Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.42 Pitkin Way.1982-PD-2 MEMORANDUM TO: Land Use Files FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner C~~ 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 ] 0, 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 correct. 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 ] 991 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 f:~. r/~d~ ~~ Gidec Kaufman 2/4/92 Diane: Per your request. ~~v ~~ ~ F~-5~ ~~~ -~~=~ ~, ~~~v; t / `~~ #349694 O1/17'/4~ 1:1:2(3 f~ec 3~1~.00 FAY--. 667 f"'' `~1 Silvia D~xvi,a, „,,y,.kin Cnty G1erF:, Dac $.00 + [1FC 3 0 LAw oFFlces GIDEON L KAUFMAN GIDEON I. K.4UFMAN APR OFE9910 NALCORPORATION DO% 10001 313 EAST NVMAN AVENUE. SUITE 905 ASPEN, COLORADO DIOII December 19, 1991 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 as D•efaa TELEFA% D33•IODD Diane Moore City Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Re: Pitkin Reserve Lnt b FhR Q46btaUIk Dear Diane: Pursuant to our meeting with Bill Drueding and Ron Austin, I write this letter to confirm the understanding we reached with the Planning Office and Zoning Office concerning Pitkin Reserve Lot 6 and its FAR so that my client can purchase Lot 6. This agreement will serve to supersede the letter written by you on October 31, 1991, to Marc Friedberg and the conclusions contained therein. It became apparent to all of us during our .` meeting that, with the additional information presented, a (~ different interpretation than contained in your October 31, 1~ 1991, letter is appropriate. The owner of Lot 6 Pitkin Reserve Subdivision granted an access easement across her property as '~ reflected in Book 607 at Page 806 and rerecorded in Book 609 at .~ Page 874. The granting of this easement affected the lot area ~,\ eligible for FAR calculations. ~.J As verified on the attached letter from Jim Reser, the total ~ square footage of the easement is 3,968 square feet; therefore, the lot area eligible fcr FAR calculations would be reduced by 3,968. In the R-30 Zone on lots over 15,000 feet, you get six feet of FAR for every hundred square feet of lot area. The 3,968 square feet would, therefore, deduct 240 feet of FAR from what is currently permitted. The FAR on the site was set in the Amendment to Reallocate FAR of the Pitkin Reserve dated June 30, 1987, and sighed by Alan Richman, Planning Director, and it shows an FAR of 6,724 square feet for Lot 6. When you reduce 240 square feet 6,724 square feet, the FAR allowed on Lot 6 would be 6,484 square feet. It is the intent of the parties that this letter shall serve to confirm that after the grant of easement permitted FAR for Lot 6 is 6,484 square Peet. This letter is being signed by the current owner of Lot 6, Helen E. Eahl, and will be signed by you as the Planning Director and Bill Druedinq on behalf of the Zoning office. It is further our intent to record this letter so that everyone is aware of the modified FAR, as well as the grant of easement. _ .-, dk34Gfa'3~1/17/9'~ 1:3:28 F:ec ~l.Ob 667 RG 62 y Silvia Dra lii ~, F'i tH:in Cn~y Clerli, Doc !5.00 We appreciate your willingness to work with us and help to come up with a fair and equitable resolution to this matter. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAt7FMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By ...~ Gideo aufman GIC/b cc: Ron Austin Marc Friedberg Di'di'fe Mopre, Giey of Aspen Planning Direc~ox ~~ ' . Bill Drueding, Cit ~bf Aspen Zoning Office Q .Q z-t ~ ~ \ cn°~~ H~Pen E. Bahl ~, _ ,. _ _. . ~ ~ ~- -- -- ~#3~FO.S94 /l t/92 13: ~ ~ S:i l v;i a )~ • . ,: ~, , 9 Rec !L l5. Ob F#~'!~/667 F'G 63 . +~, F xt„.in Cnty Clerk, Doc S.q~~ ' Alplne Su~veys,lnc. Posl Olllce Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 F^. „ , „ 303 925 2600 Deoember 26, ].991 Gideon tCautmau j 315 E. Hyman ' Aspen, coioratlo 81611 Dear Gideon: This is to confirm calculation of the area of tits 20 feeL• wide access easement across Lot 6, Yitkin Reserve at 3968 square Peet. 6inoeroJ.y you, . mfr - ~. JFR/ntl I ~ +r:f . s, ~ unnk 5~?~ pact l)2 M a a a ~' o ~ ~ NOTICE OF ACTION OF Q~ 4 ~ .~ CITY COUNCIL CLARIFING ~ ~ APPROVED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE C H x ~ FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE M g ~ ~ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS, the owner ("Owner") of Lots 3 and 4 of The Pitkin Reserve, according to the Second Amended Plat thereof recorded June 25, 1984 in Plat Book 16 at Pages 15, et secy., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records has sought from the City of Aspen clarification that its usage (for storage, gym and circulation purposes) of some 2,260 square feet of space resulting from the below-grade structural ele- ments of the house constructed on Lot 3 and the house being constructed on Lot 4 is not includable within the total build- ing square footage of 40,350 square feet approved for all the lots comprising The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission have considered the foregoing request for clarification, along with the history of the approvals culminating in The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision, the fact that those approvals were given at a time when, unlike now, the method of calculating floor area ratio did not take into account that portion of a building structure lying below grade, and that the space involved in the request of the Owner lies entirely below grade, already exists and no additional bulk to the total building mass approved for The Pitkin Reserve would result and, based thereon, have each recommended that the clarification sought by the Owner be given; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the request aforesaid of the Owner for clarification along with the recommendation of the Aspen Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and is of the same view; NOW, THEREFORE, the Aspen City Council of the City of Aspen hereby gives notice to all now or hereafter acquiring any interest in The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision that the utilization by the Owner(s) of Lots 3 and 4 of The Pitkin Reserve, their heirs, successors, grantees and assigns of the 2,260 square feet above described resulting from the below-grade con- struction of the structural elements of the two houses does not count against and shall not be considered to have consumed any portion of the total building square footage of 40,350 square feet approved by the City for The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Notice is made and given, effective as of the 10th day of October, 1988, for the purpose of its recordation in the Pitkin County, Colorado, real property records in order to impart notice hereof P06N 500 PAGE U~ to all hereafter acquiring any manner of interest in The Pitkin Reserve. s THE CITY OF ASPEN, . ,. ~ ~TTES~ a municipal corporation ,,• y , v S~ '- ;=, a l~gr~~'ttnn Koch William L. Stirling, M er _, City 'Cf~aYk c ~~,,`~~'~~L 6 ~,~r~, ~F COLORADO ) ,~ ,, 1 ~~•~•COUNTY OF PITKIN ~ ss. ~_y~, Subscribed and sworn to before me this /~-~'~J day of / i1.~~4 ~?~,~ , 1989, by William L. Stirling,~fayor, and atherine Koch, City Clerk, respectively. ~'` ,.ra ,<• ~.A f~ ~; Witness my hand and official seal. ~,t~O~~~l ~~ ~ My commission expires: ~j//'r'7~r / AU ~ 1. ~ ~ ~;,~ , ~ ~''~ -- ~ ~' Nota y ublic -2- ~. C'V^ ~:/ CD fV wa "~ `buo 4~~ F,~, ~~R53 x o n`. -~ U '~: y ~ ®"- N SECOND AMENDMENT TO PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT +i >M r ~_ W iJ rn FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE N Y (B~ WH~H THE AMENDMENT TO PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE RECORDED IN BOOK 447 AT PAGES 59-87 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS IS TO BF. SUPERCEDED IN ITS ENTIRETY) THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the 19th day of March, 1984, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), PITKIN LIMITED, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner"), and ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "AMP") REriTAT,S 1. The City, Owner and AMP are parties to that certain PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve re- corded in Book 423 at Pages 417-446 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records (the PUD and Subdivision Agree- ment), and the Amendment thereto dated as of the 10th day of January, 1983, and recorded in Book 447 at Pages 59-87 of those records. 2. Pursuant to Section V of the PUD and Subdivision Agreement and to Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code of The City of Aspen, Colorado, the Owner did by letter application dated December 21, 1983, petition the City for a second amend- ment to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement. 3. Following the recommendation of approval therefor of its Planning and Zoning Commission, the City, acting through its City Council at the duly constituted meeting thereof held March 19, 1984, approved the petition of the Owner for a second amendment to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement and the parties are desirous of confirming herein such approval and setting forth such amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, AMENDMENTS IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, the mutual covenants contained herein and in the PUD and Subdivision Agreement, the parties hereby agree to and do amend the PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve as follows, and by these presents do hereby supercede for all purposes the Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 447 at Pages 59-87 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records, and notwithstanding anything in either the Agreement or the Amendment to the contrary contained it is agreed that: SECTION D~ok 4E8 ~.~~~854 i. Second Amended Final Plat. The parties have executed and caused to be recorded simultaneously herewith in Plat Book L at Page)~Zof the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records the Second Amended Plat of The Pitkin Reserve (hereinafter "Amended Plat"), which the Owner has submitted and the City has accepted as being (a) superceding of the Amended Plat for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 92, et sue., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records; and (b) in conformance with the proposed development for The Pitkin Reserve and the PUD approvals first given and, as above recited, as amended. SECTION TWO. All reference hereinafter is to the PUD and Subdivi- sion Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 423 at Pages 417-466 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records, to wit: I. Amendments to Section I - General Development Plan. A. The third sentence of subsection A - Devel- opment Parcel, is amended to read as follows: "Approximately 79~ of the Development Parcel has been subdivided into 6 fee simple lots with construction limited to approximately 50~ of that area by established building envelopes." B. Subparagraph 1 - Free Market Development - Lots 1-12, is amended to read as follows: "(1) Free Market Development - Lots 1 through 6. The Development Parcel shall contain not more than six separately designated fee simple lots, each as shown and noted on the Second Amended Plat. Each such fee simple lot shall be deemed augmented in size by an undivided one-sixth (1-6th) interest in Lot 7 -- the Common Area component of the Development Parcel described below. Prior to its conveyance by the Owner to any third party, each fee simple lot shall be deed or covenant restricted upon such terms as shall provide that in the event an owner of such fee simple lot shall wish to lease the home constructed or to be constructed thereon any such lease terms shall, at a minimum, be of -2- BOui( ~Yf~J P,AGEH55 six (6) month duration with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year, and the docu- ments of conveyance to any such fee simple lot shall, as well, expressly recite that the property is so restricted." C. Subparagraph 3 - Common Area - Lot 13, of subsection A is amended to read as follows: "(3) Privately Owned Common Area - Lot 7. Approximately 21~ of the Development Parcel shall consist of commonly owned area, which shall be owned by the owners of Lots 1-6 as a nonpartitionable undivided appurtenance to their lots. The Common Area shall be managed and maintained as provided in Section VIII, paragraph C, below. The deed restricted employee housing unit shall be located in Lot 7." D. The site data tabulations annexed to the Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement as Exhibit "A" are deleted and hereby superceded by the Summary and Site Data Tabulations hereto annexed as Exhibit "A". E. The heading of Subsection B - Public Open Space - Lot 14, is amended to read Public Open Space - Lot 8, and the last full sentence of Subsection B is amended to read as follows: "Ownership of such open space shall be in Pitkin County, Colorado; provided, however, and always, that the benefit of the above-described open space restriction and dedication shall be specifically enforceable by (1) the City and/or (2) the Owner, its successors, grantees and assigns, including the owners (or an associa- tion thereof) of Lots 1-6 within the Develop- ment Parcel." II. er Mobile tion of The A. Subsection C - Development Allotments, is hereby amended to provide that six (6) rather than twelve (12) of the nineteen (19) otherwise nonexempt free-market housing units resulting from the conversion and construction processes at the Smuggler Mobile Home Park are to be utilized in connec- tion with The Pitkin Reserve. -3- BOOK ~~:.-~ PAGE056 B. Subsection C - Development Allotments, is hereby further amended by the addition of the following new sentence: "All of the nineteen (19) otherwise nonexempt free market housing unit development rights not utilized in connection with the actual con- struction of homes at The Pitkin Reserve shall be retained by Owner and shall be freely transferable to other properties, and alien- able. For these purposes, however, any devel- opment proposal utilizing all or any portion of the free market housing unit development rights shall be subject to all the applicable review processes set forth in The Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, with the single exception of review under the Growth Management Quota System, which shall not be necessary." III. Amendments to Employee Housing Dedication and Restriction. Section 3 - Employee Dedication Restriction, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "The Owner hereby covenants with the City that the employee unit described above in Section I, paragraph A(2) shall be restricted in terms of its use and occupancy to a resident caretaker-employee for and of the Owner of Lots 1-6 (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. In the event the owners of Lots 1-6 (or a collective association thereof) 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 of which shall be used to defray common maintenance and related costs associated with Lot 7 or other facilities used in common by the owners (or an association thereof) of Lots 1-6. The fore- going covenant shall be deemed to run with Lot 7 as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City by any appropriate legal action including -4- aooa 453 Fa3~$57 injunction, abatement, eviction or rescission of any non-complying tenancy, for the period of the life of the longest living member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records, whichever period shall be less." IV. Amendments to Section VI - A. The prefatory language in Section VI is amended to read as follows: "The Amended Plat sets forth certain easements, rights of way, and anticipated relocations that will be necessary to cause the improvements anticipated thereon, which ease- ments, rights of way, and relocations include the following:" B. Subsection D - Access Easement, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The owner hereby dedicates and grants unto the owner(s) of Lots 1-6 of The Pitkin Reserve and to the owner(s) of Lot 7, Block 1, Pitkin Green Subdivision, their successors, grantees and assigns, the twenty-foot (20') access and utility easement shown and indicated on the Amended Plat for their sole and exclusive use and enjoyment and that of their guests, invit- ees and licensees." V. Amendments to Section VII - Other Dedications. A. The second sentence of Subsection A - Exemption, is amended to read as follows: "In the event the Owner hereafter deed res- tricts the employee housing unit to be in- stalled upon Lot 7 to low or moderate (rather than middle) income and occupancy eligibility guidelines, the City agrees at that time, and upon the recording in the 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." -5- Book ..468 P~s~858 B. Subsection B - Land Dedication, is amended to read as follows: "In respect of the free-market development to occur on and within Lots 1-6 and the employee housing unit to be installed upon Lot 7, the City hereby (1) accepts the dedication of Lot 8 in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in Section I, Paragraph B, above, in lieu of the cash payment referred to in Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) confirms as accurate and accepts the valuation of Lot 8 and the calculation of the Park Dedication Fee based thereupon set forth in the Land Valuation and Park Dedication Fee calculation attached hereto as Exhibit "G"; and (3) agrees that the value of Lot 8 as such is sufficient at least to meet the requirements of Section 20-18, aforesaid concerning the requirement of the dedication." VI. Amendment to Section VIII - Open Space and e. as follows: A. Subsection A - General, is amended to read "The Amended Plat provides for a parcel that includes open space dedicated for the benefit, inter alia, of the City and a common area component of the Development Parcel, the undivided ownership of which, as hereinabove provided, shall be in the owners of the sepa- rately designated fee simple lots, 1-6. Respective responsibilities, limitations, covenants and agreements regarding the manage- ment, maintenance and use of the open space, including that to the south of the Greenbelt Line, and common area component of the Develop- ment Parcel include the following:" B. Subsection B - Publicly Owned Open Space -- Lot 14, is amended to read as follows: "Publicly Owned Open Space -- Lot 8. Lot 8 shall be owned by Pitkin County, Colorado, and, as such shall be managed and maintained perma- nently and entirely by Pitkin County within such framework as it may establish but which shall not be inconsistent with the open space purposes in perpetuity for which the land was dedicated as above set forth, and in this -6- BOON ~UO PAu~059 respect reference is specifically made to the rights of the City therein, as described in Section I, paragraph B, above." C. Subsection C - Common Area -- Lot 13, is hereby amended to read as follows: "C. Privately Owned Common Area -- Lot 7. Lot 7, the common area component of the Development Parcel, shall in its entirety be owned in common by the owners of Lots 1-6, the owner(s) of each lot to own an undivided interest therein as a non-severable appurtenance to his or her lot. As indicated elsewhere herein and upon the Second Amended Plat, Lot 7 will be improved with an employee-caretaker unit of approximately 800 square feet of living space, together with approximately 800 square feet for storage space, will accommodate a twenty-foot (20') easement for access to the lots and for utility purposes and will support the landscap- ing plan. Management and maintenance of Lot 7 shall be the responsibility of a collective homeowners' association consisting of the owners of Lots 1-6 and shall by it be under- taken pursuant to such provisions as shall be set forth in recorded covenants providing for such policies and procedures governing the use and maintenance of the common area, including for necessary budgets and financial reserves to be assessed against association members, and shall insure permanently the fit and proper maintenance, repair, replacement and enduring first rate safety and quality of the entire development, including its landscaped features, common utility systems and paved areas. Responsibility of the association in this respect may by it be contractually delegated to a private property management company or to a salaried employee of the association. The following as well shall apply to the associa- tion hereinabove referred to:" D. Subparagraph (3) - Membership Mandatory, of Subsection C, is hereby amended to read as follows: "(3) Membership Mandatory. Membership in the association shall be mandatory for each owner of the fee simple lots (1-6) and shall be automatic upon the recordation of any instru- ment transferring a legal or equitable interest -7- ~oo~ 468 ~a~F860 (excluding standard security interests) in or to any of such lots." E. Subparagraph (5) of Subsection C, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The homeowners' association shall have the power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individual fee simple lots (1-6) for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and maintaining common facilities; F. Subparagraph (6) of Subsection C, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The Board of Managers of such homeowners' association shall consist of at least three (3) members who shall be owners of the fee simple lots (1-6) within the development." G. Subsection D - Building Restrictions, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The Owner agrees and hereby covenants that the number of units that will be built within The Pitkin Reserve shall not exceed six (6) free market units plus one (1) employee-caretaker unit and that all areas shown on the plat as being open space or common area shall remain perpetually so." H. Subsection E - Party Wall Declaration, is deleted in its entirety. VII. Amendments to Section IX - Water Rights and Availability. The first sentence of the second full paragraph of Section IX is amended to read as follows: "A 16" main waterline crosses the Development Parcel and water service lines will be in- stalled as shown on the utility sheets." VIII. Exhibit G - Land Valuation and Park Dedication Fee Calculation is hereby deleted and superceded by the Land Valuation and Park Dedication fee calculation hereto annexed as Exhibit "B". IX. Remaining Provisions Unaffected. Except to the extent expressly hereinabove set forth, and except as manifestly inconsistent herewith, the remaining provisions of the PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve are unchanged and in -8- goon 4fi8 PacE8fi1 by C,~ ~~ .. C t'\ a q '3,,, !,j effect as written and recorded in Book 423 at Pages 417 - 446 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for Pitkin Reserve as of the 10th day of January, 1983. ATTEST: ~1F ~. -~. Kathryn. Kq , Clerk ,,,,., :~ Yttonert w. ttugnes,~ secretary r r 7 "i`~ 1 '1 , ,J ~, c ~ ~~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ n~e~-/ CITY OF ASPEN, a Municipal corporation By illiam Stirling, May By PITKIN LIMITED, a Colorado ~~ Alexander E: L~p general partne , W. Hughes, his attorney-in-fact in, a by Ro -9- ASPEN MOUNTAIN PA~tK, a aoox , 4S8 ~~862 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AND SITE TABULATIONS Name: The Pitkin Reserve Number of Units: 6 free market units and 1 PMH rental unit Amenities: caretaker/employee facility above storage Unit Size: developable area establishes a F.A.R. of 6,725 square feet per residence Project Population: approximately 43 Parking: 2 indoor spaces and 2 guest parking spaces in driveway per residence Structures: free standing single-family residences Acreage: 26± acres (includes 6 acres of railroad right-of-way) Public Open Space: 19± acres Development Site: 7± acres Building Coverage: approximately 25,000 square feet Paved Areas: approximately 30,000 square feet EXHIBIT "A" TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO PUC AND SUBDIVISION AGREEb1ENT FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE -10- goa~ 468 ~~~F863 LAND VALUATION AND PARK DEDICATION FEE CALCULATION (calculated to the nearest 0.5 acre) In accordance with Section 7-143 of the Aspen Building Code and Section 20-18 of the Aspen Subdivision Code, the cash equivalent for the park dedication fee and its determination for The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is as follows: Purchase Price of Total Parcel (20 acres) Price Per Acre Value of 7-Acre Development Parcel Value Per Unit (6 units) 1~ of Land Value Per Unit Fee per 4-Bedroom Unit*/ Value of 10.5-acre parcel dedicated to open space Difference between cash equivalent of park dedi- cation fee and value of open space parcel ($2,500.00 x 6 = $15,000.00) $1,250,000.00 20 71,428.60 x 7 500,000.00 6 83,333.33 x .O1 833.33 x 3 2,500.00 750,000.00 735,000.00 */The park dedication fee for the employee housing unit to be constructed on Lot 7 was calculated in the same manner as above set forth and will proceed from the same land valuation. EXHIBIT "B" TO SECOND ADIENDMENT TO PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE PITKIN RESERVE -11- ~- ~~ ------ . _ --U _. _ MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan GATE: November 16, 1982 pN Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. Originally the PUD was approved for 12 attached zer,~b lot line housing sites with a private access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The proposed amendment would permit the developer to build single family housing sites in lieu of some portion of the attached zero lot line sites that were approved. The applicant is not yet certain what combination of single family and zero lot line homesites will be used, but would like to have the felxibility, depending on market conditions, to develop (or sell for development) various combinations of the two types of housing sites. The attached chart shows the 15 different alternatives which may be built ranging from the original 12 attached zero lot line sites to 9 free standing single family units. The proposed amendments would also relocate the private access road (and the utility easements underneath) from in front of the homes in the center of the property to behind the homes along H1iU0usjhby .,41wsr}g Way. The new alignment is less visible and reduces the. Vertical change from 62 to 50 feet, but increases the visibility of the homes which were originally to be built into the hill. Planning Office Review: Section 24-8.26(b), Amendment of the PUD Plan, states that PUD amend- ments should only be made if the changes are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since final plat approval or by chances in community policy. The applicant has stated that the proposed amendments have been made due to changes in the market, a result of continued study of the site and a better understanding of the housing opportunities and needs in Aspen. The proposed changes will not result in an increase in overall site Coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the actual number of lots developed. Development will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. Any of the 12 approved units which are not built at the Pitkin Reserve will return to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights. These units arose from the conversion of Smuggler Trailer Park to owner- occupied employee housing units. The subject property has a significant slope dropping from Willoughby -Way down to the Rio Grande trail. The original site plan called for the 12 attached homesites to be built into the slope near Willoughby Way with the road down below. The amended proposal puts the road up by Willoughby Way and the houses down below. The houses were less visible from the road and the Rio Grande trail in the original appli- cation, so from a viewplane standpoint, the amended application is less desirable. Another Planning Office concern is that the development alternative that is ultimately chosen be reviewed, approved and shown to be one of the requested alternatives and that the final development plan be recorded as it is to be built. Since the original submission of this application, the applicant has reflli/P~ed his request and has .~ agreed to stay within the confines of 3`bf the alternatives requested. These 3 development alternatives will be presented by the applicant at the P & Z meeting on November 16, 1982. We feel that the Planning Office can approve the final plan, if it fails under one of the ~ 4 possible alternatives requested. Any change outside what has been requested in these 3 alternatives would require further review by P & and Council. ,,~, ~,. , Memo: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan November 16, 1982 Page Two The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. _Incidently, although it was not required, the Planning Office scheduled a public hearing for this PUD review since there was so much interest and input from the public during the initial application. Planning Office Recommendation: ' a The Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend the approval of ~-~~„ the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD subject to the h`~r~` ~ following conditions: ~ 5 sF ll vni-~5 \ ~ Duplu~s> ~ _ The final development plan must be one of the ~ alternative combinations of single family detached units and attached, zero ]ot line units requested by the applicant. ~~bm~~t~" "e ~: The Planning Office must review and approve the final mix of snit types. The final plan must then be recorded, amending the original Pitkin Reserve's PUD plan prior to issuance of a building permit. ~__ _ i ' 3: The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised ~_% detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. PO. ('evi~K7/Gf~PraUF~ an~~ ed^a~~eS ~~ ~ ~caPlrY, Pl`a`~J ~. The gatehouse must be a minimum of 5 feet from the front property line. 3 /~leB-r a tl r~P~ ~~2-~`x~f~r~ ~cs{Pd 'rr. le-f-l,~r ~-~P o ct (2 ' q ~- '~` ~; myna ~ ~P a C~ _~ U (~ Q~-Z mud re-t 7 i~Eu1 ~~ ~+ ilia ~:~,~_-~ ,.Q w_~ • • ' ' _. • y ~ • W k: '^ .- xcnF - C.1 'mil Q (,~ N 1 O O O O O N O O O N N N N N E. 0 H .'~ P) f~1 f'7 f'1 Pl l`•1 f~ f'1 M f'1 l7 f`•1 t"7 f~l f'1 H ~ ' U z H Q ., 2 ~tWE - H U1 Gl C7 ( N N O N \O O t0 N N ~D O ~O ~O tD 1 U] ~ H ' !~ m O~ 1~ r m W r r c~ a. ~c ~o ~o 1 03/-. w x -- W a w A z 5 av~w~n wwwH a RI U 3 H ~n m r to m n ~o vi m r ~c ~n m r io ~n Er.^H2 ^ oawo W Za]Ca D O ~ ~ 2 a owwu~ - .c a £ U W H ~n c <r .i ch r u•i m N in Q H Q 3 H . Z a H Z N .i ri O M O1 O t0 u'1 m N 1~ O ~O M v H m W D v in ~n ~c a' c ~c r M v ui ~o M M v in ~ ~ m w ax m > aH H - H H Ll Ga H N m d' O ~ l0 O O V' O m O N N N N H OHOZ rn v o r+ o ~ ~ o ~ in c c rn rn rn rn ~ H 3 O r ~o r n r t~ n r r n t~ r r r n r a w w • H U Z ' a a~Wm Q aawH - H V1 '3 H M N tC O V' d' O O ~ O N O m m m m A O H 2 n m r r r ~ r m ~ M to v m m m m W H Z W 'J N d' M M c~1 M M C7 f'1 C1 C1 ('1 N N N N to W W o a a o 0 a a a w cn w xH Q U H N O N ~ N e} ~D m C t0 m O l0 m O N O H VI Q H a a c~ a z~ ~ W H H O W O H O Q~ [~ Ill m' t0 C N 1~ IA f`'1 e-1 l0 ~ N O U rzzz way H m a~ ~ Q H ~ H H N 01. O~ 01 f O O O O e-1 ri ~-1 e-1 N N N N O 2 E O ~a ~ ! r+ ~ .-~ \ ~ r+ ~ .~ ~ r+ .-a ~ .-i .-~ ~ \ / D D W W O O a a a o a a a a • - - ~' I'~ • . I , . . ~, -. ., MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: November 8, 1982 RE: .Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P.U.D. ---------------------------------------------------- ...y _ ._ Having reviewed the above application for an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. plan, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. As expressed in a letter from the project engineers at Eldorado Engineering, there will be no major design changes or new problems associated with the revised plan relative to water, sewer, and drainage. Approval of a revised P.U.D. should be contingent on recordation of appropriate utility and drainage ,designs for the new configuration of units. 2. While the proposed amendment may result in fewer units, the revised configuration may result in more disturbance to the site. Relocation of the access road to the north requires more radical cut slopes and the proposed unit locations will require a fill area extending further to the south. While the impacts of the revised design may be an improvement when viewed from the south, pulling the structures out of the hill and placing them on fill may result in a visual impact when viewed from Willoughby Way. 3. The Gatehouse has been relocated closer to the Willoughby Way right-of-way. The applicant should be required to leave at least the same setback included in the original P.U.D. of about five (5) feet. .. _ -- _ . ~ . , f .,, ~~~ MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment DATE: December 7, 1982 Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. When P&Z first discussed this amendment at the November 16, 1982 meeting, the applicant requested an amendment which would allow any of four different development alternatives. Each of the four alternatives represented a different mix of single family and duplex structures on the Pitkin Reserve parcel. The applicant has now amended his application and is requesting an amendment to allow one develop- ment scheme, 11 units on the subject parcel - five single family units and three duplexes. The original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan .approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in front of the homesites to behind the home- sites along Willoughby Way. Planning Office Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the 11 lots developed. Development ~,~ will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. _ - Since only 11 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining unit not built at the Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as an unused development right. The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property. The road is now located above the house creating less visual impacts and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail. The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street and the height of the structures will still be limited to the same height as in the original plan. Referral Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that P&Z recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further north toward Willoughby, move the dwelling unit a few feet to the south and provide a unit mix of five single family units and three duplexes. Approval is subject to the following conditions: ..~ -~ .~: Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment December 7, 1982 Page Two 1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letter dated October 12, 1982 from Michael Lipkin. 5) The applicant must meet ail the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment. .-. ~... MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment DATE: December 21, 1982 ,~. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. When P&Z first discussed this amendment at the November 16, 1982 meeting, the applicant requested an amendment which would allow any of four different development alternatives. Each of the four alternatives represented a different mix of single family and duplex structures on the Pitkin Reserve parcel. The applicant has now amended his application and is requesting an amendment to allow one development scheme, 9 single family units. The original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in front of the homesites to behind the homesites along Willoughby Way. Planning Office Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the 9 lots developed. Development will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. Since only 9 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining 3 units not built at Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights. The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property. The road is now located above the houses and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail. The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street and the height of the structures will still be limited to the same height as in the original plan. The road realignment will create a need to revise the Pitkin Reserve landscaping plan. The Planning Office would like to review and approve the changes to ensure they are as complete as the original landscaping plan. Referral Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that P&Z recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units a few feet south and provide 9 single family units. Approval is subject to the following conditions: r- Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment December 21, 1982 Page Two 1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letter dated October 12, 1982 from Michael Lipkin. 5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment. x MEMORANDUM T0: FROM RE: DATE Aspen City Council Alice Davis, Planning Office Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment January 10, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to t Pitkin Re erve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. The amended application is requesting 9 single family units while the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in front of the homesites to behind the homesites along Willoughby Way. Planning Office Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the 9 lots developed. Development will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. Since only 9 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining 3 units not built at Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights, to be added to the other 7 units which the applicant accrued within the Smuggler Mobile Home Park settlement agreement. The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property. The road is now located above the houses and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail. The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street and the height of the structures will still be limited to the same height as in the original plan. The road realignment will create a need to revise the Pitkin Reserve landscaping plan. The Planning Office would like to review and approve the changes to ensure they are as complete as the original landscaping plan. Referral Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. P&Z and Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units a few feet south and permit the construction of 9 single family units. Approval is subject to the following conditions: ,~- Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment January 10, 1983 Page Two ., 1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and December 10, 1982. 5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment. Council Motion: Should you concur with the recommendations of the Planning Office and P&Z, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to grant approval to the amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and December 10, 1982. 5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment." ,-.. MEMORANDUM T0: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: November 8, 1982 RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P.U.D. ------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application for an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. plan, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. As expressed in a letter £rom the project engineers at Eldorado Engineering, there will be no major design changes or new problems associated with the revised plan relative to water, sewer, and drainage. Approval of a revised P.U.D. should be contingent on recordation of appropriate utility and drainage designs for the new configuration of units. 2. While the proposed amendment may result in fewer units, the revised configuration may result in more disturbance to the site. Relocation of the access road to the north requires more radical cut slopes and the proposed unit locations will require a fill area extending further to the south. While the impacts of the revised design may be an improvement when viewed from the south, pulling the structures out of the hill and placing them on fill may result in a visual impact when viewed from Willoughby T4ay. 3. The Gatehouse has been relocated closer to the Willoughby Way right-of-way. The applicant should be required to leave at least the same setback included in the original P.U.D. of about five (5) feet. ~~ ,~ r ~ Lipkin, Averitt & 6arclay _ Dr~ign Partnership Box 30tH Aspen, CO. 8f611 Phone: 303-9?5-5689 October 12, 1982 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Pitkin Reserve Ladies and Gentlemen: • This letter is intended to serve as the formal request of Pitkin, Ltd., under Section 24-8.26 of the City Code for an amendment to the • P.U.D. Plan for development for The Pitkin Reserve that was approved ' by the City of Aspen in the fall of 1981, In response to a signifi- cantly changed real estate market, request is hereby made to include as possible alternatives to the existing P.U.D. Plan: 1. The right to develop (or sell for development) single-family house sites in lieu of some portion of the two-lot, attached, zero lot line house sites that have already been approved. 2. The right to replat the development parcel for Pitkin Reserve to accommodate up to nine free standing single family houses, rather than the twelve zero lot line house sites envisioned under the current P.U.D. Plan,. or a combination of free standing and attached zero lot line houses. 3. The right 'to relocate the private access road and the utility easement under that road from in front of the houses to behind the houses. In our preliminary submission we stated that our planning objectives and architectural concept were "...a response to a series of decisions that resulted from our commitment to low-impact land development and a belief that the opportunity exists for built forms to both enhance our site and support a rich landscape. Our initial decision was to preserve as much open space as possible for the use in .._ ~- - • ' i Lipkin, Averitt 3 Barclay Dexien Partnership ., of the public as well as the residents of Pitkin Reserve and to avoid development in the corridor along the Roaring Fork River...We also .felt .that both the public recreational space and the private residences would benefit from maximum separation..." Our interest in relocating standing houses is a result sophisticated understanding conditions, and of course a hood and community at larg process. the road and mixing attached and free of continued study of the site and a more of the opportunities that exist, market response to the concerns of the neighbor- e that were raised during the review Practical Effect of Proposed Chan es in Unit T es. The changes we are proposing (free-standing single family houses and attached houses accessed from the rear) will not result in a change of character for the approved P.U.D., will not be an increase in the overall coverage, will not increase the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities, and perhaps most imprtantly, will not reduce the open space or in any way negatively effect the Pitkin Reserve development, the surrounding neighborhood, or the Aspen community at large. To assure compatability with the proposed Pitkin Reserve attached • houses, the concepts already approved by you, and to preserve the integrity of this Planned Unit Development, the following criteria will apply to any free standing single family houses or attached ' houses now accessed from behind. 1. Building height will be limited to that of Willoughby Way (with the exception of the Gatehouse). 2. Buildings will have 15-foot sideyard setback requirements, except from the common lot line of the two-lot building site. 3. An obligation to involvement in the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners' Association. 4. A commitment to the landscaping program outlined in the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision Agreement and Improvement Schedule. 5. Natural earth tones will be used on the exterior with brighter colors permitted for accent. The exterior building materials will be limited to wood siding, wood shingles, metal roofing, brick, stone, glass and cedar shakes for pitched roofs. During the review process of the approved Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. density calculations established a developable area of 8.4362 acres. ., As our development plans now stand, the allowable F.A.R. for each lot would be based on one-twelfth of the 8.4362 acres. However, any change in the composition of the Pitkin Reserve would result in a • . ~.~ ;, Lipkin, Averitt & Barclay Design Partnership reallocation of that F.A.R. among the actual number of building sites/lots. Limitations on Replattinq. In lieu of the twelve zero lot line, attached single-family houses, we would like to consider as an additional approach that might enable us to be more responsive to market conditions - the alternative of developing the Pitkin Reserve for up to nine free-standing single family houses or a mix of attached and free-standing houses (see attached chart). The attached 'chart compares all possible alternative mixes of free-standing and attached houses with the approved scheme for 12 attached houses. In all cases, the proposed alternatives provide more open space between houses and never results in an increase in total width of houses. we feel that any of the proposed mixes with result in greater variety and richness within a consistent architectural imgage. This would, of course, require a replatting of the current configura- tion of the twelve approved zero lot line house sites. This would not affect in any way the open space allocation of the current P.U.D. Plan -- replatting would be limited to that portion of the entire tract which has already been approved for development (the "Develop- ment Parcel"). Moreover, replatting would conform to all Engineering Department concerns and criteria. Needless to say, chart any reduction in the twelve approved dwelling units at the Pitkin Reserve will result in the return to Aspen Mountain Park of the unused development rights. These, of course, arose from the conversion of Smuggler Trailer Park to an owner-occupied, controlled employee housing cooperative. The Implications of Relocating the Access Road and Utility Easement. This new road location has the following advantages: 1. More sensitive and sophisticated integration of houses, access road and landscape. 2. Garage doors no longer face the Aspen Institute, bike path or recreation area. They are only visible from the access road. 3. Road is far less visible. 4. Road and driveway lengths are reduced. 5. Disturbed . area requiring revegetation is reduced. •' 6. Vertical change of access road is reduced from 62' to SO'. -3- •~ , .• /\ rt i k ~ ~ . ~ Lipkin, Arcritt & Barclay Design Partnership These proposed changes have been reviewed by our civil engineers, E1 Dorado, Engineering, and our structural engineers, ADG (formerly Coe, Van Loo and Jaschke) who agree that there would be no significant negative effects resulting from this change. The utilities would be relocated to the new road right of way with the exception of the sewage line which would remain in roughly the same location on the downhill side of the houses. The proposed utility system and drainage plan would require limited redesign and the use of a Gabion retaining. wall would present no structural problems. Conclusion. As we indicated above, it is a refinement of our site plan, and marketing conditions that suggest we make these requests. It nonetheless remains our intention to proceed with the Pitkin Reserve development at the appropriate time in substantially the format and spirit that was approved by the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council of the City of Aspen. We look forward to working with you and your staff on these approaches. Thank you for your consideration. incerely,~ Michael Lipkin, President Pitkin, Ltd. -4- • •~ , ~~, P~p~l~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P'JD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearin9November 161d1982oat ahe Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider an amendment to an approved PUD plan for the development of Pitkin Reserve. The amendment includes permif.ting the developer to construct either single family or duplex residences, re- platting the development parcel, and relocating the private access road and GalenayStreetenAspen~r925r2020foext.~~227 contact the Planning Office, 13U S. s/ferry Flarvey _ Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 21, 1982. City of Aspen account. °° ., CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this ~ day of ~q ~, 1982 d tree and correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Pi ~/~~~ l~.eserh- ,9~n~,~~dm~n~~ lh ~>h/~ was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: wee. C~l7aC~e~- • , ADJACENT PROPERTY O47NERS '1. John Loren Yaw P.O. Box 2678 Aspen, CO 81612 2. Evelyn Putney P.O. Box 2614 Aspen, CO 81612 3. Donad M. Ruggles ' P.O. Box 34 Aspen, CO 31612 4. Kathryn K. Reid & Royal S. Reid P.O. Box 496 Aspen, CO 81612 5. Frederic A. Davies & Frances M. A. Davies P.O. Box K Aspen, CO 81612 6. Arthur Russell Jones, III P.O. Box 3853 Apen, CO 81612 7. John Sdright Cronin & Virginia R. Cronin P.O. Box 1164 Aspen, CO 81612 8. Robert Miller & Deborah tdiller P.O. Box 15097 Aspen, CO 81612 9. Investors Croup of Florida, Inc. 720 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 10. Gerald B. Kagan c/o Schwartz, Alschuler & Grossman 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 11. Paul Joseph Bush & Mary Lou Bush 240 Saratoga Mexico City 10, MEXICO 12. ~7illiam A. Gruenberg, Charles E. ~7orth & Ann G. F7orth P.O. Box 930 p, Aspen, CO 81612 -15- ~ 1 ~ _~1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rmww c. Geo[Ceu e. e.e LCU - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1982 Perry Harvey called the meeting to order with members Al Blomquist, David White, Roger Hunt, Pat Fallin, Jasmine Tygre, Welton Anderson and Lee Pardee. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Pat Fallin said that last Spring the P&Z gave a conditional use to Arthur's Restaurant to put tables up outside. Fallin said that part of the conditional use was that he use the parking in the rear of the building and to put a sign up advising patrons that there is parking in the rear Fallin wants to see this enforr:ed. Roger Hunt comments on the Police parking on both sides of the street which is not in compliance with the decision from Council on where the Police should park. Welton Anderson said that after the last meeting concerning the Smuggler Ar<aa Master Plan it was suggested to get together with some County P&Z members and get :i study session together. Perry Harvey introduces the Planning and Zoning Commissions new alternate David White. 4 PIIBLIC HEARING ' Pitkin Reserve Amendment to PUD Alice Davis, of the Planning office said that this is a request for an amen+iment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD. The applicant is requesting is that the twelve attached ~ zero lot line housing sites,with a private access road in front of the houses i through the middle of the property, be amended. The applicant wants to do a different combination which will be determined at a later date. The applicant would like the option of doing whatever the market calls for, different combinations of duplexes and single family dwelling units. The Planning Office recommends that the P & Z recommend"the approval of the requested I amendments to the PPtkin Reserve PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. The final development plan must be one of the three alternative combinations ~ of single family detached units and attached, zero lot line units requested by the applicant. 2. The Planning Office must review and approve the final mix of unit types. The final plan must then be recorded, amending the original Pitkin Reserve's PUD plan prior to issuance of a building permit. ~ 3. The Engineering Dept. must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and ' ~ utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a l+uiiding permit. 4. The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 5. There are representations made in their application, their revised PUD amend- went al so be made since they did list a few things that they promised to do such as open space going to be changed. j Al Blomquist asked what the provisionrior ±..fie trail connection from Pitkin Green 'i to the Rio Grande Trail? Michael Lipkin said that there is no provision because at the time they attempted to I resolve that the applicant met with resistance on most fronts. Perry Harvey asked Lipkin about the attached unit in the second proposal wY+ere ~~ they haveseven free standing, two attached, is that two duplexes? '-~ Michael Lipkin said that it is two units. ~ Bill Dunaway asked if all of these units that are represented include or exclude employee units. ~ Michael Lipkin said that is excluding employee unit. Perry Harvey opens the Public portion of the Public Hearing. Kay Reed said that she has many question because she cannot tell from t:he drawings exactly what is happening. Reed asked that if in the new plan the applicant is using more of the 26 acres. Michael Lipkin said that the development takes place in the same development parcel that has been established. Lipkin said that the applicant started this process ~ well over two years ago and received final approval from this body about a year ago , in that time the apllicant has had a chance to go study the site and hear ~ what many neighbors have had to say during the Public Review process and also ~ understand a little bit more about the market. Lipkin said that the changes the applicant is asking forare directly in responde to that. Jack Kruemena said that he is not here to object but he would like to know what is going on by seeing a complete map of the elevation etc. ...__ _.. ..___.. _.. p. 2 _ Perry Harvey asked Alice Davia of the Planning Office what the height restriction would be. Davis said that it is 25ft. Jack Krueman asked about the fill. Perry Harvey said that when the road was on the downhill side of the residences, it required a large amount fill to put the road in, now by putting the road in above the homes and just below Willougbyway, it is more of a cut into the hill and it does`nt require it to be built up to the level of the homes because the homes are on an angle. Virginia Cronin, neighbor in the Pitkin Green section, she wonders about the road and how people get into the drive and how far the road will extend. Michael Lipkin said that it is a dead end road, a private road and it stops where it stops. Lipkin tacks up one of the plans on the wall to clear up some of these questions. Walter Mueller asked if there is any time limit to the whole project? Michael Lipkin said that everyone is anxious to see it built and completed as quickly as possible but there is not a deadline set on completion. Mueller said suppose that this things drags for the next ten years? Alan Richman said that there is a construction schedule in the original subdivision agreement and if it is of interest to Mueller the Planning office can pull this out and tell him what the schedule consists of. Kay Reed asked ii the original plan showed clustering of the houses? Michael Lipkin said yes. Perry Harvey closes the public portion of the meeting and asks for questions and com- ments from the Board members. Roger Hunt said that he has not seen sufficient information to amend the PUD. Hunt said that the Commission does not have a PUD before them with specified foot- prints. Al Blomquist takes the opposite position of Roger Hunt. Blomquist thinks that this idea of downzoning as options from what was approved before is a real nice concept. Jasmine Tygre said that although this is a PUD, one of the things that was attractive at the previous submission was that it was going to be more open space and that the units were going to be joined now the applicant is going to separate single family units. Tygre does not understand how much space is going to be between the three standing units and how that will compare. Michael Lipkin said that the steepness of the hill makes it very desirable to keep a certain width as narrow as possible. Perry Harvey said that Tygre`s attempt to understand this is similar to the rest of the Board understanding and that they would all like to see this in in its next step. Harvey is not that comfortable either even though he understands what they are doing and understands the restrictions that are imposed upon it but given the fact that the Engineering Dept. has to review and approve and the Planning Office must review and approve and the representations and the original PUD must be carried over and it would be a little easier for this Board if we could see it again. Michael Lipkin said that the last alternative on the Planning Office memo is what the applicant would like to fly off as a final plat and what they would like to come back and ask for is any one of the three downzonings above that and that requires the applicant to come back before the P&Z to do it. Perry Harvey said that at some point during this marketing the applicant will come to grips with what the market wants and the applicant wants. Jasmine Tygre thinks that the Board should see a little outline of where each house is going to be on each lot on these plans. Michael Lipkin said that there is a front line of construction that designates where one can build and this represents that. Welton Anderson thinks that looking at these plans in a more specific form would be nice but he can visualize it by seing the buildings transposed and that by making up a new plan, Anderson is not sure it is really going to be that 'productive. Roger Hunt states that he wants to see specific plans. David White said that he likes what he visually sees and one of the first things the memo says is "the right to develope" and Whites first concern is that he doesn't know what it is going to look like. White likes it conceptually but he needs to .see speci- fic plans. Al B lomquist feels comfortable with the plan the applicant has presented. Alice Davis said that the Planning office recommendation is to approve this and the other three alternatives. Michael Lipkin said that the applicant has spent an incredible amount of time in this review process and to have the P&Z ask us to go back. and prepare showing the Board the four alternatives and taking that kind of time with the applicants need now in this market to be able to attempt to market these things it is a cost that becomes very difficult for the applicant. Lipkin said he understands what the P&Z is asking for but he doesn't see what they think they will see differnetly because ~, ~ ~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rant w t. e. xomxcc r. a. s c. co. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1982 -3- one of the things the applicant is designing into this process is a degree e~f flexi- bility to work with each of these people so you don't stand up and see six identical duplexes or eight or nine similar single family houses. The applicant is trying to design in a richness and a sophistication into this process. Lipkin ,. feels that the P&Z is asking for the kind of review and approval that makes it . impossible for the applicant to design the quality into this project and the: flexibility we would like to give these subsequent owners. Perry Harvey said that at some point the applicant is going to go to the planning office and present to them the final mix of the unit .types, JasmineTyRre said that everytime the P&Z trys to short-cut something on a PifD sooner or later a year down the line or two years later all the sudden we have a prob- lem. Alice Davis suggests that the P&Z give approval to this one; one duplex and seven single family, nine total units. AL Blomquist said that it seems to him that what the applicant is doing to reduce the impact by w;iatever means. Blomquist said that we know he has to file one plat and he can pick anyone of those four. Welton Anderson recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission give approval of the request for amendment for Pitkin Reserve PUD for no more than 11 units, comprising five single family pre-standing units and six attached duplex units comprised in three buildings subject to following conditions; 1) The Engineering Dept, must review and approve the revised detailed drainage .and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit and landscape design. 2) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property linEa. 3) That all the representations of the original PUD are carried over to thi:> revised PUD. Gary Esary said that the recommendation was for the representations of the application letter of Oct. 12, 1982. Welton Anderson adds the letter of application to his motion. Perry Harvey asks for a second to the motion. The motion fails for lack of a second. Perry Harvey entertains a motion to table this pending more detailed site planning from the applicants. Pat Fallin seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. . ~~ RECORD OF PROCEEGINGS 100 Leaves ' Ip1Y M C. L MOFIXR !. !. ~ L C0. Armen Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 1982 ~ Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 with members j Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist and Welton Anderson present. Commissioner 1. Roger Hunt brought up the parking situation on the south Comments side of City Hall. The police department has moved to the angle side of the street and has also taken up 90 feet of the parallel side of the street. Hunt suggested a resolution. to Council saying that although 3 or 4 spots for tourist or commercial parking have been gained, at least 7 spots have been lost, which the town sorely needs. Hunt said he would like the police department to comply with the agreement they made last year, which is one space on the north side of the street, not 90 feet. Harvey said he would call the city manager and tell him the P & Z is prepared to do a resolution to Council because they feel parking is needed for the tourists and do not feel the police need that much parking. 2. Hunt said he was in a large duplex on Hyman between First and Garmisch and felt it had more than just two units. Alan Richman, planning office, said that building had applies= for and was granted an RBO for two deed restricted units. 3. Al Blomquist asked if there was an ordinance to legalize Welton Anderson. Richman said he was working on it. Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendments 4. Blomquist said the trees at the end of the airport run- way had been topped off badly and look terrible. Richman told the Commission this was an F.A.A. requirement at the airport for clearance. The alternative was to build a tower and light the trees. This would have taken so long that the F.A.A. would have cancelled the insurance at the airport. 5. Richman asked P & Z to change the dates of their meeting= in February and March to be more compatible with Council meetings. The dates will be the 8 and 22 of February and March, rather than the 1st and 15th. P & Z agreed. 6. Assistant City Attorney Gary Esary requested a study session on the TV receiving dish matter. Esary told P & Z he had contacted the TV station with this dish and suggested they file applications with the HPC and P & Z. The TV station said they did not think they needed to do this. Esary said this matter is heating up and should be addressed. P & Z scheduled a study session for Tuesday, December 28. Alice Davis, planning office, told P & Z this is a request to amend a PUD on Pitkin Reserve. The applicant has decided on one out of the four alternatives to provide nine single family dwelling units. The original approval was for six duplex buildings. This is three less than the original approval. The applicant is requesting the road be moved from below the units to above along Willoughby V7ay. The positive aspects are there are not as much visual impacts; this cannot be seen from the P.io Grande trail, the road will not be as visible from the trail. Ms. Davis told P & 7, there is no heighth change. engineering department has the same comments as at meeting. The planning office recommends approval Th e the last of the PUD _. ~ _. amendment subject to the five conditions listed in the memorandum as well as the conditions on the original PUD approval. Michael Lipkin told the Commission they are asking for nine single family dwelling units, which is much less than the city or county zoning would have allowed on the property. Lipkin had drawings to show the original approved project, and what is proposed now. Lipkin showed comparative sections' which illustrated that the road is now a cut rather than a fill. Lipkin showed the Commission the areas that will not have to be distrubed on the site as a result of this change. ,_ Lipkin said the original proposal was a massive transforma- tion of the hill. Lipkin said that single family houses are easier to :site sensitively on the hill and can sit more gracefully. The nine houses are more in scale with the neighborhood. Also nine single family dwelling units is much less continuous building frontage. Harvey asked the heighth of the gatehouse. Lipkin answered it will be one story above Willoughby Way. Ms. Tygre asked what happens to the three units that have been delet~sd. Richman said there are seven units left from the agreement and with these three they will have ten units somewhere. These units will have to go through the process. Hunt said he is much happier with this proposal than the earlic;r one. Hunt moved to recommend approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units a few feet south and provide nine single family unit:>. This approval is subject to the five conditions in the planning office memorandum of December 21, 1982; seconded by Pos. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. The plats pre:>ented by Pitkin Reserve were entered into the record. ;4~s Continued Meetir~_q r Aspen City Council January 12x_1983 _ ORDINANCE #77, SERIES OF 1983 - Campaign Expenditures Monroe Summers said if Council passes this ordinance, they should delete any reference to the election question of Rubey Park because it is not relevant at this point. Bil Dunaway said there isonly one ballot question, and it is being presented by the citizens and not the City and tax monies should not be spent on the election: Councilman Knecht agreed it is the responsibility of the resort association to push their question. Mayor Edel agreed that in promoting a question, the city should not take part in. Education of the electorate is another thing. Councilman Knecht suggested that the proponents go to the League of Women Voters for promotion for this issue. There was no motion to approve the ordinance. RUBEY PARK VISITOR CENTER PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS Monroe Summers reminded Council he had brought this resolution to them in December and ' their wishes were that the project hhould be sufficiently through the review process in order to give the public a clear picture of what the city plans todo. Summers told Council the updated plans make significant adjustment to the issues. Summers said he cannot get to P & Z before February 1, and requested that the election question be post- poned. Councilman Knecht moved to postpone the Rubey Park election question; seconded by Council-~ man Parry. All in favor, motion carried. it GOLF COURSE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Jim Holland, parks director, told Council he has come up with a first draft of a site plan which he will take to P s Z. This is for the parking lot area. The berming will be smoothed off, and blue grass planted. Holland said the landscaping will cost about $44,000. Chapman told Council the city has the cash for this part; the rest of the I-~ parking lot and landscaping is around $120,000 ~ ;~ PITKIN RESERVE PUD AMENDMENT Bob Hughes told Council this is an amendment which requires the Mayor's signature. This project has approval for twelve units. There are no objections from the planning office. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve this subject to the conditions on page 2 of the January 10th memorandum from the planning office;. seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. - 'y 1983 GOLF FEES Jim Holland, parks director, told Council he has discussed these fees with the golf associations, both men's and women's. There are very minor changes from last year. This year the city will be offering a full unrestricted season pass. Councilman Parry moved to approve the golf fees according to Jim Holland's memorandum of December 22, 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1983 - Regulation of Satellite Dishes- Alan Richman, planning office, said the staff has been looking at satellite dishes, and held a work session with P S Z and the HPC to develop information and understand what the problem is, and determine whethere there is a need for regulation. In the city's codes, there is no regulation of these dish structures. This is to amend the city's building code to bring satelitte dishes within the purview of the building department so that they can make sure the dishes are installed in a safe way. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance #1, Series o£ 1983; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #1 (Series of 1963) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 EDICATION, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, AS STRUCTURE REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT, SATELLITE RADIO FREQUENCY SIGNAL RECEPTION AND TRANSMISSION DEVICES; SETTING FORTH A DEFINITION OF SUCH DEVICES; AND EXPRESSLY ADOPTING PENALTY PROVISIONS was read by the city clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael aye. Motion carried. (Mayor Edel abstained due to a conflict of interest). RESOLUTION #2, SERIES OF 1963 - Urging Federal Antitrust exemption for Local Governments City Attorney Taddune told Council before the Boulder case, everyone assumed that municipalities were exempt under the provisions of the federal anti trust laws. Over the past two years, this has not been the case. Municipalities are now finding themselves exposed to anti trust liabilities. The Colorado Municipal League has requested each municipality to adopt a resolution and direct that resolution to various elected official. Councilman Knecht moved to approved Resolution #2, Series of 1983; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #1, SERIES OF 1983 - 1983 Pay Schedule and Classification Plan City Manager Chapman told Council this implements the 3 per cent general wage adjustment as of January 1, 1983. Councilman Knecht moved to approved Resolution #1, Series of 1963; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Office FROM: Michael Lipkin DATE: December 10, 1982 RE: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan I apologize for the confusion I created at my la:;t Planning and Zoning Commission appearance in requesting multiple approvals. What appears to me to be obvious improvements and refinements because of my constant involvement in this project for the last two years is not something theft is easily communicated. This memo will address the points theft were raised at the previous meeting, compare this proposed change to the approved plan and narrow down our request to a single plan. 1. We request a downzoning from twelve (12) attached houses (6 duplex structures) to nine (9) single fzimily houses. 2. At the time of our preliminary submission, i.t was established that County zoning would have allowed for ].5 lots (each could have been a duplex structure for a total of 30 units) and that City zoning would have allowed 12 lots (each could have been a duplex structure for a total of 24 units). 3. When we had our initial review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, there was significant opposition to our duplex structures because of their size relative to single-family houses from both the Pitkin Green neighborhood and the second Aspen Company Subdivision acro:~s the Roaring Fork River. 4. The typical single family houses we are proposing are 70 feet wide (with the option of expanding to 76 feet). The duplexes that have been approved are 132 feet wide. The total width of the approved duplexes would be 792 feet and the width for our proposed single family houses would be fx•om 650 to 732 feet. 5. The open space between units in our approved duplex scheme is 273 feet. In our proposed scheme there would .--, .. be at least 333 feet between units and perhaps as much as 415 feet. 6. While we have designed a prototypical unit that is 70 feet wide, we have established a slightly larger building footprint so that we can work with each purchaser to make modifications in our basic plan or to custom design a house that maintains the integrity of the master plan and assures each house unobstructed views. 7. Architectural design criteria have been established that preserve the architectural integrity and consistency of Pitkin Reserve, however custom design and modification will add a richness and variety to the houses at Pitkin Reserve. 8. The smaller scale of each single family house not only is more in keeping with the neighborhood, but allows for more sensitive siting on this hillside that slopes in two directions. 9. The approved duplex scheme required moving 25,000 cubic yards of earth and importing 5,000 cubic yards of fill. The proposed scheme requires moving about 17,000 cubic yards and importing a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards. 10. The disturbed area would be reduced from 5 acres to approximately 4 acres. 11. The buildings are at almost the same elevation and location relative to Willoughby Way and the Rio Grande bike trail. 12. As stated in my letter of October 12, 1982, formally requesting this amendment, these changes will result in: a. The road and garage doors no longer face the Aspen Institute, bike path, or recreation area; they are only visible from the access road. b. Road and driveway lengths are reduced. c. Vertical change of access road is reduced from 62 feet to 50 feet. d. There is a more sophisticated and sensitive integration of houses, access road and landscape. .-.. ~. 13. And finally, all our marketing efforts indicate a very strong market for single family houses at Pitkin Reserve and a very limited market for attached houses. Thank you for your consideration. PITKIN LIMITED gy..//~ Micyhae Lipc n, esident Partner, Lipki Averitt & Barclay Achitects an/ Planners C~ m O r w > o ¢ ~ ~ W ~ M m o~ Z N g~ 0 o :o w ~ mo W (7 F- _~~ O O w U ~ O cn C7 mz wQ w ~ Z ~ ~ ° z~ W N C7 W Z N -x ~ O ~m `O d z . oa U ~~ Z m w a~ ~ ~ O~ U C7 w z w ¢ ~ w `" zz a z~ w~ O '~ ~ ° a 0 J W ,,w. D October 15, 1982 ~, Jay Hammond Engineering Department City of Aspen P.O. Box U Aspen, Colorado 81612 OCT 2 ~ ia~~ s 'EN / p~1T~ Re: Pitkin Reserve Proposed Amendment Changes Dear Jay, Michael Lipkin, has asked me to review the proposed amendment changes with regards to site engineering for the Pitkin Reserve Project. After a review of the proposed changes, it appears no major design changes will be required. Briefly; SEWER - gravity collection for all units by two collection lines that would tie in to the existing manholes on the property, WATER - connect into the City's 16 inch line that runs through the project and run distribution lines down the relocated road, DRAINAGE - direct the stormwater flow into the already proposed detention basin. The actual re-design would be computed prior to a final plat amendment submission. Yet, it is my opinion that the proposed changes would have a limited effect on the utilities as they are now approved. Yours truly, ~' /~ Bryan~Duff, P.E ~~ BD:ps cc: Alan Richman, Planning Office Michael Lipkin OFFICES: GLENWOOD SPRINGS ~ RIFLE ~ DURANGO 61a1C[ IOOiN~M paeooc~o 1~SPEM, COIsD Elp2 December 1, 1983 Mr. Sunny Vann Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Vann, I live at 1130 Willoughby Way which Development and the residential unit the Willoughby Way roadway. ,• _ _ ~: I; fi' ~ ~ i l i{ ;, Gi.~!~ c''b.._. _ ._,, A:i+'Efv ~ i . ~ n1~ CG. '~ F'411P4NiF~ Ct=fii:E Re: Residential Unit above Willoughby Way, Five feet from road (setback) in the Pitkin Reserve Development is just past the Pitkin Reserve being built within 5 feet of This area as you know has a 30 foot setback and it seems that some- how this residential unit over a guardhouse below slipped in very suspeciously. What I mean is that a hearing was held in October of 1982 aPProving the Pitkin Reserve Development froths guardhouse 9 residential properties, but the issue of changing and residential unit to be above it was somehow !not discussed in any detail. I find it hard that your office would recommend to the City Council a situation that now exists. (Unless you do feel thaYOaaY)fooN~et- back in a residential area as ours is good planning lets examine this from an Environmental Impact standpoint also, and you will see it is very significant. It seems that what hasannexedesomerland andtwithouttprudentpthinks come into the County, ing of the residence in that area has significatly changed the environmental structure of our area. I can only hope you will give this your upmost attention and that someway, something can be done to rectify this matter. Cordial you s B uce Konhei cc: Bil Stirling, City Council members, County Commissioners .: ~ COAIFS REID &WAIDRON (teal Estate • Rentals • Property Management December 1, 1983 Mr. Sonny Vann Planning Director City of Aspen/County of Pitkin 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 r ., ~__ j i:.: 0 ? 1983 J J ~.- ~ AS+'EN i t'i i riq~CO. PLANNi~lG OFf7CE HAND DELIVERED Dear Mr. Vann: ..,.. In an effort to be unemotional and brief, I am making a simple request that you and your department members thoroughly research and study the events leading to the building of the now visible Pitkin Reserve Residential Unit and Guardhouse. As a resident and homeowner in the Pitkin Green Subdivision, I believe I was present at all of the publically announced and held discussions regarding the City's annexation of the area named "Pitkin Reserve." At no time do I recall seeing a plan of or hearing about a structure called "The Guardhouse Residential Unit", which could be built with only a five (5) foot setback off Willoughby Way containing Three Thousand (3,000) square feet of living space, plus a double garage and thirty- three (33) feet in height. What I do recall, is that none of the Pitkin Reserve houses (living units) would be higher than the road (Willoughby Way) level and would be discreetly hidden from view. I also recall the Guardhouse (which is now fast becoming a residence) would be on the east side (downhill side) of tine access road to Pitkin Reserve. It now sits on the upper West side of that access road. Another question I would like answered is the status of Willoughby Way. Is it a county road when it turns west off the Red Mountain Road and does it become a city street as it crosses the Pitkin Reserve property line? And, after leaving Pitkin Reserve, is Willoughby Way again a county road? Please advise. Lastly, I would like you and your department, the present mayor and city council and the past mayor and members of the city council to visit said "guardhouse residential unit" to view in actuality what they may or may not have approved on paper and if so, if they can live with the knowledge that the so called "guardhouse" for their city community called "Pitkin Reserve" is something they wish to accept as their responsi- bility? If they made an error, surely there are methods by which such an error or misunderstanding can be rectified. Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-1400, (303) 925-7691 Snowmass Office • Box 6450, Sna+vmass Center, Sna~vmass Village, Colorado 81615 • (303) 923-4750 Mr. Sonny Vann Planning Director City of Aspen/County of Pitkin December 1, 1983 Page two Since time is of the essence, it is my hope that your research into these matters can be expediated as quickly as possible. Respect~u~, ~~~ ~~ Katy Rei~ (Kathryn K. Reid) KKR/ssw cc: Mayor Bill Stirling Ms. Charlotte Walls, Councilwoman Mr. Al Bloomquist, Councilman Mr. Charles "Chic" Collins, Councilman Mr. Dick Knecht, Councilman Mr. Wayne Chapman, City Manager Mr. Herman Edel Mr. Bil Dunaway C .~ ?: .~ a w N o v v ~ ~ N a+ ^ ~n s+ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ +-~ U G .-I C v G '-I ~ W tC Y+ N ~C c0 N+ ~ ~ A m 7 6~ a oo ° a o ~ o a o m C ~ c ^ ~, N A • m ~+o a z S+ '-I •rl N1 N ~ ~ a v.-~c x <(~~ e A 9 m 0 a m `o 0 c Q c m E x W 0 e. i~ ASPEN*PITKIN ~iEG10NAL BUILDINa.r DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office ~~ FROM: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official DATE: December 7, 1983 RE: Pitkin Reserve - Gatehouse The residential gatehouse in Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is a total of 1,680 square feet. The square footage is set out in the following uses: Garage (not counted) 502' Boiler Room totally below grade (not counted) 48' Square footage of Storage and Office 259' Total Area of Living Unit 809' (Including Walls over thickness of 6" of stairway at lower level to second) 60' As far as I can tell from the agreement on record there was no square foot limitation on Gatekeeper office and storage. Contours indicate existing grade Willoughby Way to the lower edge to the slope, the maximum height allowable height of a gable roof story above Willoughby Way or tw gable roof above Willoughby Way. has a twelve foot drop from of the building. Measured perpendicular of the building is 26 feet. The would be 30 feet. It is only one anty feet at the highest point of the PN/ar offices: mail address: '1'10 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 8'16'11 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 8'16'11 ~- ~ r _1 ~ „ ., Nav, 1!, : 'i ~~ - ~~Z IJ~G, -7r 1'1<'Z - p+Z !~~ C, c~ 1, I f `~ Z ~ F'- Z Tan, i~ ~~ ~"3 C+ f y <:~:,fr;c.~ ~ 2 ~' PuU 'r SV ~c~l Ur5~I1 ~C~f~`;~Il°'e~.ll°(, <`t. ~~0"'.CI r~ J _, Afr~~~ ; , ~~ ~ plat 4 ~, (~%r_~ -~~r~;r2 rte ~r~.~l ~_~Pl:~r, ~ •~~~ ~--~r~r. .r7. ~E-f~ I ~~Ca'llpf'~. ~ f.-'+ wt!~~r. ~ +..:.~ rr _.;-_.~ II! ~t rr, ~ i' ~ f b 'M~~~~-lrt-; f'a7 >; ~x_ ~+'~~_:,~ a~Prova~J~r~,~i~~~-v ~3rucp C'oK~,~ MEMORANDUM T0: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen City Council Alice Davis, Planning Office Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment January 10, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to t Pitkin Re erve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. The amended application is requesting 9 single family units while the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in front of the homesites td behind the homesites along Willoughby Way. Planning Office Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the 9 lots developed. Development will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. Since only 9 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining 3 units not built at Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights, to be added to the other 7 units which the applicant accrued within the Smuggler Mobile Home Park settlement agreement. The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property. The road is now located above the houses and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail. The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street and the height of the structures will still be limited to the same height as in the original plan. The road realignment will create a need to revise the Pitkin Reserve landscaping plan. The Planning Office would like to review and approve the changes to ensure they are as complete as the original landscaping plan. Referral Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. P&Z and Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further north toward Willoughby Way, move the dwelling units a few feet south and permit the construction of 9 single family units. Approval is subject to the following conditions: ~ro .,,. Memo: Pitkin Reserve January 10, 1983 Page Two PUD Amendment 1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and December 10, 1982. 5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment. Council Motion: Should you concur with the recommendations of the Planning Office and P&Z, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to grant approval to the amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD, subject to the following conditions: C1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letters from Michael Lipkin dated October 12, 1982 and December 10, 1982. 5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment." >. ..., MEMORANDUM .. ~. J TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: November 8, 1982 RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to P.U.D. ------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application for an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve P.U.D. plan, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. As expressed in a letter from the project engineers at Eldorado Engineering, there will be no major design changes or new problems associated with the revised plan relative to water, sewer, and drainage. Approval of a revised P.U.D. should be contingent on recordation of appropriate utility and drainage designs .for the new configuration of units. 2. While the proposed amendment may result in fewer units, .the revised configuration may result in more disturbance to the site. Relocation of the access road to the north requires more radical cut slopes and the proposed unit locations will require a fill area extending further to the south. While the impacts of the revised design may be an improvement when viewed from the south, pulling the structures out of the hill and placing them on fill may result in a visual impact when viewed from Iilloughby Way. 3. The Gatehouse has been relocated closer to the Willoughby. Way right-of-way. The applicant should be required to leave at least the same setback included in the original P.U.D. of about five (5) feet. ~. _. MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan DATE: November 16, 1982 Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. Originally the PUD was approved for 12 attached zerio lot line housing sites with a private access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The proposed amendment would permit the developer to build single family housing sites in lieu of some portion of the attached zero lot line sites that were approved. The applicant is not yet certain what combination of single family and zero lot line homesites will be used, but would like to have the felxibility, depending on market conditions, to develop (or sell for development) vario~.s combinations of the two types of housing sites. The attached chart shows the 15 different alternatives which may be built ranging from the original 12 attached zero lot line sites to 9 free standing single family units. The proposed amendments would also relocate the private access road (and the utility easements underneath) from in front of the homes in the center of the property to behind the homes along Waverly Way. The new alignment is less visable and reduces the vertical change from 62 to 50 feet, but increases the visability of the homes which were originally to be built into the hill. Planning Office Review: Section 24-8.26(b), Amendment of the PUD Plan, states that PUD amend- ments should only be made if the changes are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since final plat approval or by chances in community policy. The applicant has stated that the proposed amendments have been made due to changes in the market, a result of continued study of the site and a better understanding of the housing opportunities and needs in Aspen. The proposed changes will not result in an increase in overall site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the actual number of lots developed. Development will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. Any of the 12 approved units which are not built at the Pitkin Reserve will return to Aspen Mountain Park as unused development rights. These units arose from the conversion of Smuggler Trailer Park to owner- occupied employee housing units. The subject property has a significant slope dropping from Willoughby Way down to the Rio Grande trail. The original site plan called for the 12 attached homesites to be built into the slope near Willoughby Way with the road down below. The amended proposal puts the road up by Willoughby Way and the houses down below. The houses were less visible from the road and the Rio Grande trail in the original appli- cation, so from a viewplane standpoint, the amended application is less desirable. Another Planning Office concern is that the development alternative that is ultimately chosen be reviewed, approved and shown to be one of the requested alternatives and that the final development plan be recorded as it is to be built. Since the original submission of this application, the applicant has refined his request and has agreed to stay within the confines of 3 of the alternatives requested. These 3 development alternatives will be presented by the applicant at the P & Z meeting on November 16, 1982. We feel that the Planning Office can approve the final plan, if it falls under one of the 3 possible alternatives requested. Any change outside what has been requested in these 3 alternatives would require further review by P & and Council. .~, ~/ Memo: Pitkin Reserve - Amendment to PUD Plan November 16, 1982 Page Two l.^+ \/ The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. Incidently, although it was not required, the Planning Office scheduled a public hearing for this PUD review since there was so much interest and input from the public during the initial application. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD subject to the following conditions: The final development plan must be one of the 3 alternative combinations of single family detached units and attached, zero lot line units requested by the applicant. 2. The Planning Office must review and approve the final mix of unit types. The final plan must then be recorded, amending the original Pitkin Reserve's PUD plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The gatehouse must be a minimum of 5 feet from the front property line. ,,~, MEMORANDUM T0: FROM RE: DATE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Alice Davis, Planning Office Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment December 7, 1982 Applicant's ,~, Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Code. When P&Z first discussed this amendment at the November 16, 1982 meeting, the applicant requested an amendment which would allow any of four different development alternatives. Each of the four alternatives represented a different mix of single family and duplex structures on the Pitkin Reserve parcel. The applicant has now amended his application and is requesting an amendment to allow one develop- ment scheme, 11 units on the subject parcel - five single family units and three duplexes. The original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan .approved 12 attached zero lot line housing sites with an access road in front of the houses through the middle of the property. The new alignment of homesites is only a few feet south of where the original homesites were located, but the new road alignment has been moved from in front of the homesites to behind the home- sites along Willoughby Way. Planning Office Review: The proposed amendment will not result in an increase in overall site coverage, does not appear to increase traffic circulation or utility problems and will not reduce the amount of open space provided. The overall allowable FAR will remain the same, but will be redistributed between the 11 lots developed. Development ~ „ will still occur within the building envelope originally approved. Since only 11 units will be built as opposed to the 12 units originally approved, the remaining unit not built at the Pitkin Reserve will be returned to Aspen Mountain Park as an unused development right. The new alignment will be more desirable with regard to visual impacts from the Rio Grande Trail to the south of the property. The road is now located above the house creating less visual impacts and the proposed units' garage and storage areas will no longer face the trail.. The visual impact from Willoughby Way will be unchanged since the property slopes down from the street and the height of the structures will still be limited to the same height as in the original plan. Referral Comments: The Attorney's Office had no comment on the applicant's request. Engineering stated that the revised PUD will cause no major design changes, but will require further drainage and utility studies for the new configuration. Engineering also commented that the proposed gatehouse is located on the property line. The 30 foot front yard setback in this zone district can be varied through this PUD, but Engineering felt that a minimum setback of 5 feet should be given, the setback provided and approved in the original PUD. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that P&Z recommend the approval of the requested amendments to the Pitkin Reserve PUD which will move the access road further north toward Willoughby, move the dwelling unit a few feet to the south and provide a unit mix of five single family units and three duplexes. Approval is subject to the following conditions: ~ A 4./ ~,if Memo: Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment December 7, 1982 Page Two 1) The gatehouse must be a minimum of five feet from the front property line. 2) The Engineering Department must review and approve the revised detailed drainage and utility plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The Planning Office must review and approve the necessary changes in the landscaping plan. 4) The applicant must meet all representations given in the letter dated October 12, 1982-from Michael Lipkin. 5) The applicant must meet all the representations and condi- tions of approval in the original Pitkin Reserve PUD plan that are not affected by this amendment. - -_ ,~., ~~ ~~ MEMORANDUM T0: City Attorney~~. FROM: Alan Richman and Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Amendments to the Pitkin Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement DATE: April 27, 1983 This memo is provided in response to your memo of April 21, 1983, requesting our comments on the proposed revisions to the Pitkin Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement. It is our understanding that these revisions are designed to reflect the recently approved PUD amendment granted by City Council on January 10, 1983. Based on our processing of the original PUD application and the amendment to the PUD, we have several problems with the proposed revisions to the Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement which are discussed below. The most significant problem that we can identify at this time is that whereas the original agreement showed a common area (which was to remain as open space) amounting to 65 percent of the size of the total development parcel, this area has been reduced to only about 23.6 percent of the parcel in the revised agreement. A close exam- ination of the original and the amended Final PUD plat documents that the decrease in common area is the result of a substantial increase in the size of each of the lots proposed for residential development beyond that originally approved by Council. Our concern with this matter is twofold. First, as part of the re- view of the original PUD plan, much attention was given to the open space and landscaping features of the proposal. One strong factor in favor of the development was the presence of a large common area, to be maintained jointly by the Homeowners Association. This approach insured the maintenance of a consistent open space and vegetation pattern in this most visible location and was a principal selling point for the development during the public hearings on the project. We do not believe that the decrease in common area was discussed or approved as part of the PUD amendment process. The focus of the discussion during the amendment was the location of the road and the change from six duplex structures on twelve lots to nine single family structures on nine lots. No mention was made of increasing the size of each lot to encompass what was formerly the common area. Since sunstantial public reliance on the presence of the common area was created during the original reveiw and since no change to this arrangement was discussed during the amendment process, we cannot accept the Final PUD plat on the subdivision agreement in their current form. - Should the applicant wish to obtain approval for these documents as currently rpoposed, it would have to be as a result of a repetition of the PUD amendment procedure. We would prefer, however, that the plat be revised to again designate the southern portion of each of the nine lots as common area and. that the percentage of common area be recalculated to approach the original promise of 65 percent of the parcel being reserved for this purpose. it is interesting to note that this information has already been provided on the building envelope/landscaping sheet of the final plat set and would only need to be transferred to ,t he plat itself to satisfy our concern. Following is a detailed response to the page-by-page issues you have raised in your memo: Page 1: Proceedings representations are accurate. Final plat is acceptable, except as mentioned below. Page 2: we do not feel that the PUD amendment allowed an increase in developable land from 35~ to 76.39. Amendments Subdivision Page Two to the Pi%''•in Reserve Final PUD and ,. Agreemerh_~ Page 3: This change reflects our major concern regarding common areas. We recommend an additional PUD amend- ment process to approve this change or an increase in the common areas bacY, to the originally approved per- centage (658). Exhibit "A" removed the original clarification that the employee unit must be deed restricted to low or moderate income guidelines. This should not be eliminated. Again, the new size of the development site (76.398) and the decreased common area f23.618) is a problem in Exhibit "A". Building coverage has also been increased by 4,430 square feet, but an increase was alluded to, although not specified, in the amendment process. We do not believe that the development allocation approach en- visioned herein .amounts tb a "density transfer". -AS a result of the Settlement Agreement for the Smuggler Mobile Home Park, the developer was granted the right to'19.free mardet units. These units were permitted to "float" with no site being desig- aated for their development. The developer may use these rights' on;_any parcel for which all the other development approvals required by the Municipal Code are obtained. Therefore, if only g units. are used on this site, then 10 remain for development potential on another site(s). Page 4: In both the original and revised agreements, the employee unit is located on the lot designated as common area. We feel this is no problem and that this does not represent a change from the original agreement except for the size of the lot designated as common area (lot 13 in the original agreement, lot 10 in the amended agreement). Page 5: The Planning Office does not understand why the applicant has decreased the access easement from 30 feet to 22 feet. It appears, however, that paragraph C, section VIII, of the revised agreement gives the full 30 foot access easement originally proposed and approved. Lot 11 on the amended plat is identical to lot 14 on the original plat and therefore there is no apparent reason why the City should not accept the dedication of the parcel. The calculation of the park dedication fee is discussed below. Page 5: Lot 11 (amended plat).and lot 14 (original plat) are identical. Page 7: We have no problem with the employee unit being located on the parcel which is designated as common area. Page 8: i]o issue - We could not find Ex~ibit "H". Pages 8 and 9: Exhibit "G" in the amended agreement gives a new cal- culation fee for Pitkin Reserve using the same formula as the original agreement. The numbers have changed due to the following: 1. Total parcel size'was reduced from 20 acres to 17.5 acres ( less 2.5 acres). The Planning Office does not understand why this reduction has taken place. 2. The units, understandably, have increased from 3 to 4 bedroom units and therefore, the park fee multiplier found in the Code (Section 7-143) is different. 3. The open space parcel has decreased in size from 13 acres to 10.5 acres (also less 2.5 acres). The Planning Office does not understand why this reduction has taken place. r°5 ,,.,~ Amendments to the Pi~in Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement `~` Page Three The calculations make sense, but the 2.5 acre reduction in open space and total parcel size does not. In summary, we have identified for you a series of major and minor concerns associated with tfie proposed revisions to the Pitkin Reserve Final PUD and Subdivision Agreement. These concerns require that we sit down as a group to consolidate our feelings on this matter and then discuss them with the applicant. We will be available for such a meeting at your convenience and will await your response prior to any further action on this matter. [~7e recommend that the applicant be contacted as soon as practical to inform him that we are unable to approve his submission at this time. o ~ ~. ~. ~ lr~nt -ko ~ ~--F° " z.~ za ~ ~ ~~ -~o ~~~ -- " CITY OF ASS ,N FROM ALICE DAMS 1 ~~~~~ MEMO {`~-aye k Q~~-cel ~~~~~ ~ ~~P~' ~ e 3q~o 350 -~° . p , 3 l~ l0 L'''~`'~ uS. ,Z.y.Vl4. Pa ~orig,n~~ ©~ ~:~ ~~'~ ~ ~~1 nr\ os. ~ ~. ®~~b~~ GDP 1cN.YEr'c~ '~ ln~ ~~ , ~~ O.S (L~'n.rna~'~ce''' ~~ 3O ("old ~~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ -thy co ~ ~n per ~P~_ Vnr~ ~5~~ SdM~ D(~- aueq- QN tt.. 7 ,~H¢rt iS ~ CITY OF AS1 ~N MEMO FROM ALICE DAMS ~PGtf~ pe~i C~~ ~"~ e ~~ ~~` St 2 ~JG ~~ -T~ Pa('c.~-~ zs Zp ac . ~o ~-l' J - C~ New ~ g2 ~-'~~d 2 ~) C9Q~ 5~(,~ Q,zY'CKJ ~4\ Why ,y ~,,.,p~_ uru-~ ~ , ~> a~ ~ l'3 a~ueS , z. s tJ45~ l(7-5 °iuKy~ e l s "{~- P.'IIMORAAID[Ilti TO: Planning Director City Engineer City A7anager FRCx^.: City Attorney DATE. April 21, 1983 RE: Amendments to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Pitkin Reserve Annexed is a copy of a Proposed Amendment to PUD and Subdivision for the Pitkin Reserve delivered to my office by Bob Hughes on April 15, 1983. Please review the proposed amenchnents as being in conformity with Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council approvals, and comment as apNropriate. Iri comparing the Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement (hereinafter "Amended Agreement") with the original PUD and Subdivision Agreement (hereinafter "Original"), I observe the following changes: Page 1. The recitals of the amerx3ed agreement refer to the letter application dated October 12, 1982 which was supplemented by a memorandum on DecenbPx 10, 1982, and proceedings before the Planning & Zoning Con~[iission aryl the City Council (held on January 10, 1983) approving the terms of the Amended Agreement. I request that the Planning Department check proceedings for accuracy. I request that both the Plann;ng and Engineering Departrment verify the amended plat of the Pitkin Reserve for accuracy and conformity with approvals.- Page 2. The original agreement stated that approximately 35~ of the development will be used for the construction of not more than 12 residential free market units and one detached. The Fmend~l Agreement now states that approximately 76.39 of the development parcel will be used for the construction of not more than 9 residential free market units and one detached deed restricted employee housing unit. This raises the question of what will happen to the remaining three residential free market housing units. Ptlditionally, the original agreement (see Pa3e 3 - subparagraph (1) ) has been amended to reflect Lots 1 through 9 rather than Lots 1 through 12. Page 3. The reference to Cyan Area -Lot 13 in the original Agreement (see Page 3 of original Agreement) has been altered to reflect that the development parcel shall consist of approximately 23.61 rather than 650. - The site data tabulation annexed to the original Agreement as Exhibit "C" are superceded by the site dated tabulations annexed to the amended Agreement as Exhibit "A". Please review Exhibit "A" in detail for conformity to the amended plat and approvals. Page Ztao Marorandum to Planning Director, City IIzgineer, City Manager April 21, 1983 - The reference to public open space Lot 14 (see Page 4 of original, Paragraph B at top) has been changed to reflect the public open space as Iot 14 and a more accurate reference to Lots 1 through 9 within the development parcel rather than Lots 1-12 as apt;ears in the original Agreement. - Section C of Article II concerning the interrelation of the Pitkin Reserve and Smuggler Developments (see Page 5 of the original Agreement) has been amended to reflect that nine otherwise mn-exempt free market housing units will be governed by the Smuggler Agreement rather than twelve as appears in the original Agreement. Again, keep in mind that rising to the surface is what is the City's response to the remaining 10 units to which the developers are entitled; i.e., the Smuggler Development gave the developers approximately 19 non-exempt housing units, 9 of which are now going to be developed in connection with Pitkin Reserve, leaving approximately 10 housing units which are non allocated to any actual develop- ment parcel. In this regard, additional language is being proposed in the amended Agreement (III, B at bottan of Page 3) indicating that all of the 19 otherwise non-exempt free market housing units not utilized in connection with the construction of banes at Pitkin Reserve shall be retained by owner but be freely transferable to other properties. The consequence of this additional language appears to permit the transfer of 3ensity to other presentlyunascertained developable parties properties. I question whether or riot this additional language has been reviewed and considered throughout the approval process. In particular, I would like your comments as to the extent to which this has been approved, as well as your ca~ments on the concept in general. Page 4. Article 3 regarding employee housing dedication and restrictions (see Page 6 of the original Agreement) is amended to reflect Lots 1 through 9 on the amende3 plat rather than Lots 1 through 12, and a deed restriction of Iot 10 to employee housing. Remember that earlier in the amended Agreement Iot 10 was designated as cczman open space. I would like your comments. Page 5. The prefatory language in Section IV has been amender to reflect an amended plat (see Page 9 of original Agreement). - The provisions for an access easement on Page 10 of the original Agreement, Subparagraph D is changed to reflect the owners of Lots 1 through 9 and the reservation of a 22 foot access and utility easement as indicated, rather than a 30 foot access easement as appears in the original. - The dedications provisions appearing in Article VII in the original agreement (see Page 11 of the original Agreement) has been changed as follows: Paragraph A now will read Lot 10 rather than Lot 13; the land dedication provisions have been revised to reflect Lots 1 through 9 and the employee housing unit to be installed upon Lot 10 and that the City would Page Three Memorandum to Planning Director, City Engineer, City Manager April 21, 1983 accept the dedication of Lot 11, rather than Iot 14 as in the original Agreement, in lieu of cash payment and affirms as accurate the valuation of Lot 11 in the calculation of the park dedication fee based on a schedule which is attached as Exhibit "G" of the original Agreement. I would request your comments concerning the clarity and effect of this amended language. Page 6. Paragraph A of Article VIII has been changed to reflect the amended plat and Lots 1 through 9 rather than Iots 1 through 12. - Paragraph D has been revised to indicate the publically owned open space now as Lot 11. P4y concern is whether or not the amended plat changes the understanding with Pitkin County in any respect. In other words, is Iot 14 on the original plat identical with Lot 11 as appears on the amended plat? Page 7. Paragraph C of Article VIII pertaining to open space in comron area, specifically camm~ area - Int~i3 (see Page 12 of original Agreement) has been changed to reflect the common area Lot 10 rather than Lot 13 (remember Iot 10 is also being dedicated for employee housing, is this the understanding that was reached before P & Z and Council?) and the paragraph changed to reflect Lots 1 through 9 rather than Lots 1 through 12. Page 8. Subparagraph (3) of Section C of VIII (see Page 13 of original Agreenen~-has been altered to reflect fee simple Lots 1 through 9 rather than 1 through 12. - Subparagraph (5) and (6) of Subsection C of VIII of (see Page 12 of original Agreement) have been amerrled to reflect fee simple Lots 1 through 9, rather than fee simple Lots 1 through 12. - The proposed covenants referred to in Subparagraph (6) of Paragraph C of Article VIII (see Page 13 of original Agreenent)kiage been amended to, in effect, alter Exhibit "H" to the original agreement by superseding Exhibit "H" with the draft declaration which appear as Exhibit "B" to the amended PUD Subdivision Agreement. My carrnents regarding the new declaration are as follows: I would like sane comment as to the real property described in Exhibit "A" as appears in the new declaration; Lot 10 is referred to as the n area rather than 13 in the original covenants; please review and compare Article IX, i.e., architectural standards with Article IX on architectural standards in the new agreement. There are changes throughout regarding the establishment of a "meta construction committee" and "modifications committee" canprising members of residents of Pitkin Reserve: Section 11 pertains to "hogs" rather than "residential units". Page Four Memorandum to Planning Director, City Engineer, City Manager April 21, 1983 - Paragraph D of Article VIII has been changed to reflect that the number of units to be built within Pitkin Reserve shall not exceed 9 rather than 12 free market units. - Subparagraph E of Article VIII (see original Agreement, Page 14) pertaining to party walls has been deleted in as much as there is no longer a condaninium concept. Page 8 and 9. The Article pertaining to water rights availability is amended to read that the sixteen inch water line will cross the development parcel on the amended lot between Ints 8 and 9 and that service lines will be shown on the utility sheets. Please review Exhibit "G" with respect to the land valuation and park dedication fee calculation. This exhibit has been changed completely and I would like comments from the Planning Office and the City Manager as to whether Exhibit "C" is accurate in light of the amended plats. Please provide me with your comments as quickly as possible in as much as the owner is interested in cannencing construction immediately. If necessary, I am available to discuss this at a meeting with all concerned. , i FUND £'200 AGENCY ,F,1JNU ', ~~ ~ + ~ +I ~y p AT Y/ Ci~ ~ t~.l V ~ ~ ~ p 1. necnc N v u R No. ~ ~ c )Nnn WTNF.IkEhSURGR O: THE STHTE Oi COLORApO 04 14 $3 ~~ ~ ` G 4ZLQ 5 ll$ ~~ ~ _ & ~3Z(140t)!~1 CI-iARG[ 1U nCCOUNT Of- T OF REVENUE ' I ~~. ~j AitTMEN pEi n V- ,-Nt 1 ~ pp~ ~ I ~ - __ ~ t 'P "°'°"" GITY OF ASPEN ' I C I ~RpL'tJr ~ ~ I ~ :, ' 130 5 GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 f, ~ ` ~~ \ "" ' ~ (/r, 6 r:c~_n t ~ ~;~ ~ ~ t I, II .: I OUT OL ANY MONF.I'S NOt OTHER\'JISF HPPROP R~"Tt0 _ _ T^ ~m l 4la YW "'~ (~ '~L~ - ~_ ~~~, q--~+t~ }+q ~_ .-- L°~ _: C~~l~i ~ ~i11 Fe }aQ 2~L1 i~0 ~'f1 i; ~Qe;i ~. LS ~ pt~li° ~\ FF i/~.t ~)j `r~ (p~ a'{{~Tp Q/~5yy~~ ®• ~' ~ ~ F 4) ~• I U.J V~'~ l d~ V 1 {/~p/~p [y ((A yp ~~p/~{ V V L~~~.L 111 V •+q•.~ \.i4:n.-"~i rAVgfllF TH RO~.~cH ANY UPNK OR 1~:1N KER Ali 3-G"'OO~; ll DIVISION OF ACC OUDITS AND CONTROL ,,i+a..~~ I~ volt AFTCU e Mown+s FROM SSVE GATE ~~ 3 FUND zoo AGEircY FuNn li !i ~ ~l ~~~ ~~~ II I AG[ Y N '.O _R 'O. C /'.C"IIN~ QY " _ "' IRC TFEfSUR!_l<OF THE SI "IE OF CCL OHHpp ~HY fVEIR I y ~~ crinrs~ To F~ccouNT o1= ~~ (}[PAri tt'1ENT U;= REVENUE -- - - ~~ CJpt LJ RS ~~Ff.;1 ~AYTpTI~f .,-:Y Uf ASPEiV L ~ ~~~_{cc~a!r22 2i~~, 11R~)ER pF . -. 6 1 f /: -_' ~ -: ~I b fSV ~~ ~ out t)r "- :.+o'dFv~ ..)-r on~ERV+ra APrROVRlnteu t ~ t: '_~ s:~., ,: ~ ... _ _~f u MEP10RANDUh1 T0: City Attorney City Engineer City Manager PLANNER: Alice Davis RE: Pitkin Reserve Amendment to PUD DATE: October 19, 1982 ./ Attached please find an application requesting an amendment to an approved plan fer development of the Pitkin Reserve. The proposed amendment includes permitting the developer to construct either single family or duplex residences on the property, replatting the development parcel, and relocating the private access road and utility easement. Please review the application and return your comments to the Planning Office no later than November 3, as the item is scheduled to go before the Aspen P & Z on November 16, 1982. Thank you.