed above. Residential Design Standards: $AGEWOOD CONDOMIMUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 25 ~„, ~'^~ ~. Since there will be no substantia] change to the exterior of the building the residential design standards do not apply at this time. Impact fees: There are no applicable impact fees with the project. Lighting Code: Al] exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use code. Illegal Construction: The enclosure of seven of the balconies to date has been done without proper permits, inspections and approvals. The applicant(s) will be required to submit the necessary permits to "formalize" the enclosures and ensure. compliance with life, health and safety requirements. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 26 EXHIBIT D APPROVED P&Z RESOLUTION RESOLUTION N0. _, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parce! ID: 2 73 7-1 82-2 9121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standazds, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal aze consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, .WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of _ to _ L - ~; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 8`h DAY OF APRIL 2003, THAT: ,,. ~; Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, pazcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk azid Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessazy permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visitlwalk-through. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall. contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for airy reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 8~ DAY OF APRIL, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk .-, ~ ~,. EXHIBIT E P&Z MINUTES P&Z Minutes had not been completed yet at the time of the printing of this report. Once they are available, staff will forward them by email. Sorry for the inconvenience. .~. ^~ s/ ° MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commissio~n~ THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Director( J " FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planne~ RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, PUBLIC HEARING; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAI. ZONE DISTRICT MAP; RESOLUTION NO. ~, SERIES 2003 DATE: March 25, 2003 The south elevation of the Sagewood Condominiums with US Highway 82/ Hallam Street in the foreground. PRAT ~'°~~ dfi ` ~' f ~~, =r~AOEWflO~+I~OND0113INTU3 REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD overlay to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks, height, floor azea, and minimum lot azea per dwelling unit for the condominium as conforming and to allow enclosure of twelve balconies and a roof structure over the entrance to the east side of the building, and to rezone the parcel from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use. APPLICANT: Sagewood Condominium Association LOCATION: 910 West Hallam Street STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND RECOMMENDATION: AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, WITH CONDITIONS SAGEWOOD CONDOMINRIMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 REQUEST SUMMARY' The Sagewood Condominium Association, represented by its Secretary, Scott A. Gallagher, has submitted this land use application requesting the following: 1.) PUD overlay of the property to establish the non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming; and 2.) PUD to approve the expansion of the floor area of the structure by 660 squaze feet by enclosing twelve balconies (55 squaze feet each) and a roof structure over the entrance to the west side of the building (setback encroachment); and 3.) Rezone of the property from R-6 to R/MF to make the existing, non-conforming multi-family use a conforming use. The 11-unit Sagewood Condominiums was built in 1970 in compliance with the standards in effect at the time. Several years later, during a land use code change, the property was rezoned to R-6, asingle-family and duplex zone district with different dimensional standazds. Based on staff review, it is uncleaz why this rezone occurred. The action, however, made the Sagewood both anon-conforming structure with respect to several of the required dimensional standards of the R-6 zone district (floor area, height, off-street pazking, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit) and anon-conforming use as multi-family residences are not an allowed use in the R-6 zone district. According to the Section 26.312.020 and 26.312.030 of the Code, non-conforming uses and structures may continue to operate as they are, but only normal maintenance procedures can be conducted and no extensions or expansions are allowed. The Sagewood Condominium Association would like to make some improvements to the thirty year old structure as it is starting to become outdated, however, they aze unable to do so, in part, because of the non-conformities of the structure and use. In order to help rectify the situation, the applicant proposes a PUD overlay to establish the existing non- conforming dimensional standazds as legal for this property and to rezone the property to R/MF to establish the multi-family use as a legal use. The other component of this application is to request PUD approval to enclose all twelve balconies (one unit has two balconies) on the structure to increase the floor azea of individual units by 55 squaze feet a piece, for a total of 660 squaze feet. Six of the 12 balconies are already enclosed -constructed illegally by individual owners without first obtaining a building permit for the work or approval from Community Development for increasing the floor azea of the building. The applicants request, therefore, is two-fold. First, they are seeking retroactive approval for the six balconies enclosed illegally and pre-approval for the other six to be enclosed when individual owners choose to do so. It should be noted that, before any building permits aze issued for any new changes to the building (including exterior improvements or for any additional balcony enclosures), the owners of the illegal enclosures shall be required to apply for building permits, which may necessitate the enclosures being torn out and re-built properly. Once the additional floor azea for the illegal balcony enclosures is approved, then the Association can apply for a building permit for the exterior improvements (for which they already have an approved construction loan, according to the applicant). SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 ...., REVIEW PROCESS' The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: i) Planned Unit Development (PUD); According to Section 26.445.040 of the Land Use Code, establishment of dimensional requirements and density may be approved with the adoption of a Final PUD development plan. In this case, the applicant proposes a PUD to establish the existing floor azea, height, off-street pazking, and minimum lot azea per dwelling unit as the allowed standards and then to increase the allowed floor area to allow the enclosures to twelve balconies and to allow a setback encroachment from the west property line for a small roof structure over the entrance to the west side of the building; Final Review Authorit~ty Council 2) Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; According to Section 26.310.020, an application for amendment to the official zone district map may be initiated by a group of people who own more than 50% of the property subject to the development application and proposed development (the applicant has received approval from over 50% of the affected property owners). A public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a public hearing with City Council is required in order to approve such amendment. Final Review Authority: City Council BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Sagewood Condominiums, known originally as the Sagewood Aparhnents, were constructed in 1970. At the time, it was located legally in the ARl (Accommodations/Recreation) Zone District, which included multi-family dwellings as an allowed use. In 1973, the apartments were approved to be wndomimumized. On April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6 as part of changes to the land use code, which also established new zone district names. Based on review of the City Council minutes at the time, it is not entirely clear why this particulaz property was rezoned, however, it appears as though it was part of broad changes to all of the zone districts in the city. It is possible that this property was "lost in the shuffle" and the fact that the rezone made it non-conforming was overlooked. PREVIOUS ACTIONS' There have not been any previous actions related to this development application. STAFF COMMENTS' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; Staff finds that the proposed PUD complies with the applicable criteria (see Exhibit A for full Staff Findings). The following are the dimensional standards that the applicant is requesting to establish as part of the PUD and staff response: FLOOR AREA: The structure currently exceeds the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the proposed R/MF zone district and proposes, through this application, to increase it by 660 square feet with the 12 balcony enclosures (55 squaze feet each). Including the twelve balcony enclosures, the FAR will be 1.3:1, whereas the R/MF only allows 1:1 (without the balcony enclosures, the FAR would be 1.25:1). In terms of squaze footage, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 ~w w.d \ the total with all of the balconies enclosed would be 10,860 square feet, as opposed to the existing 10,473 squaze feet (which includes 6 of the balconies already enclosed). Staff believes that because the existing building (not including the proposed balcony enclosures) was constructed legally and made non-conforming later during a blanket rezoning of the entire community, that it should be allowed to become conforming through the PUD. Rather than focus on whether the existing floor area is appropriate, staff feels that the more important consideration is whether it is appropriate to increase the allowed floor azea to accommodate the proposed balcony enclosures. The north side of the building where three of the six balconies have been illegally enclosed. If approved to enclose all of the balconies on the structure (a total of 12) in a legal manner, the Association will use the design of the balcony in the upper right as the preferred design for future enclosures. It is staffs opinion that the enclosures will not be too visually obtrusive and will be beneficial to the occupants of the small units. Despite the structure being located on Highway 82 at the entrance to the community, the building itself is not very visible due to the existence of very mature evergreen trees and other landscaping including a row of shrubs along the south property line. When viewed driving west on US 82, there is no cleaz view into the property and when driving the opposite direction, the glimpse of the structure is very brief and only conspicuous if you are purposely looking for it. Because the primary landscaping is in the form of evergreens, it can be expected that the screening will exist yeaz around. The other six enclosed balconies will be located on the north elevation, which is essentially an alley view and out of most public view. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 ,,.,, ...- View of the property as if you were traveling west on Hallam Street. Note the obscured view into the building from this angle. Staff believes that the mature, evergreen trees and other vegetation screens most of the view of the building. The addition of balcony enclosures, while not the preferred choice for the structures, would appeaz to not greatly impact the aesthetics of the building. Additionally, the enclosures will provide valuable additional space these small units (mostly in the 600-800 squaze foot range and one 1,300 sq. ft. unit) which ftmction primarily as housing for locally employed residents. Enclosing the balconies is one way for the owners to improve their units while not requiring any expansion of the building footprint or increasing the height. HEIGHT: The height limit of the proposed R/MF zone district is 25'. At 30' (as the Code measures height: from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to a point halfway between the eave and the ridge of the roof), the Sagewood Condominiums exceeds that limit by 5'. The building is not proposed to become any taller as par[ of this application. When the structure was built in 1970, the AR-1 zone district that it was located in also had a 25' height limitation. How the structure was built over this limitation is uncleaz. Regardless, staff supports the PUD to establish the existing heights as legal because the height is not conspicuous from the street because of the existence of the even taller evergreen trees and it is not too incompatible with its immediate single family neighbor to the west. In addition, it is unrealistic to expect that the 5' of additional height is going to be removed from the structure anytime soon because it would require a major redevelopment project. Building a new building and replacing the locals housing would likely make the project not cost effective. So it is relatively safe to assume that the structure will continue in its current form well into the future. If the non-conforming status is removed from the property, the applicant will be able to make much needed improvements to the exterior of the property which will somewhat mitigate the impacts of the additional height. OFP-STREET PARKING: According to the Code, two off-street pazking spaces aze required per each dwelling unit, so 22 spaces are required for the existing 1 I units. Only 9 off-street spaces are actually provided. Originally, there were I 1 parking spaces, even though the Code at the time required 1.5 spaces per unit for multi-family dwellings. Again, its uncleaz from the available City records why the required amount of spaces were not built. Two of the 11 pazking spaces originally provided were located directly off of Hallam Street. When the structure converted from apartments to condominiums, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 's,.,s the City required that those two spaces be removed due to the danger of vehicles backing up onto a highway. According to the applicant, there is an informal agreement among the residents that allows the seven owners who live on-site to use seven of the spaces and the other two aze rotated among the renters of the other five units. The other renters apparently pazk on the street when they don't have access to the on-site spaces. Although this situation is clearly not optimum, it is physically impossible to rectify the deficiency on-site as there is no room to accommodate two more spaces. Possibly, the Association can lease the use of some spaces on an adjacent site. If not, the current situation will have to be endured. Staff does not see, however, how the pazking problem will be ameliorated by maintaining the non-conforming status and supports making the nine spaces provided the legal dimensional requirement. MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R/MF zone district, the minimum lot azea per dwelling unit is determined by the number of bedrooms in a structure. In this case, 19,800 squaze feet of lot azea would be necessary to accommodate the combination of bedrooms in units of the Sagewood Condominiums. The site only contains 8,344 squaze feet, so it is non-conforming with respect to this requirement. Staff supports the establishment of the existing site squaze footage as the minimum lot azea to support the 11 dwelling units because it met the requirement for minimum lot azea when it was constructed (at the time, 750 squaze feet per dwelling unit was required, or 8,250 sq. ft., in this case). AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAI, ZONE DISTRICT MAP; Staff finds that the proposal for rezoning from R-6 to R/MF complies with the applicable review standards (see Exhibit B for full Staff Findings). COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff finds that the proposed rezone complies with the review criteria because it is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and the community chazacter of Aspen, will not create traffic congestion, and has been subject to a changed condition which supports the rezoning. The area in which the subject pazcel is chazacterized by a mix of different uses where no single use is predominant. Because of this existing chazacter and because the proposed amendment will only reinforce this mix, staff believes that it will be compatible with its surroundings. The changed condition that supports the rezoning is the blanket rezoning of the property by the City in 1975 which made the Sagewood Condominiums anon-conforming use. It is staff's opinion that this was done without consideration of the impact that the rezone would have on this property and that it should be rectified with this proposal. A rezoning to R/MF will not create spot zoning because there is a large swath of R/MF directly across the street from this project. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2003. The minutes from that meeting aze contained in Exhibit C. No major issues were raised at the meeting. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 <- STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. ,Series of 2003, for a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone istrict Map for the Sagewood Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development (PUD) -Staff Findings Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map -Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Application $AGEWOOD CONDOMINIDMS STAFF REPORT PAGE? t-,l RESOLUTION NO.~ (SERIES OF 200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA AND AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP REZONING THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM R-6 TO R/MF FOR THE PROPERTY FULLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBTl' A, CITY AND TOWNSTI'E OF ASPEN, PTTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-1 82-2 9121 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Sagewood Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (as described in attached Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and Building, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the Sagewood Condominiums; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approvals of the development proposal aze consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, by a vote of _ to _ L - ~; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CTI'Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 8m DAY OF APRIL 2003, THAT: $AGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sagewood Condominiums, pazcel identification of 2737-182-29121, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement and Amended PUD Plan shall be rewrded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any improvement to the building, the applicant shall submit building elevations and design details showing the design of all future balcony enclosures as approved by the Sagewood Condominium Association. The design shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Building permit applications shall conform to the approved design. 3. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to sign-off on any future building permits, the owners of illegal balcony enclosures shall be required to submit the necessary permits to the Aspen Building Department to authorize the deck enclosures to ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. 5. The existing dumpster shall be moved out of the Right-of--Way (ROW) and onto the applicant's property and shown on the Final PUD Plan. If no adequate on-site dumpster location can be found, then an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shall be necessary to allow the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. This shall be completed prior to sign-off of any building permits for improvements to the building requiring a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the customer service representative for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to schedule a site visit/walk-through. Prior to issuance of a building pemTit, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department to review the outdoor lighting. Any outdoor lighting that is determined by the Department to be out of compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of the City of Aspen, such lighting will be required to brought into compliance at that time. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. SAGEWOOD CONDOM[NnJMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 /" ./ Section 3• This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT 1TS REGULAR MEETING ON THIS 8"` DAY OF APRIL, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 ...r EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regazd to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need fora "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functioning of the communi 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the surrounding azea. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The chazacter of the existing land uses in the area is a mix of single-family and multi- family residences interspersed with a restaurant and government offices. Asa multi- family residence the Sagewood is consistent with this character of mixed land uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding azea. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal, which proposes to make the condominium a conforming use and structure and allow for balcony space to be enclosed, should not have an adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding area. Parcels on all four sides of the structure have been developed and should be able to expand in the future without being inhibited b this buildin . 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 ~~ ~_., The expansion of overall floor azea with the proposed balcony enclosures is exempt from GMQS in accordance with Section 26.470.070.A.1. of the Code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: ' Required amount of lot azea to support the existing 11 unit condominium development of 4-1BR units, 1- 3BRunit, and 6-2BR units. a The allowed density depends on whether the units are studio or one, two, three, or more bedrooms. The 11 existing units, however, would exceed the allowed density in this zone district. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 Shading indicates areas ofnon-conformity. ~.,~ a) The chazacter of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazazds. c) Existing natural chazacteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made chazacteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has existed in this location for thirty yeazs and is located in an azea of mixed types of residential uses, including single-family and multi-family. It appears that this use has been and will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and natural and man-made characteristics with the ro osed PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed dimensional requirements seek to establish the existing dimensions as the legal standazds for the property and expand that allowance slightly for the balcony enclosures. There will be no appreciable change in the size or character of the structure. Although the existing height exceeds the allowable height in the zone district by T and has more floor azea than is allowed, this is an existing structure built legally under rules in effect thirty yeazs ago. Despite the increased height and floor azea, the structure exceeds the minimum front and rear setback (of the proposed lUMF zone district) by twice the required amount, which lessens the impact of the structure from the highway. The R/MF requires 20' of total side yazd setback with a minimum of 5' on either side, whereas the structure provides about 13' total, but maintains a minimum of 5'6" on both sides. This places some impact on the neighbor to the west, but does not effect any structure to the east as it is on a corner. Mature landscaping on the west property line somewhat helps to mitigate the closeness of the condominium to the neighboring single- family_residence. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The vazying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES $AGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 .. ~. ., There aze currently 9 pazking spaces for 11 units, which means that some units do not have access to an off-street parking space. While this is somewhat of an untenable situation, it is the reality that the owners and the City have to work with. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on the site to fit an additional two spaces and it is not realistic to expect that two units can be eliminated from the site to make the pazking comply. However, given that the structure is located on the bus line and is a short walk or bike ride into town, there aze options for tenants who don't own cars or who don't need them very often and have an alternate place to park their vehicle. Staff does not want to have this unfortunate situation continue to be considered non-conforming and have it be a barrier to other improvements to the structure. Staff supports legalizing the situation and encourages the Association to continue exploring pazking_alternafives. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage .capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There aze not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and mad maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the review by the Development Review Committee, there exists adequate infrastructure capabilities to the structure. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD maybe reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There are no natural hazazds or critical site features impacted with this structure or with the proposed balcony enclosures. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 .~ '~a,r and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific azea plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those azeas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The densi is not ro osed to be increased. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town aze preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No changes aze proposed which would impact any natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There is only one structure on the site, so clustering has already been achieved. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehiculaz and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure is oriented pazallel to the public street and is setback farther than what the zone district requires with mature vegetafion, which softens the appeazance and size of the structure. 4. Buildings and access ways aze appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 ~- ,, .~ , .. , STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fire and emergency service vehicle access is adequate to serve their needs. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? YES/NO There aze sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the property providing good pedestrian access, but there is no specific handicap access. The structure was approved and constructed at a time when handicap access was not a requirement. To make the upper units handicap accessible an elevator would be required, which would only be feasible as part of a lazger redevelopment request when there would be more of a nexus between the proposal and the request for such improvements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES TT COMPLY? YES Site drainage appeazs to be accommodated properly and not negatively impact surrounding properties. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings aze appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: L The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen azea climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing vegetation on the site is mature and ample. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the £mal development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: I. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solaz access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. i STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES Although the design of the building is starting to become outdated, it was likely appropriate when it was approved. Still, there aze many condominium and lodge structures of the same era in Aspen that all contribute to the local azchitectural character and aze appropriate for the environment in which they are located. If the PUD application is approved, then the Association will undertake fagade upgrades. The Association has already applied and received a construction loan for such improvements. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glaze or hazazdous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standazds unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff has not yet reviewed the outdoor lighting for the building. Consequently, a condition of approval has been added requiring inspection of the lighting prior to sign off on any building permit and the bringing of any non-compliant lighting into compliance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation azea enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common pazk and recreation azeas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of yeazs) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similaz manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent caze and maintenance of open spaces, recreation azeas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Open space is provided between the Hallam Street property line and the structure which provides a buffer for the residents from the heavily traveled street and provides visual relief for those on the street back towazds the structure. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements aze provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. j STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES 'i This development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. L Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other azea dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure has direct access from a ublic street, 8~' Street off of Hallam Street. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 .., 2. The proposed development, vehiculaz access points, and pazking arrangement do not create traffic congesfion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No traffic congestion is created by this development on surrounding roads. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing is proposed. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Section 26.310.040 -Standards for Review of a Rezone: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff is unawaze of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the AACP, specifically with regazd to housing. The units in the condominium, while not deed restricted to meet the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, do provide housing for local workers. The AACP emphasizes the need fora "critical mass" of local working residents to help sustain our community and a "healthy mix" of people with different economic conditions to keep Aspen a vibrant place. The PUD will legalize the existing non-conforming dimensional requirements and allow the owners to modestly increase the size of their units with the balcony enclosures and improve the exterior of the structure, thereby making their units more livable, which may help play a role in retaining a segment of local employees who serve a critical need in the functionin of the communi C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering exisfing land use and neighborhood chazacteristics. DOES IT The area in which the Sagewood Condominiums aze located is a mix of single- family and multi-family residences with a restaurant and the US Forest Service offices neazby. Because of this mix of uses has existed for many years in a seemingly compatible manner and because this amendment will not alter that character, staff finds that the continuation of this use in the area would maintain and D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 .-, .,,~ ~. The proposed amendment will have no impact on traffic generation or road safety as the use of this PUD only seeks to legalize the wnditions that have existed relatively unchanged for thirty yeazs. Additionally, no new units aze proposed to be added. While each unit will have the option of enclosing their balconies with this proposal, it will only add 55 square feet to each unit. It is unlikely that this extra squaze footage would add additional traffic as the space is generally too small for an extra bedroom. In addition, there aze not any extra parking spaces on site with which to pazk an extra vehicle. _ _ E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks; drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Based on the feedback from the Development Review Committee (DRC), which reviews issues related to public facilities, there is not anticipated to be any additional demands on public facilities as a result of this PUD Amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not expand the size of the footprint of the building, therefore it will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community chazacter in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES For the most part, the community character of Aspen includes a mixing of different types of uses, including residential (both single-family and multi-family), retail, office, and, in some cases, industrial type uses. In the vicinity of the Sagewood Condominiums, this character is evident, with other multi-family structures and single family residences co-existing side by side, as well as commercial and office uses close by. Tlvs amendment will serve to legitimize the existing multi-family use on the ro and to continue the communi attern of mixed uses. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pazcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 The Sagewood Condominiums were constructed in 1970 as a legal use in the ARl (Accommodations/Recreation) zone district in use at the time. In April 28, 1975, the property was rezoned to R-6, as part of a change to a new land use code. The rezoning had the effect of changing the Sagewood Condominiums from a conforming use into anon-conforming use because the R-6 zone district. does not allow multi-family residences as an allowed use. Appazently, the multi-family uses on the south side of Hallam Street were rezoned from ARl to R/MF at the time, but the Sagewood and another condominium structure in existence at the time, the Aspen West End, were allowed to be rezoned to the R-6, leaving both as non- conforming uses. It is uncleaz as to why these two properties were rezoned as they were. Possibly, it was an oversight on the part of the City or maybe it was a conscious decision to have these types of uses removed over time. Staff would submit that the changed condition was the rezoning of the subject parcel which made the use non-conforming. The use did not go away and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the owners wish to establish the use as conforming again so that they can make improvements to the exterior of the structure and to their individual units, both of which lend permanence to the use. Because this azea of town includes mixed uses and because the units house locally working residents, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the community to legalize the use and allow it to continue. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To staff's knowledge, the multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums has existed in harmony with its surrounding for the thirty years it has existed. Rezoning the parcel to R/MF so that the multi-family use can be legalized again will allow the use to continue as well as allow the owners to make improvements to the property and structure. Staff believes that because this structure houses many local working residents and is located on a prominent site at the entrance to town, it is in the public interest to allow this use to continue and for the residents to be able to improve the outwazd appearance of the structure. Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Title, which is to "protect the health, safety, and welfaze of the citizens." Allowing the locals who live here to continue to improve their units and the exterior of the structure, which is very visible at the entrance to the community, is helping to protect the safety and welfaze of the citizens. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 22 ,.,,. ExHlsrr C DRC MINUTES DRC COMMENTS: Engineering Department • Existing Dumpster: Existing dumpster is to be moved out of the ROW. If no onsite dumpster location, as a last resort the Engineering Department may issue an encroachment license to enable the dumpster to be stored in the ROW. 2. Building Department • Building Permits: A building permit will be needed for existing illegal construction. 3. Ashen Sanitation District Inspection: The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visiUwalk-through prior to issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specificafions that are on file at the district office. 4. Zoning The Sagewood is an existing multi-family non-conforming use and structure located in the R-6 zone district. The complex, which consists of 11 condominiumized units, does not comply with the use, height requirements, parking or density of the underlying zone district. Outlined below are the non-conformities. Dimensional requirements: Dimension Required tR-61 Required (RMFI Proposed Floor Area NCU* 1:1 (8344.5 sq. ft.) 10860 sq. ft Height 25' 25' 32' Parking NCU* 18 9 (existing) Density NCU* 19,800 sq. ft 8344 sq. ft. *Non-conforming Use The applicant is proposing to remedy these non-conformities by rezoning to RFM, which will grant relief from the non-conforming use status, and by going through the PUD process to establish the dimensional requirements proposed above. Residential Design Standards: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 23 .~~ ~....~ Since there will be no substantial change to the exterior of the building the residential design standazds do not apply at this time. Impact fees: There are no applicable impact fees with the project. Lighting Code: All exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use code. Illegal Construction: The enclosure of seven of the balconies to date has been done without proper permits, inspections and approvals. The applicant(s) will be required to submit the necessary permits to "formalize" the enclosures and ensure compliance with life, health and safety requirements. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS STAFF REPORT PAGE 24 a C 6) E C N O. 6) G 61 O N L N ~ O J L E ~ o °- U c a~ a a Q O a U M d O r M ~v 63 C U c 0 U 6) 6) m c c O N 7 a 0 v 0 U 0 0 m m U V U C N 'O m r, C 6) U a a .~ .~ E ~ m m o ~ o M O ~ 0 N ~ O O ~ Q rn c ' ~ c ~ C 0 L .1 1 X ~ U N N ~`" mm a¢ ~~ ~ain~ `0 0 _ ooE`O UU moo m >> ~ ~ 0 0 O C C = O. M a3i a3i ~ a~i a ~ E o 0 wrna a ~ M1n lninrn¢ mmw Ina C ~ Q d ~ i d a m E E v, F w o =r m C Z ~ C O N N 0 .~ U O. y- a - N o E~ d a x w w m z ° li¢ s~iw~ ax ~~~ . ~. h M l r m m m m C E O N O 100 O ¢ 10 N 10 1~ E m 0 10 O ~ Q Z j E 100 N ~ r O H O O O O m Z 0 0 0 o O O X 0 0 O O O { N N N N 6f z o a n v ~O O O v O v O v ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ 01 ~ C ~ ~ O y O -O O O -O O ~ O ~ O v rn ~ U ~ oQ .-. ~o~+ ~o E ~ a° C y .-~ ~ U .-~ ~ ~$ r ~ U « ~ ~ ~ U 67 ~ U f6 " U 67 ~ 0 16 0 ~ a F In UO UUIn U>U D IAU ° '~ o o 0 1 n o In 1 n v N ~ r N M . - r N ch N 0 ~ J M ~ O O O O F ~ ~ W N ~vj m ~ a c 0 E Q C N E r m a C N nd oL ~ o T C - ~ ~ E d ~ oa ~ U C c O N a N Q O _ O ~ U T O U of Q 0 a 0 U v 0 3 m f6 C O d ~5 a 0 0 U ~ v °o as ~ ~ \ M ~ 1~ V ~ O N M a ~ m a~ ~ ~ N N C m °- x - ~ m ~ l6 a J O H ~ F N N O U v c m d d LL w O O U l6 U m °O °o °o I- ~ W ~ W O ~ ~ c °o o ui E ~ Q W M fR 0 O O N M 0 ° ° o O o ~ ~ N N ~ vi bM9 Nv OD N 0 } Y C f0 y 0I ~ C ~ n r _ g Y C ~ a ~ ~ ~ E a °o > N ~ E m _ S ' '' ¢ ~ ca i d~ W ~, ~F a u, C? ~ N « L N M O) > U ~ ~~ N U ~ O Q _ a LL O U ~ ~ u~ O v C m ~ _ m m_ 0 0 O C j ~ N U Q m C a ~~ m m m m ~ m ~ °- Li~m I-I~- H F QO F ZU 7 v o ~ 0 H ° ~ N lU ~ a o E Q S d (~ c N r (0 a d D c d E .. a a~ o d !/1 Oo >.~ C J ~ ~ ~ N o a N S U ~ C U d N C Q ~ o m ~` O U N Q 0 v c 0 U v 0 0 3 m m m m c O N N a ~, O U 'p C C l6 O U ~ m ~O 3 ~ °o ~ cn a 3 Z o ~ m ~ m o ~ v ~ ~ +' i • f C .J C? a ,.:1, s: ~ ~,;~ G ~ N '- A G ^~ .~ .~ '~ LI ~w O U ~• c:, , ~ G C 4 C W Ero cG Ua Cro .~ N N N •~ iV G ao G U N N +~ H Na N •~ 4 m 0 G O N M W W cro N ,1 G N +V~O W U N ~~o oG~ 'n N 0 t, U N N >~W G N 0 °a~ ~~1 a am U ~ a G I 'i C 0 N o N .r ,o u i, uNw aN'.a G+a, 0003 u.cE~rnCwrn NiVN4G•.i SaG .N W:, ..iA •~ row•-IV,•OEf~ro Gcro •~aN~ a N •.i H G ••i H~ajNaaOq .V N .G fa rw NNC:GN .CNNG~1.rNr Nv,03W•.+ +, . aoc~~°,cmoo •'NE.G IIU NW U O N N W N N N N O G U N N N O G N 3 .,ION .,I aGNCO `.,w •oN NN.Gxo T,I N ri ri :~ ~'i m >a rl ;, N ••i Vd ro +~ N~~ NA 3 H •~ .:. N ~AEO'dNNOq .C N~~I NaAN O ti N E; 'll W W N aroooNavaG,~ >• > ENE. •yNN NWNw o0rala0+NINpU ~n>EGNC0. 1^ 'aro G) ~G O ~ ~ N n .CNN G +~aW G.^.NN .p ~o amroNNu 03N lPNG U U N N a 0 G •C a t G ` A •,~ N UroWOS~X+1 +~ •~ N .i N •.1 •rl JJ ~3 aNN bfa r `ON3f+N3 .s: ~V R N N N U iV N •G >> N C N .,I .C 1, G .C 3'n> :VON+V N Ti N i G b I U N o+ GocrorJN GNU I GroAR I N N -~iN AN~.iA NNNNN U oRHW W Ew t.~ E~•.~roE,-rN H U O G N N N O N O rl 1, G ti N W U N fa .~ N o aN WNN,.+uo ~ Nri oooN F, ~n W U •.i G N w +~ N iV NNW N N U W .C +, N O N 11 W G N+I U N,G N GA O O N U 11 N N F. N•.i W•.iN UNNNGON w0.NN G n +~aroa~E~~aa -.~u N aro•.a a wN NoN~AS+a°is;rn~,~m~:c.G+Nm~+ O O.C >,.cNE aONON.iNU.C 1, A N N GWrIWW N N N,'.~ 1, N N N N !-I C 0 1, 0'O ro N U it rl .C N N N O .C C A O~ G w' 1 "rN GGNGi, UNH NU,~3•' 1, ': ri I .VGriNN.CNHO 1V a aroUroO L: N•.i ~r W S• N G 1J G O x N Gw W W Gl 0 += ~NNWN a No+~NN~., N11 E.: +, tt a.rncr.NC~o+~ u N v, •..•.INu e, EN NNN•.f aNN1+A JJ W-N +V ~-I >apNN;V '1= ~ N N W 0. ` G a/ O N N G :Ca G •f+~.C W ro N N F• >N)a 11Nr1 W 7 N7>a ~,ONWa ~~ r/~~UNGG N `GHm>• Na AON N+JGaoNroN>aNOUNU>,,,Nro :~ ~c ~.~NN~CF~EGtiNN acNGro s,~++,a a WNN +VN >CNa>.CNE>•N•-IGa =r Ga-IAEosa WNOO o++ ~eroN .V.3 NW EaUNN03N1VG %1aaq,CNG •a C +1 N a •~I a G O U N H aV 0 0 'd N G N a0. N ocN~CN~~NN-.~Na u o•.+ •*~ .0 N C •'I R -fl N .C 11 .i .^~ N }I ro w R g u n F; i+ 7A W E+, ~.iU `;,W {JUNW.~W N O r N 0 H ro G N O X C E 3 N N 'c;tl N1ab G~.iNNNAO GN3N `4aNN ~rL WOOG•.iGNaro +VUwN OONOH Nw U W NNUIVENII>3N W NN>a •.i `qa O NG NOGNO -~+U+O E.G N+11, XiT +' 0 ••i W ,C N ro 0 x H `.C C N +1 a•.+ C SI W G y 1~ a, sa .~ o u c •.+ +~ a ro ~.~ >i N H N o •.+ •~ N iV N i, U .,{ ,C 0 .~ N N A O U r.~ G .G ~.i C 4- G .~ G ro >i N' W N .C A N 0 iV W C +- N ti ro W -,~ N G G a~.~ }V a iV G N W 0+~•i Q a 7 N O N .CON •~ G G N O W .1 C J R N I CP.G ~.i G b .V, U .'". SI W .C 1J G> > 'ri •~ N i, .". VV^) NNN~'IN CN atP tl aC•.i CG+11 .•iW N NrorooNOSawN •+rn•NNN> mm Acarn~~WEaN >a>a„ N c.~ F, •,~ •~+~ a N N> ro a G N N O N N N as N m u ro o N U +l l VI ~.i N -.i U N " r-I rl w .~ N A "1 N .'~., N W 4•I JJ ~~~roroG rooNA a,a mW nr. •.+ .GNGNNW .~ NOU^O aNN NNC 0 W 1, 7 C A W ri N SV ••i N 1V N 0. .•. 07 ~~I •~I 5 N G N NJ, N NNOtn >aH 4 11 J:G/1 ra O+N NI, NaJJ NO ro G .VHNW H `GN.GNNNroN1,A NW>i0 aA.c u•-IU~aWU.,EW +~oEoFGCw +, UN aro > GN~.i NG~OaV N 'n g A 0 N 7 A 0 0 0 ;V a W ro C U +, .^. O W O N I Eu.I NCPCON N'0 •~ aro m m •.Ni c wo NGGGOC+~.G~+oc 0 0 •~I •~ 11 H G U .~ N EU Ea NNNIV R0 U.~LUO N 11Nro Hro iaro+~NiV O.C NU~-IU 1, 0~•~CN J~ Cro GW,C NW NroN N••1-•iOW+,E NNN N Oro NdJ ONN `UU GEN UNWaNUON ~~NroorJ,J NGa•i N !a •~IY ?1 -.iNO NNaro rn > wcN~~F rJ ;n~~ +, U G W n E lI ro~c~°'NIN,a"aoo N aG+~.cNNW wro +, N N V,w aArl N UiVW LW N0` N>aN N•.~oslowl,N~•~,oro W G a 0 N ~-i W G N WaNaJJ >,A rJHW~-I N U+aGLA a.C N~•+N NNNNU u~maHS, N ,, ,, ~roro •~: NGN N N +, NJ a N N N W •.~ •,C O GNU~a aOaGGroWG N a}1 +V 1V a0a W HNa~aNOWNUC•.; NNNUCA UU+~.C>a .L .CNNNG,N UN 1,W++W~~.t, Ar+ `w H h vwroro~.q.-1 a°i oro a~ >OGGN•.i~q•.i 1, N N N.G N N +, 11 O+V N 1, 1, ,{ N U O C N 01 ~1 W N :J N -r1 N G cNGroEN A~,ro~H•., ~VGNNO +1 +VNNriN co'~Rva~wc~a•NCm H N a~ •~-I N N N N N G `0 n N-.i N .G aU ~V E N 0+~ W N W +V0. ~ G N aG N N G~,C A N ~~1NNNb+ `EOG•-I~HL rJ •.i N aU+INNNVV `F 11 +~--I >rcaNOrou ~•1GNNOroa ~ri NN G •.+ r a~.+ .~ a s, N •a •,, OEu~+,>NOaro.G .~. .e. SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ADDRESS 8~ PHONE LIST FOR 2003 (As of February 25, 2003) Please review and notify the Secretary of any changes, as lhls Is where your mailings will be sent. If you prefer mailings by s-mall, please provide address. nit 1. Risoun Heng & Scot[ Gallagher (VICE-PRESIDENT) Unit 11. Totry Petrocco t5'l, 10 W. Hallam St #1 ~ 910 W. Hallam St #11 °Icl', Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 1`'0 ~t-`i 544-0809, docglive@excite.com F] 925-3795 ~ ~ ~ Un 2. Herman Anderson PO 1003 DES ' n, co x1612 23-2535 (h), 544-5296 (w), 379-8330 (pager) 9. t(- Un t 3. Jeffrey Shoaf 3123 DES co g1612 925-4501 °IZo - (~~< -f\.,e:~/ ~ 6,~ nit 5. Charlie Eclcart & Came Paterson 0 North Hoover yzo _Z o q g ~[~ s s Angeles; CA 90029 C (323) 662-8850, chasbo3@earthlink.ne[ / carriep@ro£net q,(•~. it 6. Enrica & Tiziano Gortan 1 W. Hallam St #6 E span, CO 8161 L 920-7901 etgortan@yahoo.com `t l' • t 7. Carol & John Ott (PRESIDENT) Ol E. Cooper Sl #203 PA(1„nA,~Aspen, CO 81611 925-7444 (h), 925-1701 x247 (w), jolt@billposs.com '}.b , mt 8. Scott Bartleet & Lyndal Williams (SECRETARY) 5,--~t0 W, Hallam St #8 lJ~ span, CO 81611 544-0584, ]williams@billposs.com /scoff@teaguearch.com ~.b , nit 9. Andy & Michelle Sanchez (TREASURER) B 1801 448 W. 400 North Street ~l ~S Aspen, CO 81612 435-259-44843 32 925-8719 ~,t•% 't 10. Paul Fagan PO 244 `t,. ~ A en, CO 81612 ]r' 74-1134 (cell) ~4•(. Unit 12. Jim & I{aten Blanz 6344 NW 50's Street (~ Coral Springs, FL 33067 Ko ~r-`f 305-596-1960 x5412 --- 954-345-1785, ]carenb@babristhealth.net Patricia Chew, Inc. (accountant) 695 Surrey Road Carbondale, CO 81623 963-1129, 963-0185 (fax) 0 e r'q~µ ~f1~S~~-'CXI~I i. y..i. -i: :: fl I It I T II- _ Uta~zvlnr~ IrtTEt~sT Iit cot•u~tot; AtaLAS r. UVIT SQUARE 'r'OOTF.CP, FACILI'PIES 1 12 : ,"7.7 15.0 2 J I~ ry%•4' J.1~~ 3 76~i.6 9.1, 5 640.2 7.6:~ • 6 7o7.ti y.ly; 7 707.0 ~/.1;, g o4u.2 , 7.u,b 10 70'l . ii `~.1; 11 767.6 `r .1,~,; \~ 12. o4U.2 Lb;u . ~~ ,` '~ YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 I Scar ~~ 6'~ ,being the owner of unit # at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. E~' I approve. ^ I disapprove. e(cti(a Signature ~ Date ~~ a. a °l.l' ~. YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 I /Q / ` ,being the owner of unit # ~ , at the Sagewood ndominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the cun•ent enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condo m Association. I approve. ^ I disapprove. Signature ~ ~,~ ~3 Date s. --* YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 I /si~2;,,f 7 ,being the owner of unit # S , at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. I approve. ^ I disapprove. a . 6 '/. Signature Date 9.1' ~. ..~. ,..~ 'tir ., s YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 1 ~ I~.(i<YI-~'~ ~~~~ ,being the owner of unit # ~_, at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow pemvts to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. I approve. I ature Date .-~ ,.., YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 I L`1n~DA~. ~ ~u-I~AnnS ,being the owner of unit # ~ > at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. I approve. ^ I disapprove. •IS~o Signature Date ,... ,. ,. ,,., t .W YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 ~ ,being the ownetSof unit # ~_, at the Sa ~ ewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums (2) Legalize existing non-confornvng setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. (3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. I approve. ~ I disapprove. 1 bi n3 Signature `J Date JUN. 18,1 3~28R'"` YOUR RI N ECDEU rAI,LAG -,,. t~10.936 P.4 Cl ~ . / 1 (/ rSE O THE ATTACI~EI1 QUESTIONNAIRE IS -Y EASE RETURN TO SCOTT 91D EST HALLAM S'I' #1, ASPEN, CU $1611 1 ..__--~~n`! t...~~`_9 ~' ~. ~.__..~ being owner of [Jnit N 1 ~ , At the Sagavoad Con minim Association wrderatand that the SagewooJ ~ondontinlum Aasocia ion, as .presented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to tlu l"•oI~ tunity 1 evelopment Ucpartment of the C".ily of Aspen for the follo~'ing; (1) Rezone 4om R to RM to legalise multi-familyuse of the Sagewood (Z) Legalize existii non- nforming setbacks, building height, floor ntea and minltnum lot a pcr d cuing Cor the Sagcwood Condominiums, (3) Obtain sufficlc addili nal FAR to nlbw permits to bo submitted tbt' the rutTemt ettclosnres, ae 11 as f • enclosers of the remaining balconies if attd when doomed desirab by th Sagewood Condominium Association. i nppt•uvc. Signantre Paco ..~, ,, ~. (~% YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHED QUESTIONAIRRE IS NEEDED ASAP - PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 2003 TO: SCOTT GALLAGHER, 910 W HALLAM ST #1, ASPEN , CO 81611 I , ; o ~ n i~ ,being the owner of unit # 7 > at the Sagewood Condominium Association understand that the Sagewood Condominum Association, as represented by Scott Gallagher, has submitted an application to the Community Development Department of the City of Aspen for the following: ~.~,Qo~,Z (1) Rezone from R6 to RMF to legalize multi-family use of the Sagewood Condominiums ~?QoJi~ (2) Legalize existing non-conforming setbacks, building height, floor area and minimum lot area per dwelling for the Sagewood Condominiums. ~~ ~?~Qor7ri(3) Obtain sufficient additional FAR to allow permits to be submitted for the current enclosures, as well as for enclosure of the remaining balconies if and when deemed desirable by the Sagewood Condominium Association. ^ I approve. ~ 5 No i ~.~ ^ I disapprove. ~5 NaT~~-~ Signature ~ Date .rns of the Hiatorlc Preservation Committ .old Council he had some reaervationa Norma Main St. - ,« o£ the'~oning as outlined. This does not-pxec lace someone from tearing down an existing Historic structure. Burns highly recommended under conditional uses dropping the words "a 12oning structure." By adding these new words under conditional uses,-this would preolude a ', ~ non-historic building from adding any of these uses. Lary Groen addressed the Council andpointed out that no where in the revised zone for Main Street is there any definite provision to preserve historic structure short of I allowing them better uses. There are 29-30 historic bur ldi~s on Main from Monarch to the , ', Castle Lreek bridge and there is nothtng'in tFte-code to actually prevent removal of these i structures. Historic zoning on that stretch of Main'Street would protect historic 6txuC turf S. Planner Stanford said all structures on Main Street would have to be documented. The ~, Planning Office would like to see a preliminary plan for historic district which cote loge ' structures of real significance. Those s tructures not of real significance after being i cataloged would be available for removal or relocation. Councilwoman Markalunas moved that the Council adopt a directive to the Historic Preserve-I ~ ti on Committee that they proceed immediately to go throughthe process of availing both j ~ sides of Main Street from Monarch to Seventh Street with historic overlay; seconded try i Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion Harried. - i, ~ Mayor Standley brought up Han Gramiger's point of a side street curb cut. City Attorney i, i Stulller said this provision applies only if the structurehas seceived historic deaigna- [, tion. She access off the alley is required only if an alley ex is ts. One may get per- k mission from the P s Z to get a Higbway 82 curb cut. Mayor Standley asked if one could have a peaked roof bn Main Street that would go over the maximum height requirement. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #11, Seriea of 1975, seconded by Councilman Breasted. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #11 ' (Seriea of 1975) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 24, "ZONING" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, RE-ENACTING OR AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS THEREOF, ADDING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY A PART OF SAID CHAPTER; INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE A REVISED ZONING DISTRICTMAP AND HY THE DEFERENCE ADOPTING THE SAME; SAVING PROSECUTION AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF TAE PREVIOUS i SECTIONS WHICH PIOLATIONS OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE O£ THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING, IN ADDITIONTOOTHER LEGAL REMEDIES, THAT FOR ~,~ VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 24 THERE MAY BE IMPOSED FINES UP TO AND INCLUDING i $300 AND ZMPRI SONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 90 DAYS. ~.+ was read by City Clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt ordinance #11, Series of 1975, on second reading; seconded by Councilman ereasted. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Breasted, aye; I De Gregorio, aye; Markalunas, nay; Pedersen, aye; Walls, nay; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion Carried. it Ord. 23, 197 ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1975 ':~ Impound Lot lease Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. I Councilman De Gregorio moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 1975, seconded by Councilman i Walls. All in favor, motion carried. ' ORDINANCE #23 ' (Series of 1975) I AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY O£ ASPEN AND BARRED PAHST FOR THE LEASING OF A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL IMPOUND LOT; RE4UIRING THE. PAYMENT OF $125.00 PER MONTH FOR SUCH LEASEHOLD; AND PROVIDING FOR A LEASE TERM OF THREE (3) YEARS SUBJECT TO EARLIER TERMINATION IN THE EVENT OP THE SALE OF THE PREMISES.. wasread by the City Clerk. Councilwoman Pedersenmoved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series o£ 1975, on second reading; ~ seconded by Councilman walls. Roll cal 1. vote; CouncilmembersDe Gregorio, aye; i Markalunas, aye; Pedersen, aye; Walls, aye; Breasted, aye; Behrendt, nay; .Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ' Ord. 24, 197 ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 1975 Appropriate Funds to Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were ao comments. Mayor Standley closed .Centennial i I the public hearing. ~ ~' Councilman,De Gregorio Moved to read Ordinance #.24, Series of 1975, seconded by Council- I ~ woman Pedersen.. All in favor, motion carried. ', ORDINANCE #24 (Series of 1975) AN ORDINANCE TRANSFERRING $4y 000.00 OF SURPLUS WATER REVENUES TO THE GENERAL FUND AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING SAID AMOUNT OF THE CENTENNIAL/ BICENTENNIAL EOMMISSION; AND RESTRICTING THE USE OF SAID FUNDS i was read by the City Clerk. Councilwoman Markaf "'as asked if this would be a general Cit licy. City Manager Mahone said he felt it wpropriate to handle the Police Departm. .separately. Mahoney Police Dept. pointed out fire a police departments are generally treated separately in pay scales. Pay Schedule i. Mahoney also mentioned that other departments would probably want more money and this will ~ ~ have to addressed at this summer's budget hearings. i ~. i Mayor Standley said this salary plan would give the Police Department a structure for ~ ii I! i dealing with their personnel. Councilman Behrendt. indicated he felt it was a great idea ~ ,i ; ''. but~~ted~tn hear what the Finance Department<k,ad-to.-say. about it. Finance Oixector Butter6augh asked-that if the Police Department-had excess money in the salary budget, - would they go over ttiemaximum. Hershey said his raises would be based upon merit plus if the Departmenthad extra money. Councilman Behrendt moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman Breasted. Council- members Breasted, De Gxegorio, Behrendt in favor;. Mayor Standley,COUncilmember. Walls, ', Markalunas, and Pedersen opposed, Motion NOT carried. _ I~ Finance Director Butterbaugh pointed out this would motivate people and she had no objections from that point. She had no specific problems with this type of schedule. Hershey told Counci lno other department heads had come to him to look into this type of schedule. Mayor Standley said he thought the Police Department had gotten rid of the ~ lieutenant's position and questioned it on this schedule. Hershey said this was just following the lines in Section 2-91 of the Municipal Code. Hershey indicated he did not ~. intend to create the position of lieutenant again. ~. Mayor .Standley asked why the humane officer was. placed substantially below that of a patrolman. Hershey felt this was a historical place for the humane officer. Mayor ' Standley said it seemed that a humane officer had a different kind of training but virtually the same work load and thesame inherent danger in their work. Hershey indicated that $10,500 was maximum for a humane officer and that he didn't have the budget'toraise the humane officers at .present. i Councilman Wa11s moved to direct City Attorney Stuller to draft an Ordinance supporting I, this type of salary structure; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen, All in favor, motion carried. Chief of Police Hershey addressed Council on the needs of the communications in the Police ~! Department requesting an additional $3,500. Mayor Standley told Hershey to come to the _ budget study session with any request. Council told Mahoney they wanted a packet before the study session of department head requests. ~ Counci Laan Behrendt moved to adjourn the meeting until 5:00 p.m..Tuesday, April 29. No ^ one seconded, Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion. ~ City Manager Mahoney told Council that the Holy Cross sitssation would be addressed in Holy Cross a memorandum from Sandra Stuller. City Manager Mahoney told Council they would receive a memorandum from the City Manager on energy and that the Ci ty .needs to address an energy alert. Energy Alert ~ City Manager Mahoney introduced the statue on the economics report and the determination ! of impact o£ certain things occurring in the City. Urban Economist Larry Sirtmnons told i Economic Report Council he planned to have a report out by July 1 that would be fairly substantial to start discussing the expected impact of different types of growth. City Manager .Mahoney reported to Council that the City does own the Thomas Property, ! ~' an additional 6.2559 acres for $87,500. Thomas Property ORDINANCE $11, SERIES OF 1975 i! Ord. hL, 1975 Mayor Standley said because of the sweeping change in zoning on Main Street, he would Zoning Code allow comments on that subject only. Councilman Walls said the Council had made so many changes in the zoning ordinance over so long a time that it is hard to keep track o£ them. Councilman Walls was wondering what point Council should have another public hearing. As far as the public is concerned, there should be another public hearing so thatevery- i one knows exactly what is in the final ordinance to be. voted on. Councilman Walls moved to schedule another public hearing; seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. Counci lmember Wa11s and.Markalunas in favor,. COUncilmembera De Gregorio, Breasted, Behrendt, Pedersen and Mayor Standley opposed. Motion NOT carried. Planner Jahn Stanford told Council they,had looked at the. zone R-6 along Main Street and Main St. to maintain the integrity, visual impact and historical significance of Main Street and zoning j to allow for a more diversified type of uses along Main Street they had developed an 0-2 district. The intent of this district is to retain the present mix of uses on Main Street, to encourage the preservation of stxuctions of historic significance and the character of the entrance to town, to provide for reasonable use of properties along Main Street, and to maintain efficient use of Main Street as a primary high volume of east and ~ ~ west thoroughfare. The permitted uses in this zone are residential, professional and ' business offices. The conditional uses require special review by .the Planning and Zoning Commission. These uses are restaurants, rooming houses, boarding houses, if location I ~ in a structure which has received historic designation and ifadequate parking is provided i on site with access provided from the. alley. The area and bulk requirements for 0-2 were ~; i disigned primarily on R-6. J Hans Gramiger commended the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission for making I ~ the changes they did. Gramiger questioned the 0-2 zone requirements asking if the front yard had to be in addition to the open space requirement. Gramiger objected to the ~ maximum height requirement in this zone and questioned the basement area being excluded. from the f.a.r. I ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: °~ ~a W'cs ~ J-{d (lac„ S~Q-* ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: .1J(y IN , 200 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitl<in ) I, S c~tt- Ga I(a~h~- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (I S) days prior to the public heazing and was continuously visible from the ~ day of Svne , 200 3 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~- Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 2S day of J+ne , 2003 , by c'~ ~'.b'1~7' 09- C7 fl L ~/~lif-~C~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~ l -~ ~ - ~' ~ . Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ATTACHMENT6 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Three forms of notice aze required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and mailing to surrounding landowners. Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including identification of who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication -Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Deparhnent and we will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting -Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and to bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use attached affidavit). 3. Mailing -Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development pazcel by the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Deparhnent, to mail it according to the following standazds, and to bring proof to the hearing that the mailing took place (use attached affidavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An Applicant for surface Development shall notify affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of public hearing. Smooth Feed SheetsT"" ALLERTON PHIL & VALERIE 945 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 BEN-HAMOO PATRICE CONYERS PO BOX 2902 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRUNT FAMILY LP PO BOX 304937 107-98 ESTATE CONTACT ST THOMAS, VI 00803 COOK ROBERT C 8 MARSHA N 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW ATLANTA, GA 30305 DACOSTA MAUREEN C PO BOX I ASPEN, CO 81612 FATTAHI AMENEH AS TRUSTEE PO BOX 8080 ASPEN, CO 81612 GELLER SCOTT 29 BARKLEY CIR FORT MYERS, FL 33907-7531 GREGORY KIRK GREGORY PETRA PO BOX 10055 ASPEN, CO 81612 HEISLEY MICHAEL E CIO K J LONG 2004 DIANA DR MENDOTA, IL 61342 HUGHES GAIL 712 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ANZALONE GRACE E PO BOX 3808 ASPEN, CO 81612 BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M PO BOX 1365 ASPEN, CO 81612 BUTLER MARIE 814 W SLEEKER #C-4 ASPEN, CO 81611 COORDES HEINZ E 8 KAREN V 908 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 DOYLE R 8 G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% DOYLE R T III 30% GRIST F 30% 3711EASTLEDGE DR AUSTIN, TX 78731 FOREST SERVICE ASPEN HEADQUARTERS 900 GRAND AVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 GIBANS JONATHAN PO BOX 8098 ASPEN, CO 81612 GUTHRIE DAVID H & AMY L 920 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HINRICHS NANCY R 100 N 8TH ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 HULL MIKE 50% 834 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Use template for 5160® ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BORDERICK MARK E & SHARON A 939 W HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 COHEN RICHARD A & ELIZABETH A PO BOX 1806 ASPEN, CO 61612 CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION PO BOX 32 ASPEN, CO 81612 EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 GEIGER KRISTEN 941 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI GLATMAN BRUCE ROY 20034 CALVERT ST WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 HADDON HAROLD A & BEVERLY J 409 21ST ST DENVER, CO 80205 HOGGATT JERRY S 175 14TH ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124 JONES EARL T 8 SANDY 50% 307 N MONGOMERY ST OJAI, CA 93023 pVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsT"' Use template for 5160m 4. r . . KEILIN KIM MILLER KUDISH DAVID J REVOCABLE TRUST KURTZ KENNETH T & KAREN BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY PO BOX 10064 1325 N ASTOR ST 18656 S RT 59 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60610 SHOREWOOD, IL 60435 LANDIS JAMES H EARNER JACQUELINE L LEPPLA JOHN L LEPPLA JOEN F 1501 MAROON CREEK #11 376 DAHLIA 4040 DAHL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 MOUND, MN 55364 LICHTENWALTER GARY R LONG MONA HAYLES TRUST 814 W BLEEKER UNIT B-1 BOX 3849 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MADSEN GEORGE W JR & CORNELIA G 931 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MANIE MICHAEL B 1/2 PO BOX 11373 ASPEN, CO 81612 MARKS MARILYN R 930 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MURRY PAUL J MURRY BONITA J 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 ASPEN, CO 81611 RAKESTRAW RONALDL 947 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SCRAPPER WILLIAM H 814 W BLEEKER ST #B6 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHERIDAN DAVID R II 1/2 PO BOX 11373 ASPEN. CO 81612 SJR ASSOCIATES LLC C/0 STEVE MARCUS PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81612 MATTHEWS DEE R 5137 52ND ST NW WASHINGTON, DC Y0016 OSHEROW PAM 3528 NW 61ST CIR BOCA RATON, FL 33496-4001 REED BRENT H 100 N 8TH ST #6 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 SCHIMMENTISUSAN PO BOX 2554 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B 4706 WARREN ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 SMITH BRADLEY K 937 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LUU TONG KHON TRAN TUYET LE 814 WEST BLEEKER - B4 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARCUS STEPHEN J 62.15%INT PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81812 MINNESOTA MATERNAL FETEL MEDICINE 2115 DWIGHT LN MINNETONKA, MN 55305 PARK JAYLENE 8 STAN 37.85% INT PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81612 RICCIARDI RIK 100 N 8TH ST #14 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHARP DESIGNS INC 936 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 SISTY UGLERS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD C/O CAROL ANN KOPF 770 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOOK GARRY 8 SHARON P O BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~AVERI/® Address Labels Laser 5160® ®J9L5 ~ase~ s)age-~ ssa~PPd ®A213A~I® STEINBERG EDWARD M STUART DONA STUHR WILLIAM J III 1068 HOLLY ST PO BOX 11733 PO BOX 3808 DENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 TALENFELD ELIZABETH G TOPELSON ALEJANDRO TRAN HONG HUONG 915 W FRANCIS ST 4725 S MONACO ST #330 814 W BLEEKER ST #C1 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 ASPEN, CO 81611 UHLER FRANCES M ZUCKERMAN HELEN LIVING TRUST ZUCKERMAN NORBERT A TRUST 814 W BLEEKER 280 DAINES STE 202 7439 MIDDLEBELT RD STE 2 UNIT B2 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322-4163 ASPEN, CO 81611-3115 ®0915 ~o; aae~dwa; ash Wls;aays paa~ y;oows r^ ~ \... C ~ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Paul Smi[h * Chairman Michael Kelly * Vice- Chair John Keleher * Sec/Treas February 21, 2003 Scott Woodford Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sagewood Condo PUD Dear Scott: Frank Loushin Roy Holloway Bruce Marherly, Mgr The applicant must contact our customer service representative to schedule a site visit/ walk through prior to the issuance of a building permit. We will need to verify our records prior to the legalization of the changes proposed. Service is contingent upon the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the district office. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, (~~, ~7"V~M~we~ Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mi11 St., Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925.3601 /FAX (970)925-2537 F"\ it MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: X ........... City Engineer X ......... Community Development Engineer X ........... Zoning Officer O ........... Housing Director X ........... Parks Department X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal X ........... City Water X ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District X ........... Building Department O ........... Environmental Health O ........... Electric Department O ........... Holy Cross Electric O ........... City Attorney O ........... Streets Department O ........... Historic Preservation Officer O ........... Pitkin County Planning O ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator O ......... Transportation FROM: Scott Woodford, (scottwna ci.asoen.co.us) Comm unity Development Department 130 S . Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5102 Fax-920.5439 RE: Sagewood Condominiums PUD and Rezonine -The Condominium Association proposes to utilize a PUD to establish the existing non-conforming setbacks as conforming and allow enclosure of balconies on six of the twelve units (six already are already enclosed) and to rezone the parcel the structure sits on from R-6 to R/MF to legalize the multi-family use (it is currently anon-conforming use in the R-6 zone district). DATE: January 30, 2003 DATE OF DRC MEETING: February 12, 2003 at 1:30PM. • NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOEHNER (johnn@ci.aspen.co.us) BY NOON ON January 15, 2003. YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. o O ~; '~ ~~e ai-au~oire'ad"s WNNNVOQN07 - ~ Q uos;egsn~ @pne~ 400M3~dS _ -- ~i <;o ~. IYI `, oweom Taev "m,. wnm~ ~ ae - _ ---~~- STJOILVAOFHB m O ©q f~ Q ~a n~•.: •:-:••'•'~sooeed"s WNMWOONO~ ~ . uos}B4sn~ pipnep OOOM3JdS ~¢ ~n ~''~ ~~ ip ~~ e /rc~~ Y, ------ _. __ _ _ _J, ~° _ e i ~m ~~a /~'~ w i ~F ~I ~ N ~~J >g ~ sraouvnoNaa ~' ®4 e Q ~.d ° m eawodaed~ Wf11NIWOaNOJ ~ uos}e~sn~ pipne~ OOOM3JVS - ---- ,, ~, --- ' 4# r~ 1 s a. M W v 'l '1 w FJ - F j -- - ~ ,~ - w! a~lT, P~y 1' ~'\ c JI' M ''. ~' 1'f.yJ"tC •JT^+,v ,.: ., -- "~ r ~ tw~ ~ '~ ieM e ~~'`` ~ 'n"~ ~~~ ~ { ~~~~M~ ~ ~~ ~f~lf l , , ~ai1 x ~ .~ t t ~~ 1 , ,, :. r ; ,~ e ~ ~ ~ Y .+rr~ / ~ , ~~ . . ~ , ~ r. v. .~ l~a ti ~ ~ ~~~ fi _ ~ ~.^ ~ _ ~ ~ } ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ Jr . L fr l id. l- . F - ~ W \ ~~~~ i 4 A,S ;t. }~ rh .,.,~ ~- I X ti '~ ~ r: 3E }: k~ S _ .J y+~y~ .% F 4 .Y- ~ ~ ~.. $?• _ - 1 - 1 ~ Y• • a r t- --Y ~~ ~ ~ k 1' {1 ~~ ~ C~ '^}"i l I „ y I~~t i ~ ~ ~~, rv ~Pb 'R I ~ y\y1. ~1'1~ ~ l •* ~ \ ~ . y~ ~l ' ,. _ .. ..~ ~. of a tt` t+ p ` ~,~~„ ~~ sraou wa ~O a r i ~ .naa~'=,a~,~•~•:'®iaoaeevs uos;e~sn~ II!P~B~ Wf11NIWO4NOJ a00M3JdS § Q I ~~I ~'I >n ~'s ~. ,~ `f II i ~P i~ ~^ l'~~I ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: / ~ ~e~Q-~ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: J , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I ~ ~ / ~(/ ~~ ~ --1 f/~ ~~/~-~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~_ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in hei ht. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heari~g and was continuously visible from the _ day of q 2C~1, to and including the date and time of the public / hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~;~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifreen (15) days prior to the public heazin~ on such amendments. ~; The foFegoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before e this ay of t ~ ____` , 200, bY -~~---e-5 ~l r~r WITNESS MY HAND ANDZOFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~ / L~' C~3 ...... .~ : '; G _ ...~ ~ ~ PYI©~~I~z~-a O(0 R ADO {hc '~ '~~!:, ~. mix ty, uactt,, , 8n apphC~hOn GIlb71~ tj14 $egCwood ' al' of ~ Gbean, ~1/FH~a1 <drezisEing, notwonfaming dimensional SIGl~ ~ ' ~' 8" Tong entry spy dtal extends to the eas[ area to ~1(>»5 twelve (12) balconies and OTICED .zoning the parcel from R-6 to RMtF m order ' Hallam.Sit~t, tSty.`~ Aspen. '17x legal ribed ffi IstaQ, R and`S of Block 4:City of id lying on"the westerly,boaafwy DECD[ Q,'' ary and 5.95,feet wide a4lElicly end. wdford at the CRy of C ry feria SI., Aallen, Cf1 . (~/f~ , 'L+ z hearing will ltc held O& ~', IMh+ n tri Co Cambers, City P . at~so~.+wKi~aoea. . , ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~.--~-~( ~`~, WJ(/~_ x~ ~U° ~' [~'O C~Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~/ ((//~ ~~ , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. CounTy of Pitkin ) I, ~ ~ Cti lti'~~~~ ~ 1 1/1 ~"~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the foIIowing manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heazing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. gnature --b The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before m this) 8 day of G4~,"~ , 200.3, by~---~~ ~v~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL /~ My commission expires: RE snchwoooc ~ O ~ ... ~ ' , ,`i, _ hurguAts : ~ N077CE 6 GNFN that a publb hearing Cl arW be neJd on ay, May 6th, at a meetivg to ~n et 4:30 p. before the Aspen Plenning d Notary Pllb 1C ` ',; ) ZaNng Commisebn, Councg Cnambss, city Ball.. ' (n C-.',. `S 130 5. Galena SL, Aspen, to caulder an appllcr +~ ' ' Uon submitted by Sagewood Condominium Asap ~ • elatbn requesd en ~ ' ~:` ~'~. . Q -CMonmceptuep Flnal PlmtKd UnR beaebpn `. ....) to legalize the adsting dimensloml m .. .. ..~ , ` ~~ O P , qulremenfa to allow for a Il' wide Dy 6'g" Ion C+ 0`' ~ `% 8. cent0evered entry canopy Nat attends to the wt property Ilne, and [o increase the Nbxed A~mmd~me rt ~° ~IW ~cla~l ZonlnBMa~P rea~pdih e ATTACHMENTS: the parch from R6 to R/b1F b oNer [o kgalke Ne mW Wamity use, The aublect propvly b b For lurtlhen Wormn~oq c~on[ac~3cott WaoNOrd COPY OF THE PUBLICATION at the Clry of Aa Community Development De pertnenq 130 3. St, Aspen. CO (970) 924 sloe, acnttwlAd. pen.eo.us. pH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) s/Jasmine 7ygre. Chair Ae Planting&Zoning Commisabn Publianed in 7Te Aspen 77mea on April t9. 2003. <029) iD GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE 7 ,> ~ ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~~~~~W C -- C~ (~~~5 ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: STATE OF COLORADO ) 200 ss. County of Pitlcin ) ---~ / f / I ~~ \Q (~-( ~__ ~ /~-- (~ ~ - (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting ofnotice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (IS) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (I S) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the azea of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. .i" ~ rgnature ~/ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged be ore me~tt~sa) day of Y-~"~c-e~c s~ , 200, by _~cn,.--~~ ~ 1 r-~~' - ae: suaavoon rvmne s r crv¢~ .`~ .norms wweenwm'nrew.s. gih,dsm neda g ~ v.o. troewa Zam~ig comoYgea~ ,aq xeu, r~ a c;.io. st.. ~: su orlfup r wwk. aoo repeated by Cent Auo ~ietim rMaeatln[ ePPr~- mr' ~~ `fib =meph~sy Fmd PlwroEl tmk us.elepmmt P10.11 w: kktaYtlre tree eMne' anedlpnN b ate. maw .uow tar uirusr eawurn ee,MSmms n®ttsm nAO+rarars w b4 m tle eai1H®ay uee:.whMn Y oel aarmlb LL twea m tree rtt fine awec the. eub~ut arub xy'tIOeaeW 970 aax tr4em Ste. ~Y d Ae- wo. 'o< nvtne mimet sma wbaieara rNeardNpm Deoe- ad¢, ~won+n~t~c ~.ma runaenea m me an.7~.Y.n wren a, zaao. c~~m WITNESS MY HAI~T$~~I~!Q. My c~o~•ssion ~es: ~ J /~--.~ SF J ~ ~ pP~c Notary Public 't'~:'••.. ,: '~~ qrF OF G~ ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION "OGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN SEAL l.i~i ur ~t~ vrvi~fERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ti .. ~. ATTACHMENT7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 910 W HntIAM STP~ET ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: T~£5~ Anti (o , 200 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, 5 t otti- C-rau A ~r~F-~t. (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~iPublication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ~~Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ~Z day of r.P.~l , 200 3 , to and including the date and time of the public /~ hearing. A photograph of7he posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~/ 'C~tGlailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ,.-. . . ~, . , Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. /~.cye Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~ day of __~Rr, I , 200 3 , by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ,O~`a3 8 ~ O (. Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL Smooth Feed SheetsT^^ ..-. Use template for 5160® . r COORDF.S I1F;INZ li & KAREN V BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M TALENPELD I[I.IZAItI~.ll l t 908 W FKANCIS PO BOX 1365 915 W FRAN('IS SI ASPEN, CO 81 G I I ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8161 I SHODEEN KI[N'I~ \4~ l'Rl Iti'f1i1S ASPEN HISTORIC' C'O'I"TA(il'S LLC C/O SHO-DI:I•:N 62.15%INT GUTHRIE DAVID I I ~\ .4 ~411~ I 17 N FIRS"I' SI' PO BOX 1709 920 W HAI_I_AM S'I GENEVA, IL 61104 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8161 I PARK S'I'AN x .IA1'I.1!NP:66.6T%~ INT GELLER SCO'f'1. LUU TONG KIIUN TRAN TUYET Llt PO BOX 2091 29 BARKLEY CI R 814 WEST BLEEKER - B4 ASPEN, CO 81612 FORT MYERS, I~ I. 3 3907-7 53 1 ASPEN, CO 8161 ] SHERIDANDAA'IDRIIli2 COHENRICHARDAIISI,IZABETHA TOPELSONALEJANDRO PO BOX I I J 7 t PO BOX 1806 4725 S MONACO ST #330 ASPEN, ('U x l h 12 ASPEN, CO 81 G 12 DENVER, CO 80237-3468 BUTLER MAIZII[ SCHAFFER WILLIAM H MARRY PAUL.1 814 W 131.1!1!K lilt !t1 ~-4 814 W BLEEKER ST #B6 MURRY BONITA .I ASPEN, c'O 8161 I ASPEN, CO 81611 814 W BLEEKER ST ('-5 ASPEN, CO 8161 I UHLER PIZAN('I'S M FATTAHI AMENEH AS "TRUSTEE TRAN HONG I Il iON( I 814 W 13L1'.IIKI!IZ UNIT B2 PO BOX 8080 814 W BLEIiKI(R S'f ll<'I ASPEN, ('O 8161 I-S I I ~ ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8161 I MINNI•:SO7A MAII[IZNA1. LICHTENWALTER GARY R HOGGA'T'I~.IIiRIZY ti FETEI. MIiUI('INI! 2115 DW IGI I'I I,N 814 W BLEEKER UNIT B-1 175 14TH S'I' MINNP.'fONKA, MN 55305 ASPEN, CO 8161 ] NEW ORLIiANS, I.A 70124 HEISLIiY MI('llAlil. G KURTZKENNETH T & KAREN C/O LONU K .I BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY EARNER JACQI II•:I.INI[ I. 2004 DIANA UR 18656 S RT 59 376 DAHLIA MENDO"I'A, IL 61342 SHOREWOOD, IL 60435 DENVER, CO 80220 HEISLEYMI('11A1?LI'. KUDISHDAVIDJREVOCABLETRUST STEINBERGI'sllWARUM C/O K J LON(f 1325 N ASTOR ST 1068 HOLLY S'I' 2004 DIANA DR CHICAGO, IL 60610 DENVER, CO 8022(1 MENDO'I'A, IL 61342 EICHNER SAMUEL L POLSE KENNETIi A K .IOY('I'. L DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN EICHNER SUSANA STERN DE REVOC 1992 TS'T 814 W BLEEKER PL GZ FUENTE PH2AMIDES 243 452 SCENIC AVE ASPEN, CO 8161 I TECAMACHALCO MEXICO CITY, PIEDMONT, CA 9461 I 53950 ~•~ AVERY® Address Labets Laser s~~n® Smoath Feed Sheetsr"' KHALAF ALEXANDER R & FAHIMA 408 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BEN-HAMOO PATRICE CONYERS PO BOX 2902 ASPEN, CO 81612 MADSEN GEORGE W JR & CORNELIA G 931 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RAKESTRAW RONALD L 947 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BORDERICK MARK E & SHARON A 939 W HALLAM ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 FOREST SERVICE ASPEN HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE SISTY UGLERS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD C/O CAROL ANN KOPF 770 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 DOYLE R & G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% DOYLE R T III 30% GRIST F 30% 2834 MONTEBELLO RD APT 6 AUSTIN, TX 78746-6817 BOSSART TODD L 814 W BLEEKER ST #E4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ZUCKERMAN NORBERT A TRUST 7439 MIDDLEBELT RD STE 2 WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322-4163 MARKS MARILYN R 930 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITH BRADLEY K 937 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHIMMENTI SUSAN PO BOX 2554 ASPEN, CO 81612 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B 4706 WARREN ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 HINRICHS NANCY R 100 N 8TH ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 RICCIARDI RIK 100N8THST#14 ASPEN, CO 81611 HADDON HAROLD A & BEVERLY J 409 21ST ST DENVER, CO 80205 EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE REED BRENT H TRUST-1/2 100 N 8TH ST #6 PO BOX 271 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 SULPHUR, OK 73086 ~@ AVERY® Address Labels Use template for 5160® KEILIN KIM MILLER PO BOX 10064 ASPEN, CO 81612 OSHEROW PAM 15240 TALL OAK AVE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33446-9793 SNOOK GARRY & SHARON P O BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 8]612 ALLERTON PHIL & VALERIE 945 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 GEIGER KRISTEN 941 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1163 GIBANS JONATHAN PO BOX 8098 ASPEN, CO 81612 COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW ATLANTA, GA 30305 HUGHES GAIL P O BOX 11048 ASPEN, CO 81612-9657 GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI GLATMAN BRUCE ROY 20034 CALVERT ST WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 DACOSTA MAUREEN C PO BOX I ASPEN, CO 81612 l scar S1Ff1® Smooth Feed SheetsT^^ - Use template for 5160® ~ - LANDIS JAMES H '~ MATTHEWS DEER ' BRUNT FAMILY LP 1501 MAROON CREEK #11 5137 52ND ST NW p0 BOX 304937 ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 107-9B ESTATE CONTACT ST THOMAS, VI 00803 ANZALONE GRACE E LEPPLA JOHN L SHARP DESIGNS INC PO BOX 3808 LEPPLA JOEN F 936 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81612 4040 DAHL RD ASPEN CO 81611 MOUND, MN 55364 , CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION GREGORY KIRK STUART DONA PO BOX 32 GREGORY PETRA p0 BOX 11733 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10055 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 , 0 AVERY® Address Labels user sun® i/~~-~~j Y~(LI o 3 .-. .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 6s', at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Sagewood Condominium Association requesting approval of a Consolidated Conceptual/Final Pianned Unit Development (PUD) to legalize the existing dimensional requirements, to allow fora 11' wide by 6'8" long, cantilevered entry canopy that extends to the east property line, and to increase the allowed floor area to enclose twelve (12) balconies and an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map rezoning the pazcel from R-6 to R/MF in order to legalize the multi-family use. The subject property is located 910 West Hallam Street, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 19, 2003 City of Aspen Account ~"O. \..~ Community Development Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Scott A. Gallagher Secretary, Sagewood Condominium Association 910 West Hallam Street, Unit #1 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Sagewood Condo PUD and Rezoning Proposal To Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director: N« ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~S ~~ i ~ S~ Gu „G rw;l <<~ w~~~, ``Dece ber 10, 2002 The Sagewood Condominium Association respectfully requests that you consider our application to establish a Consolidated Conceptual /Final PUD to legalize the existing dimensional requirements and set the dimensional requirements for multi-family use. We are requesting approval to be processed as a PUD because the property is under 27,000 S.F. Attached are copies of the minutes from the Sagewood Condominium Board of Directors meeting of December 5, 2002, appointing Scott Gallagher (owner of Unit #1) to act on behalf of the Sagewood Condominium Association in this matter. The Association proposes that the dimensional requirements of the PUD be equal to the existing dimensions of the building, and be expanded to include an additional six (6) balcony enclosures [see attached drawings]. We are requesting that the balcony enclosures be in included in the proposed floor area (FAR) calculations so that future amendments to the PUD will not be needed in the event that the remaining six (6) condominium owners may want to enclose their balconies in the future. As of today, six (6) of twelve (12) balconies are currently enclosed. Additionally, the Association requests that you consider our application to rezone to the R/MF Zone District to legalize multi-family use. The Sagewood Condominiums are currently zoned R6, which does not permit the multi-family use for which the building was originally built and erected in 1973 under the appropriate ARl Zone. It is unclear exactly when the City rezoned our lot to R6. However, the effect was to create a building that is both nonconforming in use and structure. The surrounding area is primarily single family residences, although directly across Hallam Street is a large RMF zoned project (Aspen Villas) and there is also a multifamily dwelling across 8`h Street on Forest Service land which is zoned SPA (Forest Service dormitory). j 1 JJ ~i~ "~(J`M~ I~Lot~ ~ rtC(l,~'aC~1I'~ (>~~ ~~~al ~f ~~ dd i \ ~'~ r G"~"'~~~"~. ,f;~L, ~~OCa! ,~10 ~PN~l~G1~~{~l~~~C~7 ~JI ~ ~~ ~, The Association argues_that both of these proposals (PUD establishment & R6 rezoning) will further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and will best serve the interests of the community in the following ways: (1) The Sagewood Condominiums are an older building in need of refurbishing. As the building is currently a nonconforming structure and nonconforming use, we are unable to obtain permits to improve the outward appearance of the building without rezoning and establishing a PUD. The Association has demonstrated a commitment to improving the appearance of the building by the recent approval of a construction loan for this purpose. (2) The building is a prominent structure, conspicuously located on Hallam Street on the Entrance to Aspen, and clearly visible to all who enter Aspen. The Association argues that both the immediate neighborhood and the City of Aspen would benefit from any aesthetic improvements that can be made to the exterior of the existing dilapidated structure. (3) Exterior improvements made to the building through the permit process will improve the aesthetic appearance of the building and will in no way change the character of the existing land use, adversely affects future development or adversely affects neighboring residences. Our proposal will not in any way change the quantity of open space or site coverage, existing off-street parking, area noise, traffic, transit, or pedestrian circulation. There will be no effect on existing natural features of the site, existing lighting, orientation to public streets, vehicular or pedestrian movement, pedestrian and handicap access, emereencv access or existing site drainage. I have personally contacted our immediate neighbors and do not anticipate any objection to improving the outward aesthetic, appearance of our building. (4) In addition to legalizing the existing dimensions of our building, we respectfully request that you consider including all the balcony areas in the proposed FAR calculations. This will allow the remaining owners who have not enclosed their balconies, the option of obtaining permits to enclose their balconies and prevent the need for future amendments to the PUD. In the past, seven (7) of twelve (12) balconies were enclosed without proper permit approval. One (1) Owner has recently removed his enclosure after being red- tagged. His enclosure was rudimentary and easily disassembled, with no removal ofsub-flooring, flooring, plumbing, electrical wiring, walls, doors or proper windows. The remaining six (6) balcony enclosures were completed over 10 years ago, mostly by previous owners. Their removal would involve complete demolition and remodeling, with removal of walls, windows, doors, sub-flooring, flooring, plumbing and electrical wiring, as they are extensions of the adjacent living rooms. In order to move forward and improve the appearance of the building, without subjecting multiple owners to undo hardship and expense, we are seeking an FAR that will include all balconies. 2 ~\ ~~ ~ ..~ (5) The Sagewood Condominiums represent an important source of housing for local residents of the City of Aspen, most of whom use public transportation. Of eleven (11) units, seven (7) are owner-occupied and one (1) is an Affordable Housing Unit. All residents, including the renters, live and work locally as there is no short-term rental permitted. Five (5) units house two or more occupants, and two (2) units house families with young children. There are both professionals and business owners in the building including three architects, one emergency physician and a restaurant owner among others. It is our argument that these valuable resident deserve a chance to improve the appearance of the building and avoid potentially having to demolish their enclosures. (6) The proposed PUD and rezoning will have no effect on the existing architectural character of the building. However, through the proper permit process an upgrade will be pursued using more attractive and energy-efficient materials. The only potential change to the external structure of the building would be the possibility of enclosing the remaining six (6) balconies at a later date if City and Association approval were granted. In summary, the Sagewood Condominium Association respectfully proposes the following: (1) Permit rezoning to the appropriate R/MF Zone District from the current R6 Zone to legalize multi-family use. We request that the City waive any and all fees associated with rezoning. Rezoning from ARl to R6 by the City in the late 1970's appears to have been done in error, as the building has been amulti-family dwelling since it was legally erected in 1973. We request that we not have to bear the cost of being properly zoned. (2) Establish a Consolidated Conceptual /Final PUD to legalize the existing dimensions and an additional six (6) balcony areas (an additiona1330 S.F. beyond the existing building dimensions). The Sagewood Condominium Association greatly appreciates your consideration of our situation. Please consider our proposal to rectify the current situation in a manner that we believe will be to the benefit of all who live here, our immediate neighbors and those who transit the Entrance to Aspen. Thank you for consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, /d"''~1' ~" /~~- Scott A. Gallagher Secretary, Board of Directors, Sagewood Condominium Association 910 West Hallam Street, Unit #1 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 544-0809 _._ FRX N0, r. uc D'cC-04-2002 WED 03 39 PM /'~ .~ w `a .I -' CITY OF ASPEN pRE.APPLICATiON CflNfERENCf Si~MMARY - -~. P1,ANNE12: Lames ]..indt, 920.5095 llATE 12/4/0? PROJECT: Sagcwood Catdos Rezoning and Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Gallagher OWNCR: Sagcwood Catdo Association Tl'PG OP APPLICATION': Rezoning, Consolidated PUU DfSCRIP"17pN: The applicants would like to rezone the Sagcwood Condos to the R/MF Zonc District to legalize the multi-family use. In addition, the applicants are interested in establishing a Consolidated ConcepatallJ"tnal PUD to ]cgalize the existing dimensional requirements. Currently the Sagowood Condos are zoned R-6, which does not permit the multi-family use or set out required dimensional requirements for a multFfamily building. "therefore, tltc building is both a nonconforming use and a nonconforming structure. The establishment of a PUD that sets the dimensional requirements as what exists would legalize the nonconforming structure. Wo recommend that if any of the condo owners anticipate wanting to enclose their balconies in the near future that they include the balcony enclosures in the proposed floor area (FAR) calculations, so that a future amendment to the PUU would not be needed. In order for the applicants to pursue a PUD application, the Community llevebpment ~ Director must find that the proposal may have the ability to further the goals of the Ashen ~~ Area Community__Plan (AACP) and that applying the provisions of the PIJp land use 4 41~`` 4 review process to the proposal will best serve the interests of the wmmunity A letter requesting that the Sagewtwd Property go through the PUD process should be included in the application. 'I'bis letter should make an argument fur how the proposal will further the goals of the AACP and will best serve the interests of the eommuttity. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) keview by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council. City Council shall be the final review authority regarding both the proposed rezoning and PUD applications. Public Hearing: Yes at P & 7„ Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance Planning Fees: 52405 Deposit for 12 hours of stafftime (additional stuff time required is billed at $205 per hour) Total Deposit: 52405 To apply, submit the following information: ~, Letter addressed to Comrnunily Development Director reyuesting approval to be processed as a PUD because the property is undo 27,000 SP. 2. 'fora! Deposit for review of application. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant sorting the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behtd f of the applicant. 4, Signed fee asreentent. ~ i. Pre-application Conference Swnmary. 6, Au 8 l /2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 7. Proof of ownership. ~yA ~..,, n. Sri e J Secretary' Resort Rezoning and Consolidated Conceptual /Final PUD: Scott Gallagher met with members of [he Aspen Community Development Department on Tuesday, December 3, 2002 at 2:30 pm for 1 hour to discuss rezoning the Sagewood Condominiums to legalize multi-family use and to legalize the existing dimensional requirements. The following members were present from Community Development: Julie Ann Woods, Sarah Oates, Steven Knipe & James Lindt. Currently the Sagewood Condominiums are zoned R6, which does not pemvt multi-family use or set out required dimensional requirements as for amulti-family building. Therefore, the building is both a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, according to the Community Development Department. This process is a detailed process and will likely have at minimum the initial cost of $2405. The Community Development Department has requested, among other things, that the Sagewood ~. Condominiums select one representative authorized to act on behalf of the Sagewood Condominiums ,..'... during this process. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved by all present a[ the j~1,1 meeting that Scott Gallagher serve as this contact person. Lynda) Williams, Scott Bartleet, Charlie Eckart and John Ott will be available to assist in [he application process which may require architectural skills. With regard to the cost of the application, Charlie Eckart provided a similar application from 3/20/02 provided by Fred Jarman for a cost of $1205. ]t was mentioned by Scott Gallagher at the time of the meeting with the Community Developrent Department that perhaps there should be no cost to us as we are no responsible for being improperly zoned. Apparently, when the building was erected we were appropriately zoned ARl and then at a later date after completion of the building the City rezoned our ~ _ f building into anon-conforming R6 zone. The initial response by Community Development was that we ,` would have to pay the cost of this application, regardless of the reason why we are presently zoned ~' ~\ improperly. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved by all present at the meeting that we request a reduction in the cost of the application, but proceed with [his application whether a reduction is obtained or not. "FAQ" sheet: The "FAQ" sheet prepared by Scott Gallagher was briefly reviewed. No specific motions were made on the numerous points highlighted in red at this time. However, it was evident that there are many inconsistencies between how we operate and how our By-Laws require us to operate. Michelle states that many of the practices required in the By-Laws were changed in prior minutes. However, we should change By-Law requirements by voting to amend the By-Laws (which can be simply done at any Association meeting). The By-Laws are in need of revision simply because much of the terminology is irrelevant (e.g., different classes of voters). We still do not have asigned/dated copy of the By-Laws and there is continued questioning about the validity of this document if no such copy can be located. IF ANYONE HAS ASIGNED/DATED COPY OF THE BY-LAWS PLEASE PROVIDE THESE TO THE BOARD. Another issue brought up was the need for a corporate seal, as required in the By-Laws. This seal would be helpful to affix to all minutes so that there is no question later if minutes produced are official or not. The FAQ sheet was designed to provide a general reference to common issues as they relate to our governing documents. Capital Improvement reimbursement requests: There was discussion regarding Scott Gallagher's request that he not be asked to pay 100% of the cost for improvement he made to the Common Elements already with Association approval as well as 15% of the cost for doing the same improvements to all other units (i.e., fence replacement, entryway improvements, windows replacement) during this capital improvement project. There was general agreement that this would not occur and a final proposal will be presented by other member of the Board at a later date for voting. Meeting adjourned: 10:45 pm Next meeting: Board of Directors Meeting, TBA Prepared by Secretary (Scott Gallagher) ~3~~a ~' '~_ -~ 3 Iii ,~~ ~' I 1 o`~ z '» ~ i xcm Q go' 4 m~ ~g8 i ' GARMISCH ST ~ 2 ~~ O n ~ t- ~~ n ii a ~ 11; na y. i J^. ' -~ F/RSTST S" •A ~m SECOND ST. G ~ ~i "~^~'+ THIRD ST ~ T ~ S n Yj; Z ~~. ~' ~~ y~ c Z y r P FOURTH ST. FIFTH ST. _~ s/xrH sr. 00 ~ ' ~ s $i n m m a._ - ~ .tea = I.i'. 33? SEVENTH ST. ; J „k A >> J ~~' 3~ w nis . :a: v'~ El w TH ST. ~iw ~ N ~~~ a v a m.° _Z m =p 0 _~ ~~ m3 vm ~Z o~ C ao ~-mi m.z mm S i ~~ ~~ off, ~ oml~ ,~ y ~ ~. m ~~~ ~: ~ N 0 z c s a ~ r, , o ,~+~ uP >~ ~~ A ~ ~ - /Z~ yl 8 ~ ;m rn o O m ^~~fi. s za ii~j a ~.7)y ' 1 ~ s ~4 ~.~ .>r ~~ P $Sm - A °" (1~ '_ ~"R THIRD ST. - _~ ~~ ~'~_ i_ n:.+ A t :.'~: ~ ~.- ~ ~ .-..m i ms mn ~5n ocm io N o y~0 £mi OT E y`12 D; NO ZN ;2 $N$N ]J Nn m H M~~,h+i Am4 li w. iY ~~~ _ } i ~~b -~ I ASPEN HIGHIANnc a ~_ m Annnrn q.w (- ~ (`- -. ~ 21 I %~ .~ _~.. ~" '~ ' y, q xi~ ~ ,, ~~%~ may/ ~,~lY ,~* ~,.- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT "A" All eleven (I1) condominium units as shown on the Condominium Map for the "Sagewood Condominiums", appearing in the records of the County'Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as described in that Condominium declaration for "Sagewood Condominiums Association", appearing in such records in Book 282 at Page 438, more fully described as: Lots Q, R, and S of Block 4, City of Aspen, with the exceptions of a pazcel of land lying on the westerly boundary of lot Q, being 7.16 feet wide at the southerly boundary and 5.95 feet wide at the northerly end, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot Q, Block 4, Township of Aspen; thence south 75° 09'11" east 7.16 feet thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of said lot Q, which point lies south 75° 09' 11" east 5.95 feet from the northwest corner of said lot Q, thence north 75° 09' 11" west 5.95 feet to the northwest comer of said lot Q; thence south 14° 50'49" east 100 feet to the point of beginning. ',vu,l1i^ ° ncP o ~o i;4eF :, naa e k rx?~a k a og~^ ~' r; ° 'y^, Iq ;£. ~~ ` 09• N~ nYEY i^ `i ( ~~~"~ I e.R:.. y~ ~~. ~- ° , n .C= ) YY • •1 a ~ °Oa ~ T b. S . :,.Y Y xYY j F + ;EY°= ~;Y e ~ ' 2 -Y~'f ) d riie•'nE y ° .~ + a+x •• • •°~aeeifoa ,y ,.1 `• ~ i! ?. " ei I Y • Y 1~`~ e•xax c n~•~aY a.2[T F y8 bi:.:2YaYST, Y I li i ti" aYAxli" o e. 7 ua Y° x~ t °oi..i:a ~ 4 °+ ' ~'• a Rio J'iY+iij ~5 g~au ELI . a Ex a I~ YZ ° { b°' • 0 ° lY '~ ~ iY IC j • 'f Sxu ' Y g ~0 Y°a ~a.iu6 C l;° g iR : pp ~ ° l0° Iaa p " • Y Y 6 e.4 r 8i a~a~ a oY`F~ i .$: eE; I 6 S „ T :°a '° a ~ I: ae 3 i w, TC dS ~ ~~iaY3"`` ' 4 : . la s :Y ~ , gl ~~a ~y iau bad s ~°!a e FS n .• Y•.n ' 5°a°1 a° , hic iJn F+ a 7 I ~. .._,.... __._..... f'i ~. is booze yr . ~1 Q { "z oho $ o i.s a5 °• ,z; f ~i Y o Y ~ • ~U °ZY : '• :: Y. ya4 ei .a 3 S: ~, as w, Y. ° 3' a'e^ _x =4a: ~.;.: r, y Sz;~~s4~ s e~' - ' ~='9t' 8 rA~ . • f c ,e= :~. k ~~. '~ o+w I>:g t . •n f ° ; i :a.. __ ~~_... .. .i °Y ~ 4~ A , e ;i ~ 6, a a q `~ ° Y ` [ ` Yo g ° ° r ~ ; 5 }i p; < o d ~ o' E a , j o o . ~ z 7Y ~' 9 ue Y S 1~ Y * :,: • i~E r x k. ' a ~ ~ pi gF `r rr+ asa yY=Y =o ~ Yo. 5 Y s; ~ i`a. i ao y ~ ae a eie n Y a ° ~ ~ B __ i 'f ~Y ; i -_ 9. Y E SE Y ii Y( nU .Yb [ •u .~_ z ` z. oC ;~ Ia~~a ~Ae.. °FYo ~iCC .•Yp~~YF Y CA`0.ii "Y" ,oo Yak', ~F. a.~ y UJaY j T F ~~ sg ag~.ao.n ~a$~s Danz B E up°~a~~°. _'~°6 ~ t._e Y;uY .' k3 yo .gFYe6,~a~g:ge - •5~.io.P i°. -e 6: ~ y° cf" ~i,5ia a a.Y.~.a.Y_'.~_b. ~ .n...° ~9 3 Ptl~lll;~ ~. li;~ ''~ F ~ . . .. C~ ,t ; g:[i~. ji .3^ 19. ?~~;5 ~, w I i ~I ~~ i ~ 3 ~ N U ~ o r u a < ~ iv ;a ~ E `° @, p ~ ~ b ' ,.5 ~ F1 -'n I :o r JJ tt 1~ ;~ ~~5 5 H ;; 4kE u R .-. ..~. b 8 ~ e r r r ! E ? 4 A ~Y~ ;~ ~, ~ g g ~i ® e n r ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ' S g ~ o N p oi:: ~:~ ®os., r_ ~ 5 ~ 8 $ S: 'I .~ ~' a bl ~~ ~_ yo 0 'tf' 7zu 0 Y 0~1~ 4gji Opp ~• 3~ F~+'' a, ®,~~, ~4 ~4 •f ty ~ rn i 1 : I€ m m mi i I _=~ ------- 1 Ott, I ~,. 6 ' '' I _: 1' I I biz i:: L~t I .. :1± I ~~•~ ~ I I i I -I I I -I~~ i i _.._ 9 < 1 6 e __ _ _ ..._ DEC-04-2002 WED 03 44 NM rxn nv. '~ " /'~ ~.. - ATTACHMENT 2 -IJ~ND USE ,9~PLICATION Name: Location: Indicate street address, lot ~ block number, le al descri lion where a r riate APPLICANT: Name: `Saves wcod eev~dc ++ n JNn ASSOC;a t;ovl Address: cl ID W Kt }{a ~1aMn Slyet_t ~~ ~It1 /A~ !V H l6 tl Phone ~: `loo "S y -GS3e REPRESENTATIVE' I4ame: 5 « tr P.. Ga 11d~ -~e1- Address: 9lQ y~ri~ tlallaw S'MY~t ASpe:~ CC $/btI pp-1 t! 1 --~- Phone t+': - e SO PROJECT: ^ Conditional Use ^ Special Review ^ Desi~m Review Appeal ^ GMQS Allotment ^ GMQS Exemption ^ ESA - 8040 Greenlinc, Stream Margirt, Ilallam Lake $lufi, Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split Conceptual PUD Final PL'D (& PUD Amendment) ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Subdivision ^ Subdi~~sion ;=xemption (includes condominiumization) ^ Temporary Use ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. ^ Final IIistozic Development ^ Minar Historic llevL ^ Historic Demolition ^ Historic Designation ^ Small Lodge Conversion) L-xpansion ^ Other. TYPE OF APPt.ICA710N: (please cnecK au that appry): Rv~crlvr ('nvntnors: tdescrivdon of exisiine buildinQS, uses, previous approvals etc.) ~IJCOKFOC!"~ KrA_~ 7"`J~TOg-Y AMU. L'TI ~AMIL~"~ G^F1~0 Y11 hllllfl z~NEtJ ~f~ ~ t0 of 01= f4C~~ ~~~~ ~ 1 ~' • FEES DUE: S Have you attached the following' ] Pre-Application Conference Stunmary ] Attachment ill, Signed Fee Agreement ] Response to Attachment iii, Dimensional Requirements Fotm ] Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requiremeats- Including Wtitien Responses to Review Standards Sll p18os that are lal-gcr than 8S" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written .ext (.'1licrosofr Word Format) roust be submitted as part of the applicatioa. D€C-04-2002 WED 03:44 PM rnn nv. ~• "- ~,,,, A'1-fACHMENT 3 - - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMEN75 FORM Project: SAGa fc u~oo[P Cpt-tipO M~NIUMS Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Sue: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for azeas within the high water mazk, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable; Existing:~Proposed.~ n~a Number of residential units: Existing:^ i i Proposed: ~ ~ 1Qumberofbedrooms: Existing: 19 Proposed: Iq Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): D DIMENSIONS: _~5~ FzYy.s- ~.~[DZ~ja,'~j'] Floor Area: Existing: 1 O~{7~j Allowable: -Proposed: 10 a(OC7 Principal bldg. height: Existing: ~!' `r`i Allowable: ~` "~ ~ Proposed: 32'~ >-Access. bldg. height: Existing: Y q Allowable: h ~C<. Proposed: ~~ q On-Site parking: Existing: `~ Required: Proposed.• ~ Site coverage: Existing: • ~~ ~~att: ?f, Required: l : !- ~ ~~roposed: ,. ==l" k Open Space: Existing: '`T'~ ~' Required: ~' ~"~ Proposed: , '` - Front Setback: L•xisting: t 21~-G Required:~ 1 ~' Proposed: 1C' Rear Setback: Existing: G- v"" Required: ~ C Proposed: I Combined F/R: ~ u Fxisting; S 1}I 'Q , Required:Proposed: 3C) Side Setback: Existing: S 5 ~• ip Required- ~ ~; 1 ^-~+'% Proposed: F~ Side Setback: Existing:. ~~`fn Required.• Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: ~ l2~-C•• Required ? r -? I tTQ Proposed: I ~r Existing non-conformities or encroaclunents: ~~~'~ AP-t:f• 'F°u~~.(~~r~t~s I~~at~~~ ~~l~i=i~r ra i:a Variationsrequestcd: Pu1~ 'a /kt->rdka ~t~"~ ~~~`~'cT` f''"re°t'° `°"`r- ©~ _..ec{i.~7uaFC~. I~,~;'t-:"'.i`-- T~ At.4.e?c.i• f~~` r'~1`:.~~I+~iGdl hlG~b!"!•'Ol~rfpt``.y--tf-±~t~ ~r DEC-04-2002 WED 03:48 I'M P'~ o.. tHri NU. ,..y r. cu --- ATTACHMENT 7 _- - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY; 91 ~ w rS+ F•ia(la,., S'tY't°t t- .Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Zpp STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) h_ ~«8 ~1. Gapa9)"'~ (name, please print) being or represenring an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication oJnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heating. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting ojnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and w-as continuously visible from the _ day of 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailinb of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the infonnation described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governatenta] or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heating. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on nett page) -DEC-04-2002 WED 03 49 NM ren nu. r, ~~~ r^`~ -°~ `,, o..,r Rezoning or text amen~menr. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended ittcidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifreen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature ~ The foreeoing "Affidavit of I4otice"was acknowledged before me this ,day of , 200_, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public ATTACIiMENTS: COPY OF TIDE PUBLICATION PFIOTOGRAPh/ OF TF/E POSTEb NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED IiYMA1L CITY OF ASPEN r"` CRY OF ASPEN ^ °'^. WRETT PAIL Tar. HRETT PA1D ,~ (BU . po CAiE REP N0. 1Q'A1F REP fq. 7~26/0o S~ 7~fS 1 ~1~2C,~aa Sri `1~2fi~, GENERAL WARRANTY DEED MARK BORENSTEIN AND DENISE GILLIKIN, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, (collectively, "Grantor"), for Ten Dollars and no/100 ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to SCOTT A. GALLAGHER with an address of QO BOX 6847" Suewennii v'CVwe,[o 4i6 ;S the following real property (the "Property") in Pitkin County, Colorado: Condominium UniC 1, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according CO the Condominium Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 74, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438. Together with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title against all persons, subject to taxes for 2000 and thereafter, and except and subject to those items set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTORS~j Date: July ~, 2000 ~.E- /b~iw r/ic. ('~- Mark Borenstein ~ -n'r ZI ~ti •% h~z 1 •iy ,,. H..a r~// Date: July (~, 2000 ~n•4 G~A~~ES. r~ Denise Gillikin b Gr.r /3 3~-~ar •• 'V; ~.~ _.4•.r ~ STATE OF COLORADO ) sa. J COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me July'~4~-/K,/, 20p0 by Mark Borenstein and Denise Gillikin. PJ Gui~rs ~ Sun,je y,, -fhe,Y' a Ih'%ti.c~ .n ~~Y 7 My commission expires I~ ( ~ Witness my hand and offic' seal. _ /~ otary Public o~~s"ata;".zar.. a: a Ip'C4nttaeun E~ques i1N72^'^ I llllll lllll llllll Illll llll Illllll Illll III ilill Illl I'll 440490 07/20/8000 04:10P 110 DRVIS SILV! 1 of 8 R 10.00 D 00,00 N 0.00 PI THIN COUNTY CO Page 1 of 2 ~Np N n m B ti Ol~ OI Q H a '4f ~ a Bxhibit A to General Warranty Deed i. Reservations and exceptionsas se[ forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 308 providing as follows: 'That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws." 2. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded in Book 282 at Paqe 433. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 438, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. 4. Easements, rights of way, and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property r ecorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449. Illlli IIIII 111111 IIIII IIII 1111111 IIIII III IIIII IIII IIII MS496 07/26/2000 0~:10P W DAMS SILVI 2 of 2 R 10.00 D 60.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Page 2 of 2 ~. WARRANTY DEED 73N5 DEED, Made Nis 10th clay of 6eptember 1998 ,between JSPPRBY S. SHOAP saitl County of PITKIN and Snrc of COLORADO , gnotor, ad AN A. ANDYRSON ~; whose legal addreaa is PO BOR 1D03 ABPRf, CO 81612 ot`Ue uid County oP PITKIN aM Sure of COLORADO , gru~lee: ~4~4. yOyi tl O ~~a~.qa ~ xVITNHSSETH, That Nc grantor for anJ in wnsidrnrion of she sum of THN DOLLARS AHD OTHHR OOOD AND s1ALDA8Le CONSIDERATION DOLLARS, Ne rcuipt and suflicietNy of which is hereby ~cknuwldgd, has gnmd, bargainM. wld end cnnveycd, aM by Nese presents does gram, bargain. sdl, convey and confims, mto Ne gmmee, his heirs and assigns forever, all Ne rnl property togeNer wiN improvcmen[s. if any. sisuan, lying aM being in the said Canty of PITKIN aM 9nu of Colorado tlncribd as (o0ows: C!` OG C Condornialum Vnit 2, "THY SAOSWOOD CONDONINIVNB" according to the Condoadnirso Map thereof recorded December 14, 1973 La Plat Book 9 at Page 949 ae Reception No. 169277, and ae further defined and deacrlbed is the Condominisam Declaration for "THS 9ADYNOOD CONDOHINIDNS" recorded December 14, 1973 in Hook 2B2 aG page 433 se Reception No. 164279. County of Pitkin. State of Colorado also known by sneer and number az: 910 W. HALLAN 9T. 92, ASPEN, CO 81611 ZI ~~ ~~ V ~ TOGETHER wiN all aM singular Nc hudiumenu and appurterances thereto hlongivg, or in avywisc appertaining, anJ Ne rcverswo old reversions. remainder and remainders, renu, issues aM profits Ncrcaf, and all Ne atom, right, title. inroresr, claim and demand what- s~ever of Ne ¢nnmr, either in law nr equity, nL in and m Ne above bargained premius, wiN Nc herediumenl5 and appunemvices. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD Ne said premises above bargund and drscdbd, wVh Ne appurtenances, unto Ne grantee, his heirs W assigm forever AM Ne gnnroq for himself, his heirs, ad persuval represcnmives, duce rnvemnt, grant, Mrgain, and agree m and wiN e gramee, his heirs and assigns, Nat at Nc time of Ne ensnlmg anJ delivery of Nese preunu, he is well seiud of Ne premisrs above cwvepd, has good, sure, pertixt, ahte.lure aM irdefmsihle atom of iMerimnce, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and ~ IawPol auNorily to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner aM form az al'onxaid, and Nut Nc same arc free em clear from all ~mcr aM oNer grams, bargains, sales, liens, uxrs, assessnwnn, enwmhmncea and resrrimiom of whatever kind or metre scever, except \~ TAR83 POR THB CORRBNT YHAR NOT Y6T ODH AND YAYABLB AND TH086 BROWN ON BXHIHIT ~fs• ATTACHBD H8ReT0 AND INCORPORATSO HEREIN HY THIS RBPBR@IC6. The ¢ranmr shall and will WARRANTY ANO FOREVPR DEFEND Ne abovobargained prcmius in Nc quix and peaceable possexsion of Ne gnntn, his heirs and assigns. agairut all aM every person ar persons lawfully claiming Ne whole or any pan Hereof. The singular nu shall include Ne plush Ne plum Ne ingvlar, and Ne use o! any gender shall be applicable w all gerders. IN \V E53 ~REOF, Ne g as zero Nis dad on the dare set foM above. JSPP B .~ N Sure of COLORADO I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII II IIIIII 1111111 III IIIII IIII IIII )ss 421!30 08/11/3!90 11.20(1 ND DpVl9 9ILVI Cwnry or PITKIN 1 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 29.90 N 0.00 PITKIN CWNTY CO The foregoing iru~mmenr was acknowldgd before me Nis 10th Jay of September 1998 , by JSPPRBY 9. SHOAP ~ppV PUBS/ My commission expires Decembei 27, ~ Pp1~ ~ P/yes y ban official sal. ! °~ \ ~~~ ~=i P~aa~P-~ a PP.. \ V"" ~ ~ Nvury Public HIe N". OOagaB-4CS Stet Thkorxaam. loc. 421830 rv". asxx waRtuxrv oeeD rya. vase"P.nNS Rawdl R`"'"' 1RpNSFER pECLRRRTIDN RECEIVED 0911111998 ... ~. 1aa/ EXHIBITA Order Number: ooo19s99 EXCEPTIONS Sxcsptione and z¢aerva bona ae net fozth in the Act eu thozlziag the isauaace of the Psteat for Che City and Towasl to of Aapen recorded March 1, 3897 Sa Book 139 at Page 316 as Reception No. 60156. Terms, coadf ti oas and obligati one ae eat forth in Agreement recorded December 29, 1973 is Book 181 et Page 933 ae Reception No. 264178. Terms, conditions, oblige ti one and raeCrletlone ae set forth is Condominium necl era tl oa for •The Ssgewood Condominuma" recorded December 39, 1973 in Baok 281 at Page 938 se Reception No. 169179. DCC Hinancing Statement by 9egewood Condominium Aaeoei atioa, Debtor to Colorado National Haak Aepev, Secured Party, and Aeei gament of Aeaeaemea to and No tf ae Of Right to Assessment Liea sttached Chereto, all recorded September 23, 199! in Hook 762 at Page 199 as Reception No. 379530. 1 IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII 4' VIII' IIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 2 of Z R 11.00 D 20.90 N 0.00 PITKIN CO~RITY CO a-• '` CITY OP ASPEN CIT1'`rASPEN ./ S7C~i PROM WRSt'I EXEMPT FROM HRETT t,amR REP. 270. DATE ~ N0. CONRECTION _.. _ _ QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS UEED, Made this 12 Ch day of November 2002 ,between JSFFASY 9. SHOAP of Ne said Cvunry of PITRIN aM Sum of COLOlUDO ,gramor, artd JSPFRBY S. b'330AF, AS TO AN ONDIVIDBD 50$ INTEREST, AND PAMELA MCCROSKBY, AB TO AN 1RJDIVIDBD 50$ INTBRHST, A3 TRNANTS-SN-COMMON. whose legal address is P.O. HOY 3123 ASPl49, CO 81612 of me said Couny of PITRIN and Sate of COLOAADD .gnmce: WITNESS. Nat dte gramor, for aM in constleration of the sum of TSN DOLLARS AND OTHBR GOOD AND YALVABLB CONSIDBRATZON DOLLARS. the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, wnvcycd. and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presems, do remiss, release, sell, wnvey and Quit Chim unto the gran¢e, his heirs, suuessors anJ assigns, forever, all The right, title. imeresr, claim and demand which the granmr has n aM m U= real progeny. mgerher with improvements, if any, sirvn¢, lying and heing in Ne eaid County of PITRIN and gem of Colorado described as fo0ows: Condominium Vnit 3, "THE 9AGSWOOD CONDOMINIVM9" according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded December 19, 1973 in Plat Book 9 at Page 449 ae Reception No. 164277, and ae further defined and daecribed in the Covdominiar'm Declaration for °TH6 SAOEWOOD CDNDDMINILIM.S^ recorded December 19, 1973 in eavk 282 at page 438 ae Reception No. 164279. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 474740 IIIIIII VIII IIII~I IIII~IIIII IIIIIIInII III ~III~IIII II,ID 11x17 D20 8012.3BP I as known by street amt nWnber as: 910 W. HALLAH STREET N3, ASPEN, CO 81611 TO RAYS AND TO NOLD The same, mg<Ner with all ami singular We appurtenances untl privileges Thereunto belonging or in any- wise Ihcrcunlp apprnaining, arq all she atom, right, title, ivtercn and claim whatsoever. of the granmq either in law m equity, to the only proper vse, hencPo and hehoof of the grantee, his h<in and assigtu forever. Thc singular number shall include Nc plural, nc~ plural and the singular, aM dse use of any gerMer/ shall be applicable to all genders. M WITLN(EyS/S 7W~HEREOF, the gantar h/as/exe/cored t is deW on the day sc[ torah above. lAM8ERT1 Sate of COLORADO ) ) 55. Counp~v( FIBRIN ) r, ~.~~a~lnsxul Egplr6g 1212712005 The foregoing inssrvment was acknowlNgeJ before me Nis 12 eh day of November 2002 by JSFFASY 3. SHOAP My commission expires Dseembar 27, 2005 Witness my hand add offmial seal. x / ~.. Noury public No. 933 QUfi CLAIM DERD ... w WARRANTY DEED Cr W OZ~~ N 4[0... o OF p Z M~~ 9 U v G~ O~ 61 2 I~ U 5 O ~ ¢ ••'• ~raa~ ~~~0 p V~ W I~ 1G~ X N K W O¢ O U .~ K ' Ur e5 d 1 N W N J •• U 0Y r V1 Z P ~ ~O N U 5Z 5 '+ -+ Y H ~~ I a V7 m n U) m 9 Q m .+ &~ ,G J m .+ M In THIS DEED, made this 02 day of OCTOBER 1999, between DENISE ANN JURGEN9 OP THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO GRANTOR, CARRIE E. PATERSON AND CHARLES F. ECKART, GRANTEE /~ ~ o~ (IS "Ir'nan{s In (cNhnlc~l. whose legal address is ~(7 BG/, ~ ( (p?S -56g-fi-HBPKTNS7 ASPEN, CO, B161,}7~ COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OP CO WITNEBSHTH, That for and in cone ids rat ion of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: Condominium Unit 9, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according to Che Condominium Map [hereof recorded December 14, 1993 in Plat Book 9 at Page 499, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 14, 1993 in Book 282 at Page 438. TOG8T8BR with all and singular the hereditamenta and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditamenta and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with she appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personal representaeives, does covenanC, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing delivery of the presents, he is well seized of [he premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, abaolure and indefeasible estate of inheritance. in law, in Eee aimpl e, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same ace free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters ae set Eorth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND PORBVER DEFBND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. n DENISE ANN NRGENB J+n STATE OF 0 It ~ uL` U I COUNTY OF.~I{'I[I~ 1 sa. '~c ,, ,, ...,,'The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~~ ;'~ ~19~ $ by DENISE ANN JURGEN9 s 1 F ~ ~ :.. O ~~ JWI$R7695 my hand and official seal "'^~ ,~_~? 'l my,~,commisaion expires: Notary Fublic 386080 Transfer Declaration Received 10/02/95 «., ti.r EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 1995 not yet due or payable. -_. __- - _ 2. Reservationsand exceptiohs as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 306 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 3. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded in Book 282 at Page 433. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for The Sagewood Condominiums recorded in Book 282 at Page 438. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Assignment of Assessments recorded October 3, 1991 in Book 65B at Page 354. 386080 0-795 p-617 10/0/95 02:SSG PG 2 OF c` >.~ ~r Recorded-tbe- -9ayet._ Reception k Recortler gY o'clock m. /MIS GEED, Nede this day of _ March 15. 2001 between TIZIANO GORTAN AND HNRICA CORTAN Grentoq far the corei deration Rf aaa TEN OOIIARS AXU DTHER GOOD qND VALUABLE OON51 DFRgL10N eae in hard paid, hereby aelis and qui tcleims to TIZIANO GORTAN ANO ENRICH U. GORTAN Grantee, chose street edtlrezz is 910 N. HALLAM p6 City of ASPEN county of PITRIN ,State of Colorado the }a LloNi rag real property in the cowry of PITRIN ,and State of Colorado, to wit: CONDOMINIUM UNIT fi, THE SAGEWOOO CONDOMINI1D95, ACCORDING TO THe CONDOMINIUM MAP THERBOP RECORDHD DBCHMBHR 14, 19]3 IN PLAT BOOR 4 AT PAGE 499, AND AS PVATHHR DEPINED AND OESCRIHBD 1N TMB CONDONINZVM DECLARATION POR TR6 SAGEW00D CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED DECEM86R 14, 1973 IN e00R 232 AT PAGH 433. COUNTY OP PITRIN, STATE OP COLORADO. also kroNn es street antl nurber 910 W. RAGLAN Vfi, ASP@7, CO 81611 TOGETHER NiM aLL its appurteruncez. The s,{~ aP/Pn9uler nurber shell include the plant, the plural [Ae drgular, aM [ha wee of any gentler shall be liceble to all graders. Signed as of the day antl year firs[ above written. I / ~ T ZIANI O GORTAN ENRIG GORTAN State of Colacadm ) ) vs. cowry of PITRIN ) The forepol rag instrument H x ecknoNl ed9rd before ee this day of Match 15. 2 001 by TI2]:ANO GORTAN AND 6NRIG GORTAN Wtness my M1ard and off lci el seal. ~1P My cmmi ssiw expires lE~~6~ JESSICA REED NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Of COLORADO MY CanmMaw Expires a,a. 2 2003 li~'1v'i/' ~~ L-. N e y HubUc wen recortled return to: i1ZIAN0 GORIAN 0.ND ENRICH GORTAN 910 w. XAIIAM k6. ASpEN CO 81611 Farm Na. gCD (GUit Clain Deetl - DA3H17 E9 D3 H17fi5 I IIIIII VIII IVIII IIIIII III IIIIII IIIII~ III VIII IIII IIII ~~2620 07/21/2001 09:08P OCD DRVIS SILVI 1 sf 1 R 7.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ,.~, CITY OF ASPfeN r`°~ :'TY OF ASPEN ~ ~~ 3~',l0 WFEI"f PAID HRETT PAID DAi~// REP D TE RiP ~,d~ 7f~sJroi pJG nf' ~~ ~j,P~or Pf WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made December 28, 2001, Between HERMAN MICHAEL BEHRENDT o} the County of ~I+k-I n .State of ~Q GRANTOR. AND JOHN OTT and CAROL M. OTT, GRANTEE whose legal address Is : I C: 1 ~ ~ C-o»>??>~ 8. r J1 ~ ~3 ASpZ.v. C O cb I b I 1 of the County of PITKIN, State of CO WITNESSETH, That for and in consitleretian of the sum of ten dollars end other good and valuable consideration, Me receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, soltl and conveyed, end by these Presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey antl confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the reel property together with improvements, 'rf any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: Condominium Unit 7, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" according [o me Condominium Map thereof ~ recordatl December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449, and a5 further tleflned end described in Me ~' Condominium Declaration for "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS' recordatl December id, 1973 in Book 282 .9 at Page 438. /ill TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise IL.} appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and ell the estate, right, title, interest, claim end demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himsed, his heirs antl assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyetl, has good, sure, perfect, ahsolute and indefeasihle estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has gootl right, lull power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same In manner and form as aforesaid, end that the same are free and clear from all former and oNer grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances antl reshletions of whatever kind or nature soever, ezcepl Ihose matters as set forth on Exhibi['A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall antl will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND [he above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shell include the plural, the plural [he singular, and the use o1 gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WNESS WHEREOF th~gran r ha a e his d d. _. HERMAN MICHAEL B HRENDT STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing insVument was acknowledged before me this 1~ day of DECEMBER, 2001, by HERMAN MICHAEL BEHRENDT. WITNESS my hand end oificial seal my commission expires: Joy 4.1+.; ~n:,. .'! i„ , . Mr Ca,:niirx;an,,:i-A.: ~ 4ila'2002 aU1 Fnsltbpkire qsp~, Cdwedo 81611 462323 TRANSFER DECLARATIDN RECEIVED 12I28/2D01 'I 462323 IIIIIIIIBIIIIIII III IIIIII IIIIIIIIIiI Ilil I IIII00zrzeuzas~~lz zw .~., „~ EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the Ciry of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 308 providing as follows: "That no title shell be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper ar to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 3. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded in Book 282 al Page 433. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Sagewood Condominiums recorded December 14, f 973 in Book 282 ai Page 438, deleting therefrom any reshictions intlicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or natlonal origin. 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosetl on Plat of subject property recorded December f 4, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Pege 449. III III INI~ II III VIII II I I II 46e3D3 i~:nn SILVIB ORVIS P1iNIN LOUXTY CD a 10.00 D 33.90 CITY OF ASPEN „-a, GTV OF ASPEN ~ HRE'TT PAID w.-r N?4E1T PAID ••- v'' jZ -10101- ~ ~ Ll l g DATE REP NO, l lam, Ll l ~i U~~~ WARRANTY DEED TINS DEED, Made this 19th Jay of February 2002 , be[wan H. NICHAHL HBHRffigDT ,~~.}} 'D N m N m N eta a~ W 7 V 6 °~ e+~ m° NW ~a'xa`iy{ LOa d' of Me said Coumy of PITKIN asd Stem of COLORADO , gnnroq an0 LYNDAL WTLLIAHE AND BCOTT BARTL68T whoa legal address is ° ~~~ W'lTAC.C6~P2 Sf. #8 ASPEN , CO H1611 of the said County of PITRIN and Seam of COLORADO , grannie: WITNESS, Ihat Ne gnnmq for and in mnsidcnlinn of Nc sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable eonalderstion DOLLARS, the meipt aM sufficiency of which is hertby acknowledxed, bas granted, bargain W, said and convryW, anJ by Nese psesen~ does grant, bargain, sell, convoy arW wnf rm, umo she gnomes, their heirs antl assigns forever, not in tenancy In common bm in joins mnancy, all Ne roal property, rogeNer with impmvemems. ifany, siwaae, lying snit being in she sad County of PITKSN and Smm of ColorMO descrlbrd as follows: Condominium Omit B, •TH6 HAOSNOOD CONDOHINZVH9" according to the Condominirvo Hap thereof recorded Dezember 16, 1973 in Plat Hook 4 at Paga 449 ae ReceDtioa No. 164277, sad as EsErther defined and described Sn the Condominium Declsration far •T}1E BAGSWOOD CONDONINItDiR• recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 2H2 at page 43H ae RoceDtion No. 164279. COONTY OP PITRIN, BTATS OP COLORADO. alw known by sneer asd number as: 910 N. AALLAH BTRSRT flg, AHPEN, CO 81611 TOGETIfER with all and singular Ihr heredinmena ana appurtenarca merero belonging, or in anywise appermining, and the raersion and reveninns, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and pm01s Nerenf. and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whas- scever of [be gnnror, either in law or equity, of, in and to the shove bargained premims, with the heredimmenss and appunenances. TO HAVE AND TO NOLD [he said Orcmises above hargainN and descrihW, with [hc appunemnces, unm Ne grannie, his heirs and assigns Wrcver. Md she gnnsoq for himself. his heirs, and perwlwl represenu[ives, Juts cuvrnanl, gnus. bargain, and agree w and with Ne goatee, his heirs and assigns, that at she time of she ensealing and delivery of these presenu, he is well seimd of she premises above conveyeQ has good, tare, perfen, absolute anJ indefcuible esmte of inhrrisance, in law, in fn simple, and het goW right, (WI power anJ lawful audmrisy w gnus, bsrgain, sell and convey the same in manner and loon as aGmcaad. and shat Ibe wme sro fee and ckartrom a0 former and odser gnats, bargain, sales. liens, taxes, assessments, encmnbranccs ald resvicrinns of whamver kind or nature scever, except those specific Exceptions shown on the attached ae "EXHIBIT 1•. The granmr shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in tlse quiet and peaceable possession of Ne grantee, his heirs and assigns, againn all and every person or persons lawfully claiming she whnk or any part Nerrof. The singular number shall include she plum, the plural me singular, and Ne use u1 any gender shall br applicabk w all gcnJen. IN WITNESS NTD:REOF, Ne gnn[o haz exau!M this deed nn Ne dam ter toM above. 1,~v Py H. a BH END ~ PAULA , Sn[e of COLORADO )sa. county nr e2xxlx l The foregoing im[mmenr was aeknowlMgM hcmre me Nis by H. ffiCHAEL SHHRHNDT My commission cxpims DeeambeY 27, 7005 DIe N". oooEma save nue or upm,sor. Ne. 9EIA WARRANTY DECD Nn Ienl Tmeva)InEIANgµq M.1,W Yp COnYAb~ba Elgira 1112112005 19th Jay of February 2007 , Wimess my hvid ap`-'' s^'r~r.r.r -I V "'„'1'iv`„'1-.~ Notary Public II I II II III II III IIII I III III II II I II II a 64120 i of :2eF SILVIR bnVi4 P}rx[N COUNTY CD R IB.00 D 30.00 ~, ExxiErr I EXCEPTIONS Pile Number) 00029276 i. Dis[rlbution utility easements (including cable TV). 2. Those specifically described rights of third part iea not shown by the public records of which Suyer has actual knowledge and which were accepted by Buyer in accordance with paragraph eb of contract Form No. CBS 1-9-99 [Matters Not Shown by the Public Records]. 3. Inclusion of the Pmpezty within any special [axing district. 4. The benefits and burdens of any declaration and party wall agreements, iE any. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations oz exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 2003 and subsequent years not yet due and payable. 7. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsi[e of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. e. Terms, conditions and obligations as set Eorth in Agreement recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 933 as Reception No. 164270. 9. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Condominium Declaration for "The sagewood Condominiums" recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 202 at Page 938 as Reception No. 164279. 10. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on Plat of Sagewood Condominiums recorded December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449-ae Reception No. 1fi 4277. (IIIIIIII IIIIII I VIII Tull IIII I III 464 zO~ z s~aiau o.a~'~~ I 02/19/2002 01 v~ fa9 xaPaa. 1YDEXD6XCLPII SILVIP UPV IS PITKIN COUNTY La R 10.00 D 30.00 ~~11 r 1 111111 ~~~~~ 111111 ~~~~ 11111 1111111 Illlll~tllll ~~~~ II11 402522 03/13/10!7 01:4W YID 1 eF 3 R 10.00 D 17.46 N 0.00 -TTKIN COUNTY CLENY yj~RRANTY DEF~2 THIS DEED, made this ?µ~ay of March, 1997, between A. RONALD ERICKSON and ELISABETH R. ERICKSON, Grantors, and PAUL L. FAGAN, whose legal address is 910 W. Hallam St., Unit #10, Aspen, CO 01611, Grantee: WITNESSETH, that the Grantors for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property iJ- together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in U the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado described as follows: Condominium Unit 10, "THE SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" ~l according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded r.( December 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 449 as \~ Reception No. 164277, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for "THE O'ff' SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS" recorded December 14, 1973 in ~ Q 2 ~ Book 282 at Page 438 as Reception No. 164279. m s 4 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 4 ik n F ~ O also known as street and number: 910 West Ballam St., No. 10, W Aspen, Colorado 81611. r J F TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or Sn anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, ~- interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with Z the hereditaments and appurtenances. 4 u ~ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and ~ r p described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, his heirs b` and assigns forever. And the Grantors, for themselves, and their successors, do covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with ,,, the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the o ensealing and delivery of these presents, they are well seized of the premises above conveyed, have good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and have good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, 402522 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 03113/1997 .M. ~.,.~ except and subject to reservations and exceptions as set forth in Exhibit 'A" attached hereto. The Grantors shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantees, their heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this deed on the date set forth above. I I'llll IIII~ IIIIII III' IIIII IIIIIII IIIII III I'II' IIII Ilil 002522 03/13/1897 01: MP IR1 2 ei 3R 16.00 D 1T. ~0 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERI STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ~ ss. GRANTORS: A. onald Erickson ',~ iao~152 ~~ Elisabeth R- Erickson ---- ;~~ The Foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Ptatty~ March, 1997, by A. Ronald Erickson. ?~ ~P.~~~`; Hess my hand and official seal. ~,0 commission expires: _ 7 :off r4 rE~eF co :Votary Public ~~"-~ STATE OF COLORADO 1 COUNTY OF PITKIN ~ ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this r3 day of March, 1997, by Elisabeth R. Erickson. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: la-~~-7-oj-] P`i.PU.B(i ~~. C /~ ~pPA~PT. o Notary Public ,.~., ~.. EXHIBIT "A" To That General Warranty Deed Between A-• Rona3~--E-r i~ksanai[dEll§abeth R. Erickson, Grantors and Paul L. Fagan, Grantees 1. Taxes due and payable and any and all other unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 2. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 739 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 3. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded December 14, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 433 as Reception No. 164278. 4. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Condominium Declaration for "The Sagewood Condominiums" recorded December 79, 1473 in Book 282 at Page 438 as Reception No. 164279. I IIIIII I'lll'II'II III' I'lll V'III' IIII III IIII' IIII II') 402SY! 07/13/19Y7 01:44P ND 3 ei 3 R 11.00 D 17.40 N 0.00 PITNIN COIXITY CLERM r ~/ 6Masebn.~. y. I IqI 467338 _ III II II III Ir ~ III IY (III I IIIII I II III00 050/L3 02 00 0009./0F SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIB DEED, Made This 7th day of May, 2802, between JAMES M. BLANZ, of the County of Arnva rA, and State of Florida, GRANTOR(S), and whose address is - °~ ~ ^` + ~ ~~ r~r-a L ~> > of the County of ~• and State of 41 ; -, d <.. GRA EE(5): WITNESS, that the grantor(s), for and in Consideration of the sum oC TEN DOLLARS, the rueipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granl<Q bargained, sold and conveyed, and by These presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the grantee(s), their heirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, siNate, lying and being in the County oC Pitkin and State of Colorado, described as follows: Unit No. IT, SACEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map (hereof filed for record and [he Declaration recorded Decensber 14. 1973 in Book 282 at Page i38. c.~ -~ commonly known as: 918 N'. HALL.AM CHIT 12, ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all and singular the hercditamrnts and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and all reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, inkrest, claim and demand whauoever of the granror(s), either in law or in equity, of, in -u and to the above bargained premises, with the heredilamems and appurtenances; (" (5 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the f r grantees, (heir heirs and assigns forever The Grantor(s), for themselves, their heirs and personal representatives, f~ do covenant and agree that they shall and will WAIUI.LNT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained "> premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs end assigns, against all and every person or persoas claiming the whole or any pan thereof, by through or under the Grantor(s), but not otherwise. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN yY1TNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) have executed this deed on the dare set Corth above. yOr~ fie . anz State uC Florida ) County of Rrowa rd ~ The foregoing instmment was acknowledged, subscribed ame~nd s7~rwXXoXXrnX~to before m))(eXX(hie ~ day a( ~~'~ ' 2082 by .`Fr7I4C1C9CIFX~XX JAMES M. BLANZ My Commiubn Expires. ss my Haod and Oficia ovary OFFICIAL NOTARY SFiV. BRUfE SESIAW NOTARY R1BDC STATE OF FLORIDA COMM5810N NO. CC%9001 MYCOMMBSION ERP rNE TnIE COMPANY OF lHF ROCKIES INC 51] E nOPgNS AVFNUC ASPEN t'O UGI I Pown PH 9]6v]aJ05o nFNVER rOr-fc1-ML] Spaial Wamnry DeeE-loin Trnancy a9]211R SS H ecu~ 561 {743 ~ 4" ~~ _< '~ Recorded at a•cl«k Y.,: a ~ s>° Race Lion No ~~~ s ~e r~ „'~ 4th °~ tJ s , •^ j regbeeiz pry r~,~, 7N35 DEED, ude thL _j~ day o[ _Q~_ 1988 Mtreu Guv Pf unw - (hetelnefter •CUntor'), cud Andy L. Sanchez and Michelle Malmo Sanchez vhoae legal addrua 1a }.D. box 1801, Aapan, Colorado e1E12 (hereles$fpr•Granteea•:) VITNFSSITI,~ That th,. rrantor, ter and in eoneideratlon Jet'tM cue of Sea ' Dollars and ocher good and wluable eonaidanclon to the Cramtor 1n hand paid s by tM Grantees,- tM nosy t and sufficiency of rhteh to Mrek] aeknorledgad, "~ his gsnted, barplnad, sold and camped, and by cMu pnpW does grent~. Mrgdn, welt, eomroy and conCin, ante the Csnten, chair afKeeaean and ~.: nesigns forever, all CM real property, together rtth lmprevealuts, 1C env,. ~- sltueta, lying aM being In Pf ckln Cou+ty, Colorado, deaerlMig,n fallov+ CONDOMINIUM UNIT 9, SACEVOOD COHDOMIDIUMS, according tettM Condoniniw Map thereof, recorded Deeeeber i4, 197) In flat Book 4 at 'Pap 449, .and a defined and dncribed Sn the Condos}iflut Deelastlon der gagewod CoMestniuu neordad Dace ~ 1971 1n ;' gook 2/2 at Pap U/. ;; aloe knern uy atraK and mubar u: ie9 /agarood Condonln! ~ 'l10 Va.c Halla+: Avemu:, Mpan, CeleHdo -.~ ~,: J t^ ` ~' ~ r ~ , i ~ , ~, , ~_ f~ ~ i#, a `. ' l~- ~ }. rt. _4 77 i { ~qi G'Y TOGETHER rich ali and dnpler [he heredi[enents and appertenences choreic belonging, er !n uyrlu appertdning, and the revenien and reversions, remainder and aosainden, rents, Suuea and prottt~. iherro C; and all tM estate, tight, title, ln[ereat, t1aL and dena.d rMdroever of the 6. ` #- Granter; either in lar er equity, efatn aid [o rM above MrSgaiwd premises„ ~~'- vieh the heredltaBnu seed appurterunesa, `4' ? 70 RAVE AND TO HOLD tM prssiua show bargained and deaeriMd rich che~~ appurtenances, unto tM Csntcaa, tMir suetuun and aed gM''forsver. AM [ha Grantor, for hlualt,.hia heir, eseeuten, and adalnlatnton, does. cownan0. gent, bargain, and agree to and rich the Cnncess their successes aM eestgna, that et the ties of the-etuesling nd delivery eLk'CMae preeenta - he s yell setsed of tM prastau above cemsyed, hes good, N[~;'~.parfeet, q : 4.; ebwlute aM indsbuibls estate o[ 1Nreriunca, Sr lar, in falf`~aieple, erd _` ~~" ':;" --her 6eod right,-full purer--aMiarful-autherHy-to--grant, ba temey the use in umrer and fors rs aforudd, and that [h clue fron all [orwr aM ether granrs,. Dargaina, ulu, lie essesswnu, anekrbnnees aM rutrletiewef rhstever kind, s ERCRPt ~~~ ~. .K.. i' ~~ 1. Preparty taxis for 19//dw and payable in 19/96 2. Resen~tloM and exupttem. as eenuiwd in Deed Aspen a rollers&:{•:'++ Provided, that no t1tMalu11 W Mreby acquired gold,-diver, tlrmaber or topper er to a{qr wlid pongdon M1ald under exlrting.lavs. -y u :: 3. Tene~`eondttiom, nbli;atiotu and prwiafena of granting Exereptien frog Subdiviilon Repla[teu [or Sageroed sec Porch in inatruwnt recorded Dstan6er 11, 1971 in Rnek E 4. Te nr, 'eendlt leis, ebilptlom and provislom of Covenants, Conditfou std Restriction of tM S+gewod Conde fettFln inaLt3anEiacotded-Teeesbei l9}-1971 In geek-R82 9. P.aaewntr, Rights of Vq and other sacten a ah on tM Cordos(n!w Mepot the Sagsrosd Gerdainfus, retarded Sn Plat Ronk 4 at,~}ap 449. ~:,~. - ~A„ Wars to wxt pap... A yk # ~i ` `. 3 m' ~~ i la so City.. 14, E 1> 7 ~y y:.:° }'. ~ }{ >, w ~: ~ y F, ~, ~, `~.. f" ~ppg 5G1,,~744 The Grantor shell aMr11'_ VARRANT AIPD FOREVER DEFTI~D the abow•Mrgefned vi .r `~ __..pr:n1__-.vy ~s-::h:-C'HP-aMPe+ceeble-pweeeeien-af-the-Greniees~`tAeis=-- -3., ° euetauon end anagro, aga!mt ell nd every person or psraont'lrrfully rry^ ~ eleiatng tM vhela ar cry pert thenot°` 7M ainguler nuaDet ehy,3fi°t1uludi ti~e'~" ~"9""' , yp plural, tha plural CM etngular, e'd tM use of any bender she ..eppiteabla ~`< to ell gender. ~; ,.. "n ;' ~: ~ y 9lgned end M11wnd tht^ y_ 4y of April 19EE. `, i; 'ems _ ~~, x y a + - ~ , P Lti7/Plnm _ ~ ~' ~' (~, h i r ' •~ ~~~~ gun of Colende ~ ) ~• r' -~ a, )es. €y. ~.:- County of Plekin ~ ) "~` ~- ~~' TM fongoing Vezrmty Deed ras ackrovlMSad before w th ;U day s' !~ ~~ ,, of.Apr11 1980 by CuyPleeno.. ..3 a ~• w' ~. ~` + ' "~ ~ Vfeneu ry hand and oftteial uei ~~ ~~, =t J:: ~} r,cn$14 .a My eoenieeton eaPtne:. P~ '•y'f~`_ ~~~•, sr 3 ~ ~.^ Vlw~n~gnM~oqpyy ~~ Vouty Pub !e _ J~,J 1 `+ ~'}l=_ ~ +rwi. Cronndr tell ~ " ~ 'tlnM S rti i~` ,~~:. Y ~a ~ tr.p!ew.ee + f 3 Afur record! Hearn ee: Y tle. 1 ~ F °g i f Hankim ' : k ~ ~ ~ ~ + # ~'~ . ~ ..on. Ck~bndo gtA11 a - ', f h - '3 ~~. e ~'t .,~, y t t _, M1'' , ~ e .v r yw ,a a ~.-.z.3 - ~''~ ~~~ s~ -a ~, .¢f ~" ~.. ~ ~.. f fl 7 f 1, ~ z ~^ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ 4 4 Ik f ~ ~ ~4 n i , . a .r _ - - i _ 'S ~` +~ ., yaF ~ d+ -4 ~s. 'E .. q,.. 3 r .p l^ z~ _,e '` ;:,: '~P _-.~. :~ ~ ~~ .., ~. Recorded at _ ~~ Reception No ti~ ~ (.State of Colorado ''~ Count of Pitkin ~~. .,i Y a N i _ o'clock _N., - °~ ~~ _ .'Y Ra~~Mar. Y ~w )se. WARRANTY DE~ 1 ly ~ L_ J fV ' f0 01 A a y ,. ~, ~~~ THIS DEED, made this eth day oL August, 1987 between AatAnny °`J. McLLe of Pitkin County, Colorado, "Grantor", end J. Anthony. Petroceo, whose address is - '-~ `~- "Grantee": WITNESSETH, That the said Grantor, for and in consideration oL the sum of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration to the Grantor in hand paid by the Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in Pitkin County, Colorado, to W W wit: "' - UNIT 11, SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, according to the ~ ~ J, Condominium Map thereof filed for record, and as defined .r. end described in the Condominium Declaration for = ~ SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS recorded December ld, 1973 in Book L, f 282 at Page 4]8. $ ~_. also known as street end number: 910 West Hallam, Aspen, Colo ~ ~ TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and '-- appurtenances thereto belonging, cr in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, l~mainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim end demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HELD the seic premises atcvs bargai^sd "^d described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, hie heirs, ' executors, and edministratore, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power end lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell antl convey the same !n manner and form es aforesaid, and that the same ere free and clear from all former end other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments an:+ encumbrances of whatever kind or nature, EXCEPT: 1. Reservations and exceptions es contained 1n Deed from the City of Aspen as follows: "Provided that no title shall hereby be acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 2. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Condominium Declaration es set forth in Instrument recorded December ld, 1973 in Book 282 at Page 183. 3. Terms, conditions, obligaticns and provisions of Agreement Granting Exemption from Subdivision Regulations for Sagewood Condominiums recorded on December 31, 197] in Book 282 at Page 673. and the aboved bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, his heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gander shall be appl icable to all gender. cif 1 1 1 A e~ t ~ v~}r kd,( =~ ~ 43 ~ - sy ,~ ~, IN wITNE93 WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto ut his hand end r seal eha dsy and year flrat above written. ., r /. Robert F. Nelson state of Colorado ) )u. County of Fitkin- ) The foregoing warranty Deed was acknowledged before me thSe 4th day of August, 198J by Robert P. Nelson. ~„~ Nitneea my hand snd official anal. _. _ wy oomaioion expireas . Notary Publ c ;•`u,:'.• .'~~:, .Ip/ 9 M?+rwNolby Wdk •/4 t. MY CpnTlYiOn pP~A ML190. ~. !j •.......... . ek.aasas.dee 00 ~''^ "'~~ ,~. ~°v~iY _...; a 1~ tt ~~ +~' t, ; J p, 'y _`?Yz a ,+. n a r~ 3' .. ... .rt- A.... ah: r: r~~r +a <. ,. _t .. '[+i ,ck.i ~6. .. .c*>Ma R .x gyn. i. Do ~~v ~t - fl c~~~`I ~ ctll outs ~ {xBc~~ `ms's ? - nnv,..1<5 0~ ~~ ~~, 2 fi }Z ~ ~~l S ; Ccw~l aF{~~ `ham.} (2I„~c,~rc~s~ ~I. Any nude ~~~g 1~1~~~ ~1o e~n~ur~~,e ?- nom- s~„~+-~ ~t G~~ '~ S- ICS wN~~ Wal~ iwk C'~C~n~(. ~t~ 1 0~ calrn~CVli _ ~ ~ ~Gv~L _ 9 - _. _. _ -.__. ____-_-__ ~ ~~f 5, ;~of znc.lo`~d 6 , I~// bc, l~nb sc~C ,e~ {t, ~klIl~sl .s; ~~ b ~~~~~ Pa~.1.~5 (~ -~o pc ~u' ~ wl ~ c~:cc~l ~I~,~ ~, ~t d~~rakO ~. ,r~,~~~ ~t~tw. e~crrocti~rl~~~~~~~ September 12-?003 Scott Gallagher TxE C[rY~oF ASPEN Sagewood Condominium Association 910 W. Hallam Street ,*~ 4 ' Aspen, CO 31611 RE: REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE DUNiSTER TN ALLEY Dear Scott, ~ This letter is follow up to the on site meeting at the. above referenced address between you, me 'and the City Engineer Nick{~deh, on Thursday September 11-2003. The application for an encroachment license to let a dumpster remain on City property has been . refused. Nick Adeh felt that the dumpster could be contained on site by some re striping of your current parking arrangement and that an encroachment license was not warranted. The City~is requesting that the dumpster be contained on-site within 30 calendar days of this letter. If you have any question regarding call me at 970 920 5037. Please fmd your: application fee check enclosed. Sincerely, ou ing - cc: Nick Adeh P.E., City Engineer Dave Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney ~. t3~ SOUTH GALENA $rREEf ~ AsrEN, COIARApO 8t6tt-197$ ~ PHONE 97~.92~.$Qp0 FAX 9~0.9~0.$t9~ Scott Gallagher 910 West Hallam Street #1 Aspen, CO 81611 Community Development Department Julie Ann Woods, Director August 1, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: The Board of Directors of the Sagewood Condominium Association met last week to discuss possible alternative locations for the large dumpster that is currently encroaching upon the right- of-way on the north side of the building. Due to the pre-existing topography and presence of surrounding right-of--ways, the south, east and west sides of the property are not viable options. The south side has a sidewalk, steep slope and highway 82. The west side borders a neighbor's property, while the east side is primarily composed of a steep slope and extensive vegetation. A small portion of the north-east side could potentially be used to relocate the dumpster, but is still beyond the property line and in the right- of-way and would require removal of significant amounts of vegetation. The north side of the property is the only easily accessible area where a large dumpster could be potentially relocated. However, this side of the property is occupied entirely by 9 parking spaces for the existing 11 units. It is the Board of Directors' opinion that it would be highly undesirable to lose 1 of these 9 parking spaces to accommodate relocating the dumpster. Therefore, we respectfidly request that the dumpster remain in its current location and we would like to pursue application for an encroachment license. Furthermore, if aesthetics are an issue, we would be happy to enclose the dumpster if that would be desirable on the part of the City of Aspen Community Development Department. Please inform us of what action to take next. Sincerely, Scott A. Gallagher Vice-President, Board oCDirectors, Sagewood Condominium Association DDB SHEET NO. OF THE GTr OF ASPEN CALCULATED BV DATE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHECKED BV DATE J1 a Z ,_ ~ ~ ~ d N a o qg ~~` ~ ~ ~ Z o T F ? ~- ',~' ~- O A- µ-- O ~I~ ~- s z ~. ~/ . . i i 1 0 ,~ \ ~~ \~ y` ~ - ~1 ~- w~~r~+~r 7ri, RooFWb i ~P pP..R+~IE~ aN 3 sloes,. i i SAGEWOOD-BLOGK4 8344.5 sq.tt 3 • ~ ~ v ~ ~~ b ~ ~9 wooD gosT __-_. ____ . _.--. - -___ ~--_, . _, _.-.. -- . -- I >{ tr~'E 'F utrnrY a~x ;~ \~ havTn EI,~/~ I ~- ioP`D MIN(> ~00 ~ 3 5i pg . "(~OOr$rRuCfV~ Oct ~~T ~xteauc~ 2 ~t c~1aaS ~ ~+~3 ~~ ~~ ~Jp~, v y 5,>~'~-rte ~7'~/vLOd~ ~ No P I ~~A~1~~ 'fib''= ~~. yevn-, ~,ev SCOTT A.GALLAGHER RISOUN HENG 910 WES7 HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1 &([ R~~~ PAYTOTHEAf oaDSaoP ';-' ~ ' ~ ~ if k Smmvm~p VllNp~,C ~ ~ ~ pm~vvvaevv aim.. i.i«un.1n ._ Foa I:i0 2 10 3 40 71: 606020440411• 1207 ~~~ _ 1207 az-aaamel ~ DATE `330. oC DOLLARS e , ~m ; ~'-. ~,