Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Pitkin Reserve.15A-88~^. "1 MEMORANDUM TO: Land Use Files FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner /~ RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD allowable FAR DATE: December 8, 2006 In the Pitkin Reserve Land Use Files there are discrepancies regarding the allowable FAR in the PUD. This Memorandum is intended to clarify the various documents in the Land Use Files. There were a number of PUD Amendments dealing with allowable FAR that do not appear to have been recorded. The findings in this Memo are intended to govern the allowable FAR in this PUD. On October 10, 1988, the City Council approved an FAR change between lots 3 and 4 on the consent agenda. Part of the motion stated that the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 40,350 square feet. Other items in the Land Use files indicate the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 45,850 square feet. There are no Planning or other City Official signatures , and there are no documents in the Land Use files stating this larger FAR number is con•ect. There are Planning Staff signatures on other documents, including a 1991 letter signed by Diane Moore, that agree the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 40,350 square feet. Based on these signatures the Community Development Staff has determined that the total allowable FAR in the PUD is 40,350 square feet. In a June 30, 1987 document, then Planning Director Alan Richman approved of the moving of 196 square feet FAR from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Based on this document, as well as the above referenced 1991 letter, the Community Development staff has determined the following FAR figures to be correct: Lot 1 6,528 sf Lot 2 6,920 sf Lot 3 6,724 sf Lot 4 6,724 sf Lot 5 6,724 sf Lot 6 6,724 sf Lot 7 6,724 sf ~.. i CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 3/x.5/813 ~ E D A_N[) CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE- 5 - 8' y Y II ! ~ r ,. ,~ /' ~ STAFF/ MEMBER: ~-~ PROJECT NAME/ ~~~ I l.(~ll / ' NIX/~U-~ /' U l /~M ~~~ ~ Project Address: __ AYYLICANT: Applicant Address: J,P~ / P- REPRESENTATIVE- ~ ~ Representative Address/Phone: - ~ PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: ~ /i-S7D ~~ 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z CC PBBLi~ HEARING DATE: ~Olal 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: P&Z CC ~ N/A DATE REFERRED: ~~'~~~;~ INITIALS: ~~~~i REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief / B1dg:ZonJ-~sgeet Envir_ Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINA L ROUTING: / DATE ROUTED: ~~~o~l9J INITIAL: ~ / ~ / City Atty City Engineer ' Bidg. Dept. Other G~` FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: % C~~l./ / ~~~ [.~/ ~~ CASE DISPOSITION TO: File FROM: Cindy Houben RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment DATE: October 25, 1988 On October 10, 1988, the City Council approved the Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment as a Consent Agenda Item. The City Council's motion was as follows: " Motion to approve the PUD amendment to use the 2,260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. This space shall not count against the total square footage allowed in the PUD (40,350 square feet). The applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement to be reviewed by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office as the third amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. The square footage of the house on lot 2 is 7,115 square feet." MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen City Council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~2 ~ Cindy Houben, Planning Office ~~ Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD October 10, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend partial approval of the amendment request for 2 PUD Amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. REQUEST: Approval of 2 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. IACATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the re- contoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of the following 2 PUD Amendments: 1. Lots 3 and 4 include one finished house and one house which is under construction. These houses have additional usable space which was created due to the construction methods used to build into the hillside. The total square footage of this space (for the two houses) is 2260 square feet. The proposed use of this space is proposed to be limited to storage, gym and circulation. The request is to be allowed to use this square footage and not have it count against the total square footage of the project which will remain at 40,350 square feet. 2. The second request the house on lot 2. 6,725 square feet. STAFF COMMENTS: is to determine square footage of The applicant believes the house is 1. The request for the use of the underground space (2260 square feet) was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 6, 1988. The rational for this approval was based on a great deal of history recited by the applicant, changing regulation regarding how FAR is calculated and a determination that there would not be any visual or other public impacts created by the approval. The space the applicant is requesting to use is 2,260 square feet which was built as part of the structural element of the houses on lots 3 and 4. The creation of this space was a result of substantial re-contouring into the hillside. At the time the Pitkin Reserve was approved, the method of calculating FAR counted the entire story of a structure even if a portion of it was totally below grade. The new FAR calculations take into account the fact that the portion of a story which is totally below grade does not impact the bulk of the structure (see attached drawings). Both the Planning Commission and Planning Office felt that since the space is totally below finished grade and since the space already exists, that no greater impacts would be created by allowing the use of this space. No additional bulk will be added to the project as a result of this approval since all the homes have already been designed. 2. The second request is for a decision regarding the as built square footage of the house on lot 2. The Planning Commission made a motion for the Planning Office to make the determination of the correct square footage calculation for the house on Lot 2. The applicant contends that the square footage is 6,725 square feet. The Building Department and Zoning Office were going through several personnel changes at the time the final FAR calculations were being done for the house on lot 2. Therefore, the applicant is concerned that the Building Department figures are incorrect. The Building files show that the house is 7,115 square feet. These calculations were determined by the Zoning Official and the Planning Office concurs with their calculations. PLANNING OFFICE and PLANNING RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the use of the 2,260 square feet on lots 3 and 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Office make the determination of how many square feet of house exists on lot 2. 2 The Planning Office agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow the 2,260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 to be utilized. The Planning Office has determined that there are 7,115 square feet of house on lot 2. RECOMMENDED MOTION: " Motion to approve the PUD amendment to use the 2,260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. This space shall not count against the total square footage allowed in the PUD (40,350 square feet). The applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement to be reviewed by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office as the third amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. The square footage of the house on lot 2 is 7,115 square feet." CITY MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION: ch.pres T0: Patsy Newbury FROM: Alan Richman RE: Pitkin Reserve FAR DATE: October 9, 1987 This memo is to confirm our conversation yesterday, at which time I decided the FAR for houses at Pitkin Reserve should be measured from natural grade, not from finished grade. This decision does not change my prior interpretation that height be measured from finished grade, subject to the 25 foot limitation. Please call if you need further guidance in this regard. C.. TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen City Council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager Cindy Houben, Planning Office Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PU(D September 26, 1988 ~-~~ --~~ I~ (<~ G` _ ~. ______________________________L_____ _. r SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend partial approval of the amendment request for 3 PUD Amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. REQUEST: Approval of 3 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. IACATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the re- contoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of the following 3 PUD Amendments: 1. Lots 3 and 4 include one finished house and one house which is under construction. These houses have additional usable space which was created due to the construction methods used to build into the hillside. The total square footage of this space (for the two houses) is 2260 square feet. The proposed use of this space is proposed to be limited to storage, gym and circulation. The request is to be allowed to use this square footage and not have it count against the total square footage of the project which will remain at 40,350 square feet. 2. The second request is to verify that the house constructed on lot 2 is 6,725 square feet. c =~4 3. The third request is to continue to use the gatehouse as a project office until the last house in the Pitkin Reserve PUD is completed. STAFF COMIYILNTS: 1. The request for the use of the underground space (2260 square feet) was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 6, 1988. The rational for this approval was based on a great deal of history recited by the applicant, changing regulation regarding how FAR is calculated and a determination that there would not be any visual or other public impacts created by the approval. The space the applicant is requesting to use is 2,260 square feet which was built as part of the structural element of the houses on lots 3 and 4. The creation of this space was a result of substantial re-contouring into the hillside. At the time the Pitkin Reserve was approved the method of calculating FAR counted the entire story of a structure even if a portion of it was totally below grade. The new FAR calculations take into account -,` the fact that the portion of a story which is totally below ~fdt-- grade does not impact the bulk of the structure (see attached drawings). (~ Both the Planning Commission and Planning Office felt that since the space is totally below finished grade and since the space already exists, that no greater impacts would be created by _„,, allowing the use of this space. No additional bulk will be added to the project as a result of this approval since all the homes ~} have already been designed. ,< 2. The second request is for a decision regarding the as built .y square footage of the house on lot 2. The Planning Commission made a motion for the Planning Office to make the determination ~- of the correct square footage calculation for the house on Lot 2. The applicant contends that the square footage is 6,725 square feet. The Building Department and Zoning Office were going through several personnel changes at the time the final FAR calculations were being done for the house on lot 2. Therefore, the applicant is concerned that the Building Department figures are incorrect. The Building files show that the house is------~~ square feet. These calculations were determined by the Zoning Official and the Planning Office concurs with their calculations. oFF4Q 3. The applicant is requesting that the existing use be allowed until the last house in the project is completed or until April of 1990, whichever is first. 2 The gatehouse was red tagged by the Zoning Official because the applicant was using the structure for an office for his architectural staff. An office is not allowed in the Zone District in addition to the fact that the gatehouse was approved as an employee dwelling unit. The Planning Commission made a motion to recommend to City Council that the applicant be allowed to remain in the gatehouse using it as a project office for 3 more months. The applicant requests that the gatehouse be allowed to be used as a project office until April of 1990. The applicant feels that there is less traffic generation to and from the site since the office is on site. In addition the applicant feels that the owners in the project can more adequately be served by having an on site project office. See attached letter from applicant dated August 8, 1988. The gatehouse was approved as an employee dwelling to be used to house an on site caretaker of the property. The approval was based on the housing authority rent and occupancy guidelines. The unit was recently red tagged by the zoning official for a violation of the agreement. The charge was that the unit was being used as an architectural office housing six employees. The Planning Office recognizes the need for an on site project manager but also feels that the community had reliance from the applicant that the unit was to house a middle income employee who was a caretaker of the project. It seems reasonable that a project manager, during construction, could be this person if the project manager meets the occupancy guidelines of the Housing Authority. However, it's explicitly contrary to the approval and the home occupation rules to allow the applicant to operate an office, with a staff employed by other projects, in the gatehouse. Therefore the Planning Office recommends that 1 (one) project manager be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project and that the office use be terminated immediately. PLANNING OFFICE and PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the use of the 2260 square feet on lots 3 and 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Office make the determination of how many square feet of house exists on lot 2. The Planning Commission makes the recommendation that the applicant be allowed to use the gatehouse as a project office for the next three months. The Planning Office agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow the 2260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 to be utilized. The Planning Office has determined 3 ~~ ~ ~;`~ ,~ p that there are -=-- square feet of house on lot 2. Finally, The Planning Office recommends that one (1) project manager who qualifies under the employee guidelines be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project, and that the office use be terminated immediately. MOTION: " Motion to approve the PUD amendment to use the 2260 square feet of space on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD. This space shall not count against the total square footage allowed in the PUD (40,350 square feet). The applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement to be reviewed by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This shall be recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office as the third amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. k ll~' y ~°~ The square footage of the house on lot 2 is ----- square feet. Q #U The gatehouse may be used as a residence for a project manager who qualifies under the employee guidelines. The office use of the gatehouse shall be terminated immediately." CITY MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION: ch.pres 4 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: September 6, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of 3 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin. LOCATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: This application to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD contains 3 separate amendment requests. These are summarized as follows: 1. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR: The applicant requests that an unresolved question of how to calculate FAR in the PUD be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. It was the applicant's understanding that due to the substantial regrading of the site, the FAR calculations for this project would be measured from finished grade rather than natural grade. This issue has been an on going question in the Building Department and Planning Office, therefore, the applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement in order to clarify the situation. 2. TOTAL FAR: The Applicant and the Planning Office have also been reviewing the issue of how to calculate total FAR on the site. The applicant states that the FAR for the entire PUD has been incorrectly calculated. The applicant contends that there is actually additional FAR available for the project. The recorded documents indicate a specific amount of FAR was allotted to the project which the applicant is requesting to amend upwards. 3. GATEHOIISE: The applicant has been using the gatehouse as an office for his architectural staff. The Building Department has red tagged the gatehouse because the use as an office is not allowed in the zone district and because the unit was approved as an employee unit, deed restricted to an employee in the middle income category. The applicant is requesting that the existing use be allowed to be continued until the last house in the project is completed. HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve went through the PUD review process in 1982 and 1983 and has the PUD agreement. The recorded in 1984. come in for several amendments regarding latest PUD amendment was approved and STAFF COMMLNP: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the recontoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. Unfortunately, we did not think to address FAR calculations at the same time, necessitating this further review. The following staff comments will address each of the three proposed amendments separately. 1. HOW TO CAI~CULATB FAR: The project FAR has been calculated under the old FAR methodology since the project began under those regulations. The new FAR methodology allows the applicant to delete all areas which are subgrade from the FAR calculations (as measured from natural grade). The old methodology only allows for those stories which are 100$ subgrade to be deleted from the FAR calculations. Therefore, under the new regulations additional square footage could be added to the project. The applicant is requesting that the new regulations be applied to the project and to additionally allow the subgrade areas to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade. The applicant feels that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) The below grade area is not visible and in that sense does not increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. In addition, if the proposed FAR methodology is approved, approximately 7,463 sq. ft. will be divided up among the 6 homesites for additional FAR. As noted earlier in this memorandum, this issue has been discussed for several years among the applicant, the Planning Office and the Building Department. The unique conditions in this case are that the approval bodies have allowed the applicant to significantly regrade the site and measure height from finished grade. The question before the Planning Commission is whether or not these circumstances warrant allowing the applicant to measure the FAR on the site using the new code and measuring from 2 finished grade rather than natural grade. The application states that approximately 1/3 of each of the existing three houses are below finished grade (the 3 existing houses are all 7,463 sq. ft in size. The request is to allow that square footage to be divided up among the 6 lots in the PUD. This means, to date there will be approximately 7,463 square feet of additional FAR to be divided among the 6 lots. This is greater than 1,200 additional square feet per house. If the FAR is interpreted as proposed, each house will be allowed to be almost 8,600 square feet. (The Subdivision Improvements agreement allows each house to have an average of 6,700 square feet.) In reviewing the original files on the PUD, the major concern from the Planning Commission and Council was that the bulk of the homes be keep as unobtrusive as possible from the public ROW (Rio Grande Trail). The applicant agreed with the concept and proposed to build the homes into the hillside, thereby eliminating a significant amount of the perceived bulk. The applicant is now requesting to be allowed to be given credit (FAR) for the portions of the homes which are being hidden from view. The Planning Office contends that this design was part of the approval and intended all along. To now allow the applicant to get credit for what was presented as a perceived reduction in FAR seems inconsistent with the original approvals since the additional 7,463 square feet would be allowed above grade and would definitely add to the bulk as perceived from the Rio Grand Trail. Additionally, it should be noted that the project was developed pursuant to specific design criteria and limitations (The Land Use Code Regulations in effect at that time) and was approved on that basis. As a general rule, once a PUD is approved, it is governed by the rules in effect at the time of its approval, to insure that the representations about architecture, bulk and design are adhered to. Therefore the Planning Office is opposed to the request to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade using the new code. 2. TOTAL FAR: The applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement to allow additional FAR on the total site. The applicant's calculations are attached. The latest PUD agreement recorded in 1984 states that the total allowed FAR for the project is 40,350 square feet; 6725 square feet per residence. The applicant contends that there was a mistake in the FAR calculations and that the correct figure for the development is 45,850 sq. ft. Attached is a copy of the applicant's FAR calculations. The applicant has developed this calculation by using 7 lots rather than 6 lots. Because of the way FAR is calculated in a PUD, (a chart illustrating the slide scale approach will be provided at the meeting) by using 7 instead of 6 lots, the total FAR permitted on the site can be increased. However, in actuality the 7th lot is limited by the prior approval to a 1000 square foot gatehouse for use as employee housing and should not provide the basis for increasing the project's overall FAR by more than the 1000 sq. ft. The Planning Office feels that the original approvals were based on the reliance that the project build out was to be no more than 40,350 square feet. The application states that the applicant has already built 22,389 sq. ft. plus 7,463 presently under construction for a total of 29,852 sq, ft. which has already been allocated. According to the recorded figures, there is approximately 10,498 square feet of additional square footage to be allotted between the two houses which have not been built. By accepting the applicant's calculations there would be approximately 14,926 sq. ft to be used between the two remaining lots. Section 24-8.26(b) regarding PUD amendments states that "such amendments shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in community policy." The Planning Office recommendation is that the applicants are bound by the past approvals and that there is no justification for the additional square footage. 40,350 square feet was satisfactory at the time of the approvals and in light of the community concern over excessive bulk, the additional square footage is not in the best interest of the community. The Planning Office therefore recommends that the applicants be required to go by the existing approval of 40,350 square feet for the total buildout of the project. 3. GATEHOUSE: The applicant requests that the gatehouse be allowed to be used as a project office until April of 1990. The applicant feels that there is less traffic generation to and from the site since the office is on site. In addition the applicant feels that the owners in the project can more adequately be served by having an on site project office. See attached letter from applicant dated August 8, 1988. The gatehouse was approved as an employee dwelling to be used to house an on site caretaker of the property. The approval was based on the housing authority rent and occupancy guidelines. The unit was recently red tagged by the zoning official for a violation of the agreement. The charge was that the unit was being used as an architectural office housing six employees. The Planning Office recognizes the need for an on site project manager but also feels that the community had reliance from the applicant that the unit was to house a middle income employee who was a caretaker of the project. It seems reasonable that a project manager, during construction, could be this person if the project manager meets the occupancy guidelines of the Housing 4 Authority. However, it's explicitly contrary to the approval and the home occupation rules to allow the applicant to operate an office, with a staff employed by other projects, in the gatehouse. Therefore the Planning Office recommends that 1 (one) project manager be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project and that the office use be terminated immediately. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request for the PUD amendments to measure FAR calculation using the new code and calculating from finished grade and to increase the overall project FAR. The gatehouse may be used by a project manager as a residence and project office until the last house is completed, at which time it shall be occupied by a caretaker who meets Housing Authority guidelines, as was previously agreed to. CH.PITRES 5 Aspen/Pi 130 aspe September 6, 1988 Mr. Michael Lipkin P. O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael: ing Office treet 81611 It is the Planning Office's understanding that your request for amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD is limited to the following: 1. Lots 3 and 4 have houses which are currently under construction and/or are finished. These houses have additional usable space which was created due to the construction methods used to build into the hillside. The total squire footage of this space (for the two houses) is '-..226. square feet. The use of this space shall be limited to storage, gym and circulation. Your request is to be allowed to use this square footage in these two houses. Your request is that this square footage will not be used to count against the total square footage of the project which will remain at 40,350 square feet. 2. The second request is to verify that the house constructed on lot 2 is calculated at 6_,725 square feet. 3. The third request is to continue to use the gatehouse as a project office until the last house in the Pitkin Reserve PUD is completed. Please sign this letter if you concur that the above information accurately reflects your PUD amendment request. Sincerely, Cindy Houben, Planner Michael Lipkin ch.m1200 ~ I P K I N A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T U R E& P L A N N I N G October 20, 1987 Mr. Alan Richmond Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Alan, I realize FAR and building heights have become issues that raise the flag of caution, however, I fail to understand your recent decision not to exclude below grade construction from FAR calculation at Pitkin Reserve. The Code measures building heights and the exclusion of below grade construction from the FAR calculations from a common grade line. It is the intention of the Code, especially your rewrite of the calculation of FAR, to regulate visible bulk and not that which is below grade and, therefore, not visible. There seems to be some concern about these below grade areas "daylighting". This is inevitable for a building on a sloping site, or if not inevitable, is certainly an ideal opportunity. On a fiat site we now gat light walls {which look a good bit more like moats and don't seem tike a great idea} in the current FAR grab. I've enclosed several exhibits that I'd like you to take a look at, I think they show pretty clearly what I'm trying to do. As you know I take the design and siting of my houses pretty seriously. Exhibit 1 is a photograph of our first Pitkin Reserve house, which fits the site vary comfortably and has not raised concerns about either bolding height or below grade FAR. House 3. currently under review by the building department, is just two feet taller. 67hile roughly 1,500 square feet larger, it should sit in the hillside with aquas ease and comfort. Exhibit 2 is a site plan showing the heights of the first 3 houses in Pitkin Reserve. Exhibit 3 consists of elevations and floor plans so you can identify the storage and Laundry areas in question and see how completely below grade they are. ~lhile the space in question is primarily a bonus due to the structural system required to hold the house on the hillside, it is of significant value for storage, agym /workout area and a Saundry. In any event, I'd like to sit down with you, review my drawings, try to understand your objections, and see if there is anyway they can be overcome. As a last resort, I'd need to know what appeal grocers, if any, I have available to me. I realize the Pitkin Reserve process seems to be an endless one, however I know that we both take our roles in this process and the resulting product very seriously. I appreciate your prompt and thorough attention. Yours truly, • Michael Lipkin POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET•NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 M?T iLis":.:~,. 4~ ~ y Aspen/Pitk~';~ } ~.~ ~~~ 130 so~uh~gaw aspen, ~~~o~br~. .:.~.~- Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P.O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, ing Office treet 6 21 1987 This letter is in response to your written request of July 8 to obtain a clarification of the building height situation at Pitkin Reserve. As you know, I have given this matter a great deal of thought, and have even gone so far as to bring it before the Planning Commission to determine whether they had any input on this matter. Essentially, the issue is whether the height of the six homes at Pitkin Reserve should be measured from natural or finished grade. It is quite clear that the Code requires heights to be measured from natural grade, and it is equally clear that your project received no explicit variation from this requirement when it was originally approved as a PUD. However, it is apparent from my review of the discussion which took place during the review process that we all knew that substantial grading would occur on the site to permit integration of the homes into the recontoured hillside. Therefore, it is my determination that it was the intent of the City to have the height of these residences be measured from finished, rather than natural grade, and that the PUD should be administered in this manner. By copy of this letter I am hereby instructing the Building Department to measure heights for your project as follows: 1. Heights shall be no greater that 25 feet, as measured from finished grade; and way. 2. Heights shall in all cases be below that of Willoughby I hope this addresses your concerns. Sincerely, A1" ah Richman Planning Director August 12, 1987 Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P.O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, This letter is in response to your written request of July 8 to obtain a clarification of the building height situation at Pitkin Reserve. As you know, I have given this matter a great deal of thought, and have even gone so far as to bring it before the Planning Commission to determine whether they had any input on this matter. Essentially, the issue is whether the height of the six homes at Pitkin Reserve should be measured from natural or finished grade. It is quite clear that the Code requires heights to be measured from natural grade, and it is equally clear that your project received no explicit variation from this requirement when it was originally approved as a PUD. However, it is apparent from my review of the discussion which took place during the review process that we all knew that substantial grading would occur on the site to permit integration of the homes into the recontoured hillside. Therefore, it is my determination that it was the intent of the City to have the height of these residences be measured from finished, rather than natural grade, and that the PUD should be administered in this manner. By copy of this letter I am hereby instructing the Building Department to measure heights for your project as follows: 1. Heights shall be no greater that 25 feet, as measured from finished grade; and 2. Heights shall in all cases be below that of Willoughby Way. I hope this addresses your concerns. Sincerely, Alan Richman Planning Director __ _ _.. -~ AUG 14 !~'- MEMORANDUM TO: Patsy Newbury, Building Department FROM: Jay Hammond, Public Services DATE: August 11, 1987 RE: Fill at Pitkin Reserve Per your request, I am writing to verify approval of the proposed fill on lots 3 and 4 of the Pitkin Reserve development. Insofar as the proposed fill is within the building envelopes, the initial concern was that the fill would be a change to the approved plan requiring amendment. Alan Richman has apparently indicated that this is not the case and forwarded the plan to me for review and comment. My basic concerns were to see that the additional fill would not adversely affect drainage, road grades or the floodway. Having found that drainage and the roadway are not impacted and that the fill zones are not within the areas required for review of stream margin impacts, I recommend approval of the amended grading plan. JH/co/Fi1lPitkReserve cc: Alan Richman L I P K I N A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T U R E& P L A N N I N G +~ 91988 Aaaust 8, 1988 IIs. Ciad~ Hoabea Aspee/Pitkia Planning Office 137 South Galeae Aspeq.CO 81611 RE: Proper Caloalation o! FAH at ttr Pitkin Hesnrve Dear Ciad~, ibis is a regaest for either • minor modifloatioa or a !bird Amendment to the Pitkia Reserve PUD. the regaest is that the FAH allowtioa sad distribatiaa be recorded as shown oa Eshibdt A which represeate the proper calcalatioa o! project FAH. I think the following paints an nveiant. 1. Last fall Alga Richman pointed oat that FAH had bwa improperly oaloatated at the Pitkia Reserve. At his dinoiioa I weal ahead sad corrected mp methodolo~r. I thirst we were both supriwd when this nsaited in a modest increase is project FAH. 2. The Pitkia Rnerve PUD has twice been snraded to redaae both deasiti sad FAH to their aurreat levels. Rowever, tMicc both the Plamdag and ZomaQ Commiasioa end CitF Council have epproved total project FAH we!! is ezceas of what is current!! proposed. APPROVAL liIAfDSH OF PHOjF%.1' DATE FREE 1lAHEET UlATS FA.R. OffiOINAt.P.U.n. 19sa 1a 61,a04 FD3ST P.U.D. AIlENDISEIiT 1983 9 55.523 SECO1,iD P.U.D. AllENDISEIIi 1984 6 41,423 ~ PHOPEHLI CALCULATED FAR 1988 6 45,850 3. Sims the Pitkia Heaerve PUD wa origimll~ approved, the Planning Offiae and Baiidiag Deparhneat >uve nHaed the methodology !or oalaalatiag FAR to elimimte the Mae against sloping sits. il-e iatentian for the Code in ngalatiag FAR is to control above grade balk and sense. - Rowever, the Pitkia Baerve PUD ie governed by the old interpntatian o! FAS the three hoaaes we hsve built at the Pitkin Reurve hsve at least a third o! their bulk and FAH below grade. Tlat area below grade woald be excladed from FAH wader the new Code. (See Exhibits B, C, D and F) 4. I! this aorrectioa o! FAR is appnved, the alloptian would be distribt[ted egaatly to each o! the si: lots. iaoiading these we have already completed. It io not oar intention to ass ail o! this additional FAH to iaarease the sice of the fiml two hoaxes. POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET•NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 ~z S. wr ae abaat to oompl.t. Houa a.oa na. be~cn aoirtraotion on Hour 4. 'ibne sro bN~ built on t1r ~tupnt portion o! for Mb ud for straotur~ rogairod to bald tbMet on Ur bifisido bsr ornt~d ~ Doo6 bit of an wll below arm. (Su ExLibits B. C, D end E) An opp~ront o! 11do rat woadM1 oilow w to aso ibis op~ tbrt br bnn orNtod oat o! ttzaolaad noontt~. It •oalA swt br saitoble a liria~ npoce, bat wadd bt approprioto for o ~. ttorpt sprat, worktbop, etr. 2bert rioadd bt no imrew in balk aid t1r spry will exist wtrtlrr or fwt roa r11ow it to be area. It I om ~PP11 my rdditiourl intornrtion to garlit~r or i1lasUrrtt this regaat, plerrt lot me know. I look torrrrd to bnritq Fran bra. xoaxr t:alr. nirb.tl LipH AI1li8EH OF UIIITS TOTAL DEVELOPABLE RHEA DEVELOPABLE ABEA/LOi AVEHAOE FA.H./LOT TOTAL FAS 7 367,481 SF. 52,497 SF. 6,550 SF. 45,850 SF. ALLOWABLE F.A.H. LOT I 7,463 Comtzaction to begin spring 89 LOT 2 7,463 Haw aosnpieted LOT 3 7,463 Osdn aMUtractioa LOT 4 7,463 Haw completed LOTS 7,463 Howse completed LOT 6 7,462 Lot sold LOT 7 1,073 Oatebaw completed TOTAL F./-.H. 45,850 'EiHIDl'1' A' is ~ ~ ' ~ ~z a ~ s ~~^ @~~ ~~ ~~~: 00 ~.~~ ~~~ 3 m a .. ` `_ ~ _ 3 c1 ~ ~' J 7 v .j j C V ~ u ~ ~~ 11~ V e s 3 ~*~ r .., ~ ~ - ~ .r- ~ Q ~ ;, x ~o,~ a~ u~ . . - , _ , ~ I~ ~~ I~ . I t~ i .:;.- ~.,. ..~ ~i li 1.. w ~. ~~. ~~ {v N; ^I ~ ~ M x w .--~--- - z -- w r ~ 3 ~ d', ~ ~ a d .ii z„ y ~ _ ~ }~:~ ~o sI ~, '~ 3 ~ ~ s ~ _ m. Y ~ ~. ~ N. ~ Yyy. gal.-s n =y .. Y `T. Mn•t ' ~ ~ ,• ~ ~~~0 '~ !i ` $~ O ~,iy r _. ~N' d ., \ 1 f ` QF. o,' •~ 1~1'. 0 a- +~ h \ ® a~ r ~' ~ ~~ ~~ b s Q~r G ~ ,; ~ oY Y "F , ~ \ \X A ~ 1 I'() i N'• 4 ( ( t ~ 1 F ~ I ~r~ O O 11 .. .~~ i ~ F Ar rc s; 1~ X y --* , . •v.t Y ..(1 ~+• ~ •-+l^ ~ dog _ '. '~ r ~ Z ;I ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ - `r y~ t~ z-9 ~ _J ?~i \ ~~ ~~ er r., .+ . = I ~ FG i-9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ v ~ $ P a c \ _ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1_ 1 ~ ~ ~ :.r o . ,~ i Yy ~ I o ~.. ~...~~ ~ f y, ~.. Y~11 J yi 'I VI ~' v ~-y ~ 0~ •', ^1. ~ Gi job i ~ 1 ~-q9-il _ -+~I ~i Y.. ~ ~ t`k[ - ~ ~ 1 Y ~.+-r- } i _+j- ~ .~ ~ -e rl nr ~ ~.J i . t ~i ~`.. ~ $ ...7 1 9 _ ~ _ ~ ~ J I 1~r _''f-""i"!" - 1..~ . ~ i I`LL !Ly, 3 1' ~ s ~ ,. ~ d ~~ ~ ' ~~ I ® I G -- _ ~ r' .. -- ., \ , . - ,Q ~ ~ _ • 4r+S IF•I Jli O ~. F~ti I % ~ ~ Ivn „. ~ ~ ,~ --- _ X .idn o-s .+~ala ~ ral-cr µs-: >MI ;a ~ a 1. ,~ -- '~ ~ +' . '~ . .. _4 T = a ~ Y _ ~ ~ ~ h~..~ " ,~ 1. ~ o oz ~ v w >; . W ; ~ 3~c ~ ~ zm ~ U~ I ! j F j ~`,~ ~` _, , 3 g ~ . ........... .... . .. ... _ .. .... ABC ` ~ ~l o lU 0 .~ Q ~ V '{ Q ' Q gg~ j C x x ~ w v - ~ ~,. i ~ 3 l ~ ; ~ ~ . ~ 1 ~ ~ ! ~' ~ ~: ~ -' ~' i ;. _ ~ f'° ~ j I I .. _, ~ - - -- "- ~ }~:1.. ._~ ~ ~•... y ~ ~ 1 1 ••.~. ~ ~ ~..,_ ~- ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1 4- `\ .. ~ ' .~~~ i ~ • ~ ' ~ _ _. n • .'~--- • ~' ter. px>~ ':.~~ ~2~ w2 }- ~ r~ ti W S m JI ~ (~ ~' f W • J ~ '' > .. 4 •Ie 'YfIrii t •°. ~ S i .i 3 wV sfuyrni. r~a~i• / ` ~. ~ ~ =i ~ a sue. ¢ ~ ~ j;. ~` ~ } I i1' i r yn ~ ~ E y i L .! ~ d W ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,\ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l , •~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s~ _ ! ~\ ~ J1 d ~; _ _ y ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ . ~~~((( ^~~ a u B ~'. l ~. , 4 F LLq \ ~O i t~.. ~iti ...c ~-fit cz-- ~ i I' -~ _ y. ~]r - it - - ----- _:O ~ ,nw •. ~ o - -- U •o ' ~ Y ~ ~ RJ .. •al ___..5 Iglll s IN- ~{Yp 1~ `1 ~ ¢`j~ F4 0 i ._--_ g •9 it M CJ ti~ ~ ~~f ~ ~ y ~IB ,~... Y i J _.. _ 33 i'. { n ~! ~ O +. II ..... . i .~ I' __ ~~ v a ~ ~ i i ~ , a - t s A o dv ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ i~ _ N _ ;' ',~~ ~j~~t "~I~p `€ I III ~py1 / s G t~ s I .. S _ 4QI .aq ~ r I I_~ ~ r ,' ~ r-_,- __ I ~ ~ , r W © 9 i ~ I a w ; Z :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s I ~ ~ "1 = _ i ~ I s ~ ~R N -_ _ t__. r ; ~ - ~. ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ , • ~ ,Wli -tea - Y:+ . .-;cam--~p -.«,p-__. _... - - -- - -- _ z • .«~:~ ~ - ~_ _ ,6,w =-- - -- - - - - a x ' ~ is I • ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ s ~~v~ July 8,1987 lblr. Bill Drueding Zoning Offidel Aspea/pitkin Building Department 5U6 East ldedsl Street Aspea,CO-81611 RE: Building Heights nt the Firkin Reserve. Dear Bill, There has been some confusion is the pest about building heights nt Firkin Reserve emd I'd like to resolve that gtastioa since I'm designing the next two hottses there, My eastmnptioa is that building height at the Firkin Reserve should be established from proposed grades rather than existing grades. Let me give you a little history. Pitkin Reserve is n PUD. Vhen it was vadergaiag the review process, I made it very clear that the hillside mould be drelmntically changed end the houses wmrid be plugged into the Inadscape rather thaw overhanging it and that there would be massive changes is the griming of the hillside. oe agreed that ao btSldlags wnvid be built higher rhea i-iliaughby Vay. However, when the Subdivision ~greemeat was draw up, I naively thought that the reference to ao buildings higher than Villoughby ilny was our only height restriction, The Subdivision dgreemeat did not clearly stexe that we were ezempt from any building height constretats or that building heights would be established !'rnsn the new grades ar opposed to the existing ones, then I submitted the first end seed houses for building permits I attached to my application references from the Subdivisiaa igreemeat that building heightswould not be greater than yJiiloughby oay. I redeved thane permits, Ve poured the fotandation for House 2 end they waited 2 veers before gearing up for construction again. I had to have my building permit tspdnted lest ftsll end Peggy raised some questions about building height. llaa Richmond intervened sad ruled that is that particular instance the building heights would be established from finished grade not original grade. P O> "f O F F I C E H U X 3 0 0 4 ASPEN ,COLORADO H 1 6 1 2 3 0 3- 9 2 0- l l 8 4 . r -~ ~ ~ , ~ ~, /_"~ ~~ ~~: / ~ , i~ 1 ~~v',V ~GL,~ MEMORANDUM TO :' Bill Druedingp~~ FROM: Alan Richman 1''•`\ RE: Amendment to Pitkin Reserve FAR DATE: July 9, 1987 Attached are some documents which I have signed with respect to the Pitkin Reserve PUD, shifting 196 s.f. of floor area between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the PUD. The purpose of this shift is to permit the construction of a mud room on Lot 2. In signing this amendment, 2 have been unable to determine from my files that 40,344 is the actual floor area allowed for this property. Therefore, please do not construe my signature as verifying this number, but merely as authorizing the 196 s.f. exchange of floor area between the two lots. If, however, you are able to verify that 40,344 s.f. is the accurate floor area for this property, then please consider that to be the case. I would appreciate it if you would file this memo in your zoning files on this project and refer to it henceforth. I will also provide a copy of the signed amendment to Michael Lipkin, for his recordation by the County Clerk. Thanks for your help. JUL 9 1987 ew~~.,.; INSPECrpa THE PI'd'ICIN RESERVE AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE EAR AT THE PITKIN RESERVE JUNE 30,1987 LOT NUMBER APPROVED £AR AMENDED FAR 1 6724 6528 2 6724- 7 6~ 8 6920 3 6724 6724 4 6724 - ra ~a y 6724 5 6724 6724 6 6724 6724 TOTAL £AR APPROVED: 40,344 )"'~ L ~"~ Alan Rici~an~ Piennix~g Director ~~gl~n Data 40,344 POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 ASPEN ,COLORADO 8 1 6 1 2 3 0 3- 9 2 0- I 18 4 ~_~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ s ~~v~ I- June 30,1987 Mr. ASan Richmond Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Geleaa Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Alan, ,lUN 3 0198i' I expect the enclosed chart adequately explains the reallocation of FAR at the Firkin Reserve. If there is any additioaet information or background you Head lust let me know. Otherwise, when you've had a chance to sign off on this give me a call end, in the intrest of time, I'll stop by and pick it up and zip it over to the building department where theyYe currently reviewing the 196sS. mud room addition. I appreciate the prompt attention you've given this, thank you. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin MBL/ieh En1c. POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 ASPEN ,COLORADO S l 6 1 2 303.920•L_I:Q4 Aspen/Pitk~'i~~Plan,ning Office 130 sa`utht `galena`-street aspen,"col,orado 81611 ,. June 10, 1987 Mr. Michael Lipkin The Pitkin Reserve P. O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Michael, I have reviewed your letter dated June 4, 1987, with respect to shifting up to 300 square .feet of allowable floor area. from lot #1 of the Pitkin Reserve PUD to lot #2 of the PUD. Under the provisions of Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code, as Planning Director I am permitted to authorize amendments to approved PUD's, provided certain limitations are met. Since you indicate that the overall FAR for the PUD will not increase, but will instead be shifted, and since the development will still occur within the approved building footprints and not therefore cause additional building coverage, I believe this proposal meets the standards for my approval. I hereby authorize you to proceed with this amendment to the PUD. In order to accomplish this amendment, you will need to prepare an exhibit to this letter which shows in one column the approved FAR for each of the six lots of the PUD. In the second column, you should show the amended FAR for each of the six lots. Obviously, the total FAR for all six lots would remain the same. Once you have prepared this exhibit and I have reviewed and initialed same, I,,,~will authorize you to proceed to building permit review for"your addition to lot #2, subject to recordation of the letter and exhibit. I hope that this letter meets your needs. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance. Sincerely, ~,,,` Alan Richman Planning Director ,. June 4, 198? ~'g'~'K~N DESERVE Mr. Alan Richmond Planning & De~relopment Direc?ur Punning Department 1 ^^>0 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Deat• Alan, As we discussed I would like to make en adjustment to the FAR allocation at the Pitkin Reserve. In our initial PUD .and subdivision agreement we established a net developable area which we allocated equally among the ii lots desgite the fact that they varied somewhat in size. In subsequent reductions of our free market development lots -from 12 to 9 to o - we continued this equal disu•ibutian of FAk. We would now like to shift i00-300 s.f. of FAR from our smallest, and most constrained, lot {*1 } to the adjacent lot {+~2?, where ttre are just completing construction. She purpose of this additional FAR would be to add on a mud room and storage shed. This would, of course, fall within the established building envelope for Lot 2, and not be increasing the overall building coverage of the Pitkin Reserve FUD. In your capacity as Planning Director you are authorized to make minor modifications to a PUD as outlined in Section 24-8.26 in the Building Code of the City of Aspen. I will, as you suggested -when you have signed off on this, and I have an exact FAR requirement established - produce a document that shows the redistribution of developable es•ea and the appropriate FAR allocations for each lot and 'nave this document recorded with the city clerk. I appreciate Srour attention. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin MBLIjeh POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 ASPEN ,COLORADO 8 l 6 l 2 3 0 3 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 L I P K I N A S S O L I A T E S A R C H I T E C T U R E& P L A N N I N G AaQcut 8,1988 lts. Cindy Hatbox Aspen/Pitkia Plannia~ offiw 13r SoathOalar A.pen, cn e161! AtJG 91988 AB: nke of the Pitkix lttnrw Qahhoau as a Pro~eot Olfia nay Cindy, T1ds !otter in a re9a+st tlrt the Pitkin Besor~e PIID be anrnded to allow tlr agftiaaed are of the Oahhoase a a prokot office throaol- oompietion of oartraoHox at the Pitkia Rtserwe which w anticipate will be between January 1 as-d April 15.1990. Sixoe ib eon~pleHoa threr and bit! rare aQo, w haw Deed for Pitkin Haerw (laMlraue as the project office. It kas recently been potat+d oat that while aoxsistant with the spirit of the exMtded pablie rMriew proaas of the Pitkia Reserve Pt7D, t1-e as of tlr Oatebatse r projtot ofHa wa trwr spelled oat in oar Sabdirbiax A~teetsext. Tbb sasamer w will complete taeriruotiox of Soew 3 and Hoase L i. already trader aoxotraotiox- w .re twrrextty poarin~l ooxarete and expect to fiadsh tlrt hoase n:t sprite. gent :priced w will begin cartraaHox of Hotw 5, aar Haa! hoaw at the Firkin Reserve, and intend to Hx{sh it between Janrcarr aM 2faroh of 1990. We watld like to mdatain ass of the Oatehoase axtif the completion of tlr ooxstraoHox of Hoare 5 or April 15.1440. whieherer coma first. With the arrreat Jere! of aoti~itr at Pitkin Resem, it L both comenieat and wry efficient to as to be worldrq this oloa to then projeoh. Fran tMs Iaoatiox, w Dan not only manage ooartraoHon, bat proride the trretaker serKaa tart are . si~dfiamt amenity of t1r Pltkix Rearw. In addition, it was g~ proposal that the QaMhowe be a caretaker/tstaM keeper facility for a gaalified empiora. TMs ww not • regairetwxt o! sabdirision oz a OliP appliation. W! bailt it a a project amenity, not a a troatribation to employee hoania~. I tldnlt w made as ample ooxtribatiox of etnpfora lrusisq to tlr ootamam{tr with tht apgradirq and exparrioa of the Stna~ler lloMle Hoer Park to an owyrr/oooapied aooperatire of I Od moM1e homts and 250 to 300 residents. I tool ttrt oar aarrext as of tlr oabboase a a projtot ofHa v appropriaM ix that it allow as to emnr`e tMs project ae olopiy..enNti.elr, and efHotentlr w passible. We are ix contact with oar lob sits ox almost an hoarfy basis. If tlr ofHae wre ix atrttrr foatiox w Wald be doir4 a lot of oomnwttixQ, probably Fran the Airport easixen Center. The residents of PltHn Ream are of aoara thore potextiallr most impacted by itiri~ ax office ix the tiabhoaa. I know they lee! that oar presence here i. a real piae. It lira them a tQrreat deal o! persowt attention and ooordixata tfrir lifestyle xeeda with t1r ooirtraotioa pzooeess. I appreotah roar oosrideratiox. roar. traly. I L. Iitolrel Lipkin POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303-920-1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET•NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003.212-598-0492 ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPA~RTNII . ,IUL 121988 MEMORANDUM T0: Fred Gannett, City Attorney FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer DATE: July 11, 1988 RB: Pitkin Reserve Gate Rouse - Zoning Violations I responded to the attached memo from Janet Raczak of the Housing Department on July 7, 1988. At 11:00 I went to the Gate- house at Pitkin Reserve. I identified myself and was permitted entry. I observed a drawing table on the first floor of three levels. On the second floor were three more architectural drawing table. This was the area of the kitchen-dining. Three gentlemen were working. Oae summoned Michael Lipkin. Not knowing the extent of cooperation I would get from Mr. Lipkin or the method of enforcement we would pursue, I felt it~advisable to advise him of his Miranda rights which he did waive. Michael wan very cooperative and frank. He said he had occupied the building as the "employee" and used it also as a office, with 1 or 2 employees for a number of years until June 15, 1988. At that time he vacated all living activities and converted it solely to aL office use with 5 employees. He said his wife was pregnant, his business was expanded and office space was hard to get, thus the expanded office activit'y.. He said the Gatehouse contained about 750 square feet of living space and about 750 square feet of storage space. I told him I felt he was in violation of the terms of his P.U.D. agreement concerning the employee unit GateLouse and also is violation of City Zoning Codes by having a professional office is a residential zone. I discussed the fact that his operation did not conform to a home occupation. I further advised him that I felt he should bring the building into code compliance as soon as possible and $very day that it is not could result in penal- ties. He said he would act as quickly as possible to come into offices: 617 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Coloredo 81611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Mein Street Aspen, Colorado 816'1'1 ~µ compliance with the P.U.D. and City Zoning Codes. I told him I would advise you and we would decide on what further legal action we would take emphasizing that code compliance was our main ob3ective. Please advise me what steps you feel necessary for me to take at this point. I'm prepared to write a show cause letter with a date of your convenience. cc: Alan Richman Janet Raczak r- .~ 9 Jl ~ ~ ~ ~ Jl ~ ~ 1 V ~ ~ ~ JLe July s, i9ss Mx. Alan Richaan Punning Director Aspen/Pitkin Piasming 130 South Galexu Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Afaxx I had a visit from BiU Dreading yesterday wits regards to thr current use of the Gatehouse. I guess I have some exgiaixung to do. The Gatehouse at Fitkin Reserw reas aompieted three and a taif years ago. Upon completion my wife and I moved iu as certified employees within the appropriate ixwrome gaidefixees. Since that time we here Lath fired in the Gatehouse aid I bare axed it as an office for my arcYdtectarai prance which is primarily centered aroaxd the activities at Fitkin Reserve. Darr this perm I hero either worked alone or with oxx or two staff members. ihfs past sgrixeg, with the real estate market quite strong, we decided to ap the pace of oar activities and rather flan build oxee hawse and wait for its sale to begin the next house, we decided to get a coapie going at a time. 4llat that now means is we Lore twa antler constraation axed are planxeing a third and my staff is ap to five. At the saws time u my office has swelled, so has my wife as wr are expecting oar Pint citild in Aagast. Wleen it becwne clear that peacefai co-existexu~ Letween my office and my f~diy fife was no longer possible, I began looking for eaitabie axd affordable office space. chat jest doen't seem to exist in Aspen. However, at flat time, friexda o! can, Tim and Axe Griggs, decided to take a job oat of the area for the xvext eight months axd offered their house to us. We leapt at the opportunity without thfaki~ mach about the aigpificaxece with respect to the approved apse of the Gatehouse. We moved art of the Gatehouse in Jane. With the arxrent feral of activity at Pitkin Reserve, it is cenvextient and verp efficient for as to be working this close to am projects. Axd while it was never reflected in our Subdivision Agreement, it was always arr intention to use the Gatehouse as a project office. From this IocatioxLI can not only manage coxatructiast, but also provide the caretaker services that are a significent amenity of the Pitkin Reserve. It was oar proposal that the Gatehaane be a caretaker/estate keeper facility, this was not a requirement of Subdivision or a GMP agplicetion. We built it as a project amenity, not as a contribution to employee leoasing. I thirst we made an ample contribution of employee hauaing to the commxrdty with the apgnding axd expa~ion of the Smuggler Mobile Harae Fark to an owxeez accQpied ceoperative of 104 trailers axd 250 to 275 residents. POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 ASPEN ,COLORADO 8 1 6 1 2 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 t 8 4 Page 2 Wv fwi that oar aazvnt aw of tfw t3atvhoaw w • project office u appropriate in that it allows as to enanogp this protect w closely, sensiti~+rlr sad eflicieatlr w possible. We are in contact with oar jabs on almwt sn SaarlP basis, if tiw office were in aswther location wa would be doing sn ewlui lot of camma~tisig, probabf~ from the Airport Basinns Center. Tlw residents of Pitkia Rvsvsw are of aoarw thaw mwt potvntiailY impacted by m7 hating • office is the Gatvhaaw, I know that they feel that my presence here is s real p1w. I girr them a great deaf of personal attention asd oaoxdiswtion their lifvstrly Heads with tfw aoswtraation process. I would iikv to come in and diswcw ttw ooatinavd aw of the Gabhoaw w a project office through the cempletiost of this protect and I would be glad to tie that iftto saxes reseomble tiawtebie. My altermtiw is to reloaaty taw office asd pat myself and family book into tfw t3atahoase. Pivwv give me a ce11 when you bane bed s chance to think shoat this. I appreciate hoar conaiderstian. lours truly, Michael Lipkin ec: Bi11 Draeding T0: Alan Richman, Planning Director Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement James Adamski, Housing Director Fred Gannett, City Attorney FROM: Janet Raczak, Housing RE: Pitkin Reserve Deed Restriction - Violation DATE: July 6, 1988 The information I have received violation of the use of the empl~ Reserve in that it is being used Michael Lipkin's architectural information compiled so far, to restrictions on the employee unit. indicates that there is a ~yee unit located at Pitkin solely as office space for firm. The following is determine the exact deed Research indicates that the following is a history of the restriction on the employee unit located at Pitkin Reserve. 1. PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve Section I.A.1. - The free-market units are restricted to 6 month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. Section I.A.2. - One employee unit was to be constructed, us and occupancy restricted, to a resident caretaker-employee for and of the owners of the free-market units. The caretaker-employee may be charged a monthly rental (which may be offset against salary) not to exceed employee "middle income" guidelines applicable at the time hereof. The employee housing unit may also include storage facilities for maintenance equipment and the like. Further, the Agreement in Section III. - Employee Housing and Dedication and Restriction states: "The Owner hereby covenants with the City that the employee unit described above in Section I shall be restricted in terms of its use and occupancy to a resident caretaker-employee for and of the Owner of Lots 1-12 (or a collective association thereof), to whom a monthly rental (which may be offset against salary) may be charged not to exceed "middle income" guidelines from time to time established by the City . NOTE: As you can see, Section I.A.2. deed restricts to middle income guidelines "at the time hereof" which the second reference to restriction states middle income guidelines "from time to time established by the City." This section further states: "In the event owners of Lots 1-12 shall determine not to employ a resident caretaker-employee, as above provided, they (or it) shall have the right to lease the unit to an individual(s) who shall otherwise meet the income and occupancy eligibility requirements generally established and applied by the City in respect of employee housing and who may be charged a rent not in excess of "middle income" guidelines from time to time established by the City, the proceeds . . ' Further, " as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City by any appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement, eviction or rescission of any non-complying tenency, for the period of life " Section VI L A. relates to other exemptions and states: "There are no exemptions from the application of Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code that apply in respect of the development activity contemplated for Pitkin Reserve. In the event the Owner hereafter agrees to deed restrict the employee housing unit to be installed on Lot 13 to low or moderate income and occupancy eligibility guidelines, the City agrees at that time, and upon the recording in Pitkin County real property records of such a restriction, to exempt the employee housing unit from the application of Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This paragraph indicates that there may possibly be a deed restriction which restricts the unit to low or moderate income levels instead. 2 will be researching the Clerk's records for any such restriction unless someone out there knows that this does not exist. Please let me know. Subsection C - Common Area -- Lot 13 states that this lot shall be improved with " an employee-caretaker unit of approximately 800 square feet of living space, together with approximately 800 square feet for storage space " 2. Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Pitkin Reserve This Amendment includes a change in Section III which only changes the number of lots from 1-12 to 1-9. Otherwise it states the same as the original PUD Agreement. Section IV.A of the Amendment changes Section VII - Other Dedications, subsection A. to Lot 10 instead of Lot 13. The Amendment changes Subsection C - Common Area -- Lot 13 to read Lot 10, and changes the access easement to 20 feet. 3. In Exhibit "A" to the Amendment - Development Summary and Site Tabulation the applicant refers to the Number of Units: as: 9 free market units 1 PMH rental unit. If the unit is, in fact, a PMH unit, then it should have been restricted to the Moderate income guidelines. If any of you have any information which I may not have found as yet, I would like to hear from you. In addition, if you don't have any other information, please let me know. As soon as I get responses from you, we will be able to start some type of corrective proceedings. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: June 21, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of a PUD Amendment for the Pitkin Reserve. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin. LOCATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way North of the Roaring Fork River across .from the Aspen Institute. , +'r_- ' ~., ~ ~:.;, ,~, ~~~ ., i, 3 ,,s ,,~~ ~,., , ~ 5 „ DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests that an ' lor~q-entstanding question of how o calculate FAR in the PUD be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. It was the applicants understanding that due to the substantial regrading on the site that the FAR calculations would be measured from finished grade rather than natural grade. This issue has been an on going question in the Building Department and Planning Office, therefore, the applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement in order to clarify the situation. ~~ 7?~1 a.~, ~°~~2-', Z'The Applicant and the Planning office are also reviewing the issue of how to calculate total FAR on the site. This will hopefully be taken care of by the time of the Planning Commission meeting, however the issue may be discussed at that time. ~i i; ~ a~.- ~ , HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve .went through the process in 1982 and 1983 and has come in for several amendments regarding the PUD agreement. The latest PUD agreement was recorded in 1984. STAFF COMMENT: The project was a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the recontoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, it was agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. Unfortunately, we did not think to address FAR calculations at the same time, necessitating this further review. J I The project FAR is calculated under the old FAR methodology nce the project began under those regulations. The new method logy allows the applicant to delete all areas which are subgrade from the FAR calculations. The old methodology only allows for those areas which are 100% subgrade to be deleted from the FAR calculations. Therefore, under the new regulations a substantial amount of additional square footage could be added. The below grade area is not visible and in that sense does not increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. The Planning Office feels in general that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD Agreement to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade with the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit a revised copy of the PUD Agreement for approval by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This amendment shall reflect that the height and FAR for the structures shall be measured from finished grade. In addition, the PUD amendment shall state that the total developable square footage on site is 40,350 square feet plus a 1,000 square foot employee unit. CH.PITRES 2 Q increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. The Planning Office feels in general that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) RECOI~Il~SENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD Agreement to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade with the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit a revised copy of the PUD Agreement for approval by the Planning Office and City Attorney. This amendment shall reflect that the structures shall be measured from finished grade. In addition, the PUD amendment shall state that the total developable square footage on site is 40, 350 square feet plus a 1, 000 square foot employee unit. CH.PITRES 2 i ~ ,;`~~ ,, ~~~. cy - - a~ r >, ~L. III ~~ t ~ ~ ,,~ ,.- ~ ~~ o _ .._. ~..., x ;, ~' ~ jc .,I _~ _ i~.-- n ._.~ - ,_, s ~~I ~ ~ ~ 4 _ -~~ ~ !'3 -_ ~- i~ ~ ~ ~= .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~I ~ ~ m ' i ~ ~ m I W Zl y ~ j~ I 1~ ' ... ~ ~ I __.. _. ti --kh ~ .. :. _, m m w ~ w Z ~ N Y ~ _ M ao P I '. .I ~ ~ o- !. ~~' w ~ o ~ 7y~uJ ~ ~ ~ ~ J iA y~ M r ~L ~ ~ ( ~` ~ T 1~. rv ---~f--u .. . I I j i c;- jI ~ I - ! e ~.. ~ p ~ k ~ ~~ I ~' Ij I I ~,.~ ~ ,. I I ~ N7 4 ~ i. ! I __ Ii i~. ~ ! _ II Ta I ~; r '~ I z~ ~ jl~ ~ ~ I ; ~ p j~ _ I I~ ~j jl II j! I! ~ /~. I I L I I ' I ~ --_ / 1- 1 L 1 ~~ ~ ~V . ,., i I . ~ a „ I F I N ~ A II ~ _ ~' CI MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 1988 T0: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: City Attorney RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment PEN ~ ~ 26 ----- _. eet ~. __ 611 In addition to ordinary notice requirements, we recommend that notice be given to all owners of record who own property within the area contemplated by the original PUD. PJT/mc - 'L I P K I ~~l A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T U R E & P L A N N I N G Apri114, IQ88 ~~ , Cindy Hauben Aapen/Pitkin Planning Offiae 137 South Gsieaa Aspen. CD 81611 Dear Cindy, Enclosed is Exhibit A -the F.A.R. Diatribation At The Fitkin Reserve. If this dorxuLVent ie aggroved it wi11 be recorded after the completion of the amendnvent process !or The Pitkin Reserve PUD. If there is anything else I can supply you with. just let me know Yours truly, I ~I ~ Poet v\'"telephone massage pad ]680 To Date ~~ Time WHILE YOU WERE OUT M of Phone No. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL BACK WANTS 70 SEE YOU RETURNED Y UfhCA L URGENT Message - C.r,,~~ .,.. ~ i..t ~, ~, Operator Poabl\'"telephone moasege ped 7860 To Dete Time WHILEr YO/U WERE OUT Phone No. fI (J ~'~.~ • TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN 70 SEE YOU WILL CALL BA WANTS TO SEE YOU ~ ~pnC\I ,~ ~T Operator POST OFFICE BOX 3004•ASPEN, COLORADO 81612.303 -920 -1142 235 EAST 11TH STREET•NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10003.212- 598- 0492 DENSITY CALCULATIONS Total Acreage Less Excluded Areas River 3.2637 ac. Floodplain 4.8652 ac. County Owned R.R. 5.9974 ac. Water Line 0.1911 ac. 26.08 acres .( 14.3174 ac. -14.3174 acres Slope Reduction - applied to 0-20~ slopes- 7.5848 ac, x 10.0$ = 7.5848 ac. 21-30~ slopes- 1.1640 ac. x 50b = .5843 ac. 31-40$ slopes- 1.0687 ac. x 25$ _ .2671. ac. 40+ slopes- 1.8058 ac. x 0 = 0 Total Developable Area `, 8.4362 ac. 11.7626 acres 8.4362 acres F.A.R. DISTRIBUTIGN AT THE FITKIN RESERVE NUMBER OF UNITS 7 ?0?AL DEVELGPABLE AREA 367,481 S.F. DEVELGPABLE AREA/LGT 52,497 S.F. AVERAGE F.A.R./LGT 6,550 S.F. TOTAL F.A.R. 45,850 S.F. LOT 1 7,463 LOT 2 7,463 LUT 3 7,463 LGT 4 7,4b3 LOT 5 ?,463 LGT 6 7,462 LOT 7 1,073 TGTAL F.A.R. 45,850 ~,QS• gu ~~~s ~~~ ~~ ~3 ~ q ~h ~ ~,` ~'-~~~ i ~dy~~C 1 ~ 'EXHI$IT A' ,' , ~ sf _, 9 ` MAR 2 5 March 22,1988 candy Iiauben AspenJPitkirt Planning Office 137 South Galena Aspen. CO 81611 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve P[TD Exclusion of built area belovr finished grade from cxict4ation of FAR Deer Cindy, This letter is a format application to the Aspen/Pitkiti Planning OfYlce for the Third Amendment to The Pitkin Reserve PtTD to allow for the calculation of below grade areas excluded from FAR to be determined from finished grade rather than natural grade. Firkin Reserve vas originally reviewed as a FOD back in 1981 and 1982. It vas the only FIJD I had ever worked on and the first one handled by Alan Richmond srho vas then a staff member of the Planning Office. Certain issues that were raised during the review process were never adequately reflected in the Subdivision Agreement and Alan and I have been able to work together to resolve these fine padnts. However one issue continues to raise confusion with the 13uii ' from the calculation of FAR of areas that are below ~ Department -the exclusion grade • Alan Richmond feels that it is grade but ~~ natural amendment to our PUD and another visit to the Piannt and Zresolvad by an the Gity Council. ~ oning Commission and When The Firkin Reserve vas originally reviewed it vas made very clear that the hillside would be dramaticatiy changed, the houses would be pigged into the landscape rather than overhanging it and there would be massive changes in the grading of the hillside. In his memo to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on September 8.1981 and in his subsequent memo to the City Council .Alan Richmond said that "the applicant has proposed a very enlightened apps ~~ site design and final landscaping of the property in the interests of creating privacy for the a1~1takes~a,d~minimiae the impact of the mass of the buildings. The design concegt tags of solar orientation and uses the hillside by embedding the units within it rather than having the hour project frame it°. Since that time ve have built three houses at The Firkin Reserve and I think the success of this "enlightened aPProech" is very apparent. The houses sit well vrithin the hillside and the terracing along the houses alloys us to support a much richer landscape than the steep hillside vas ever able to substain. POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4 g S P B N, COLORADO 8 1 6 1 2 3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 1 8 4 Firkin Reserve is a PUD and to accomodnte the construction within this massive regrading plan building heights have been varied so that they are measured from finished grade rather than natures grade. However it tvax never spelled ottt that YAR tsotrid be caictDated from finished grade rather they natural grade and this is tubers the confustort sets in. The code measures buud~g heights end the exclusion of below grade construction from fAR catcutations from a c~anmon grade line. It is the intention of the code to regulate visible bulk and not thax s+hich is below grade and therefore hex no visible impact. Because it is neceasairy for us to bear our foundations on undisturbed soils sad then bring in mauive amounts of fill to sat the house within the biiiside, the are trapping space befotvgrade that has no windows or exterior access but could be vary useful for storage, laundry or perhaps a gym/tsorkout room. I have included drawings of Lots 3 or 4 where the situation becomes most accttte. A visit to Firkin Reserve brill make apparent boa comfortable and naturally these houses are fitting into the hillside and the success of our approach to regrade and revegetate this landscape. Finally Firkin Reserve is a PtTD. and when it went throt~h the review process. the developable area and, therefore applicable FAR wax greatly reduced in tx,mpliance with the Codas reduction in density for steep slopes. If I can supply any additional background or support materials please let me know. Yours truly, r { £ rf ., .,~ ~, ~~ G~~ ~~ ' '~ V ""~ ~; i ~, „ .jai ~.,.y s :.... '. . w;.`" +~~a7c r. M'i:•j. ~i tl4e .FL, ~. 1" ~~~~~~rr~~, %~7,°'. Nemef "` `. ... ~`~ Number of Unites Amenitieei Unit Sisai level LA.R ree3d Project Populations ~: ~~ ~M ~ ~ Parkings ~ e(:~ y 1'~t e«a , yax . - ~ " a 80 8 1 Btructuner +~ + ~~`A`t ': ' lam., f F r~eld~ Acreages .~ -Ztll`~e • rellrc Public Opon Spaces. ..;Y!lea Development 81tu ~. 7! 71ot 8uildinq coverages ~ ~VDrO Paved Areaas ~ .,,~„~., ,~ Yi, - •'~•l'~4 8%NIBI9' •A• TO BECOIPU SUBDIVISION ADR6LNLN'~„ CAM i V ~ 5 '~ g*n ~~QI~n ie j h .... r im ~~ x y • ..... ~jY"N I~J~ i~. t t~J~"JI ~ u n la. lRU 55{'r\. ~ t• ~* ~~~ *_: ~.^ 22 rX.i~ PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ALLOFJABLE FLOOR AREA: 6,925.00 S.F. LIVING AREAS APPLICABLE TO £.A.R. Lower Level Middle Level Upper Levei {includes 10 S.F, garage) TOTAL AREAS NOT APPi rra nr E TO £ A A Mechanical {sub basement} Garage ALL06/ABLE IdON SOUTH FACING GLASS AREA 412.5% X 6,922,12 s.f. } 865.27 S.£. NON SOUTH FarING GLASS at?ra Lower Level Middle Level Upper Level TOTAL Garage -~ ~f .~ ~~ P~e~-- u/~t 2,582.76 3,324.05 1,015.31 6,922.12 S.F. 571.25 600.00 178.83 410.13 IB4.00 772.96 S.F. 13.23 "/ PITKIN RESERVE HOUSE THREE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ~ 30 'y~ a,,„,,,,.,wG~..,.tG7~' ALLnar bnf s st r1f1y AREA• 6,635• S.E. ~ t tvtttG AREAS APPLICABLE TO E.A.R. DESCRIPTION Lower Level 2,625.75 Middia Leval 3,123.90 891 90 Upper Level . 6,631.55 TOTAL AREA APPLICABLE TO F.A.R. AREAS NOT APPLICABLE TO E.A.R. l (Below Grade) 200.00 ` ~ Mechanica Laundry (Be3owGrade) 72.00 ~IineStorage (BelowGrade) ~ e {BelowGrade) 58650 ~,. Garag Storage (Below Grade) ""''' 1060.25 1,918.75 TOTAL AREA NOT APPLICABLE TO EA.R. _~,r,~,~, TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE AT HOUSE THREE ~'"' ~"~~ 8.550.30 TOTAL G_ LASS AR-EA' {12.5°10 x 6631.55 s.f,) 828.44 OC~AT?ON '~ Lower Level 186.00 Middie Level 543.50 Upper Level 39.00 -'-- 768.50 TOTAL GLASS PROPOSED (* SOUTH SIDES ARE NOT APPLICABLE) ~` Ilw p ~~ .TOTAL GLASS AREA • North- 101.60 S;F.' East'. . ' 3}.78 S:F.: 30&.~ l SUF. .. South .. West . 169.03 S.F. '^_~ ~ ,, $33.19 S:F. , ~ ' Q + ~UL1:31986` BUlhi)1t~G . . 1[y~iP~;~TQFt... `~~ . 9`rpEN/PI~~ ~ ~~~ . „~. ,.,.:. ALLOWABLE F•A•R. Total Developable Area (see attachedubmission)m preliminary Divided by number of Units Allowable F.A.R./Unit 8.4362 acres _ 6 = 61,247 S.F. = 6,724 S•F• ~A ~ ~., 1.14 _. SUMMARY OF COUNTY TRADE AGREEMENT OF OCTOBER 7 1980* ~' Objectives I - Control scale of development to less than existing zoning density - Environmentally sensitive river front property to be restricted as open space - Evolution of going dispute concerning location of bike path - Owner to obtain more contiguous land to be associated with adjacent development Parties to Agreement - Pitkin County - Developer (Aspen Mountain Partnership) Agreement Concept - County and Owners trade by deed, in order to relo- cate right of way providing larger area for project's open space I - County agres to facilitate annexation of developed property to the City of Aspen ipj ~ Agreement Specifies - County and owners trade, by mutual conveyances, properties described specifically in Settlement Agreement exhibits to effect relocation of right of way - Aevelopment on Pitkin Reserve will be limited to 12 units, on that portion of the property north of the revised right of way - All property south of the right of way, adjacent to the Roaring Fork River, will remain park and open space - The general public will retain access to the relocated right of way and park space, and development will not intrude on recreational use of the public land - Pitkin County agrees to cooperate in facilitating the annexation of this property by the City of Aspen - Any disruption to existing trails will be repaired by owner ~z *The Agreement was later amended (June 1, 1981) in order to „ ~;; permit consideration by the City of the inclusion of a caretaker unit. i ~tr :.5d F:`i r~F I~~~w AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the ~ ~ L day of ~~, 1980, by and between ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK, a Colorado general partnership ("AMP") and THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ("County") W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, AMP is the owner of certain real property more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto through which runs a strip of real property formerly known as the Aspen Branch right-of-way of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Right of Way") more particularly described in Exhibit "B" hereto; and WHEREAS, the County has an interest in the Right of Way by virtue of those certain instruments of purported conveyance recorded in Book 312 at Page 560 et s_e~c. in Book 310 at Page 340 and in Book 243 at Page 217 of the Pitkin County records, copies of which are attached hereto marY.ed collectively Exhibit "C"; and WHEREAS, the County and AMP are, subject to the terms and conditions hereinbelow contained, mutually desirous of con- trolling the development of the Exhibit "A" property to the end that development is restricted to those areas of the property lying to the north of the Right of Way, as the same shall be relocated to the area described on Exhibit "D" hereto, and all areas to the south of the relocated Right of Way shall thereupon be and remain park and open space. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the making and keeping of the mutual covenants and obligations here- inafter contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. MUTUAL CONVEYANCES. As soon hereafter as in the circumstances may be practical, AMP and the County shall each cross convey by Bargain and Sale Deed, unto each other such of C,C: ItRi their respective interests in the Exhibit "A" and "B" properties as may be required to effect the relocation of the Right of Way to the location described in Exhibit "D" hereto. There shall at all times thereafter be afforded to the general public access over the relocated Right of Way for purposes of ingress to and egress from the park and open spaces hereinbelow described. 2. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. AMP agrees that development activity on the Exhibit "A" property, modified as above provided, shall be restricted and subject to the following: a. Development shall not exceed twelve units, some or all of which may be clustered at various locations on that portion of the Exhibit "A" property available for development, as below provided. b. Development shall be restricted to that portion of the Exhibit "A" property lying to the north of the relocated Right of Way, such that the portion of the Exhibit "A" property lying to the south of the relocated Right of way shall be and remain park and open space, all of which shall be confirmed by recorded deed restriction, easement or the like, as the County shall deem appropriate. c. Development shall be done in a manner not inconsistent with the use at anytime hereafter of the relocated Right of Way for railroad purposes. ~ d. Development shall proceed in the manner least in the circumstances intrusive upon the recreational uses to which the Right of Way, relocated as above provided, has been and is put and AMP shall, as promptly as in the circumstances may be practical, restore and realign any trails or other systems, including sewer systems and appurtenant easements, that might be disturbed in connection with the development and, at its own cost relocate any portion of such trails or other systems that may in the circumstances be required, and grant such easements therefor -2- K ~-K: ~! I as may be necessary. e. Development shall be set back from the re- located Right of Way by no less than fifteen (15) feet. 3. COOPERATION. The County agrees to cooperate, including if necessary by joining therein, in such proceedings as may be necessary in order to cause the annexation of the Exhibit "A" property by the City of Aspen, for the purposes and as is more clearly set forth in a Settlement Agreement by and among AMP, the City of Aspen and the Smuggler Trailer Park Aomeawners' Association. The parties agree to execute such other and further documents hereafter as may reasonably be necessary in order more fully to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. 4. CLOSING. The closing of this Agreement and the delivery of the instruments of conveyance described in Paragraph 1 hereinabove shall be conditioned upon and shall occur upon and in conjunction with the adoption by the City of Aspen of a Specially Planned Area plan for the development of the Exhibit "A" property. 1 >s 6i£S 1 I 1 !~ 1. °« t Cv ~: c_ IN WI'PNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this AGREEMENT the day and year first above written. AT4'E~S/T~: V "'~-~ ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership r ~ i ;~~:-' ;~ . A exander E. Lipkin ,/ A General Partner PITKIN COUNTY by the Hoard of County Commissioners of Pitkin County Hy- ----- ~~! ~ The foregoing terms, conditions and provisions are approved and accepted this day of _ __ _, 1981. THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WES1'E RN Attest: RAILROAD COMPANY Hv f __ .. ' . AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT is made this ~ day of ~` , 1981, to that certain Agreement dated October 7, 1981, by and between Aspen Mountain Park, a Colorado general partnership ("AMP") and the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ("County"), to which Agreement this Amendment shall be attached. W I T N E S S E T H m f ~, M ~4f+ The parties hereby mutually agree that notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2a of the Agreement above-described, AMP shall, in connection with its seeking the approval of the City of Aspen to the development activity contemplated by the Agreement, as well, have the right to seek the approval of the City of Aspen for one (1) additional unit to the twelve (12) units described in the Agreement;' provided, however, that such unit (a) shall not exceed 700 square feet of living space in size, exclusive of space for the storage of utility and mainten- i Dance apparatus, which storage space shall not exceed 1250 square feet; (b) shall be used only as a caretaker-employee unit for a caretaker-employee of the owners (or an association thereof) of Ithe twelve (12) units to which this caretaker-employee unit shall ~be a common appurtenance; and (c) shall, as with the twelve (12) units, be constructed to the north (above) the relocated right- of-way; and provided further that the City of Aspen shall be free to impose any further limitations or restrictions, including with respect to size, that it determines to be appropriate in connec- tion with any approval of the additional unit hereby contemplated. In all other respects, the parties' Agreement above-described is unchanged and unmodified and is in full force and effect as writte _~u •' G ' c~. :.t y ~VS ~] '; 2l' ~U~ LO~ day of Janua i6 ANp1DMClff ii COLD t'Y~ 19q, by W >sADO• a mnnleipel o0 referred to~~B•L MITED,~ general perlnerehie Ownes•1 p Ihenln carGln POD ~andT% C1ty, d1 corded in Book ~I~w~~~~ Colorado reel property e•oo~ Agreamentl. i:n i~ ~~ ;: ~S ~, h `,,. ~' A9raemsnt and tPUreuent tO city of As ~otion I' dated oetoD~er~l2°lorado, tl Ovner~e MemosBndusloflp~pj an amendment to tM PDD yy of it^ pl.nninyP~ j~~ St• city council et the Janwry 10, 1lt7, eppto~ the POD end Nbdlvielon Aqi') of aonfinainq beteiB each amendmenle. Nd1. 741e.....~~ conlsined he»lnse~ ~TI~o~UE partlee hereby e9rM tO elw do Agreement for Pilkln~eel~ Be anythlnq tMrsin to OOUtAa I• nded end ceugd tO b0 reoor recordeathe~"mendedh-lat otB "Amended Plat•1, vhieh the DM~M~ accepted ae being lel euperoedi~ Pl tktn Beaerva recorded in ei.• 1.1i ~~~: 9 -. n r PStk1n Count ~ '' ~~~`~` conform Y, Colorado rpl P ~_ and thsaPUD awith the proppey reoaa'dd/.;" ,. emended, PProvale llrst q!v~e~t lot= r as ahpw. ~ tw plan, 11• Amandmen a to 8eot! 1 o ment A• The third .. P Parcel, is amended to Nnt a , rMd a~ 0l7 IM A ~' ~aPProatmately 7N o! I,_..,: been subdivided Into '~ ONel conctruetlon limited a ~ ~ ~^ that area, Thereto ~~ take place !o the norlA ~+' Fp ., designated on the Pla[, r t'` aoulh of tMt 1!n ommonl • r .hA t VIII, Y maintalne~ii paragraph C. baler,• _ . ,~, 9, ^".t,r `xf.. Lots 1-17r is emended utoarNdais !ol !rN local 'I1) Free Merk t ~, • ; ~ lots~lneoiaant ParN~a` ~~ ^~. f; '~.. pastel atoll Plat, each as ^horn aM ~~ ~~ dash auoh !N s fl-y~thjejnteraaleiny ~~3 h.: cp^Pomnt o! the Dave' belev, -tioi to 1!e Arl eNdthlyd party, qoh tN ,l i shall Ptovl~d tMLeinr~j»~ {~ , ouch tee simple lot sM11 rl 4j hoar conslructe0 or to b• Ua 161 hmonthadurattton~ll~ Irk"? 171 shorter tenancies rlth M shall of conveyance taal)~ ~r• p-~3... ProParlyal~eo~ns~1~ se~y ~I aubuo!!en A is Ca 8ubparagraCh 7 ~ :. mended to raaA as MtOO~w' -7- , y. s ~ ' ;;;, ., ;.~ ~`• "13) Pr1v.~. ~.. ....__. _ ~ • shellxconaiet of ~commonl ~• shall be ornad by the y ~~ eNe• orner^ of Lmte l+l::. nonpartltionable undivided eppgrtpApa thei ra intained he Common Area aM 11 b• ^e end m paragraph C, pei~,provided Ln BNt1N ~ employee houeln The deed reettlOtN -:: f 0." 9 unlL shall bs leea~ ,_ end subdivision DA The site data tabulations "upercnded by th."Qrumrn~n rt e• Exhibit •C• are del .~ annexed as Exhibit +A.• ~ r~nE fits Data Tsbulat! space B• TAa heeding of Bubasotloe ~ . and the Lot 14, to amended to teed Publto 0pmn lent lull sentence of Bubeaotfon B la p~i follora~ "arnerahip of ouch open apace shall !H !a Pitkin County, Colorsdol elreva, that the benetlt o d ~ open space restzletion , aPecifieally antorceablind dedieellemeh~~ usltm Orner, its euccNapr~l) the 9 includlny the orners lorNeetN~a Lion thereof) of Lola 1-! rlthln the Baertwr_ went Parrel.• III. Amen nta to Bect a.. orva a~_lon Ii e.._r._.__.aT,. hereby amended is 6ubaection C - 1~'e1opmen! Al of the nineteen 1191 othetriea nonexelf~) rather !4 unite rnultinp from tM conversion ate! frNyeP, e! the Smuggler lbbils Nome park ate oonstree~; lion rith The Pitkin Wserve. to M otitis hatch f B• Subsection C - Development A17 Y urther amended by the addition of the tell aentence~ "All of the nlneNen 1191 otMn1N ' free market housing unit develoPMnt Hq~ utilised 1n connectfon rith * _ construction of homes st the sateel ^hall be retained b The Pitkin NeN~ treneferable to othir~ar and shall M !r«j~..` Dropsrties, and ~, -1- ti • rM i-. ~~ ~ ^P t~ 5+~ 'r '~. P •li~typ~, ~, d~wlppyn4 portlen O! ~ d~wlely~«., •!A~l~~~ e n~AAMrIr. w;,- •triell ~~ '~ u~ Y UMnMd Q lt~ ~ ~~ that tIN aP 1~otlaa Ir !n Nsir ~ A•~t rp~ b}1~~ t. Ml1p I •wid~ u~~~ Y ~V •• ~ ~h~ll b• An o[ toi ~ OAilOd pfr of rsee.w~~_ .__ . ~;~ •~: - ~. i ~- r-~=~~ ~447~. coloredo nel propert~ reeprds, rhlehe~,. psrl nd'ehe 11 be lue, ,,,. emended to reed •• lcllowsKatorY lenqu~lm bpq 'The Amended plat ~ t~N~ arNle ~~ eepmn~i!•, rlghte of w• reloc•tlon• that will bo ~~NtN imptovemenb •nticip•tedt ~~ ~N tllf ment", rlght• of wsy, •M Hloe~ ~:o~ , the lollowing~• :,,, emended to B' Bubpctlon D ~ J1ear•B y ''" reed e• fellow•~ BwB~r, tlil..~~i ownerhjeofheraby dadla•tspp N twant 'Ate 1-9 of 771e -1 •hownyendolndlcetedoon•tM d Y their sole and exclu•lve up oq that of their queet•, invltN• VI. Am•nefw..._ _- _ Ezemptlon, le •mendedhe pcond gnteno0 of ~YNetl . to nee ae follow! a14 N "Sn tM event LM Cwnar Mrui ~ ~ >`~" dNd rutrlct the •mploye0 •/MNe !n•t•lled upon Lo! 10 t0 low ~ Mst :nd ocoup•noy eiiglbiltty qwl~ ~Ow 9rNe •t that time, •nd u~om the 1!lkln County re•i pr • ratrletlon, to ez•mmppt e! lAet from tM eppliwtlen of . A•pen Municipal Code.• ~~~ ,~`~, ~. to read •e B' eubuctlon t follows, LmnO ~• 10 •In rupect of th• free-ytkot ~~ ocour on •nd within Lot^ 1• ' hou•inq unit to M lPetee~ , ~ ~.. Cityy h•rep ~__ r',S 11 in Y 111 •cca peon !M , x~ llon• ut for brio Mction 2 t471/ ~M above, in lieu of the cub p~yM yN~'~ ~': . -5- (y `r 1 V ~', N ',"a ~ 447 -„~ 64 In Section JO-1B of the Aspen Municipal Code 12) ~'°nfirmn e^ accuse ' valuation of 1.ot to end acceppt the Perk 1ledf cation P11 and the celoulatloe oO~tM ~~'~.,~' in the rand Valuer! based thereupon eK l celculntion on ar '~ park De0f0•tl~p Ill ograe^ that ethad hereto ee Exhlblt ~•~ ~~ auffic ient et heat value of Lot lI ae t ~ 6ectlon 10-18 tO meet the requlr ~ !t ~'`~ requf romunt ' atoreaatd conoerninq tha~Lt O! of the dadtce tfon.• VII• Amendment to 8eotlon V e Menagemen~ .'1T'rr_ .~_ I II _ n..__ ._ _ _ - - as foil A• Subsection A }:. .` °h'sr - General, to aowndM !0 ,!~ . "The Amended Plat provide. fo °0 `'` l ncludee "'~~ ~•. l nier alfe pen apace dadleatsd rforwM 1 the! ~~'-~ • ~--. r of the Cily and • common abeAetlt, °°mPonen2 of the Development pe reel, ~ provldedd oweerahip of which, a hsreinN rately dealgnatedetp the wnera of tMab~ Aeapeetiva reoponelblli!l~~e lot., 1-!. •~a {,_;,y_.-~ c°venants end agrpaynle ' 1laittatlene, ment, maintenance zegardlny tM Sncludin and up of tM open eMna~r * ~~ LSne, 9 the! to the south of e went Parcel~ludeetMolpilent Of"~ a is ~• 1a B' eUb eatio~~-.~, Lot 1/, ~•~•nQad-to-riad ao tollow~{~~~t~ ~ ~~ ~' "PUbltol owned _ 't o a e owna Y oun Lot Lot 11 . ao ouch shell be managed end Y, , ••_~~(':: nently and entirely b matntelny ouch frawtowoek as 1 Y -ltkln County vltblp~ ^hall not ba lnconoiot~nteatablloh but tiAlq puzposea !n psrpetult with the open ~ dedicated ee above oec fez whteh the land wle respect reference ie a toslh, and in this rl Ate Pe°1lleali ~• ,,~, Becllon°I,tpereiri tLerein, a dieotbed !n ~~~ 4 Ph t, above. rsby emended Lo-reed b~~ctollowh Common Area - ~. •. . ~/~ "C• Pzlvetel Dwned Common Area~_ 1.ot 1 an roe ou o roan e ~ Lo! ~-__-~„~ ~ Mle -6- he 1 ~ ~. ,.;;r j a;, y ~,, ~ ~~ <. tl r.... f. `~# ~„ I r r~:. 1 BM cap`.. ". fN ..+ f • ;~ /Yb~~OlIM i ~. ~~ ~ •MlIA~4 !O 1'M f ~1 ~ r ~'y Y. j y ~~- h'. ~• X47 ,~ :.river !.r, ~o-y,, ass.• *1+a11 heal! ny :len ~n 1rd:v aMnt[ v.;,-}; vfll ' °ual fN rl ~! . .. pcr a. fr ^ s (~~~ r/ 'a: rt:.i~ a m~~ .a .1 titlear 'n! F. ~end~ w read a• f~l~,'gYe~raf»+ 161 0[ sebsectt ae C, ~ ~!' •T.e Anard of asar,-latl ~^e9ers of aurU Iosetsbset"-~OVi~ths/e ~ saresrs•"`ttMrrj~lt- the deve?r'seunt,• • tubes seraph (fl oL Sup oOOSSd _ r T'he Pr cerenant^ rKerr~( to /w tciasa Dy th~et ~leratloas~oLi ~ ~[o ; r~ieeed seed ead prov[ded rte Htkln Mserve~~~' condtttaas~sy ~~- tlon re oOOn the s~ Mrne t1y right ro ~~ ~L DrID sM lEOObQivisioa ~~9reenisns `roelsioe therefor vahijU tl~ ~- tits ~r~Y asuaded tIO rem ass .~ ~r sa[Idieq nestriotta~r b •~' Omer Mrees eM If~ik ysp ~~seMe~sjl v!l~I~ye Hu lu p~srit~l~ Mee market Waits pip pr~lelurese niw lf) IM Wait aaad chef sll ergs s~loi'~Kdtsk4 befog open space or e~on1~are~sAe/1«je IerPe11Y11y eo,• I, deleted in tts entlrK~y~etfoa [ - Igty Mell 11eC1afK/dAr ~ 11vs1 1,~T7I,~~n4ents to Rest lx tL ° et E is ~ tie o ~ ete p ; s~ended to reed a• fol Lovss~~ ~ Parcel ~ensheterl[ne erase!! .he ~ttieen lot• Darn on the ~lo/~swt vi11 be lasts a?~d eslca~~~ eervlcelt lrre af.eets,• noun on tte uti:tty ree Ca lculet ion isshfbit r, - 7.aM va3ua Ia~h btr~C•~ srk ~1edf ~tlon fee r+lcusi~y~nd Perkt heteto amv M -a,. s ~ 447 ~~: axtent exprceel ke Snin Provie • Unatfeet lnconafntont her ers ne ova Re Or Rubdlvleion A ewith, the remeini ~ an -~~S"~~ affect es writtenmcnt for Pitkin fyNPrOrlBf.o88 e!. tho Pitkln Co °nd recorded in Bookw ere u710 unty, ColoreAo real 8=! °t -84e8 _'!-__ Property reoetde, Amendment to PUD F.S6 WHEREOF, the pertisa have e of the 10th de and Suhdf vielon Agrenmep! !ot -it~ktq. Y of JenuarY, 19B), ATTEBT~ CITY Oy ASp1CN, a Men10i~ ~ corporetlon i f .. ,8 ATT68Tt ~ i PITRIN LINITISD, • Osl0flref6 • . ~~ corporation ~~ Ov :~' 8 ' u ee, ers ery J y °e rv A8P8N MOUNTAIN nerer 1 /p•~tn8; [(~ I~j partner, by-Ropy »,e hie attorney.in. •ot BTATE OP COfgRAp0 ) COUNTY 0~' PITRIN ~ a0' °:' } ~4: The foregoing Snetaumsnt was ~, ,S~jlday oft Juna, 1983 by HILL/AM L, /TIRLINOB~ belote ~ ' city o! Aepen, and atGeted by ~ e8 Neyot o { ,,: of Aepen. ~- , NITNEHB m ~: ~•_ Y hand and offiq 1a '`~'~=e. "? NY oomni ulon expirq, 7/1r rp~ eel. ,,;.. (REAL) '~ ~~"`~~ "~ . Notary d-----~~~+r•~. '~ . '9' 1 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE //,, 130 Soulh Galena Street x.13,5: ~ "v~~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 j, ~ - (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES Clty 00113 -63721 -47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 - 63723 - 47333 - 63724 - 47341 - 63725 - 47342 - 63726 - 47343 - 63727 - 47360 -63728 - 47360 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 00123 -63730 - 47380 00116 - 63730 -47380 County 00113 -63711 - 47431 - 63712 - 47432 - 63713 - 47433 - 63714 - 47441 - 63715 - 47442 - 63716 - 47443 - 63717 - 47460 - 63718 - 47460 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 - 47460 00123 -63730 - 47480 00113 -63731 - 47480 00113 -63732 - 47460 GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL ' f ~ ~ ~~?~ ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS (- ~ v ~ . i ,~ ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING _ ~7 i1 J['' ENGINEERING c SUa-TOTAL ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL COORO. ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE -63062 -09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES -63069 -09000 OTHER F / / 6~ ~ d<ti'n r'/o FC Name: Address: h ~'r/ Check# _ /~~ify Additional Billing: SUB-TOTAL SUB-TOTAL TOTAL '"~ ~ Jr'J~ ~ <JO Phone: 7 ~~`/~ Project T~.J! /. ~TF „"r ,' Date: ' ~~, ~' # of Hours'.