HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.700 Ute Ave.0031.2011.ASLU THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER 0031 2010 ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737 18 2 69 004
PROJECTS ADDRESS 700 UTE AVE UNIT # 701
PLANNER JENNIFER PHELAN
CASE DESCRIPTION SUBSATANTIAL PUD AMENTMENT
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN RICHMAN
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 11.11.10
CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 04.01.11
2 t 8 - Z- 6°I -oo 0031.e010,
Permit type aslu (Aspen Land Use Permit U 0031.2010.ASLU J
Address 700 ! JT E �rvE Q Apt/Suite 701 - --
City ASPEN State; CO i Zip 81611 0
Permit Information
Master permit 0 Routing queue aslu07 Applied 6/22/2010
Project( 9 Status pending Approved
Description SUBSTANIAL PUD AMENDMENT, CONDOMINUM MAP AMENDMENT -ADD Issued
SPACE A TO UNIT 701
Final
Submitted ALAN r Clock IRunning Days 0 Expires 6/17/2011 ,vs.
Submitted via ( v'rl - --- - !
Owner
LOS 90049
Last name I SEIDMAN First name DOV HALVE 466 HALVERN DR
Phone ( 1 - J Address
Applicant
❑ Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant?
Last name RICHMAN Q First name [ALAN
Phone ! (970) 920-1125 J Cust It I 26264 9 Address
Lender
Last name ID First name
Phone j ] - Address
CicSe <S
isozo
s4 Tel B1-7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, October 19, 2010 to order at
4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss,
Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Mike Wampler and
Jasmine Tygre were excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel;
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Amy Guthrie, Aspen
Historic Preservationist; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jennifer Phelan said the first meeting in December was the 7 and the long range
planners need it for potentially AACP issues. Phelan said that 12/21 was typically
your second regular meeting and she wanted to see if you were planning on having
that or if you want it to be cancelled since it's so close to holidays. Phelan
suggested having the meeting on the 14 rather than the 21'. Phelan said there
were some applications in so there were some things to go over.
Minutes
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from October 5` seconded
by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated this was a
continued public hearing from the 5 of October; the request is for unit 701 and
unit 711 to be combined at the Aspen Alps and they need a PUD Amendment to
have the maximum unit size amended to allow this to happen; at the last meeting
there were potential ways for that to happen. Staff still recommended denial of the
request however if you do want to permit this unit to be able to combine with
another and the increased unit size would be almost 2900 square feet. The current
cap size with a TDR is 2000 square feet. You have a couple of options to amend
the PUD and allow this one unit to go to about 2900 square feet or you could allow
it to go to that with a Transferable Development Right. Phelan said that the TDR
is codified in our code as a way to increase the size of a unit so it really is the most
rational nexuses to acquire that if you do allow the applicant to increase the unit
size. Staff doesn't recommend approval of it but the resolution is stated with
approval with a TDR landed.
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010
LJ Erspamer said they were talking about community benefit and it was always
troublesome. Erspamer asked Jennifer if she spoke to our counsel on community
benefit. Phelan responded that she emailed it to John Worchester and basically he
felt that we really should stick to the code or you are starting to do a bargaining
approval. Jim True said from their standpoint as John said you are going into this
bargaining routine and you have the nexuses problem; we do have justification
over the code to require the TDR purchase. True said there was consistency with
the code language and goal you are trying to get to allow that TDR. Erspamer
asked Jennifer when you extinguish a TOR the code requires a TDR to extinguish
500 square feet up to 2500 square feet or was it 2000. Phelan replied the unit size
is 1500 cap with the purchase of a TDR to go up to 2000.
Alan Richman said that he has had a chance to speak with Mr. Seidman since your
last meeting and he is please that we were working on our way towards a
resolution and you seem to be prepared to support combining Space A with unit
701. Richman said we totally agree if you are going to condition this on anything
from our perspective a TDR certainly makes the most sense. Richman said that
Mr. Seidman would ask you to at least reconsider the condition that you are
applying where you are requiring the purchase and retire a historic TDR. Richman
saidbasically for him to combine Space A with unit 701 he first has to purchase
the Borenfeld's interest in Space A and he also has to purchase the homeowners
association's interest in Space A and then he is going to remodel the unit and he
was walking Alan through some of that remodel. Richman said that none of the
commissioners have been in the unit but apparently the floor is not even so there's
work that needs to happen on the floor, there's work that needs to happen on the
walls and the egress issue needs to be addressed so this is going to be more than a
cosmetic remodel. Richman said that he was prepared to make those purchases but
what you are looking at is a sub -grade space and those 3 things together, the
purchasing the 2 interests and remodeling really amounts to a very expensive sub -
grade space. Richman said when you add the cost of the TDR to the purchase
price it really kind of takes it up and he made contact with at least one property
owner who has multiple TDRs to sell and they are aware of recent sales. The TDR
market prices have fallen along with the rest of the market but he thought it would
be at least $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 to purchase a TDR. Richman said that the
Borenfeld's and The Alps are going to have to change the price for this to work.
Richman said that they would love to hear of other ideas other than the TDR.
Richman said that Mr. Seidman would not only modernize Space A but make sure
that it complies with all the building and safety codes that would be required in the
application.
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010
Bert Myrin said that Alan and Jennifer spoke about a closer relationship to solving
the problem. Phelan said that when you fall back on what does the code require; it
doesn't leave those kind of options either. Phelan said that the Historic
Transferable Development Right is a mechanism for units in this district to go to a
larger size. Myrin asked Jennifer if she was comfortable with this being
reasonable but not reasonable enough for a recommendation from staff. Phelan
answered that it was a condition of the approval to have that condition. Phelan was
still not recommending approval of the units being combined in going over the
square foot cap in the underlying zoning.
No public comments.
Commissioner Comments:
Jim DeFrancia said that staff's primary reason for recommending against it is
because it would exceed the maximum unit size in the lodge district and I just think
if we are going to do something that allows that as an exception to the code then
there has to be a clear public benefit. DeFrancia said the costs issues weren't of
concern to this commission and he thought landing a TDR was a public benefit so
he would support the project.
Erspamer said that he liked to be consistent in his decision making and he always
looks at criteria and when staff recommends something I want to look at criteria to
oppose them and that justifies it and something that he can disclose. Erspamer said
he did not see that a TDR was transferrable. Erspamer said that he would like to
see more concrete evidence in the code to see the applicant and he doesn't support
it.
Cliff Weiss said that he has been rustling with this since a couple of weeks ago and
he agrees with Jim completely, there has to be something and the cost of this is not
relevant. Weiss said they were already in excess of code, code was written well
after all this was established. Weiss said 2 weeks ago he was okay with this and
now I'm much less okay with it now and the only way that he could make any
sense was with a TDR and if that wasn't feasible to the Seidman's it was up to
them to make it feasible with the homeowners association.
Erspamer said the neighbor has one but that was a previous code, so that is
troubling of what we go through all the time and to me if he could find some
criteria to support this but he doesn't see it. Erspamer said they need to be
consistent in enforcing this code.
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010
Weiss asked Erspamer why a TDR was not code enough for him. Erspamer
replied that it has gone over the limit. Weiss said it was already over the limit so
now they want to go further over the limit and so far the only reasonable solution is
TDR. Weiss said that a TDR was a public benefit. Erspamer said that their
financial situation was not P &Z's concern.
Myrin said that paragraph A at the bottom of the resolution this may be permitted
by the purchase and extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development
Right Certificate. Myrin asked Jim True if he was okay with that. True replied
that he was okay and it was justifiable.
Weiss said this was just this unit. Gibbs stated that the commission came to that
conclusion. Erspamer said it was written in the resolution that way.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #018 -10 with section IA
revised text. Jim DeFrancia seconded. Roll call: Erspamer, no; Myrin, no;
DeFrancia, yes; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, no. DENIED 3 -2.
Phelan asked if they needed another resolution. True said he didn't think that it
was needed because there was a resolution and it was denied. Richman said this
was fine.
Discussion of the motion prior to the vote:
Gibbs said that he didn't think that a TDR was appropriate here and in some ways
the code makes provision for the use of TDRs however he still doesn't support the
application because he didn't think that making a non - conformity bigger is a good
policy in general. Gibbs said he didn't see the benefit to do that so he will not be
able to support this particular resolution.
Weiss said the intent of that code change with the base of Aspen Mountain was
having large homes. Phelan said that the code has changed over time and single
family homes are not a permitted use in that zone district with the intent of having
lodges in the lodge zone district.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Aspen Modern Ordinance — historic preservation code amendments
Stan Gibbs opened the Aspen Modern — historic preservation code amendments.
Jim True had to excuse himself prior to 6 pm. LJ Erspamer asked if there were 2
hearings on this or was it just a recommendation. Jennifer Phelan replied that it
was a recommendation.
5
.., .,,/ I P1
MEMORANDUM .
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directo
RE: 700 Ute Avenue (Aspen Alps) Planned Unit Development Amendment —
Resolution No. , Series 2010 — Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: October 19, 2010 (continued from 10/5/10)
** This memo is identical to the last meeting with the exception of a summary noted below
and a resolution containing changes based upon the last hearing's discussion. Please
bring your application from the previous memo or contact Jennifer if you need another
one. **
Summary: At the last meeting the Commission considered a number of options if the Applicant
were to be permitted to merge units 701 and 711 into one larger unit that exceeds the maximum
multi - family residential dwelling unit size. These options included the purchase and
extinguishment of an Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) or an Affordable
Housing Credit.
Although the Commission may like the idea of purchasing an Affordable Housing Credit to
allow the expansion of the dwelling unit as a condition of approval, the potential requirement is
not codified and could be perceived as a bargained approval. Currently, the code allows the
purchase of a TDR to expand a dwelling unit's size and provides a rational link for the
Commission to require the Applicant to purchase a TDR if permitted to expand the unit.
Staff still recommends denial of the request; however, if the Commission approves the request,
staff recommends that the purchase and extinguishment of a TDR be conditioned on the
approval.
APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE:
• Dov Seidman Living Trust The Applicant is requesting to merge Space A
• Aspen Alps South Condominium and Unit 701 into one residential unit.
Association
• Ms. Mariann Martin STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission make a
REPRESENTATIVE: determination of denial.
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning In the alternative, if the commission supports
Services the amendment, staff recommends the applicant
extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit size cap.
LOCATION:
Aspen Alps South, Unit 701 and Space SUMMARY:
A. Commonly known as 700 Ute Ave., The owner of unit 701 would like to merge a
Units 701 and 711 unit with his unit to increase the overall size of
Page 1 of 4
P2
unit 701. A PUD Amendment is necessary to
CURRENT ZONING & USE increase the size of the unit as it currently
Located in the Lodge (L) zone district exceeds the maximum unit size dimensional
with a Planned Unit development standard.
(PUD) overlay.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to expand unit 701:
•
• Other Amendment. An amendment to a final development plan, found to be consistent
with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be
subject to final development plan review and approval pursuant to Land Use Code section
26.445.030 (C) steps 3. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority).
The recorded condominium plat of the Aspen Alps is considered the final development plan as
the project is circa 1960s — 1970s and little documentation is available on the project. After
further consideration, staff has come to the conclusion that the variations requested through this
PUD application can be reviewed via a one step process.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Aspen Alps consists of a number of free - standing buildings that contain multi - family
residential units and are a condominium form of ownership. The Aspen Alps provides front desk
services and amenities on site. The development is located in the Lodge (L) zone district with a
PUD overlay on the property. The units are considered multi - family units; however, since they
are located in the L zone district they are permitted but not required to be short term rented. The
use of the property: multi - family residential is important to note as there are certain zone district
standards that affect the proposal. Specifically, there is a cap on unit size for multi - family
residential units of 1,500 sq.ft. of net livable area with the potential of adding 500 sq. ft (for a
cap of 2,000 sq. ft.) with the landing of a Transferable Development Right (TDR).
Within Building 700, the owner of unit 701 (a three bedroom unit) would like to purchase space
A /unit 711 (a one bedroom unit) and merge the two units into one larger unit. Unit 701 contains
The status of space A /unit 711 is rather unique. Condominiums are generally divided into Units, Limited
Common Elements (LCE), and General Common Elements (GCE). Units tend to be the physical unit that
an individual purchaser owns, while a LCE is a common element that limits the use of the subject element
to an individual unit owner (for example a back yard), whereas a GCE is a common element that is
general in nature and used by the homeowners association (HOA).
Typically, a residential dwelling is identified on a plat as a unit. Although space A /unit 711 is configured
as a one bedroom dwelling unit, it is shown on the condominium plat as a GCE on the condominium plat
and owned by the HOA; however, space A /unit 711 is also encumbered with a "perpetual exclusive
easement" for use of the space by the original condominium declarant (as well as heirs). So, although
owned by the HOA, space A /unit 711 is exclusively used by the heirs of the original developer of the .
Aspen Alps. information confirming that the dwelling unit was built as part of the original development
of the building in the 1970s has been submitted and staff believes this arrangement might have been
created as part of the condominiumization of the building to avoid the payment of HOA dues.
Page 2 of 4
P 3
approximately 2,250 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum size cap permitted. Space A/unit 711 is
approximately 612 sq. ft.. If the units are merged, the total square footage will equal
approximately 2,862 sq. ft. To permit a unit of this size, a variation through the PUD to the
maximum multi - family residential dwelling unit size needs to be approved.
Aspen Alps is considered multi - family residential. As such the merging of two units is subject to
Section 26.470.070 (5), Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing, which requires
affordable housing mitigation when multi - family units are demolished or combined unless the
units meet an exemption from the requirements. Both units meet one of the listed exemptions.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A Planned Unit Development is a process in 'which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes
objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the
underlying zone district's dimensional requirements. The parcel currently exists with a PUD
overlay, however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and
dimensional requirements established to permit the merging of the two units.
Maximum Multi - family Residential Dwelling Unit Size. As noted previously, the Applicant
seeks to increase the size of unit 701 from 2,250 sq. ft to 2,862 sq. ft. The current maximum cap
in unit size for a multifamily residential unit is 2,000 sq. ft. with the landing of a Transferable
Development Right. As the existing unit is over the allowable unit size, the only way to permit a
residential dwelling that is larger than what is permitted by the underlying zoning is to amend the
dimensional standards for the PUD, specifically amending the maximum multi - family residential
dwelling unit size.
To accommodate the request, a maximum unit size cap of 3,000 sq. ft. of net livable space
should be considered. This cap would be subject only to the 700 building of the Aspen Alps so
any unit within the building could potentially become a 3,000 sq. ft. unit in the future.
Staff Comment: Under section 26.710.190, the Purpose clause of the Lodge zone district states
that:
"The purpose of the Lodge (L) Zone District is to encourage construction, renovation and
operation of lodges, tourist - oriented multi family buildings, high occupancy timeshare facilities
and ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance the City's resort economy.
Free - market residential units within this Zone District shall be permitted, but not required, to be
used as short -term tourist accommodations. The City encourages high- occupancy lodging
development in this zone district. Therefore, certain dimensional incentives are provided in this
zone district, as well as other development incentives in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS)."
In 2007 City Council capped the size of residential units within the Lodge and other zone
districts throughout the city. This was, in part, to encourage higher densities and the potential to
have more lights on in the core of the city. Part of the Philosophy under Economic Sustainability
of the Aspen Area Community Plan is "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high
quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor
population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and
varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges" (Philosophy, pg 31).
Page 3 of 4
P4
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the dimensional standards of the zone district, staff does not recommend approval of
the request to merge the two units and further exceed the maximum unit size cap for multi - family
residential dwelling units in the Lodge zone district. A larger unit may diversify the city's
offerings with regard to potential accommodations; however, a lodging inventory showed that
there are plenty of larger units available in the city's inventory. Staff believes that the goal of the
city is to provide smaller units that may potentially be rented and provide a higher density of
units within the city's core.
If the Commission determines that merging of the two units is appropriate, staff recommends
that the Commission require the purchase of Transferable Development Rights to exceed the
current cap.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council denial of the request."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council approve the PUD
Amendment with a requirement that the applicant extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit size cap."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B - Application
Page 4 of 4
....+ P5
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT FOR THE ASPEN ALPS SOUTH
CONDOMINIUM COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE 700 BUILDING OF THE ASPEN
ALPS, 700 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 273718269004 and 273718269010
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Alan Richman Planning Services on behalf of the owner, Dov Seidman Living Trust, of -Unit
701, Aspen Alps South also known as 700 Ute Avenue, Unit 701 with consent to apply granted
by the owner of Space A, the Aspen Alps South homeowners association and the owner of the
right to use Space A, Ms. Marianne Martin; and,
WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to permit the merging of' two units within the
700 building of the Aspen Alps; and,
WHEREAS, the merging of the two units will allow a unit of up to 3,000 sq. ft. of net
livable area for the subject unit (unit 701 of Aspen Alps South)and for any unit within the 700
building; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October , 2010, upon review
and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department,
presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the
proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the review, by a to (- -to - -)
vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals Granted
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the following land use review
with the following conditions:
A. Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission
approves the following variation of a dimensional standard from the Lodge zone district solely
for Unit 701 of Aspen Alps South (the 700 building). The specific variation is from section
26.710.190 (D)(12), Maximum Multi- Family Residential Dwelling Unit Size and shall permit
unit 701 to be combined with Space A (AKA Unit 711) to create a combined unit containing
approximately 2,900 square feet of net livable area. However, this increase in unit size from the
existing size may only be permitted by the purchase and extinguishment of one Historic
Transferable Development Right Certificate.
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 1
P6
t
N 7 i vae re ..
�blA s
Mar,UniSe 3,000 sq. ft.
Section 2: Building Permit
A building permit application shall meet all adopted standards of the city. Additionally, a copy of
this resolution shall be submitted with the application.
Section 3: Vested Rights
This approval shall be valid for a three -year period of statutory vested rights, as more precisely
defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department.
Section 4:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 5:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this _ day of
October , 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 2
s �.. P7
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 3
P 8 r '
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: Part of the Philosophy under Economic Sustainability of the Aspen Area
Community Plan is "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high quality,
and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor
population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops
and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges" (Philosophy, pg 31).
Stafffinds that the AACP does not directly address lodging.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above.
The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in
determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
r
P9
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding: The dimensional standards are set via the PUD and the request does
not affect the overall dimensions: height, floor area etc. of the PUD but would
affect density and maximum unit size of the PUD. The above referenced influences
do not impact the proposal. Staff finds this standard not applicable.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The PUD request does not affect open space and site coverage. Staff
finds this standard not applicable.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding: The PUD request does not affect parking on -site. Staff finds this
standard not applicable.
•
P10 ..
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development with its
current density. Staff finds that this standard is not met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: The density already exists as the project is developed and natural
hazards are not present that would provide a basis for a reduction in density. Staff
finds that this standard is not met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on
.• P11
average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of
the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum
allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing reduce the density on the site. Staff finds
this standard not applicable.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
7. For non- residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: As noted earlier, the application request interior changes to a building
and does not affect public spaces, manmade and natural features, etc. Staff finds this
standard not applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the
visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed
features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
r�
P12
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as landscaping is not affected by this
application.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character
suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing
of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non -
or less- intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing architectural character is
not affected by this application.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing lighting is not affected
by this application.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
w.. '�-'' P13
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be
met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing undeveloped land is not
affected by this application.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to enlarge and existing unit; utilities are
not affected.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
P14
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding.: As a proposal to merge units, circulation and access are not affected.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable to the review of the request.
•
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, October 05, 2010 to order at
4:30pm. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Mike Wampler, LJ
Erspamer, Jim DeFrancia and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre was excused. Staff in
attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community
Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
LJ Erspamer noted there was no financing for fractional ownership units.
Jennifer Phelan stated that it might be easier for the applicant's representative,
Alan Richman, to do his presentation first since there was a lot of history.
Minutes
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from September 21'
seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing. Alan Richman said that there
were two other folks with him tonight, John Corcoran, Aspen Alps General
Manager, and Lennie Oates, representing the Bomefled family that posse an
easement to unit A or 711 from the association for the right to use space A.
Richman said the 700 building was an element of Aspen Alps South, which
includes the 300, 400 and 500. The 700 building is its own land area and
association. Space A was also 711; they have documents from the owner that built
the space, which was built as a dwelling unit when it was first built and has always
been occupied by the Borenfeld family with a perpetual easement to the Borenfeld
family to use it as a dwelling unit. Space A doesn't have to be a member of the
condominium association or pay dues, the original developers of the Aspen Alps
were Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Borenfeld and both secured spaces for themselves in
the original Alps. Mr. Borenfeld passed on and his heirs do not use space A and
have reached a contract to sell Space A to Mr. Seidman. 701 sits right on top of
Space A and adjacent to Space A on the lower level; he kind of the most logical
person to have use of this space; Mr. Seidman is trying to make an internal
connection between Space A and 701. Richman utilized drawings of building 700
to show the relationship of these units, the entry to Space A is on the lower level
and the entry to 701 is on the upper level. Richman said they were proposing to
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
keep the separate entries; staff was concerned about the size of the unit we were
proposing here. Unit 701 is about 2250 square feet in size and Space A is about
600 square feet in size so when you combine the 2units it is about 2850 square feet.
Richman said that up until about 2005 this kind of minor activity would have been
processed at the staff level; it would have been considered a minor amendment. In
2004 the unit owner of 702 processed a minor amendment to a plat; the space was
a linen closet and he purchased it from the association and applied for a minor
amendment. Richman said the reason that we are here before you tonight is
because in 2005 the city adopted amendments to the Lodge/Tourist Residential
District, as it was known at the time and it basically did a couple of things. First it
changed the name from the LTR to the Lodge District and more importantly it
changed some of the dimensional standards; the most significant one was the
maximum unit size to 1500 square feet in the Lodge Zone District. Unit 701
exceeds the 1500 square feet standard today. Richman said that he has an
inventory of the units in the 700 and 7 of the 11 units in the building are over 1500
square feet. So you have a non - conforming situation with many of the units in this
building. Richman showed that the Borenfeld only occupied Space A about 31
days a year and during the same time period the owners of unit 701, their guests
and the other persons to whom the unit was rented occupied the unit approximately
103 days per year; so the larger unit was occupied more than 3 times more
frequently as Space A over that 15 year period. Richman suggested that minimum
Space A is going to get occupied as much as unit 701; the Borenfeld family really
has not occupied it as a hot bed.
Richman said the Alps back in the 80s and 90s the Aspen Alps was subject to
multiple zoning designations; parts of the complex were different zones. Some
portions were designated Lodge/Tourist Residential and were conforming but there
were buildings 400 and 500 buildings were designated R -6; there was a large area
by the tennis courts were R -15 and the 700 building was designated Conservation.
In 2001 the Alps came in with an application to develop a parking structure, tennis
courts and build some affordable housing in conjunction with that parking
structure. There was a time when the city was trying to zone one property with one
zone; the rezoning Ordinance that was adopted also had a PUD Overlay.
Richman said tonight was a proposed PUD Amendment. A PUD was put on the
Alps property for the future of an overall plan for at least portions of the Alps i not
fthe entire Alps, it didn't just want to review it as a subdivision but a PUD because
it brings in architecture, landscaping, it brings in all of those aspects. This was an
example of standards that do not comply with the code because some of the units
3
r'^
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05. 2010
already exceed the unit size limitation. Richman reiterated that the unit size
limitation came in 2005. Richman said there benefits that this application brings to
the community and the Alps complex, approval of this application will allow space
A to be modernized and be brought up to today's code, the homeowners
association benefit because it will receive payment from Mr. Seidman to purchase
the space and condominium assessments, a way for greater occupancy for the
space and they don't think that they are setting a precedent because they are using
the PUD process. Richman asked the commission to support the application and
grant the proposed PUD Amendment.
Cliff Weiss how many spaces are there like this one; you showed us the one under
702. Weiss thought he saw a couple of others in this building and more throughout
the complex. Richman said there were some storage spaces and all of those are
necessary for the function of the building. Weiss asked how 702 got the linen
closed added to their unit. Richman replied that it was superfluous to the building.
John Coracorn said there were other spaces in other buildings but there were no
other perpetual easements in any of the Aspen Alps buildings.
Weiss said that 7 out of the 11 units were over the size limit in building 700; what
about the rest of the complex. Richman replied that most of the other units were
built as one and two bedroom units; all in units in the 100 and 200 buildings were
less than 1500 square feet; the 300, 400 and 500 building each had one unit over
1500 square feet. The two buildings where the predominant unit size is 3
bedrooms are in the 700 and the 800 buildings. Corcoran said that in the 777
building all are. Weiss said that he didn't understand who owned this unit.
Richman replied that the association owns the space because it's a general
common element; the Bornefeld family has an easement that gives them the
exclusive right to use the space. Richman said all they have to give to convey is
the right to use; for Mr. Seidman to gain fee simple ownership on the space needs
to also have the association convey the general common element.
The Planning Department didn't begin until 1971 and there were no Co's at that
time.
Bert Myrin said this sort of gets to what Cliff was asking; the perpetual exclusive
easement and how should that bear on our decision as a common element.
Richman replied that he didn't think so, the physical action is really what you are
all about, we have to worry about how many conveyances and it seems to me from
a planning commission standpoint it's a question of how do you feel about
4
City Planning & Zoning Meetine — Minutes — October 05. 2010
combining these two spaces. Is that a problem or not. Myrin said at the end of
your presentation you said that you were not setting precedent. Richman replied
that was certainly the thought of what a PUD can do for you. Richman said the
merits of this application were its own merits, I am not proposing to establish this
as the law of the land, we proposed it as an amendment specific to unit 701 and
Space A. Myrin asked if someone else wanted to combine two units, how would
P &Z say no to them. Richman asked if it were someone else in the Aspen Alps or
somewhere else. Myrin replied another PUD. Richman said that you would have
the opportunity to make that decision. Myrin said isn't this about two things
combining. Richman said yes.
Mike Wampler said that he was confused about if we allow you to combine these
two units are you still planning on renting the lower unit separately. Richman
replied that you could and we thought that was a more attractive option from a
community standpoint. Richman said their proposal was to leave the two separate
entries. Wampler asked if 701 was in the rental pool. Richman answered it is
rented from time to time. Corcoran said it was prior to Seidman's ownership.
Wampler said that makes him skeptical whether he would put this one in the rental
pool.
Jennifer Phelan noted for the record there was a site visit today; they have public
notice as required. Phelan said that the request is to merge two units together.
Phelan said this was zoned Lodge PUD and these units are considered multi - family
residential but since they are in the lodge zone district they are permitted but not
required to be short term rentals. Phelan stated that codes change over time; there
is a provision in the code for non - conforming structures or uses; they are allowed
to be maintained but not expanded. Phelan said the Aspen Alps was developed
over time with varying unit sizes; as it happens City Council had a moratorium in
place and as a result was caps on unit sizes. That cap is 1500 square feet and can
go up to 2000 square feet with the landing of a Transferable Development Right.
Phelan said as a PUD you can vary the dimensional requirements, which is the cap
size and that's how this is before you. Staff does not recommend approval of this
request because it does not fit the underlying zoning.
Jim DeFrancia said on that issue of occupancy, two units versus one if it maintains
separate entrances it effectively becomes a lock -off, then you could have two units.
Phelan replied that if P &Z approves the ability of these units to merge there is
nothing to prohibit the developer to maintain a lock off.
5
%..,
City Plannine & Zonine Meetine — Minutes — October 05, 2010
Cliff Weiss asked why should this PUD amendment apply to the whole 700
building instead of just this unit. Phelan said it seemed to make sense if there were
other non - conforming units and one unit would be very site specific; there are
other units in that building that are bigger than the 1500 square feet. DeFrancia
asked if they had done that would that have changed staff's position. Phelan
responded no, staff did not feel it should be merged because it exceeds the square
footage cap for a unit.
Stan Gibbs asked if the PUD was applied to this building or the whole Aspen Alps.
Phelan responded the whole Aspen Alps. Gibbs said so modifying the PUD
modifies the PUD for the whole Aspen Alps. Richman answered not necessarily;
the way that the Aspen Alps is it has an unusual ownership configuration in that
there are a series of associations that own the land under their buildings so there
are 4 or 5. Corcoran said that they were bound together by the By -Laws. Richman
said you can have an applicant like the 700 building because the land area is
distinct from the rest. Richman said they have processed applications for portions
of the Aspen Alps without having the entire Aspen Alps because there are separate
associations. Phelan said the way that this was written was for that specific
building, any unit in that building could go to that size. Phelan said that it could be
pulled back and say it is only units 701 and 711 are permitted to be merged. Weiss
asked the down side to that just 701 and 711. Phelan said that it's very site
specific. Gibbs said with a PUD you have certain parameters and that all applies to
all properties in that PUD, is that what the code says, we can have one PUD but we
can have 5 different decisions about different properties in that PUD. Phelan said
it would make more sense to have something that is applied throughout the PUD as
a whole. Phelan said in looking at this since it is separate ownership in the 700
building we could apply it just to this interest; the site specific application to the
Aspen Alps. Richman said you could have a PUD where Phase I is single family,
Phase II is multi - family and Phase III is Commercial and each one of those phases
would have different regulations. Richman said the dimensional standards would
be very different for the single family than the multi - family. Richman said that
Jennifer was right that you would like to have it more universally than to have one
specific unit that you picked out and you get this and everybody else gets that; it is
hard to administer. Gibbs said if we were to do something along these lines we can
be specific as we want. Phelan said if we were going to say it was the whole PUD
we would need more consent from other ownership interests.
Gibbs asked if there was a PUD Amendment for the 702 closet. Phelan replied
there wasn't a rule on unit size on that point in time. Richman said this was 2004
and the change was 2005 on size standards.
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
DeFrancia said the staff opposition was because combining the units causes the
new unit to be larger than what is permitted. Phelan replied correct. DeFrancia
asked the public benefit for this application. Richman replied they were benefits to
the association and because the association was made up of a multiplicity he
thought that was the public benefit. Richman said the association was gaining no
assessments from the presence of Space A; combing the unit with 701 not only
provides the purchase price but also the ongoing assessments that will occur.
Myrin asked if staff would be supportive of this just turning into a one bedroom
apartment rather than the merger. Phelan replied the ownership interest could turn
into a live in common element, that's just an ownership issue; they have provided
enough information that was a legally established unit. Phelan said the biggest
issue was merging the two units and that would be larger than one now. Myrin
said from staff's perspective you could do that without P &Z. Phelan replied they
could change the ownership. Myrin said they can start as if they are 2 legal units
and make the decision based upon that and what's the public benefit. Phelan said
that staff doesn't recommend merging the units, however we suggested that if you
were going to approve you could recommend TDRs to increase the size. Myrin
asked Jennifer how strongly she felt about that TDR solution. Phelan replied that
would be a more equitable solution as other people want to increase their unit size
look at purchasing a Transferable Development Right to do that. Myrin said that
you mentioned Council's direction was to not allow this to happen; what does P &Z
do in those circumstances. Phelan answered that was for P &Z to decide; there was
concern for larger units being developed that raised concern for the vitality of the
community that people were looking for. Richman said that moratorium was for
the whole downtown.
LJ Erspamer asked if that 1500 square feet was for new construction. Phelan said
that was for new construction and you could go up to 2000 square feet with the
landing of TDRs. Phelan said if you had a 1700 square foot unit and wanted to go
to 2000 square feet you could purchase a TDR for the extra 300 square feet.
Erspamer asked if P &Z was final review. Phelan replied yes. Erspamer asked if
they had to change the code to approve this. Phelan answered no, you would be
amending the dimensional standard for unit size associated with the 700 building
only. Erspamer said that you said that larger units are occupied more. Richman
replied that was for this case; he said that he wasn't trying to make that for the
community; he doesn't have the data for that. Erspamer said this would be a lock -
off. Richman replied if you find that attractive, if you find it unattractive you don't
have to do that.
7
T
�..sV
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
Gibbs asked if they can require that this space be rented. Phelan replied no
because the zone district doesn't require that.
Myrin asked the applicant for something that achieves City Council's goals to have
these units rented and could be a public benefit. Richman responded that he didn't
have any authority from his clients to be put into the rental pool; the planning &
zoning commission could certainly oppose whatever condition it believes are
appropriate. Richman said if you want to pursue the TDR idea I would ask P &Z to
table this and then he would go back to his client and see if this will work for him;
if those are the kinds of conditions for P &Z to approve it; he will go back to his
client with those conditions. Phelan said to consider the enforceability of what you
might be considering; landing a TDR is enforceable, to make sure something is
rented out is a lot harder.
No Public Comments.
Commissioner Discussion:
Cliff Weiss said his real concern was precedent and the whole thing is non-
conforming and was all developed before code was in place. Weiss said to worry
about the Aspen Area Community Plan is over the top and the egress out of that
window concerns him and suggest keeping that entry door as another egress.
Weiss said he thought it should be all one unit. Weiss said he was concerned with
precedent and the amendment should apply to this unit only so that we don't have
this spreading throughout that complex. Weiss said he didn't want to see more of
this even in the 700 building.
Jim DeFrancia shared a lot of Cliff's sentiments, which is not trying to make a
mountain out of a mole hill here. DeFrancia said if landing a TDR would be
appropriate then there would be a certain consistency in applying that policy and
clearly a more demonstrable public benefit to that. DeFrancia said that he would
be inclined to support it if there was a TDR.
Bert Myrin said the concem Cliff raised about egress and the concern that others
have raised about it being from the 60s to him it has no bearing on merging the
units; if it were put on the free market the unit would be updated to code.
Weiss said that unit should never have been a unit; it would concern him if there
were a fire in the building. Weiss said that window had to have been put in in the
last 10 years. Weiss said to gain one hot bed he didn't see any public benefit other
than the TDR.
8
0
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
Richman said there was no question that his client was going to come up the
quality of the rest of his ownership on that unit. Richman said when you do that
the building department is going to apply today's codes because you will be
beyond the minimum standard for the code but if the egress is not up to code a
window well would be an excellent solution but it's got to have 2 forms of egress.
John Corcoran said that as it is it can never be a hot bed, it's a general common
element with a perpetual easement; there's 40 years of history that show that it's
been used by the family. Phelan said if the HOA of South Aspen Alps decided to
agree to return it to a common element because therefore then they would not be
paying to maintain this unit, they could do that. Corcoran said they were not
paying to maintain that unit now. Gibbs said that Jennifer's point was that you
could agree with some other third party buyer that comes down the road that the
family wants to sell it to other than the applicant; just somebody that wants to buy
600 square foot little apartment right on the ski slope and the HOA could strike the
same kind of agreement with those folks. Gibbs said theoretically there's nothing
different about this applicant than any other applicant. Corcoran replied that
wasn't true, this applicant was a known owner to the Aspen Alps and is different
than someone walking in off the street. Erspamer said that we have to approve this
because we want a legal egress; you can do that right now without our approval.
Mike Wampler said the unit hasn't been modernized.
Lennie Oates responded to Cliff's comment about the window; the window was in
there from the get go the windowpane was replaced because it was broken.
Corcoran said the window was replaced because it was broken. Oates said that the
unit was perfectly livable. Corcoran said that it wasn't in the rental pool now and
being in the hospitality business it has one door and one window and their market
is different than that unit. Wampler said if this is approved he would go with the
TDR.
Gibbs said that he didn't like the TDR idea and didn't think it was appropriate and
did disservice to the TDR program. Gibbs said he didn't see enough benefit; if we
could find a way to have that unit rented 100 days a year. Gibbs said that he didn't
want to put a number on it and didn't know if the HOA would be the enforcer;
those are details that would have to be worked out. Gibbs said if it were to become
a hot bed that would be the one thing that would probably cause him to agree to; if
it was a lock off that could be sometimes used fully or as an individual unit.
Weiss said the impression that he has is the potential buyer is not going to make
this a hot bed, so the reason I was intrigued with the TDR was that he doesn't buy
9
r
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
much of the public benefit beyond the homeowners association, which was not his
interpretation of the public. Jim DeFrancia agreed. Weiss said again we are trying
to apply the 2010 Aspen Area Community Plan to something that was built in the
60s. Gibbs said the even the 2000 AACP didn't apply to things built in the 60s,
70s, 80s and he didn't think that we wanted to go down the road. Gibbs said that's
what you are saying. Weiss asked how can you have x number of units, 7 of 11,
that are not conforming; you can apply what you want, it's already non - conforming
and any plan leaves room for non - conforming. Phelan said that pretty much any
land use code that you have has pretty standard language in which allows non -
conformities to continue to maintain, to invest in them but not to increase the
amount of whatever that non - conformity is.
Corcoran asked the commission what has weight as a public benefit, leave out the
Alps, and somebody comes and says I've outgrown and I want to get bigger.
Gibbs said he didn't know if they wanted to get into that now. Myrin said he
thinks he asked that question earlier. Gibbs said in the case of a re- development
there would be other benefits that would accrue; if it were multi - family housing
there would be work force housing; there might be other issues that come in and it
would completely depend on the application. Gibbs said we have to ask what is
the benefit. Corcoran replied I am not the applicant I'm here more of an
association guide, there is a lot of non - conformity in that building. Gibbs said
that's what we don't want to keep expanding. Weiss said that he was in the
hospitality industry and the only public benefit would have been if it were a locked
off short term rentable unit. Weiss said that's what the Aspen Area Community
Plan seeks to do is increase the 27% loss of inventory that we had; that was the real
public benefit that we could refer to and when we have the impression that the
present or potential owner doesn't plan to use it that way.
Erspamer said he tries to look at this objectively and with criteria. Erspamer said
that he was a little hesitant to approve it because there are other avenues to do the
same thing we are doing now but he wanted to be consistent on his judgment on all
of these applications. Erspamer said that he was still thinking about what could be
done for the benefit, work force housing or extinguishing TDRs could be a benefit.
Erspamer said staff recommends against it and he needs profound evidence to
convince him otherwise.
Lennie Oates stated that he represents the Bomefeld family. Oates said LJ
mentioned a concept and Jennifer noted that it could be about the notion of
converting the general common element to a limited common element; if you did
that could that be used as living space even though the limited common element
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 05. 2010
caused the living area to exceed the maximum that you have provided in the zone
district. Phelan said the unit 711 which is just over 600 square feet is now a
general common element with the use easement on it and that general common
element that 600 square feet if the HOA agreed to it could become a limited
common element. Phelan said that is just an ownership issue, it would still be its
own separate dwelling unit. Oates asked about the ability to create an access
between the limited common element unit 711 and the 701 unit. Phelan said that
again is merging two units together so we would be the same. Oates stated he
thought it would be a limited common element and you don't count limited
common elements. Phelan responded unit 711 can be established as a legal
dwelling unit so she said she doesn't care about the ownership issue; there is a
requirement in the code that any dwelling units, she consider there were two
dwelling units here, legally established can only be a maximum certain size.
Phelan said that one was 620 square feet and there is approximately 2200 square
feet, if you merge the two you go over your limit.
Richman said a majority of you are asking for his applicant /client to agree to some
public benefit beyond what we have proposed in this point in time; TDR or some
proposal that this Space A would be in the rental pool for some proportion of the
year. Richman said it seemed that if he could bring either of those to the table
some of you would support this proposal. Wampler, Erspamer, DeFrancia and
Weiss supported the TDR.
Gibbs asked if they could approve the resolution with TDRs. Phelan replied that
they can but she wanted to check with the attorney to make sure. Phelan suggested
continuing to the next meeting.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue the 700 Ute Ave PUD Amendment
with the requirement that the applicant extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit cap size
to October 10; seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED.
Richman said that he would rather go back to his client to say that the planning
commission would be willing to support but there needs to be a more
demonstrative for community benefit and come up with a date and if he was
prepared to do that and if he's not then we will come back on the 19 and say
thank you. Richman said that they can review the resolution between now and
then.
Weiss asked the other commissioners about consensus about limiting the resolution
to the unit in order to prevent precedent. DeFrancia, Erspamer, Gibbs. Gibbs said
11
City Plannine & Zonine Meeting — Minutes — October 05, 2010
that would be included in the resolution and some type of public benefit could be
determined. The commissioners agreed.
Erspamer said that he missed the meeting that was discussed for the Art Museum;
letters in the newspapers say that P &Z did not want to discuss it. Erspamer asked
what happened there and what action was going to be taken. Gibbs said that Bert
actually brought it up and asked if we should send a resolution to city council.
Gibbs said the consensus was that it was not a land use application that we didn't
have any authority; it was a legal agreement between council and this other party.
Gibbs said the commission wasn't in any position to craft a resolution of any
authority. Phelan said that Jim True was there and talked about the legal process
of the lawsuit and Jim talked about the process in more detail. Weiss said that the
impression that he got was that council had already made up his mind when they
settled the suit so anything that this commission had to say was pretty irrelevant.
Erspamer asked if the commission could follow it up with the newspapers from the
chair. DeFrancia said that a letter from the chair would be entirely appropriate.
Myrin said he raised this at the July 20 meeting and he hasn't talked to LJ since.
Myrin said that he felt very strongly that P &Z has been misrepresented and there
was some agreement about Chris getting in touch with the reporter. Phelan said
that was a number of emails that went back and forth; if we wait until the 19 we
can have Chris and Jim attend.
Gibbs asked if it was okay with his fellow commissioners to meet with Chris and
Jim and they craft something to go to the paper. Weiss said he saw an email from
Chris to that new reporter and he said he was done with it. DeFrancia said that he
was done with it too and favors what Stan just said. Erspamer said it was fine with
him. Gibbs said that he would set up a meeting with Chris and Jim. The
commissioners all agreed with Stan.
Adjourned.
miss, -
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission �Q
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directors Y
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 700 Ute Avenue (Aspen Alps) Planned Unit Development Amendment —
Resolution No. , Series 2010 — Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: October 5, 2010 (continued from 9/21/10)
** This memo and resolution contain minor changes from 9/21/10, Please bring your
application from the previous memo or contact Jennifer if you need another
one. **
APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Dov Seidman Living Trust Staff recommends that the Commission make a
• Aspen Alps South Condominium determination of denial.
Association In the alternative, if the commission supports the
• Ms. Mariann Martin amendment, staff recommends the applicant
extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit size cap.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning SUMMARY:
Services The owner of unit 701 would like to merge a unit
with his unit to increase the overall size of unit
LOCATION: 701. A PUD Amendment is necessary to increase
Aspen Alps South, Unit 701 and Space the size of the unit as it currently exceeds the
A. Commonly known as 700 Ute Ave., maximum unit size dimensional standard.
Units 701 and 711
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Lodge (L) zone district
with a Planned Unit development (PUD)
overlay.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to merge
Space A and Unit 701 into one
residential unit.
Page 1 of 4
�^ -
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to expand unit 701:
• Other Amendment. An amendment to a final development plan, found to be consistent
with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be
subject to final development plan review and approval pursuant to Land Use Code section
26.445.030 (C) steps 3. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority).
The recorded condominium plat of the Aspen Alps is considered the final development plan as
the project is circa 1960s — 1970s and little documentation is available on the project. After
further consideration, staff has come to the conclusion that the variations requested through this
PUD application can be reviewed via a one step process.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Aspen Alps consists of a number of free - standing buildings that contain multi - family
residential units and are a condominium form of ownership. The Aspen Alps provides front desk
services and amenities on site. The development is located in the Lodge (L) zone district with a
PUD overlay on the property. The units are considered multi - family units; however, since they
are located in the L zone district they are permitted but not required to be short term rented. The
use of the property: multi - family residential is important to note as there are certain zone district
standards that affect the proposal. Specifically, there is a cap on unit size for multi - family
residential units of 1,500 sq.ft. of net livable area with the potential of adding 500 sq. ft (for a
cap of 2,000 sq. ft.) with the landing of a Transferable Development Right (TDR).
Within Building 700, the owner of unit 701 (a three bedroom unit) would like to purchase space
A/unit 711 (a one bedroom unit) and merge the two units into one larger unit. Unit 701 contains
approximately 2,250 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum size cap permitted. Space A/unit 711 is
approximately 612 sq. ft.. If the units are merged, the total square footage will equal
approximately 2,862 sq. ft. To permit a unit of this size, a variation through the PUD to the
maximum multi - family residential dwelling unit size needs to be approved.
Aspen Alps is considered multi - family residential. As such the merging of two units is subject to
Section 26.470.070 (5), Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing, which requires
The status of space A/unit 711 is rather unique. Condominiums are generally divided into Units, Limited
Common Elements (LCE), and General Common Elements (GCE). Units tend to be the physical unit that
an individual purchaser owns, while a LCE is a common element that limits the use of the subject element
to an individual unit owner (for example a back yard), whereas a GCE is a common element that is
general in nature and used by the homeowners association (HOA).
Typically, a residential dwelling is identified on a plat as a unit. Although space A/unit 711 is configured
as a one bedroom dwelling unit, it is shown on the condominium plat as a GCE on the condominium plat
and owned by the HOA; however, space A/unit 711 is also encumbered with a "perpetual exclusive
easement" for use of the space by the original condominium declarant (as well as heirs). So, although
owned by the HOA, space A/unit 711 is exclusively used by the heirs of the original developer of the
Aspen Alps. Information confirming that the dwelling unit was built as part of the original development
of the building in the 1970s has been submitted and staff believes this arrangement might have been
created as part of the condominiumization of the building to avoid the payment of HOA dues.
Page 2 of 4
,d
affordable housing mitigation when multi - family units are demolished or combined unless the
units meet an exemption from the requirements. Both units meet one of the listed exemptions.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes
objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the
underlying zone district's dimensional requirements. The parcel currently exists with a PUD
overlay, however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and
dimensional requirements established to permit the merging of the two units.
Maximum Multi - family Residential Dwelling Unit Size. As noted previously, the Applicant
seeks to increase the size of unit 701 from 2,250 sq. ft to 2,862 sq. ft. The current maximum cap
in unit size for a multifamily residential unit is 2,000 sq. ft. with the landing of a Transferable
Development Right. As the existing unit is over the allowable unit size, the only way to permit a
residential dwelling that is larger than what is permitted by the underlying zoning is to amend the
dimensional standards for the PUD, specifically amending the maximum multi - family residential
dwelling unit size.
To accommodate the request, a maximum unit size cap of 3,000 sq. ft. of net livable space
should be considered. This cap would be subject only to the 700 building of the Aspen Alps so
any unit within the building could potentially become a 3,000 sq. ft. unit in the future.
Staff Comment: Under section 26.710.190, the Purpose clause of the Lodge zone district states
that:
"The purpose of the Lodge (L) Zone District is to encourage construction, renovation and
operation of lodges, tourist - oriented multi family buildings, high occupancy timeshare facilities
and ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance the City's resort economy.
Free - market residential units within this Zone District shall be permitted, but not required, to be
used as short -term tourist accommodations. The City encourages high- occupancy lodging
development in this zone district. Therefore, certain dimensional incentives are provided in this
zone district, as well as other development incentives in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS)."
In 2007 City Council capped the size of residential units within the Lodge and other zone
districts throughout the city. This was, in part, to encourage higher densities and the potential to
have more lights on in the core of the city. Part of the Philosophy under Economic Sustainability
of the Aspen Area Community Plan is "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high
quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor
population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and
varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges" (Philosophy, pg 31).
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the dimensional standards of the zone district, staff does not recommend approval of
the request to merge the two units and further exceed the maximum unit size cap for multi - family
residential dwelling units in the Lodge zone district. A larger unit may diversify the city's
offerings with regard to potential accommodations; however, a lodging inventory showed that
Page 3 of 4
-^N.
there are plenty of larger units available in the city's inventory. Staff believes that the goal of the
city is to provide smaller units that may potentially be rented and provide a higher density of
units within the city's core.
If the Commission determines that merging of the two units is appropriate, staff recommends
that the Commission require the purchase of Transferable Development Rights to exceed the
current cap.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council denial of the request."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council approve the PUD
Amendment with a requirement that the applicant extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit size cap."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B — Application
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT FOR THE ASPEN ALPS SOUTH
CONDOMINIUM COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE 700 BUILDING OF THE ASPEN
ALPS, 700 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 273718269004 and 273718269010
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Alan Richman Planning Services on behalf of the owner, Dov Seidman Living Trust, of 45 Unit
701, Aspen Alps South also known as 700 Ute Avenue, Unit 701 with consent to apply granted
band the owner of Space A, the Aspen Alps South homeowners association and the owner of
the right to use Space A, Ms. Marianne Martin : . - - . ` - - - - - - •. - - - ;
and,
WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to permit the merging of two units within the
700 building of the Aspen Alps; and,
WHEREAS, the merging of the two units will allow a unit of up to 3,000 sq. ft. of net
livable area for the subject unit and for any unit within the 700 building; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September , 2010, upon
review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department,
presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the
proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the review, by a to (- -to - -)
vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals Granted
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the following land use reviews
with the following conditions:
A. Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends the following variation of a dimensional standard from the Lodge zone
district solely for the 700 building. The specific variation is from section 26310.190
(D)(12), Maximum Multi - Family Residential Dwelling Unit Size:
Net Livable Area
Max. Unit Size 3,000 sq. ft.
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 1
Section 2: Building Permit
A building permit application shall meet all adopted standards of the city. Additionally, a copy of
this resolution ... : .. . :. :::: • - _ - :. :: • - _ : - - :: - shall be submitted with the
application. - - - -- ... _ _ .:. •
_. .
Section 34: Vested Rights
This approval shall be valid for a the greater of the three -year period of statutory vested rights, as
more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development
Department.
I Section 45:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 56:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 67:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of
1 September -, 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 2
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
P &Z Resolution No , Series of 2010
Page 3
� w
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: Part of the Philosophy under Economic Sustainability of the Aspen Area
Community Plan is "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high quality,
and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor
population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops
and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges" (Philosophy, pg 31).
Stafffinds that the AACP does not directly address lodging.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above.
The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in
determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
AIM
* aid
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d. Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding: The dimensional standards are set via the PUD and the request does
not affect the overall dimensions: height, floor area etc. of the PUD but would
affect density and maximum unit size of the PUD. The above referenced influences
do not impact the proposal. Stafffinds this standard not applicable.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding.: The PUD request does not affect open space and site coverage. Staff
finds this standard not applicable.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding: The PUD request does not affect parking on -site. Staff finds this
standard not applicable.
-te
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development with its
current density. Stafffinds that this standard is not met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: The density already exists as the project is developed and natural
hazards are not present that would provide a basis for a reduction in density. Staff
finds that this standard is not met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b. The sites physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual Tots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on
w
average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of
the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum
allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing reduce the density on the site. Staff finds
this standard not applicable.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
7. For non- residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: As noted earlier, the application request interior changes to a building
and does not affect public spaces, manmade and natural features, etc. Staff finds this
standard not applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the
visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed
features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as landscaping is not affected by this
application.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character
suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing
of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non-
or less- intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing architectural character is
not affected by this application.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing lighting is not affected
by this application.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be
met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing undeveloped land is not
affected by this application.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to enlarge and existing unit; utilities are
not affected.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: As a proposal to merge units, circulation and access are not affected
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding.: This standard is not applicable to the review of the request.
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — September 21, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present
were Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer, Jim DeFrancia and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre
Mike Wampler, and were excused. Brian Speck submitted his resignation from the
P &Z Commission. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer
Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
Minutes
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from July 6, with changes,
July 20", August 3 August 17` and September 7`" seconded by L I.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated that the
applicant wished to continue the meeting until October 5
MOTION : Cliff Weiss moved to continue the 700 Ute Avenue PUD Amendment
to October S seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor.
r 1l/
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
2
w,-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 700 Ute Avenue (Aspen Alps) Planned Unit Development Amendment —
Resolution No. , Series 2010 — Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: September 21, 2010
APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Dov Seidman Living Trust Staff recommends that the Commission make a
• Aspen Alps South Condominium recommendation of denial to the City Council.
Association
• Ms. Mariann Martin In the alternative, if the commission supports the
amendment, staff recommends the applicant
REPRESENTATIVE: extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit size cap.
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services SUMMARY:
The owner of unit 701 would like to merge a unit
LOCATION: with his unit to increase the overall size of unit
Aspen Alps South, Unit 701 and Space 701. A PUD Amendment is necessary to increase
A. Commonly known as 700 Ute Ave., the size of the unit as it currently exceeds the
Units 701 and 711 maximum unit size dimensional standard.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Lodge (L) zone district
with a Planned Unit development (PUD)
overlay.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to merge
Space A and Unit 701 into one
residential unit.
Page I of 4
r
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission to expand unit 701:
• Other Amendment. An amendment to a final development plan, found to be inconsistent
with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be
subject to final development plan review and approval pursuant to Land Use Code section
26.445.030 (C) steps 3 and 4. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
The recorded condominium plat of the Aspen Alps is considered the final development plan as
the project is circa 1960s — 1970s and little documentation is available on the project. Due to the
proposed variations requested through this PUD application, staff is recommending a two -step
review process.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Aspen Alps consists of a number of free - standing buildings that contain multi - family
residential units and are a condominium form of ownership. The Aspen Alps provides front desk
services and amenities on site. The development is located in the Lodge (L) zone district with a
PUD overlay on the property. The units are considered multi - family units; however, since they
are located in the L zone district they are permitted but not required to be short term rented. The
use of the property: multi - family residential is important to note as there are certain zone district
standards that affect the proposal. Specifically, there is a cap on unit size for multi - family
residential units of 1,500 sq.ft. of net livable area with the potential of adding 500 sq. ft (for a
cap of 2,000 sq. ft.) with the landing of a Transferable Development Right (TDR).
Within Building 700, the owner of unit 701 (a three bedroom unit) would like to purchase space
A/unit 711 (a one bedroom unit) and merge the two units into one larger unit. Unit 701 contains
approximately 2,250 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum size cap permitted. Space A/unit 711 is
approximately 612 sq. ft.. If the units are merged, the total square footage will equal
approximately 2,862 sq. ft. To permit a unit of this size, a variation through the PUD to the
maximum multi - family residential dwelling unit size needs to be approved.
' The status of space A /unit 711 is rather unique. Condominiums are generally divided into Units, Limited
Common Elements (LCE), and General Common Elements (GCE). Units tend to be the physical unit that
an individual purchaser owns, while a LCE is a common element that limits the use of the subject element
to an individual unit owner (for example a back yard), whereas a GCE is a common element that is
general in nature and used by the homeowners association (HOA).
Typically, a residential dwelling is identified on a plat as a unit. Although space A/unit 711 is configured
as a one bedroom dwelling unit, it is shown on the condominium plat as a GCE on the condominium plat
and owned by the HOA; however, space A/unit 711 is also encumbered with a "perpetual exclusive
easement" for use of the space by the original condominium declarant (as well as heirs). So, although
owned by the HOA, space A/unit 711 is exclusively used by the heirs of the original developer of the
Aspen Alps. Information confirming that the dwelling unit was built as part of the original development
of the building in the 1970s has been submitted and staff believes this arrangement might have been
created as part of the condominiumization of the building to avoid the payment of HOA dues.
Page 2 of 4
L
Aspen Alps is considered multi - family residential. As such the merging of two units is subject to
Section 26.470.070 (5), Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing, which requires
affordable housing mitigation when multi - family units are demolished or combined unless the
units meet an exemption from the requirements. Both units meet one of the listed exemptions.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes
objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the
underlying zone district's dimensional requirements. The parcel currently exists with a PUD
overlay, however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and
dimensional requirements established to permit the merging of the two units.
Maximum Multi- family Residential Dwelling Unit Size. As noted previously, the Applicant
seeks to increase the size of unit 701 from 2,250 sq. ft to 2,862 sq. ft. The current maximum cap
in unit size for a multifamily residential unit is 2,000 sq. ft. with the landing of a Transferable
Development Right. As the existing unit is over the allowable unit size, the only way to permit a
residential dwelling that is larger than what is permitted by the underlying zoning is to amend the
dimensional standards for the PUD, specifically amending the maximum multi - family residential
dwelling unit size.
To accommodate the request a maximum unit size cap of 3,000 sq. ft. of net livable space should
be considered. This cap would be subject only to the 700 building of the Aspen Alps so any unit
within the building could potentially become a 3,000 sq. ft. unit in the future.
Staff Comment: Under section 26.710.190, the Purpose clause of the Lodge zone district states
that:
"The purpose of the Lodge (L) Zone District is to encourage construction, renovation and
operation of lodges, tourist - oriented multi family buildings, high occupancy timeshare facilities
and ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance the City's resort economy.
Free - market residential units within this Zone District shall be permitted, but not required, to be
used as short -term tourist accommodations. The City encourages high- occupancy lodging
development in this zone district. Therefore, certain dimensional incentives are provided in this
zone district, as well as other development incentives in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS)."
In 2007 City Council capped the size of residential units within the Lodge and other zone
districts throughout the city. This was, in part, to encourage higher densities and the potential to
have more lights on in the core of the city. Part of the Philosophy under Economic Sustainability
of the Aspen Area Community Plan is "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high
quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor
population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and
varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges" (Philosophy, pg 31).
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the dimensional standards of the zone district, staff does not recommend approval of
the request to merge the two units and further exceed the maximum unit size cap for multi - family
Page 3 of 4
r^
N de
residential dwelling units in the Lodge zone district. A larger unit may diversify the city's
offerings with regard to potential accommodations; however, a lodging inventory showed that
there is plenty of larger units available in the city's inventory. Staff believes that the goal of the
city is to provide smaller units that may potentially be rented and provide a higher density of
units within the city's core.
If the Commission determines that merging of the two units is appropriate, staff recommends
that the Commission require the purchase of Transferable Development Rights to exceed the
current cap.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council denial of the request."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council approve the PUD
Amendment with a requirements that the applicant extinguish TDRs to exceed the unit size cap."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B — Application
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. _
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT FOR THE ASPEN ALPS SOUTH
CONDOMINIUM COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE 700 BUILDING OF THE ASPEN
ALPS, 700 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 273718269004 and 273718269010 . � C
W y
WHEREAS, the Community Development Depart nt received an application from
Alan Richman Planning Services on behalf of the owner of Unit 701, Aspen Alps South also
known as 700 Ute Avenue, Unit 701 and the Aspen Alps homeowners association for a Planned
Unit Development Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to permit the merging of two units within the
700 building of the Aspen Alps; and,
WHEREAS, the merging of the two units will allow a unit of up to 3,000 sq. ft. of net
livable area for the subject unit and for any unit within the 700 building; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September, 2010, upon
review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department,
presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the
proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the review, by a to (- -to - -)
vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals Granted
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the following land use reviews
with the following conditions:
A. Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends the following variation of a dimensional standard from the Lodge zone
district solely for the 700 building. The specific variation is from section 26.710.190
(D)(12), Maximum Multi - Family Residential Dwelling Unit Size:
Net Livable Area
Max. Unit Size 3,000 sq. ft.
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 1
.•,
Section 2: Building Permit
A building permit application shall meet all adopted standards of the city. Additionally, a copy of
this resolution shall be submitted with the
application. - - -: --...... ua :rs: -.
Section Vested Rights
This a oval shall be valid for the. greater - 17E4S three -year period of statutory vested rights, as
more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development
Department.
Section:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this _ day of
Septembe0 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 2
•
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
P &Z Resolution No. , Series of 2010
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: Part of the Philosophy under Economic Sustainability of the Aspen Area
Community Plan is "Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high quality,
and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor
population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops
and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges" (Philosophy, pg 31).
Stafffinds that the AACP does not directly address lodging.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above.
The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in
determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding: The dimensional standards are set via the PUD and the request does
not affect the overall dimensions: height, floor area etc. of the PUD but would
affect density and maximum unit size of the PUD. The above referenced influences
do not impact the proposal. Stafffinds this standard not applicable.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The PUD request does not affect open space and site coverage. Staff
finds this standard not applicable.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding: The PUD request does not affect parking on -site. Staff finds this
standard not applicable.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development with its
current density. Stafffinds that this standard is not met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: The density already exists as the project is developed and natural
hazards are not present that would provide a basis for a reduction in density. Staff
finds that this standard is not met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on
c
average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of
the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum
allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing reduce the density on the site. Staff finds
this standard not applicable.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: As noted earlier, the application request interior changes to a building
and does not affect public spaces, manmade and natural features, etc. Staff finds this
standard not applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the
visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed
features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as landscaping is not affected by this
application.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character
suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing
of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non-
or less - intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing architectural character is
not affected by this application.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable as the existing lighting is not affected
by this application.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be
met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Staff Finding.: This standard is not applicable as the existing undeveloped land is not
affected by this application.
I-I. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to enlarge and existing unit; utilities are
not affected.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding :: As a proposal to merge units, circulation and access are not affected.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable to the review of the request.
4tam R Ss
&z 3613,4tec, eolazada 81612 Ptene /lax (970)920 -1 125 aneeitatan@aora.net
June 21, 2010
Mr. Drew Alexander, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: ASPEN ALPS SOUTH PUD AMENDMENT /CONDOMINIUM MAP AMENDMENT
Dear Drew,
Please consider this letter to be an application for a PUD amendment and for an
amendment to the condominium map for Unit 701 and Space A of the Aspen Alps South
(a/Ida, the 700 Building at the Aspen Alps).
Unit 1 is owned by the Dov Seidman Living Trust (see Warranty Deed attached as Exhibit
#1). Space A is a general common element depicted on the First Supplement to
Condominium Map of Aspen Alps South, recorded in Book 3 at Page 374 of the Pitkin
County Records. Because Space A is a general common element, it is owned by the
Aspen Alps South Condominium Association. However, pursuant to the Condominium
Declarations, recorded in Book 217 at Page 189 (see Exhibit #2) the original declarant for
the Aspen Alps South has a "perpetual exclusive easement and right to use Space A ".
The Dov Seidman Living Trust (hereinafter, "the applicant ") is currently in negotiations to
purchase the exclusive easement and right to use Space A from its current owner, Ms.
Mariann Martin. Ms. Martin is one of the daughters of the original developer of the Aspen
Alps, Mr. Hans Bornefeld. The applicant is also currently in negotiations with the
Condominium Association as to the terms by which Space A could be converted from a
general common element to a unit space.
The applicant has submitted a letter designating Alan Richman Planning Services as his
representative for purposes of this application. This letter is attached as Exhibit #3.
Letters have also been provided from the Condominium Association and from Ms. Martin,
as the owners of Space A and the easement for Space A, respectively, authorizing the
applicant to submit this application (see Exhibits #4 and #5).
Unit 701 and Space A are located adjacent to one another within the 700 Building (see
attached map showing the buildings and units within the Aspen Alps. See also the
attached copies of the Condominium Map of Aspen Alps South).
C
Mr. Drew Alexander
June 21,2010
Page Two
The applicant proposes to make an internal connection between Unit 701 and Space A,
by installing a door in a common wall. The separate entrances to both Unit 701 and
Space A would remain in place. An existing and proposed floor plan has been provided
for Unit 701 and Space A, showing the wall that is common to them and showing the
location of the door that is proposed to connect the two areas.
We held a pre - application conference with staff of the Community Development
Department regarding this proposal. A copy of the pre - application form you provided to
us is attached hereto as Exhibit #6. This application letter and the attached exhibits and
drawings respond to each of the items listed on that form.
The following sections provide some background information regarding the proposal and
an explanation of how the proposed amendment complies with the applicable standards
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
Background Information
The Aspen Alps Complex
The Aspen Alps is an 83 unit condominium complex located at the base of Aspen
Mountain. Seven of the eight buildings in the complex were built in the 1960's. 777 Ute
Avenue was built in 1990 and became part of the Aspen Alps soon thereafter. A parking
structure, including three affordable housing units, a maintenance shop, and a laundry,
was completed beneath the tennis courts in 2003. A vicinity map that shows the location
of the buildings and each of the units within the Aspen Alps is included in this application.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association is actually comprised of five distinct
homeowners associations. The associations that make up the Aspen Alps, the buildings
they encompass, and the dates of their establishment are as follows:
1. Aspen Alps Homeowners Association (100 Building, established in 1963);
2. Aspen Alps West Homeowners Association (200 Building, established in 1964);
3. Aspen Alps South Homeowners Association (300, 400, and 500 Buildings,
established in 1965; 700 Building established on a second parcel in 1967);
4. Aspen Alps North Homeowners Association (800 Building, established in 1970); &
5. 777 Ute at the Aspen Alps (established in 1990).
Given the manner in which the Association is constituted, this application is being
submitted solely with respect to the parcel of land on which the 700 Building is located.
(See the first supplement to the condominium map which established this parcel and
authorized this building, recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 374 of the Pitkin County records).
d,s
Mr. Drew Alexander
June 21, 2010
Page Three
Zoning
For many years, the Aspen Alps was subject to several different zoning designations,
including both lodging and residential designations. However, in 2001, the City Council
adopted Ordinance 28, Series of 2001 (see Exhibit #7), rezoning those portions of the
Aspen Alps that were zoned R -15 or Conservation to Lodge/Tourist Residential. The 700
Building was among the buildings rezoned at that time. The L/TR zone district became
the Lodge (L) zone district in 2005, changing the zoning designation for the entire Aspen
Alps complex to Lodge (L).
Ordinance 28, Series of 2001 also placed a PUD overlay on the Aspen Alps. There were
several reasons that this was done. First of all, the Aspen Alps is an important
component of Aspen's tourist accommodations inventory at the base of Aspen Mountain
that dates back to the 1960's. The City concluded that having a PUD overlay on the
property would be an effective way to ensure that any significant development or re-
development at the Aspen Alps would require an overall plan for the property, or at least
for individual buildings within the complex.
Second, the City and the applicant recognized that because the Aspen Alps was
developed under a very different set of land use regulations than existed at the time of the
rezoning, it was quite unlikely that all of the development within the complex would
comply with all of the standards of the L/TR (now L) zone district. Therefore, the PUD
designation was applied to the complex to provide some flexibility in how the zone district
standards would be applied so that the units in the complex could be modernized over
time to remain vital elements of the accommodations inventory. In fact, since that time
several units within the complex have obtained insubstantial PUD amendments to permit
them to be upgraded or to otherwise change their configuration.
The 700 Building
The 700 Building was the next to the last of the original Aspen Alps buildings to be
established. The building is located at the top of Aspen Alps Road and has frontage
along the Little Nell ski run. There are 11 condominium units in the building, numbered
700 through 710. The units are located on three floors (garden level, first floor and
second floor).
The First Supplement to the Condominium Map of Aspen Alps South (Book 3 at Page
374) illustrates the floor plan of the 700 building. It shows that Unit 701 is located on the
garden level and first floor of the building only. Space A is situated adjacent to Unit 701
on the garden level only.
Mr. Drew Alexander
June 21, 2010
Page Four
The first supplement also illustrates that Unit 702 was the mirror image of Unit 701. It too
had a general common element situated adjacent to it on the garden level. That space
was a linen closet. In 2005 the City approved the second supplement to the
condominium map to allow the owner of Unit 702 to combine the linen closet with his unit.
This amendment is recorded in Plat Book 72 @ Page 64 of the Pitkin County records and
permitted the owner to install a door connecting the two spaces. The owner of Unit 701
seeks to accomplish the same type of connection to combine his unit with Space A.
Compliance With Review Standards
Section 26.445.100 of the Code authorizes amendments to PUD's. It provides for
"insubstantial amendments" and "other amendments" (a/k/a, substantial amendments).
An insubstantial amendment is a minor change that has no effect on the conditions and
representations made on the final development plan. An insubstantial amendment may
be authorized administratively if it meets 9 specified thresholds (see Sec. 26.445.100 A).
The proposed amendment to the PUD would comply with 8 of the 9 thresholds for what
constitutes an insubstantial amendment. However, staff has informed the applicant that
the proposal does not comply with threshold 9, which states that any change which
requires a variation to be granted from the project's use or dimensional requirements
cannot be considered to be an insubstantial amendment.
The subject application requires a variation to be granted because Unit 701 exceeds the
maximum unit size limitation in the Lodge zone district (the unit is currently approximately
2,250 sq. ft. in size and the maximum unit size limit is 1,500 sq. ft.). Connecting Space A
to this unit would further exceed this limitation. Therefore, staff advised the applicant that
this amendment would need to be processed pursuant to the standards for substantial
amendments. The applicant hereby requests that this single variation be granted as part
of this substantial PUD amendment. As explained above, when the Aspen Alps was
designated with a PUD in 2001 it was recognized that such variations would be needed
from time to time for units or buildings within the complex.
Section 26.445.100 states that substantial amendments are those which are consistent
with or an enhancement of the approved final PUD development plan but do not meet
one or more of the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment. Such
amendments require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing.
There is not an "approved final development plan" for the 700 Building, since it was
developed more than 40 years ago and has not been re- developed since the PUD
designation was applied to the property. Therefore, Section 26.445.100 C. of the Code
considers a survey of the existing conditions to be the approved final development plan.
The applicant has provided drawings showing the existing conditions in the 700 building,
and for Unit 701 and Space A to represent the approved development for this project.
Mr. Drew Alexander
June 21, 2010
Page Five
There are several reasons why this amendment would be an enhancement of the existing
conditions on the site. First, because Space A was built many years ago and has not
been consistently upgraded, it does not appear to comply with current health and safety
code standards for such units. As it is presently configured, the only emergency egress
from the unit is through the front door. The unit does not have a second form of exit.
Instead, it has a single window, which is quite small and is located above the sink in the
kitchen. As a condition of obtaining approval of this amendment, the applicant
hereby agrees to work with the Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshal to
create a legal second egress from the unit and to comply with other applicable life
and safety code provisions in the remodel of this space. This second egress is likely
to be accomplished as a window well design in this garden level unit
Second, the Homeowner's Association supports this application and sees it as an
enhancement of the building because Space A is an outdated part of the Aspen Alps
which has not been modernized to the standards of the remainder of the complex.
Combining Space A with Unit 701 will ensure that it will be modernized and maintained at
the same level of quality as the other units in this building.
Finally, the amendment will allow for the more frequent occupancy of Space A than has
been the case in the past. Historically Space A has only been occupied intermittently by
the current owner and his family. When Space A is combined with Unit 701 it will be
occupied more regularly by the applicant and his family. There will also be a greater
opportunity for the unit to be rented to visitors as part of the Aspen Alps rental pool. In
effect, there will be an increase in the amount of visitor accommodation space in the 700
Building Aspen Alps without building any new units and without expanding the existing
square footage of the building.
Conclusion
In summary, we have submitted all of the materials requested at the pre - application
conference. We have responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use
Code and have demonstrated the project's compliance with said standards. Please feel
free to contact me if there is anything else you require to process this application.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
AC
Alan Richman, AICP
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT #1 ' e n -
-e- g a_ a R +m' ` ' e 2-, ..� „,,,.v.,.,..m....,+ aTCroaDEa
lay . A.a _ —• of o' c lock _________ OM"
I . s 1 Fi terli`o 9 S'iFe__._ tat
I Re, ii on No
WARRAN 1'Y DEED •
3004
• be[wsm
THIS DEED, made en this day of Oe COber 15�_ 004 -. .
MGIC ONE STOP HOLDINGS, LLC
County 01 tf,�
Ind State of 9C0"_ pi__ ,_.
the Grantor(s), and
of the
THE DOV 6BIDMAN LIVING TRUST y
IpS ANGELES, CA 901149 1
of the t legal .__refs is :453 TUALLITAN ROAD
T of (l L r the Gr.+nl ee(x ): rap
01 t - -- c is, of
for end in consideration of the ores of ( §1, 950, 000 .00 ) IDOLLARS W1l'N That the Or )
Nine Hundred e• I
• One Million Nine h 1* Pit ty wltouaand and ed. 00/1
berg neJ sold and conveyed and by thee°
•• ant { blr of e lich 1* hereby nd confine unt o, hee morns_, psi salon forever, nil the ) •
ter receipt and bargain, atllr moms, red ry, sit onto the Gr en bein his h re and • Cetnty of {
re rotons does grant, 9 situate, tying .,d boys) in the �— {-
reot property, together WM (I nd Stale doS t of Colorado, described follows:
PETEIN 1
SHE EXHSeIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF e
p
rino known ss street number 700 UTE AVENUE, UNIT 701 ASPEN CO 53611
TOGETHER with oil and singular and hie edit a nwentf mod appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining
remainder rind 0-mol nders, rents, Issues and prof its thereof; and all tth a !Sto e, r
tad the reversion and reversions, w hatsoever of the Crentor(s), either in low or equity, of, in end title interst h he edd dbmrd rtononces; rennnres, veto Me Grenbeb 1.
premises, with NI) 0110 ,!) the and . Wises above bargained and described "ate appulr does covenant, gr ntt( )rant,
TO HAVE TE AND TO HOIA the Sold premises For himself, his brird rod p.rsnnal representatives, delivery
g
his yearn 'd nae In fen ever. the Grantor('), his heirs and assigns, Ibnt ht the timeCofethc •n,e.Iingmd indefeasible
ble
bargain, and e ns , hi and with the dro Ito pr conveyed, Me gnat, ' ndef
of Meta presents, he I well seized o! mph , end a good i r• hell r one .tier
oaten of inheritance, In feu, ne fan simple, wttl roc ode_ right, the some er free f old • clear f from Il for me rind
in n u , to and fore F.% si aeld, aid nirver kind fill oe convey the elm h.. A"Pwdframgg owl rent a.... I' of uh
prnnn, bn19a t o vales, hen teas, aerated Ay hu" 0 i tlw s.^"ht L.we n' a• (Tiff. Iwo .. )
eobinot r• genera env" for Nw o t one (•) 1n •eea,d•m with grata ^rlllt erement. Ifnol•
I as •^ u[lrvr T r d male T t s
,[hots_ In b Tl die rthrrle to f third p role. one riePns kT: b. t nvile rr "°rd• at aloe Otrvte•(s) b•• menial
ono ew+ * e a••l ere re era ata n[ .ntar •I i n . en "awes hr [`• : eh. Palle soothe) mn
elan wped[iwit ae c rsnnold in na•nadann• et re . n ln• xa t to th nr! Shorn al
ea .A /•a a s et t the by tar. shell to the oboe. de.arlbed real property ; rat
ino.ledB• are o n n„ and all Real tr aslant... .se petty all
etlew se ( T As.fr) i[ m. eavtrm•r r
SniLwf an o! the Preece ratan any operetta not Ilntrlsy M, the b.m.[le d Aurae. o[ ay
ere peaceable n ever best) In the quiet graearn°x. le any end arsons lawfully claiming ectelb 1M1e abate the Grantor( a) he shell and wilt WARRANT h eirs and assigns, a gainst all anti every pe or persons the on of my gender
pis anon for ni the Grantee 'in and the plural the singular, and
or any parr thereof. the sin9ubr mbar shell include the plural,
shall be applicable to all Enders.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grentor(s) has executed this deed on the date set torch above.
n °1C OP, STOP DlLDIRO , LL°, A DISCOW$IF LDI1T0D
. LIA BILITY COF0AFT y
4a aLO[I, VI F pF rlOplR
rn n
1
' STATE or r xrmisvr m ) '
li 1 ` ' '.
c eenty of YTLIIiG{AKEZ-__) ) ' T • .. t + F
l ^. e
It
blfa s m m chi d . . .
3
I
r 6 t foregoing IMt ....,, Ws sm v nose �a aTe1 ao --
yia- a .neon•[°° LIaA'fID LIYT t
rJ .433:xn -. a f� . -
� -. r m-.�) "' _� f „ "¢x s9� f r z _ y .
; t _ ..
r
.. - • 4. Description u: Condm__ninium Du' . „_ � h3 � ..¢ ` ry i
t deed, .will or other in.. Uunx _ � K I f
b `$...s unit de i nation anal building .. �..
-C EXHIBIT EXHIBIT #2 South" according to the First Suppl a ir k
the Gondomintu !' tn Declaration for s,i � l'` „ .k
r'a - 189 and Atnendment thereto, and F u ` :`
: vr�FiS>, ?''
. Page_ ". (Recording inG r- ,,, x, �:� c...
. vided) Every such description sb °°' 5 ,i s"
��� 9
sell, convey, transfer,. encumber
the general common elenteds and the limited common et..,,....
appurtenant thereto. Each such description shall be construed to include a non-
exclusive easement for ingress and egress to the unit, use of all of the general
common elements, exclusive use of the limited common e l ernes ls, and use of
all non - exclusive easonents.
5. Reservation 'to Enlarge_. Declarant, for himself, his successors and assigns,
reserves the right to enlarge this condominium project as is provided in . pa to
. - -- graph 32 of the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps South' -
b. Space A. The space depicted and identified on the First Supplement to Map
' of .Aspen Alps South as Space A is a general common element, and Declarant
--, reserves a perpetual exclusive easement and right to use thereof subject to ter-
' tnination of such casement and right to use as provided herein. There shall be
1,0 asSeSSfllCIIt against Space 'A nor against the owner of such casement for
Common expenses, assessments or real estate taxes; provided,. however, such
owner shall have the duty to maintain the interior of Space A according to the
provisions of paragraph 16 of the recorded Declaration as if such space were a
unit, Metered electricity to .Space A shall be paid by the owner of such easement.
The owner of this Spiace A casement shall not be bound by the provisions of para-
graph 25 of the recorded Declaration and shall not have any voting rights under
the provisions of the recorded Declaration. In the event of destruction of Building
700 a nd if the building is not reconstructed, as is provided in subparagraph (c) of
paragraph 28 of the recorded Declaration, or in the event the property is sold
ender the provisions of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 28 of the recorded - /Declara-
tion, such easement and all rights and interests appurtenant thereto shall :expire,
cease. end and ter, nivate upon the recording of the notice by the Association as
is provided in said subparagraph (c) or (e), and the owner thereof shall not be
entitled to any compensation for such termination. This easement and all rights
and interests appurtenant thereto shall be terminated and shall expire, cease
and end inunediatcly, 1n the event the owner thereof pledges, encumbers or
mortgages such casetnettt interest, or in the event such casement interest be-
comes the subject of a;judgutent or :attachment of any kind. Any such lien or en-
m n
- cubraces against this casement shall be unettforceable, and upon the filing for
l record of a notice of termination of this Space A easement by the President of ”'
the Board of Managers of the Association, such lien or encumbrance stall Thereby
be terminated for all purposes including title purposes.
r Every deed or other instrument of conveyance, lease or will may legally
.� _ describe such space as "A perpetual, exclusive easement and right to use of .
Space A, Building 700, Aspen Alps South, according to the First Supplement to
Map of Aspen Alps South, the Condotninium Declaration for Aspen Alps South
.recorded in Dook 217, Page 189, and First Supplement to Condominium Decla-
ration for Aspen Apps South reconle <I in Buck Papa
". (Recording
information to be inserted in blank - spaces provited). Every ry such description
shall be deemed good and sufficient . for all purposes to convey and transfer and
devise said interest, and each such description shall be construed to include a'
•
A non- exclusive easement -for ingress and egress to and front such space, for use
of the general common elements, including parking and storage.
7. Parking. and Storage Ar= visas. All condominium unit owners and the owner of
I Space A easement shall have a co -equal right to use of llte parking areas or
facilities and the storage areas; provided, however, that managetncnt and control
of sttcb areas and facilities shall be vested in a committee comprised of two or
[ g oo�aviaQ,‘s �
* 1/4110 , ‘boOlO
EXHIBIT #3
Mr. Drew Alexander, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: PUD AMENDMENT /CONDOMINIUM MAP AMENDMENT FOR ASPEN ALPS
SOUTH
Dear Mr. Alexander,
I am the owner of Unit 701 of the Aspen Alps South Condominiums (alk/a the 700 Building
at the Aspen Alps). I am currently in negotiations to purchase an adjacent area of the
building, known as Space A of the Aspen Alps South Condominiums. I hereby authorize
Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated representative with respect to
the land use application being submitted to your office for a PUD amendment and
amendment to the condominium map for these condominium units. Mr. Richman is
authorized to submit this land use application on my behalf. He is also authorized to
represent me in meetings with staff and the applicable decision- making bodies.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this
application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and
telephone number are included in the land use application.
Sincerely,
( !V
v Seidman, Trustee
Dov Seidman Living Trust
466 Halvern Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
a �
EXHIBIT #4
Mr. Drew Alexander, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: ASPEN ALPS SOUTH PUD AMENDMENT /CONDOMINIUM MAP AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Alexander,
I am the owner of the perpetual, exclusive easement and right to use Space A of the
Aspen Alps South Condominiums that is established in the Condominium Declarations
recorded in Plat Book 217 at Page 189 of the Pitkin County records. I have held
discussions with Mr. Dov Seidman, the owner of Unit 701, about conveying the ownership
of this easement to him. Considering these discussions, I hereby agree that Mr. Seidman
may submit an application to the City of Aspen to amend the Condominium Map for Aspen
Alps South to combine Space A with Unit 701.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this
application, please do so at the address and telephone number below.
Sincerely,
75 be � A b J�
Mrs. Marianne Martin it*
2752 La Strada Grande Hts.
Colorado Spgs., CO 80906
EXHIBIT #5
c: 41)sc
Aspen Alps
Mr. Drew Alexander, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: ASPEN ALPS SOUTH PUD AMENDMENT /CONDOMINIUM MAP AMENDMENT
Dear Drew,
Space A is a general common element of the Aspen Alps South Condominiums. Space A
is depicted on the First Supplement to Condominium Map of the Aspen Alps South,
recorded in Plat Book 3 at Page 373 of the Pitkin County Records. It is also described in
the Aspen Alps South Condominium Declarations recorded in Book 217 at Page 189 of
the Pitkin County records.
Since Space A is a general common element, the space is owned by the Aspen Alps
South Homeowner's Association. The Association has held discussions with Mr. Dov
Seidman, the owner of Unit 701, about transferring ownership of Space A to him.
Considering these discussions, the Association hereby agrees that Mr. Seidman may
submit an application to the City of Aspen to amend the Condominium Map for Aspen Alps
South to combine Space A with Unit 701 via an intemal doorway. Unit 701 and Space A
would retain their separate outside entrances.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this
application, please feel free to do so.
101 7
i
i
J�' J. oran
eral Manager
700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(800) 228 -7820 Fax (970) 920 -2528 Info @aspenalps.com www.aspenalps.com
Recipient of the 2005 and 2006 Greentree Award for Environmental Stewardship, Aspen ZGREEN Business
r ., EXHIBIT #6
s
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Drew Alexander, 429 -2739 DATE: 5.18.10
PROJECT: Aspen Alps PUD Amendment, Unit 701 and Space A
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman 925 -1125
APPLICANT: Dov Sideman
LAND USE REQUEST: Substantial PUD Amendment, Condominium Map Amendment
DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant would like to purchase what is identified on the First Supplement Map of Aspen Alps South as
Space A. After purchase, the Applicant has proposed to add Space A to Unit 701 of the Aspen Alps, a unit
which he currently owns. Space A is adjacent to Unit 701 and would become part of the condominium. The
added area would be accessed through the hall at the garden level of Unit 701 and there would be an intemal
door connecting the units.
Space A is a general common element with a perpetual exclusive easement and right to use. An amendment
to the PUD would be required to enable the connection of Space A to Unit 701 and to allow for the
development of a larger unit. This would be considered a Substantial PUD Amendment because the
proposed unit size exceeds the maximum multi- family residential dwelling unit size of 1,500 square feet. The
Current size of Unit 701 is 2,250 sq. ft. Therefore, the applicant needs to vary this dimensional standard to
accomplish the project.
This review would include a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Public noticing is
required. Staff recommends the Applicant discuss the proposal with a plans examiner at the Building
Department due to required compliance with current Building and Fire Codes.
If approved, the Applicant will be required to file a Condominium Map Amendment to memorialize the unit
change. If the timing is convenient and the case file is still active in the Com Dev, Staff will be able to review
this amended plat at an hourly rate ($245). However, if an extended timeframe elapses after approval by
Planning and Zoning, and the billing cycle is closed, the Applicant will need to open a new case file. Found
below are links to the City of Aspen Land Use Application and Land Use Code for your convenience.
Application:
http: / /www.aspenpitkin. com /Portals/0 /docs /City /Comdev/ Apps %20and %2OFees /tanduseappform.
pdf
Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/ Departments / Community- Development/Planning and Zontngfritte -26-
Land- Use -Code/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.100(B) Substantial PUD Amendment
26.445.030(C) PUD — Procedures for Review (specifically step three)
26.480.090 Condominiumization
Review by: - Staff for complete application
- Staff for application recommendation to Planning and Zoning
- Planning and Zoning Commission for Substantial PUD Amendment
Public Notice: Required
Planning Fees: $1,470 Deposit for 6 hours of staff time (additional planning hours over deposit
amount are billed at a rate of $245/hour). If the Condo Map Amendment is
submitted prior to the case being closed, Staff shall review this administratively
and at the hourly rate of $245. If the case is close prior to action being taken on
the map amendment, the Applicant will be required to pay $735 for a new
administrative review.
Total Deposit: $1,470
To apply, submit the following information:
Substantial PUD Amendment:
1. Total deposit for review of the application.
2. Proof of ownership.
3. Completed Land Use Application Form.
4. A signed fee agreement.
5. A Pre - Application Conference Summary.
6. A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address and telephone number in a
letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
7. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attomey licensed to practice in
the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating
the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
8. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
9. Existing and proposed site plan (also specifically showing the proposed interior layout after the
conversion of spaces).
10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development
complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include
existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide a written response to all applicable
criteria.
11. 9 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
Condominium Map Amendment
1. Completed Land Use Application Form.
2. A condominium subdivision exemption plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar.
Sheet size shall be 24" x 36" with an unencumbered margin of one and a half inches on the left
hand side of the sheet and a one -half inch margin around the other three sides of the sheet.
3. 2 Copies of the complete application packet and maps
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or
may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
EXHIBIT #7
ORDINANCE NO. 28, (SERIES OF 2001)
AN ORDINANCE OF TAE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PROJECT
PRESENTED BY THE ASPEN ALPS COND011MINTIl i A
CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, REZONING,
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT `GROWTR IWANAGEN EN OI7OTA
SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR LOT - 211 OF MOSES LOT A
REZONING OF THE LANDS %VIIrm'I CLU'DE LOT 2$, 113E 100, 400; AND
700 BUILDINGS OF THE ASPEN ALPS, AND SUR'ROUNDINGTang OWNED
BY THE ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, WATCH AR'E
CURRENTLY ZONED EITHER R -15 PUD OR CONSERVATION TO LODGE /
TOURIST RESIDENTIAL PUD (L/TR PUD)THE ASPEWALPS
CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITTUN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel 1D: 2737- 182 -56 -004
- WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the Aspen Alps Condominium Association (Applicant), represented by Alan
Richman, requesting land use approvals for a consolidated planned unit development,
rezoning, subdivision amendment, and growth management quota system exemption for
the construction of 3 employee- housing units and a two level sub -grade parking garage.
The property on which the construction is proposed to occur is described as Lot 2B of the
Moses Lot Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado of the Aspen Alps
Condominiums; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral
comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire,
Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks, and Water Departments; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the
applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department
recommended approval for the proposed land use requests for Lot 2B of the Moses Lot
Split including a consolidated planned unit development, subdivision amendment,
rezoning for the lands which include Lot 2B, the 300, 400, and 700 buildings of the
Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association,
which are currently zoned either R -15 PUD or Conservation to Lodge / Tourist
Residential PUD (LfTR/PUD)from R -15 PUD to LJTR PUD, and GMQS Exemption; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a
recommendation of approval, by an unanimous vote of six to zero (6 — 0), to the Planning
and Zoning Commission to approve the proposed three affordable housing units for the
employees of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, by an unanimous vote of five to zero (5 — 0), to the City
Council to approve the consolidated planned unit development, subdivision amendment,
rezoning for the lands which include Lot 2B, the 300, 400, and 700 buildings of the
Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association,
IIfN {I�flllllllllllllllllllllll1 IIIII lIIII1
66
49 820 II:51R
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
•
which are currently zoned either R -15 PUD or Conservation to Lodge / Tourist
Residential PUD (LTR/PUD)from R -15 PUD to L/TR PUD, and GMQS Exemption; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing
Authority, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a
duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council acknowledged Ordinance 31, Series 1992,
which placed certain conditions on the future development of Lot 2B including:
a. The floor area, bedroom and density attributed to Lots 2A and 2B shall not
be utilized by the Aspen Alps Condominium Unit Owners for purposes of
increasing the floor area, bedroom number or density of existing or future
Aspen Alps Condominium Units;
b. No further development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and
additional density or major new' recreational facilities such as tennis courts
and swimming pools shall occur on said Lots 2A and 2B.
And after reviewing the proposal for the addition of three Affordable Housing units on
Lot 2B, as part of this development, is in the best interests of the City of Aspen to modify
Ordinance 31, Series 1992 regarding the addition of the three Affordable Housing units
on specifically on Lot 2B; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance 28, Series 2001 shall effectively modify Ordinance 31,
Series 1992, which placed certain conditions on the future development of Lots 2A and 2B
and shall only apply to Lot 2B; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, by a vote of five to zero (5 — 0), hereby
approves a consolidated planned unit development, rezoning for the lands which include
Lot 2B, the 300, 400, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned
by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association to 1JTR PUD, the subdivision amendment,
and growth management quota system exemptions for the construction of 3 employee -
housing units and a two level sub -grade parking garage on Lot 2B of the Moses Lot Split,
City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
flI
R 33.00 D 0.00 - .
50- �
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1 •
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the request for a consolidated planned unit development, rezoning, subdivision amendment,
and growth management quota system exemption, are approved for the construction of 3
employee- housing units and a two level sub -grade parking garage Iocated on Lot 2B; the
300, 400, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned by the Aspen
Alps Condominium Association, which are currently zoned either R -15 PUD or
Conservation to Lodge / Tourist Residential are hereby rezoned to L/TR PUD, City of
Aspen with the following conditions:
1) That the Applicant shall provide full accessibility to the tennis courts Located on
top of the garage and that all bathrooms and office and laundry rooms require full
accessibility as required by the City of Aspen Building Department;
2) That the Applicant shall designate specific parking spaces in the garage for the
deed - restricted affordable housing units;
3) That the Applicant shall submit the following plans to the Engineering
Department for approval prior to application for building permit:
> Construction Traffic Maintenance Plan
➢ Construction Erosion Control Plan
> Drainage and Dewatering Mitigation Plan
> Noise and Dust Control Plan
> Soils report
> Full set of construction plans
4) That the Applicant shall, prior to excavation, conduct two bores on the Southeast
and Southwest comers of the proposed parking garage to determine the level of
groundwater. If groundwater is encountered within the proposed excavation, a
plan detailing how it wilI be diverted to the nearby mine drainage ditch is to be
submitted to the City of Aspen Water Department for approval;
5) The Applicant shall agree that if seasonal water, groundwater, or dampness is
encountered during excavation, the applicant will need to employ extra measures
to make sure the proposed affordable housing units do not have mold or mildew
problems. The Applicant shall agree to consult an engineer if this is the case;
6) That the Applicant shall conform to the approved dimensional requirement s for
Lot 2B as stated in Table 1 below:
L
R 35.00 D 0,00
•
r,
ti.r ,.
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Comparison
(units measured In feet IIoH Ir square feet)
�. ud r tl t �Vr7 I ii 9p �1) .. +t om .. ...._
w 3 1'a',®, n, r,�. .a ill AL aui '" i ., 1 �� 9i r
III , I I i I 6,000 35,327 35,327
1 1 -1 "i lid 1 bedroom / 1,000 sq. 5 proposed bedrooms
la - .I..1.2.1 , ,ii° ft. N/A on 35,327 s•. ft.
ti .t'i irk .1 Ill
60 feet 197 feet 197 feet
dl`(' 1' 2.1; i ,,, 10 1 � 10 feet 12 feet 12 feet
Ii, ' °fit II V
ti ),dl iI Lt 6i' " ". tJekt - 15 (west side) 15 (west side)
5 feet
6, 20 feet east side 20 feet east side
ry ° 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
r, Gs. ,, ;uk:i 28 feet N/A N/A
ilk Li 1 � frov
a; , II,, "1 10 feet N/A N/A
r
I i 1� '�. ;at ' L 25% 17.5% 17.5%
r.
t
it . 1 I' 1:1 N/A 020:1 (7,065 sq. ft.)
i ; s 3 - Ic II
2 spaces per two 5 Spaces in the garage
, k bedroom unit; 1 space N/A will be devoted to the
I T fi 1 ''" • er one bedroom unit three units
7) That the Applicant shall be required by the City of Aspen Environmental Health
Department to have the Aspen Alps management notify its contractors about City
ordinances prohibiting vehicle idling for more than five minutes, and not starting
construction work before 7 am;
8) That the Applicant shall be required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the
Environmental Health Department prior to the application of building permits. In
addition, the Applicant is aware that there are no special regulations pertaining to
movement of mine tailings in any area of the County or City of Aspen except
those within the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site boundary. However, these
soils may contain more lead or other heavy metals than other dirt in the area, and
nearby neighbors have already expressed concern to the applicants. Therefore, the
Applicant shall require their contractor to keep all mine- related soils damp at all
times as a dust suppression measure to prohibit the release of particulates into the
air. The Applicant shall contact the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center to
determine whether these soils can be taken to the landfill. If not, the Applicant
shall contact this office before moving soils off the site. The Applicant shall
consult with the Environmental Health Department once they have soils test
flj llIffIllILII#j; . OUNTY CO . Slf
results. Finally, the Applicant shall maintain constant dialogue with the
Environmental Health Department and include them as a monitor during the
excavation of the soils for the project.
•
9) That the Applicant shall be aware that the Director of the Environmental Health
Department my require any person undertaking to conduct activity or
development within the site to test any soil or material to establish it's total lead
(Pb) content. All testing shall utilize and adhere to protocols established or
approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (pursuant to
Ordinance 25, Series 1994).
10)That the Applicant agrees to provide the Aspen Parks Department with an
excavation plan that indicates how the proposed excavation will take place for the
project;
11) That the Applicant shall provide the City Parks Department with an excavation
and landscaping plan for their approval prior to the application of building
permits that includes protection techniques to be employed in the areas marked
"trees to be saved if possible" on the current landscape plan. If the spruce trees on
the adjacent property directly to the south (along the fence) that are not marked on
the site plan are damaged during excavation, the Applicant agrees to replace all
the trees damaged at the Applicant's expense;
12) That the Applicant shall file an appropriate deed restriction agreed to by the City
of Aspen Attorney with the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority
prior to the issuance of building permits and the Applicant shall conduct a site
visit and tour of the three employee units with the City of Aspen / Pitkin County
Housing Authority Staff prior to the Certification of Occupancy;
13) That the Applicant shall draft a modified subdivision agreement that shall include
the decision by City Council to amend the current restrictions associated with Lot
2B of the Moses Lot Split and the subject of this application and present it to the
City of Aspen Attorney for approval and shall have this document recorded with
the Pitkin County Clerk and recorders office;
14) That the Applicant understands that the existing restrictions on Lots 2A and 2B
continue after the rezoning occurs. The Applicant agrees the deed restrictions will
not be dissolved by the rezoning;
15) That the Applicant amends the plan to provide better access from the employee
units to the parking spaces in the garage. Specifically, the Applicant shall add a
garage access door from the walk around patio in front of the employee units to
the top level of the garage where space 41 is currently proposed. Parking spaces
for the employee units shall be required to be dedicated as close to that access
door as possible;
I0�8 2 00 0 02 11:510
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
•
16)That the Applicant utilize a color treatment such as earth tones for the employee
units so that they are effectively blended into the hillside;
17) That the Applicant shall not operate a dry cleaning service in the laundry facility
proposed in the sub -grade garage;
18) That no night time lighting be installed for the tennis courts Iocated above the
sub -grade garage;
19) That the Applicant agrees that only Aspen Alps associated vehicles be permitted
to use the garage. Specifically, those would be vehicles of the unit owners,
visitors, employee unit residents, for maintenance and Laundry, and Aspen Alps
fleet vehicles; and
20) That the Applicant has agreed to begin and conduct the excavation for the project
only between October 1 and May 30 of the year(s) of construction of the project;
21) That the Applicant agrees to file for recordation a Final Plat / Plan PUD /
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office within 180 days of approval by the City Council indicating all current
improvements and conditions of approval for the entire Aspen Alps property as
described herein;
22) The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one tenth of 0.01 %)
in the ownership of deed restricted affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying with the recent
Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding rent control legislation. The
Applicant may submit an alternative option to satisfy the rent control issue
acceptable to the City Attorney.
23) The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar
charges related to ownership of the deed restricted affordable housing units.
Section 2:
The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, and is hereby amended by the
Community Development Director to reflect rezoning of the lands which include Lot 2B,
the 300, 400, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned by the
Aspen Alps Condominium Association, which are currently zoned eitherR -15 PUD or
Conservation to Lodge / Tourist Residential PUD (L/TR/PUD).
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this
application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic
Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby
1111, INN ullll 1 1111111 1111 11II 11 IIIII 11146 06 6 11:51 r
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
....,
•
, ....1
incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth
herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phra.se, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISITED as pro vicleclhy law, by the City
..claiicjl ofdie City of Aspen on this 23' day of July, 2001.
- i ■ :%2
-. -
. .
/ .
.:. k S ... !Cathryn ;. ch, City lrk le • alin 1 1 , * d, Mayor
li L oftl• v
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27 Day of August, 2001.
AtthttL
.7
i L
..- etiL..-a sa t .. ,
- -- Kathryn Si . Oh, Ci Clerk t. - en ;0, ' i .1 dernd, Mayor
„.t
i
:
yet
, .. i.
Usura as to form:
Ka fr < 4C
n orces r, City Attorney
1 H 1101 1111 111111 11 10 11101111111 o 11:519
SILVIA DAVIS P111CIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 0 0.00
MAPS AND DRAWINGS
r-.
,s
x
e ®0 taails 2uudS 41^OS
�4 ®N4N Q
5 O , OM n 3 c,
rim
. Q
�� e rw
0 on
I AA B0 ; ®
0 Inn i �� ®O ; ®0 f il ; 11 111 31111M
on
El kii
• , 0 13 13
mnu1ummri ® " 11111111 LI
E1 ." — _ ®U baba c
a. OZ . O IIIIIIII N -E ®®
11111111111111111111 ® s
Q
E
8^ $
�A laa4S 1DUr 4t ^ O
:I
6 '
j ,
cc
v
a ri , /1 pool/ I sdlyuadsy
4
; i5 1I II
x i
ryggry
,(141'...;14".; TAG .,, "w:+4.1 4, ""'t )11
e M■
caidic •
3
1; "-
6k AT
IIIIIIIISMW
1.\
3
ry4
'
f
E
. o... l - - -- T - -..
uh— s F-
�I iIILn
- –
nl' w '
i n
A 1' I C 1
�_� I ll a 1
I)
I
m ....
I .. - - _� s
1 .
H I - ^r' i� ..
III
_ - __._. S I•
o
i I "IP: idol , m Illii._
I 6O i
I `B . m ; wl
D r A I l 1_i I I r
II:
v 1 _2 0 n... a �# ! �y €
Ir F
D D - --� -- „ -- --
1.
t lilt° ,Ifii _ - and' i
m n , , --' -- 1
j l I a I
s I 0 1 'I i :o ; .
■
In _ — e k _ ' . _
n
III
II II
�. a r
N " F fly 1 sa
ei
0.1 !
ill
ISI§
Its 1
ffi ui,, VI ill
( ( y�•
iF .dip ' y - - - - • 4 / rres /714-1-4. 6 K/ az opt
E EX
Ilk
[ -4
r I elOC_ Cd)y _ N'2 dGV... ..
o V O
A o C
V p V V _ Z r T
N N v H ®.�
V
fr - ._, r--� n �, .° N
- ' y Y Z5
W ® �2 0
„1 o 2, o Z
y II a
��� _ = -n ut e N
Nxin
y �o� T gi Fri g 4 v 1 L �, °O z �-4 - D r i - v, Z
O 1 -+S2 1 r r m
D j GZ l lak i 6 0
1 0 ) 2 1 c 6 ® 26 O
C ` � B m 9 21
9 O Zv Z -i ^
� 0�3 -+� N e S l l
� m
�c x z
u �m co on�
g?ZD r r,3 v
it O
f
N 3 z 3
5 k Pt z
�®
g agi -ii - S e.
C R s rnz n p L Z
PI 0 V i n ° > ci
0 .
�� _ ' z n D
L > > c >- OE
C 'di 2 C --1 -. 3 gi9iz 5 n o m n g O
5 PE z 2 c
z E y 9 - , >
, 1 qf3 r r
gi P 8 NY. Z
m
?cc ® D
p r—
5P N
X10 r 2
• Z
g ®ooh � o ozac z g —CI
5 m "l!i �� �W ®� °o = ril "I
cm lietaz 4100 b
z
f /7 8 / c
�I l LI
i
q 0
4.. 0
s
i N y
gg,K 3 Sd IV AtddSV 9g �" F
3oQ <� = � ' ° da NaQISau NVwQIas ; „ a n
v e E 3�3 K 3 ? o .4 a o v V ,
I
3 s ° 3
r` o f 0 1 x7
i ii. c .-_—,-,—
■
111 1 ail
E
__,ice 3;
t3 0i 3 0�
--
"477 f ,t3 3 3 f'F L � 1
i ti 2 ..........11 k L yi
m d
m
F .�
° t h1 i
be
z�
0
Zorn
8r
0
o°
0
zu`3
Eal •
r.; a fl g
o�oza3
z m <m
/ / ! | a !n , @ m »
\�\ i HR !
o q �uaV &e
prla g . u S m m� § §\ , 6
' _ ca
:;!
f
±iAi.: � � 8 = , = — � i ( � f ! w !
t ` _
ill . - . .
/ 6-r- y.
i_ — ; , ! —
, n '' .
f - \2 f .
,`
M - 4 } ° s 4.
/ \ ' ~ l _ . � \!
.- ' -
I t AM — ` � \
!` ! @ .
q ¥.
1?
-
` —
, ; :
| | /
t| 1
, {
! , I | . \ \ §
j 1 J e
11 e ® e /
/ i §! —1
h2 ill
\\) _. I 1 . L
; §) },
z.c" .
. 3 ''�.., aDVdS �� a 1—ill 6
a a. g i U 9 Sd'I uaaSV 7 i� Q i k , F
i11 6 :t K anwauISau MVLsIQIaS A ai o z"
4
t
=r
hi
$O <y
F5 I a -'
a�
71. 0 °03
es
---- Hi Ng b t
1 lei i
m
oy
of i—
o0 3
.e, „ a_ !
x
oo Y
0
wo x 1
Ersx
°3i 1 I( z II x 1
1
U ; F
w�p § 3 !# ._ a V 3DVdS .,. ' °' N
a W ,t;q I I� 5 SW M aJSV a F °1 % Q we
i� g ' h 3DAtaUISatI 1 . 'rl"
0. �
i
tO
s
< 0
I S I S
[ 0 sod
11
l 'cla
\
1\ i < 8$ / I l
a
's' W sad
PACIalVA /
(_) 6 'A g n ot
Q g \ \ \ \E
f
ka
o4
t/
ou d
U
S'y g
6
Z
et
ZV
W
fI.
iril
■ � r
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — September 7, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present
were LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre, , Mike Wampler, and Jim
DeFrancia were excused. Brian Speck submitted his resignation from the P &Z
Commission. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan,
Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Minutes
The minutes from July 6 July 20 and August 3 " and August 17 were postponed
for approval until the next meeting.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated that the
applicant wished to continue the meeting until September 21
MOTION LJ Erspamer moved to continue the 700 Ute Avenue PUD Amendment
to September 21 seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor.
e.
J kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 17, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at
4:30pm. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre, Bert Myrin and
Stan Gibbs. LJ Erspamer, Mike Wampler, Brian Speck and Jim DeFrancia were
excused. Staff in attendance Ben Gagnon , Jessica Garrow and Jennifer Phelan,
Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Minutes
The minutes from July 6 July 20 and August 3` were postponed for approval
until the next meeting.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan said that the meeting would
be continued.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing on 700 Ute Ave —
PUD Amendment to September 7 seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor,
Approved.
Adjourned at 4:40pm to the AACP discussions.
4
to
kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
2
•
_ \ § a \
! :
B ` :
} ® -D !{
\ ) nl {
o / \ 2 : f
( 2 � ! �\ % q { a El
_ . \ :- ° \ ° 2
—
n ` § t ( oar
to vim m \ . \ [ . \ » x {
§ • _ ` / -. r \2 { ,
: ° . y _ > - t -
\ « \ 0 { . 2
\ • : - := :° 2 "el
: • ` o % , \ ` \ . \ \ 0 1
- ' / —
: � ! » , , £
r
..
0
° 0
3
3 3 D
D 3 D o
m ° oZ
N O
g m O Q? j s
° L @ 3 ° a m y 3
° � 3 a:' b
°,,,, g; a ' 3 p a,
m
3 E ro
n i
DLs
- r 3 a
n >v> w zOm F
"pOW O� m A al p ;p
co T0 �. �aC .4. mmz
Z 2 I'.1 la 2
,1 n °D M,> m to
0 m n
' °r QI m q O 2
'' _ A , N 'N > m
N > 6� u+
° Al
°
A M..
c
y -
0 Z 0 z
!1 H 0 N ' 1 n N
_ X - 2 A
H P/ o
- w m • = r- w w
a 3 L- a
o D D
cal Cab - 1`. z
0 D3�a 0 _ D3a 0 N Z D
- N OTC N
- 0 D224 1 t, � .. 0 4c :J 1 � 1 1
f T -J A i �, 0 mrD:.AEI O
rAA
o Fin .rz 1 ,i ) i o mrz
O V 1 _ O r ) _ 0
y a f'1 i I - a n 1 I _ -Ora I'1 = 3 0.0 = 0:0 = On
000 - 1 = 000 i 4 '`I = aim v
A-Z — a A-IZ o a ZAZ
a 0 0 V E V EDO
_ N, a:n — N DLn - 0 Dori 3ZA — AZA - I Ara
- 0 Oa a D ec '' 0 all 0
- e 8 r. ( I I ' _e a
D O — N N _ 0 0
' 0 W 0 n 0
nna ss,wnerm ,rm
V
ATTACHMENT7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ki■ Pc \QS U.Jr 1c\ a1‘1 , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 'ha r4 11 0
RECEIED
STATE OF COLORADO ) AUG 1 7 2010
) ss.
County of Pitkin ) CITY OF ASPEN
N. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N. N. 'c" �� NA. WOr (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice :: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide
and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 2∎Q day of
c , 201 , to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
f Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
3
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such ame dments.
c
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac nowledgeA before me this 3niday
of 4"U9ttSt" , 20/r0, by h! but_ /b CAnctat
✓/ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
-1-I1; ‘,`‘ ` �t �
j ,......
.,,� `�,
� My co mission expires: (
.. 4h
t S"( y 4
∎ ,'d=' )) Notary Public
FF > i .i
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 700 UTE AVENUE, UNIT 701, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 17, 2010, at
a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Alan
Richman Planning Services on behalf of the Dov Seidman Living Trust, 466 Halvern Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90049 who is the owner of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to enlarge
unit 701 by merging it with a common element of the condominium. In order to enlarge unit 701,
the applicant is requesting the following development approvals: Planned Unit Development
Amendment. The subject properties are described as Aspen Alps South Unit 711 A.K.A. Unit A
and Aspen Alps South Unit 701. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.5090,
jennifep @ci.aspen.co.us.
s /Stan Gibbs, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 1, 2010
City of Aspen Account
..... ---Th.
. .
)
t
. le
.i i:
... . •
-
,,-,c,"
*
rtts .ir . ..s ,
..- i. tet;,-; .,
., PI t.„;,..fry
,-, 4af
. ,
,.,-, ..: r,p7giots,
if L i t
r An 5
ilirja; . '
ate. - • •
. ,..<
0 •
ii ,l,t6 4 JO.
, ,.,,ti.
Easy Peel® Labels 1 • MOM Bend along line to i C\ AVERY@ 5160®
Use Avery® Template 5160® j '.Feed Paper expose Pop - Up Edge "' ` ---,,
•
120 WATER STREET CORP ALPS PARTNERS
AJAX SLOPESIDE LLC
C/O ASPEN ALPS 240 RAMSAY RD C/0 PETE SCHENKEL
700 S UTE AVE PO BOX 703806
DEERFIELD, IL 60015 -3438
ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75370 -3806
ASPEN ALPS 123 LLC ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
C/0 DEBRA MAYER PO BOX 1128 PO BOX 1248
22 ALICE LANE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST AUHLL RICHARD A BAECHLE JAMES
PO BOX 940 546 MIRAMONTE DR 156 HORSESHOE RD
ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109 MILL NECK, NY 11765
BILLINGS PRENTICE BOYD BLACK SWAN UNIT D LLC BORNEFELD BRUCE K 1/3 INT
20 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD C/O CARISSA PEREIRA 2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS
ASPEN, CO 81611 115 MCARTHUR RIDGE CT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
NASHVILLE, TN 37220
CABANISS WILLIAM J QUAL RES TRUST CARMAN PETER COONEY THOMAS E
3812 FOREST GLEN DR 700 UTE AVE #808 PO BOX 4517
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35213 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
CORCORAN DANIEL DEVORE KARINJO FIGI J TODD REV TRUST
PO BOX 1881 PO BOX 03 C/0 JT FIGI ENTERPRISES
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1668
LA JOLLA, CA 92038
FORD SIMON JOHN HUBIRD & JULIE FOXS LEGACY LLC FRIEDMAN RICHARD L
DERKS 400 E MAIN ST 20 UNIVERSITY RD
700 LYNCOTT ASPEN, CO 81611 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 -5756
NORTH MUSKEGON, MI 49445
GAINES SUSAN R GARTEN HERBERT & SUSAN F GELFAND HERBERT M TRUSTEE 50%
700 S UTE AVE 36 S CHARLES ST GELFAND BEVERLY J TRUSTEE 50%
ASPEN, CO 81611 2300 CHARLES CENTER S 9431 SUNSET BLVD
BALTIMORE, MD 21201 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
GRASMEHR SHARON E GRAYSON GERALD GRIEF IRVIN JR & NANETTE
PO BOX 8896 10147 BLUFFMONT LN 36 S CHARLES ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 LONE TREE, CO 80124 2300 CHARLES CENTER S
BALTIMORE, MD 21201
•
HALGLENN CORP HARRIS JOHN B GST TRUST 50% HODGE RON
4400 BISCAYNE BLVD #950 HARRIS LUCY A GST TRUST 50% ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD #10
MIAMI, FL 33137 -3212 31 MARJORY LN ASPEN, CO 81612
SCARSDALE, NY 10583
Etiquettes faciles d peter 1 • Repliez a la hachure afin del www.avery.com Sens de
l
U le nabarit AVERY® 5160 ! reveler le rebind P 1- R00- GO -AVFRV
Easy Peel® Labels i • III Bend along line to 1 AVERY® 5160®
Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM i .,..
HURT FAMILY LP ISAAC JENNIFER F REV TRUST JACOBS HARLAN & DEBRA TRUST
1060 AVONDALE RD PO BOX 1300 8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR
SAN MARINO, CA 91108 SONOITA, AZ 85637 -1300 LA JOLLA, CA 92037
KAPLAN JEROME A KELLER KURT E KENNER PATRICIA
6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403 PO BOX 840 720 PARK AVE
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10021
LAMBERTI PAULA LNR LLC LODESTAR WEST LLC
PO BOX 8685 C/0 AMERICA DEV & INVEST LTD 175 BELLEVUE DR
ASPEN, CO 81612 14881 QUORUM DR # 200 BOULDER, CO 80302
DALLAS, TX 75254
MARTIN HARRY M 1/6 MAUTNER RICHARD & MARIANNE MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M
2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS 2660 PEACHTREE RD NW APT 25A/B TWO COVENTRY CT
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 ATLANTA, GA 30305 PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208
MILLER LORRAINE MITCHELL GEORGE P MMR ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST
PO BOX 5136 10077 GROGANS MILL RD #475 1225 WESTMOOR RD
ASPEN, CO 81612 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 WINNETKA, IL 60093
MORRIS DIANE L TRUST MORTON JENNY S NAZCA LLC
C/O BROWN SUSAN BOEING 8 PELHAM CRESENT 275 TRADEWIND DR
2550 SCOTT ST LONDON SW7 2NP UK, PALM BEACH, FL 33480
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
OHERRON KENNEDY C PARKER K E TRUSTEE PECKHAM THOMAS C
NORMAN PATRICIA OHERRON 101 LIBERTY ST PO BOX 9766
2424 GLENWOOD AVE #101 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 ASPEN, CO 81612
RALIEGH, NC 27608
PITKIN COUNTY PORTER ROBERT A & CHARLYNN PRESNALL BETTY 1/3 INT
530E MAIN ST #302 MAXWELL 2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS
ASPEN, CO 81611 611 PARKWAY STE F -13 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
GATLINBURG, TN 37738
QD FORECASTLE LLC RIDDELL BRALEY LLC ROTH WALTER TRUSTEE
QUARTERDECK HOLDING LLC 2900 WESLAYAN RD STE 500 C/0 D ANCONA & PFLAUM
ONE NORTHFIELD PLAZA # 530 HOUSTON, TX 77027 111 E WACKER DR STE 2800
NORTHFIELD, IL 600931216 CHICAGO, IL 60601
SCHAFFER REALTY HOLDINGS II LLC SEIDMAN DOV LIVING TRUST SPENCER DAVID B
C/0 LESLIE SCHAFFER 320 WEST 78TH ST 1217 ROYAL ST #1
161 E CHICAGO AVE #36E NEW YORK, NY 10024 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116
CHICAGO, IL 60611
@tiquettes faciles peler 1 A Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com
Sens de
Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 5160® reveler le rebord Poo - UoTM ! 1 - 800 - GO - AVERY 1
Easy Peel® Labels i • Bend along line to
Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM j ----,
❑ AVER'
STEEL ROBERT & GILLIAN STEINBERG TODD N TAGUE PETER & CHERYL
71 MAYFAIR LN BARRY LISA L 7 PARK AVE TER
GREENWICH, CT 06831 166 DUANE ST #3B BRONXVILLE, NY 10708
NEW YORK, NY 10013
TROTTER GRETA R TRUST 17.2413% ° TROTTER WM E II FAM TRUST NO 5
TROTTER GRETA R TRUSTEE TROTTER WILLIAM E II 12.3943/°
7553 HIGH AVE PO BOX 92610 17.1664%
LA JOLLA, CA 92037 LAFAYETTE, LA 70509 -2610 ARONSON RACHEL PRISK TRUSTEE
103 VENDANGE
MANDEVILLE, LA 70471
TROTTER WM E II FAM TRUST NO 6 WILSON MICHAEL
/° WINKLER REV TRST
17.7328
TROTTER GRETA R & WM E III 8 ELM ST 840 LOMA VISTA DR
TRUSTEES MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
600 JEFFERSON ST STE 1202
LAFAYETTE, LA 70501
WINTER RUTH F TRUSTEE ZEFF RICHARD L TRUST ZGTAR TRUST
175 E DELAWARE PL APT 8404 14 EVERGREEN WAY ONE MARITIME PLAZA #1220
CHICAGO, IL 60616 STRATHAM, NH 03885 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
Etiquettes faciles a peler •
® i Repliez z la hachure afin del www.avery.com i
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY ® 5160® Sens de
___ tavola. is .a� aa4 „_.0 ry
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
200 Ctl7A,AQ, /,(gn,. ): 701 , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
-ra eat w t4-v /7 € 4 :36pr , 200 0
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin
I Awrek S(c (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to The City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
(Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
heig{it. $jd.no.tice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously yisible from the day of 200, to
aria inGlulling;ttedatq,neltime ofthe public hearing. A photograph of the posted
'notice (sign ;is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 2- day
of tt act , 20p0 , by •Theo ft
•
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PNENI UNIT E
RE: ]EV T DEVELOPMENT PMENT AVENUE, AMENDMENT NT PLANNED
U My commission expires: {)/
UNIT ANDNM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN L that a public hearing • be held on Tuesday, August 17, 2010, at a
meetingm begnat4:30 mia beforehe A
Planning ago Zoning Commission, Sis C ities
Aspen , g Roo City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Notary Public
Aspen, to con Plan an a ervic is 0 submi otl b J
Alen Seidman Plannin Services iv m Dr Los
Anged
Angeles, Ce Living Trust, is he o Drive, t he
Angelee, p The applicant is as to who is the owner of en-
large unit property. it •
701 The with co mmg
element of !n-
largit the condominium. 1 on merging it I n with r ce
evl p the applicant re
is requesting e
In ing the t o enlarge
development ts: Planned Unit th following
tl Amed ent.The approvals: subject pro ei
me properties
A oe-
nt d as Aspen South h U Unit 711 A.K.A. As are nit
A and Aspen es Alps South Alps u it 7an. 11 or u fCit he
r
tl c unit Jvenif r P helan a 701. l th e further ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE•
Aspe information,
Community Development Phelan the t, 130
Aspen Cmty lopment Deparlmenq
ienn✓eS. Ga Lalena s spe t•, n. Aco.spus. en, CO. (970) 429.5090, iEPUBLICATION
n•c
NSW C omm Chair PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Gibbs, Co
Aspen Planning and Zoning h air
Published in Aapen Times weekly on August 1, E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
-
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24 -65.5 -103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF GERALD HEWEY
STATE OF COLORADO )
Gam' - M4& J. 1C.µ/) ss.
�FiI}COUNTY OF-DENVER)
The undersigned, Gerald Hewey, being first duly sworn upon his oath states and
avers as follows:
1. My name is Gerald Hewey.
2. My address is /f57 Z, R; 'ytt S P4 90 /j&NUf co ie2 2.0 2
3. I was employed in the administration of the Aspen Alps Condominium
Association and Aspen Alps Condominium Project during the period fuNo /s ' /765
through Tv /y L i9fl and acted as the General Manager thereof for the period
TVwc /S /74 cthroughJvJ 3 . During this time the 700 Building of the Aspen
Alps was constructed and t occupied.
4. To my actual knowledge the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps constitutes a part
of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association/Aspen Alps Project.
5. At all times during my employment as specified above, I was familiar with the
area known as "Space A" of the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps and with how that area
was occupied. Space A was constructed and completed at the same time as the remainder
of the 700 Building and was built as a residential unit for occupancy by the owner and
guests.
6. At all times during my employment, based on my personal observations, Space
A was used and occupied exclusively by H. A. "Buddy" Bomefeld and his wife, Mary
Ann Bomefeld, members of their family and guests.
7. At all such times Space A consisted of a fully habitable dwelling unit suitable
for occupancy containing a kitchen, living/dining area, bedroom and fully furnished.
8. Space A is depicted on the First Supplement to Condominium Map of Aspen
Alps South which is recorded in Book 3 @ Page 374 of the Pitkin County Records. It is
also described as a general common element in the First Supplement to Condominium
Declarations for Aspen Alps South recorded in Book 238 @ Page 804 of the Pitkin
County Records. It was my understanding at the time of my employment that the reason
that Space A was described as a general common element, rather than as an individual
unit, and the reason the Declarant reserved a perpetual easement and right to use Space
A, rather than a fee simple ownership was the desire of Mr. Bomefeld not to have to pay
condominium assessments for Space A.
AFFIANT SAYETH FURTHER NOT.
ICI 1
Subscribed and sworn to me this (A 1 • .` of 1. , 2010.
- _ --- ,
Gerald Hewey - N‘
Witness my hand and offici l s$a1.
, ..• • •'. y
My commission expires: / 1 {I l2J) I V ¶ !, E . 99 1 • A r r ' � I
Il s e ^1 '' u r �:
No / r n.1 i s
11 ‘ cydad • °� " ,
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN HUEBINGER
STATE OF ARIZONA ) ‘ ci COUNTY OF
Subscribed and sworn to this3l day of f , 2010.
The undersigned, John Huebinger, being first duly sworn upon her oath states and
avers as follows:
1. My name is John Huebinger.
2. I reside at 2710 War Eagle Drive, Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406
3. For the period 196 — 19751 was the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Aspen Construction Corporation.
4. Aspen Construction Corporation was the general contractor which constructed
the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps pursuant to a building permit.
5. As a part of the construction of the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps, Aspen
Construction Corporation constructed was is commonly known as Space A, 700 Building
Aspen Alps consisting of (to the best of my recollection) approximately _ square feet
at the specific direction of H. A. "Buddy" Bornefeld and Maryann Bornefeld.
6. To my actual knowledge Space A was created for the personal residential use
of H. A. Bornefeld and Maryann Bornefeld, their family and guests.
7. To my actual knowledge, as part of the construction of the 700 Building of the
Aspen Alps, Aspen Construction Corporation finished out Space A by installing a
completed kitchen, a living /dining area, a fireplace and bedroom.
8. I was personally acquainted with H. A. "Buddy" Bornefeld, Mary Ann
Bornefeld and members of their family and had occasion to visit Space A through the
remainder of the lifetimes of H. A. "Buddy" Bornefeld and Maryann Bornefeld.
9. To the best of my knowledge from the outset of the construction Space A was
occupied solely by H. A. "Buddy" Bornefeld and Mary Ann Bornefeld, members of their
family and guests for personal use.
10. H.A. "Buddy" Bomefled was one of the developers of the Aspen Alps.
AFFIANT SAYETH FURTHER NOT.
y �--� .�
J uebinger r
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ( /11519
4444 0 .1. :/ar-
Not. ' ubhc
c
MELISlA D DCFMIEyEMI
1. _ MSiyry Pb brit • Ad
• + V* a re Mduw COW4
4 r My Cnim. EKON Awl If. au
r" e,
AFFIDAVIT OF LEONARD M. OATES
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn to this 7 day of .. e-( (fi 2010.
The undersigned, Leonard M. Oates, being first duly sworn upon his oath states
and avers as follows:
1. My name is Leonard M. Oates.
2. I reside at 1205 Riverside Drive, Aspen, Colorado.
3. I have resided in Aspen, Colorado continuously since June of 1966.
4. I, from time to time, acted as counsel for H.A. Bornefeld and George P.
Mitchell, who were the developers of the Aspen Alps Condominium Project.
5. I was personally acquainted with H.A. Bornefeld, his wife, Mary Ann
Bornefeld, and members of their family since 1967.
6. I was familiar with the construction of the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps
which occurred in 19 (2 .
7. Aspen Construction Corporation was the general contractor for that project and
Christian J. Allison was the attorney who provided legal advice to Messrs. Bornefeld and
Mitchell in connection with the creation of the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps
Condominiums.
8. At the time of the construction of the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps no
condominium approvals by the City of Aspen were required.
9. At the time of construction of the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps, certificates
of occupancy were not issued for completed projects.
10. I visited Space A in the 700 Building of the Aspen Alps Condominiums as
the guest of H.A. Bornefeld and Mary Ann Bornefeld on numerous occasions shortly
after it was built, from and after 196S . My observation of Space A is that it was at all
times from and after that date a completed dwelling unit with a kitchen, living /dining
area, stone fireplace and bedroom.
11. To the best of my knowledge Space A has at all times been occupied by H.A.
Bornefeld and Mary Ann Bornefeld until their deaths, and thereafter members of their
family.
• ti.•,
,-- .FFIANT SAY / FFUR T.
�"r/2 & ( { I f % "
Leonard M. Oates
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: e deir
` . t
N AA Pub P
- - BFTiI B \NJ ' "
NOTARY OIL lit '
STATE OF CO L O 1 `t .
____
My Commission E x... -
08/06/10 16:27:18 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN. V10.16 Page 1
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Complexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
701 Aspen Alps Apartment #701
25167 Burnett 01/16/96 01/21/96 ST 5 FTA Y 3500.00
24833 Rosenberg 01/24/96 02/06/96 SE 13 *O Y 0.00
22063 Eaton 02/07/96 02/12/96 ST 5 FG Y 3500.00
25103 Kortepeter 03/01/96 03/02/96 ST 1 AST Y 850.00
25371 Lawrence 03/08/96 03/10/96 ST 2 FG Y 1700.00
25798 Kortepeter 03/15/96 03/17/96 ST 2 AST Y 1700.00
22834 Speiser 03/18/96 03/29/96 ST 11 FG Y 9350.00
25993 Dimitrov 03/30/96 03/31/96 ST 1 GR Y 500.00
25757 Bucheit 04/03/96 04/06/96 ST 3 FG Y 1500.00
26317 Berry 06/19/96 06/23/96 ST 4 HTI Y 1000.00
25569 Wirthlin 06/27/96 06/30/96 ST 3 CF Y 1050.00
26493 Lipshultz 07/03/96 07/07/96 ST 4 RE Y 1600.00
26200 Rips 07/28/96 08/03/96 SE 6 FG Y 3000.00
26426 Decker 08/03/96 08/10/96 ST 7 FG Y 2800.00
26242 Coyle 08/10/96 08/17/96 ST 7 FG Y 2800.00
26921 Kushell 08/17/96 08/26/96 ST 9 FG Y 3150.00
27502 Real Estate 10/20/96 10/21/96 ST 1 *G N 0.00
26583 Moshovitis 12/19/96 12/21/96 ST 2 FG Y 1700.00
27653 Stern ED$ 12/21/96 01/02/97 SE 12 AST Y 10200.00
28068 Rosset 01/07/97 01/11/97 ST 4 WI Y 2800.00
28035 Buchheit 01/17/97 01/19/97 ST 2 FG Y 1400.00
27107 Fox 02/02/97 02/08/97 ST 6 FTA Y 4200.00
28291 Nassi 02/14/97 02/15/97 ST 1 FG N 400.00
27677 Bryan 02/15/97 02/17/97 ST 2 FG Y 1700.00
28139 Brown 02/26/97 03/02/97 SE 4 FTA Y 3400.00
27903 Sherman 03/02/97 03/09/97 ST 7 FTA Y 5250.00
28098 Bennati ED$ 03/09/97 03/20/97 ST 11 GR Y 9350.00
26869 Rips 03/21/97 03/28/97 ST 7 FG Y 5950.00
28308 Buchheit 03/28/97 03/31/97 ST 3 FG Y 1850.00
29061 Glaser 06/25/97 06/26/97 ST 1 FG Y 400.00
29236 Lee 07/03/97 07/06/97 ST 3 LOC Y 675.00
28793 Voorhees 07/06/97 07/11/97 ST 5 CF Y 1125.00
28673 Shubik LA$ 07/12/97 07/19/97 ST 7 CF Y 2800.00
28761 Levin 07/19/97 07/26/97 ST 7 FG Y 2800.00
28591 Sherman 07/26/97 08/01/97 ST 6 FG Y 2400.00
28760 Monteleone 08/02/97 08/12/97 ST 10 FG Y 4000.00
29160 Mattaway 08/12/97 08/26/97 ST 14 AHR Y 4400.00
30352 Maile 10/09/97 10/14/97 ST 5 *0 Y 0.00
30686 Maile 11/08/97 12/07/97 SE 29 *O Y 0.00
30589 Klauber 12/10/97 12/16/97 ST 6 PAK Y 2500.00
29471 Walters A. 12/20/97 12/27/97 ST 7 FG Y 6650.00
30994 Prior *C 12/27/97 01/11/98 SE 15 LOC Y 11550.00
30705 Cardim 01/17/98 01/26/98 ST 9 FTA Y 6300.00
30547 Pappas 01/31/98 02/07/98 SE 7 GR Y 3850.00
31158 Davis 02/07/98 02/15/98 ST 8 FG Y 5750.00
•
08/06/10 16:27:21 EN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN. V10.16 Page 2
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Complexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
701 Aspen Alps Apartment #701 (cont.)
30671 Finneran 02/15/98 02/21/98 ST 6 FG Y 5100.00
31232 Bide 02/28/98 03/07/98 SE 7 FTA Y 5950.00
30350 Frater 03/07/98 03/15/98 ST 8 LOC Y 6800.00
31722 Bradford R/E 03/15/98 03/21/98 ST 6 *G Y 0.00
29103 Rosenberg 03/23/98 04/04/98 SE 12 *0 Y 0.00
31173 Dunn 04/05/98 04/15/98 ST 10 ATA Y 2500.00
32651 Rosenberg 06/06/98 06/19/98 ST 13 *O Y 0.00
32119 Welsh 06/26/98 06/29/98 ST 3 OR Y 750.00
31677 Thompson 07/03/98 07/12/98 ST 9 FG Y 3600.00
32992 Magassy 07/12/98 07/14/98 ST 2 FG Y 480.00
32851 Winters 07/14/98 07/24/98 ST 10 LOC Y 4000.00
30835 Monteleone 07/25/98 08/09/98 SE 15 FG Y 6000.00
32536 Tullos 08/09/98 08/22/98 ST 13 GR Y 4450.00
33293 Perinatal 08/30/98 09/01/98 ST 2 CF Y 500.00
32901 Greenberg 09/03/98 09/07/98 ST 4 *G N 0.00
33710 Mills 09/25/98 09/28/98 ST 3 FG Y 600.00
33478 Houk 12/10/98 12/14/98 ST 4 ATA Y 2000.00
34408 GulfCo Ltd. 12/14/98 12/16/98 ST 2 FG Y 1000.00
33003 Rotman 12/20/98 01/04/99 SE 15 FG Y 13800.00
33087 Rosenberg 01/05/99 01/17/99 ST 12 *O Y 0.00
32242 Sweatman 01/23/99 01/31/99 ST 8 FG Y 5600.00
33451 Davis 02/06/99 02/13/99 ST 7 FG Y 4900.00
34161 Hayes 02/13/99 02/14/99 ST 1 FTA Y 525.00
32244 Kelts 02/16/99 03/01/99 ST 13 FG Y 11050.00
33374 Rotman 03/01/99 03/31/99 ST 30 FG Y 24100.00
33088 Rosenberg 04/01/99 04/15/99 ST 14 *O Y 0.00
34873 Rosenberg 06/11/99 06/25/99 ST 14 *O Y 0.00
36266 Rosenberg 07/07/99 07/17/99 ST 10 *0 N 0.00
35426 Hostetler 07/17/99 08/02/99 SE 16 FG Y 4800.00
36353 Sharp 08/03/99 08/04/99 ST 1 FG Y 250.00
35893 Stein 08/05/99 08/17/99 ST 12 FG Y 5100.00
35901 Lerner 08/17/99 08/26/99 ST 9 FG Y 3300.00
36296 Rosenberg 09/25/99 10/16/99 SE 21 *O Y 0.00
37414 Rosenberg 11/23/99 12/01/99 ST 8 *O Y 0.00
34699 Rotman 12/17/99 01/04/00 SE 18 FG Y 15300.00
37631 Browder 01/09/00 01/12/00 ST 3 INT Y 1950.00
37894 Weintraub 01/20/00 01/23/00 ST 3 INT Y 1950.00
38012 Leidersdoff 01/23/00 01/29/00 ST 6 BR Y 3450.00
34874 Rosenberg 02/02/00 02/29/00 ST 27 *0 N 0.00
34749 Rotman 03/01/00 03/21/00 ST 20 FG Y 17000.00
37666 Temple 03/23/00 03/27/00 ST 4 702 Y 3200.00
38763 Blair 03/30/00 04/02/00 SE 3 FG Y 1500.00
38724 Wood 07/01/00 07/08/00 ST 7 FG4 Y 2975.00
39539 Andy 07/14/00 07/16/00 ST 2 FG Y 500.00
39504 Kayne 07/21/00 07/22/00 ST 1 LOC Y 425.00
08/06/10 16:27:25 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN; V10.16 Page 3
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Complexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
701 Aspen Alps Apartment #701 (cont.)
39584 Osborn 07/29/00 07/31/00 ST 2 GR Y 500.00
39592 Mankwitz 07/31/00 08/04/00 SE 4 FG Y 1775.00
39081 Zidel 08/12/00 08/19/00 ST 7 AST Y 3150.00
33016 Herzberg 08/19/00 08/25/00 ST 6 FG Y 2000.00
39138 Perinatal 08/26/00 08/28/00 ST 2 GRP Y 550.00
40590 Shirazi 12/22/00 01 /01 /01 ST 10 FG Y 8250.00
40256 Kirchick 01/24/01 01/29/01 ST 5 FTA Y 3500.00
39932 Rosenberg 01/29/01 02/12/01 SE 14 *O Y 0.00
41307 Pacini - Blanco 02/17/01 02/20/01 ST 3 FO Y 2475.00
40970 Halpern 02/22/01 02/27/01 ST 5 FG+ Y 2250.00
38672 Rotman 02/27/01 03/14/01 SE 15 FG Y 12375.00
41604 Krist 03/16/01 03/23/01 ST 7 OR Y 5775.00
40771 Baumann 03/23/01 03/31/01 ST 8 LOC Y 6600.00
39933 Rosenberg 04/01/01 04/21/01 ST 20 *O Y 0.00
42267 Williams 06/15/01 06/16/01 ST 1 BR Y 200.00
39473 Wood 07/01/01 07/08/01 ST 7 FG+ Y 2975.00
41363 Fagadau 07/14/01 07/29/01 ST 15 FG Y 6375.00
42324 Harris 07/31/01 08/09/01 SE 9 LOC Y 4025.00
42321 Dethrow 08/09/01 08/17/01 ST 8 FG Y 3600.00
39929 Tullos 08/18/01 08/26/01 ST 8 GR Y 2550.00
40881 Ross 12/21/01 12/30/01 ST 9 FG Y 7650.00
43675 Zaragoza 12/30/01 01/03/02 SE 4 FG1 Y 3700.00
42974 Investcorp 01/03/02 01/06/02 ST 3 FG1 Y 1050.00
43440 Druce 01/17/02 01/21/02 ST 4 BR Y 2700.00
41598 Rotman 01/23/02 02/04/02 SE 12 FG Y 8100.00
35219 Rosenberg 02/08/02 02/27/02 ST 19 *O Y 0.00
41599 Rotman 02/27/02 03/15/02 SE 16 FG Y 13200.00
43190 Saks 03/15/02 03/16/02 ST 1 FG Y 825.00
42081 Long 03/27/02 03/28/02 ST 1 *G Y 0.00
44609 Dorman 03/29/02 03/30/02 ST 1 FG Y 450.00
42071 Rosenberg 03/30/02 04/27/02 SE 28 *O Y 0.00
44262 Bursick 06/13/02 06/17/02 ST 4 F &W Y 1040.00
42435 Wood 06/29/02 07/06/02 SE 7 DOG Y 3045.00
44505 Arnold 07/21/02 07/31/02 ST 10 OR Y 2600.00
45390 Kopelman 07/31/02 08/03/02 SE 3 FG Y 825.00
42571 Fagadau 08/03/02 08/18/02 ST 15 DOG Y 6975.00
42870 Tullos 08/18/02 08/22/02 ST 4 DOG Y 1290.00
44829 Pilkington 08/23/02 08/25/02 ST 2 WID Y 500.00
45385 Nicholson 08/31/02 09/02/02 SE 2 SAS Y 450.00
45937 Rosenberg 11/24/02 12/02/02 SE 8 *O Y 0.00
43738 Ross 12/22/02 12/30/02 ST 8 FG Y 7000.00
46338 Rockefeller 12/30/02 01/05/03 SE 6 AST Y 5550.00
45917 Burton 01/18/03 01/26/03 ST 8 FG Y 4725.00
46735 Milner 02/01/03 02/03/03 ST 2 FG Y 1000.00
47349 Nadler 02/08/03 02/12/03 ST 4 *G N 0.00
08/06/10 16:27:28 CIIEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN. V10.16 Page 4
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Complexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
701 Aspen Alps Apartment #701 (cont.)
46723 Mele 02/13/03 02/17/03 ST 4 SAS Y 3000.00
46652 Van Buren 02/28/03 03/04/03 SE 4 LOC Y 3300.00
44476 Rotman 03/04/03 03/08/03 ST 4 FG Y 3300.00
46276 Blair 03/15/03 04/01/03 ST 17 FG Y 12825.00
47351 Grossman 04/03/03 04/07/03 ST 4 SAS Y 1600.00
47184 Rosenberg 05/20/03 06/10/03 SE 21 *O Y 0.00
47482 Orme'Rogers 06/12/03 06/16/03 ST 4 ARA Y 1040.00
45238 Wood 06/28/03 07/05/03 SE 7 DOG Y 3045.00
47709 Fimberg 07/17/03 07/21/03 ST 4 FO Y 1740.00
47498 Arnold 07/22/03 08/03/03 SE 12 FG Y 3120.00
47783 Colwick 08/03/03 08/10/03 ST 7 LOC Y 3255.00
47722 McElvain 08/10/03 08/17/03 ST 7 GR Y 2905.00
46839 McGuire Jr. 08/26/03 09/01/03 SE 6 MCG Y 1200.00
46610 Ross 12/21/03 12/30/03 ST 9 FG Y 7875.00
48786 Fagadau 12/30/03 01/04/04 SE 5 DOG Y 4625.00
49011 Nadler 01/08/04 01/12/04 ST 4 FG Y 1900.00
48998 ESPN 01/19/04 01/28/04 ST 9 XGA Y 3150.00
49352 Goldstein 02/04/04 02/08/04 ST 4 LOC Y 2300.00
48945 Nelson 02/12/04 02/17/04 ST 5 FG Y 3825.00
48524 Weisman 02/17/04 02/24/04 ST 7 GAZ Y 3500.00
47211 Roulston 02/28/04 03/06/04 SE 7 FG Y 3500.00
49364 Haft 03/06/04 03/19/04 ST 13 DOG Y 6500.00
50291 De la Cruz 03/27/04 04/04/04 SE 8 SF Y 1925.00
47961 Wood 07/03/04 07/10/04 ST 7 FG+ Y 2870.00
51124 Casey 07/11/04 07/17/04 ST 6 BR Y 1200.00
51159 Manganiello 07/11/04 07/17/04 ST 6 BR Y 1200.00
48255 Arnold 07/19/04 07/30/04 ST 11 FG Y 4510.00
50822 Atkins 08/01/04 08/03/04 ST 2 W2 Y 570.00
51191 Weiner 08/03/04 08/10/04 ST 7 FG Y 3080.00
48464 Shawell 08/10/04 08/20/04 ST 10 DOG Y 4000.00
51619 Jenkins 08/27/04 09/04/04 SE 8 WI Y 2000.00
51972 Seidman 12/22/04 01/02/05 SE 11 *0 Y 0.00
51973 Seidman 01/14/05 01/17/05 ST 3 *O Y 0.00
51816 Church 01/21/05 02/04/05 SE 14 XGA Y 5250.00
52368 Melao 02/05/05 02/14/05 ST 9 GAZ Y 3600.00
51975 Seidman 02/18/05 02/24/05 ST 6 *O Y 0.00
53001 O'Neill 03/02/05 03/06/05 ST 4 BR Y 1800.00
51976 Seidman 03/09/05 03/13/05 ST 4 *0 Y 0.00
53187 Harvey 03/15/05 03/25/05 ST 10 OR Y 8000.00
53383 Construction 04/15/05 05 /01 /05 ST 16 *G N 0.00
53384 Construction 05/01/05 06/01/05 ST 31 *G N 0.00
53385 Construction 06/01/05 06/17/05 ST 16 *G N 0.00
54748 Construction 08/22/05 10 /01 /05 SE 40 *G N 0.00
54749 Construction 10/01/05 11/01/05 SE 31 *G N 0.00
54750 Construction 11 /01 /05 12/01/05 ST 30 *G N 0.00
•
08/06/10 16:27:30 SvdiDEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN" V10.16 Page 5
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Complexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
701 Aspen Alps Apartment #701 (cont.)
54751 Construction 12/01/05 12/19/05 ST 18 *G N 0.00
55643 Seidman 12/19/05 01/01/06 ST 13 *0 N 0.00
55920 Seidman 01/21/06 01/23/06 ST 2 *0 N 0.00
55912 Seidman 02/10/06 02/12/06 ST 2 *0 N 0.00
56133 Seidman 02/17/06 02/23/06 ST 6 *0 N 0.00
56421 Parad 03/18/06 03/23/06 ST 5 *G N 0.00
56422 Seidman 03/23/06 03/26/06 ST 3 *G N 0.00
57180 Seidman 06/30/06 07/05/06 SE 5 *O N 0.00
57317 Parad 07/27/06 08/02/06 SE 6 *G N 0.00
57600 Seidman 08/17/06 08/21/06 ST 4 *0 Y 0.00
58669 Seidman 12/16/06 01/01/07 ST 16 *0 N 0.00
59405 Parad 02/14/07 02/16/07 ST 2 *G N 0.00
59398 Seidman 02/16/07 02/20/07 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
59406 Parad 02/20/07 02/22/07 ST 2 *G N 0.00
59399 Seidman 03/02/07 03/05/07 ST 3 *O N 0.00
60434 Seidman 07/05/07 07/06/07 ST 1 *O N 0.00
60456 Seidman 07/15/07 07/16/07 ST 1 *0 N 0.00
60861 Hidary 08/15/07 08/16/07 ST 1 *G N 0.00
60795 Seidman 08/16/07 08/20/07 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
61601 Seidman 12/07/07 01/02/08 SE 26 *O N 0.00
62330 Seidman 02/28/08 03/05/08 SE 6 *0 N 0.00
62514 Seidman 03/20/08 03/24/08 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
63021 Seidman 06/29/08 07/06/08 SE 7 *0 N 0.00
63261 Seidman 07/31/08 08/03/08 SE 3 *0 N 0.00
63390 Seidman 08/14/08 08/18/08 ST 4 *0 Y 0.00
64109 Seidman 12/25/08 01/04/09 SE 10 *G N 0.00
64265 Seidman 01/16/09 01/19/09 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
64405 Seidman 02/13/09 02/16/09 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
64426 Parad 02/16/09 02/19/09 ST 3 *G N 0.00
64414 Seidman 02/20/09 02/23/09 ST 3 *O N 0.00
64625 Seidman 03/19/09 03/23/09 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
64654 Parad 03/23/09 03/29/09 ST 6 *0 N 0.00
65025 Seidman 06/27/09 07/05/09 SE 8 *0 N 0.00
65272 Parad 08/06/09 08/13/09 ST 7 *0 N 0.00
65350 Seidman 08/13/09 08/18/09 ST 5 *0 Y 0.00
65604 Seidman 08/29/09 09/02/09 SE 4 *G N 0.00
66113 Seidman 12/19/09 01/20/10 SE 32 *0 Y 0.00
66412 Seidman 02/11/10 02/22/10 ST 11 *0 Y 0.00
66617 Seidman 03/11/10 03/14/10 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
66743 Seidman 04/04/10 04/11/10 ST 7 *0 N 0.00
OWNER Block 04/25/10 12/21/12
67098 Seidman 07/03/10 07/22/10 ST 19 *0 N 0.00
Total 1765 565915.00
08/06/10 16:27:33 Z EN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN.'S V10.16 Page 7
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Complexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
711 Aspen Alps Apartment #711 (cont.)
43961 Presnall 02/02/02 02/08/02 ST 6 *G Y 0.00
44393 Martin 03/10/02 03/16/02 ST 6 *0 N 0.00
45171 Jones 06/29/02 07/01/02 ST 2 *0 Y 0.00
45150 Kuo 07/04/02 07/05/02 ST 1 *0 N 0.00
45149 Martin 07/05/02 07/08/02 ST 3 *O N 0.00
45364 Kuo 07/25/02 07/28/02 ST 3 *0 Y 0.00
45510 Bornefeld 08/09/02 08/15/02 ST 6 *O N 0.00
45768 Martin 08/29/02 09/03/02 SE 5 *G N 0.00
45834 Kuo 09/07/02 09/10/02 ST 3 *G N 0.00
46547 Martin (guest) 12/20/02 12/26/02 ST 6 *G N 0.00
47044 Presnall 02/22/03 03/01/03 ST 7 *G Y 0.00
47122 Kuo 03/01/03 03/02/03 ST 1 *0 N 0.00
47212 Martin 03/16/03 03/22/03 ST 6 *0 N 0.00
47356 Kuo 03/27/03 03/30/03 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
47701 Kuo 05/22/03 05/25/03 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
47928 Bornefeld 07/05/03 07/10/03 ST 5 *G Y 0.00
48038 Martin 07/18/03 07/21/03 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
48203 Kuo 08/01/03 08/03/03 ST 2 *0 N 0.00
48428 Martin 08/29/03 09/02/03 SE 4 *0 N 0.00
49408 Martin 12/17/03 12/23/03 ST 6 *0 N 0.00
49579 Kuo 01/01/04 01/04/04 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
50140 Kuo 02/26/04 02/29/04 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
50221 Bornefeld 03/07/04 03/12/04 ST 5 *0 N 0.00
50222 Martin 03/12/04 03/23/04 ST 11 *0 N 0.00
50832 Kuo 05/27/04 06/01/04 ST 5 *0 N 0.00
51059 Kuo 07/02/04 07/05/04 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
51166 Martin 07/14/04 07/19/04 ST 5 *O N 0.00
52413 Martin 12/17/04 12/24/04 ST 7 *0 N 0.00
52779 Martin 01/22/05 01/25/05 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
52800 Kuo 02/02/05 02/08/05 ST 6 *0 N 0.00
52964 Flaks 02/14/05 02/17/05 ST 3 *0 Y 0.00
53363 Kuo 03/22/05 03/24/05 ST 2 *0 Y 0.00
54202 Martin 07/14/05 07/18/05 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
54161 Huebinger 07/22/05 07/25/05 ST 3 *G Y 0.00
54400 Oliphant 08/26/05 08/28/05 ST 2 *G Y 0.00
55065 Martin 12/18/05 01/02/06 SE 15 *0 N 0.00
55691 Kuo 02/04/06 02/11/06 ST 7 *G N 0.00
57273 Martin 07/02/06 07/06/06 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
57524 Kuo 08/07/06 08/10/06 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
58041 Martin 09/16/06 09/18/06 ST 2 *O N 0.00
58048 Bornefeld 12/21/06 01/02/07 SE 12 *0 N 0.00
58939 Martin 01/11/07 01/19/07 ST 8 *0 N 0.00
58940 Kuo 02/03/07 02/10/07 ST 7 *0 N 0.00
59103 Nicolle 02/15/07 02/20/07 ST 5 *0 Y 0.00
59106 Crockett 03/12/07 03/19/07 ST 7 *G Y 0.00
08/06/10 16:27:34 c EN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSN. V10.16 Page 8
Reservations Report
For Arrivals From 01/01/96 To 08/06/10
For All Cpmplexes
Fol /Blk Last Name /Block Arrival Departure Type Nghts Src Dp Rent
711 Aspen Alps Apartment #711 (cont.)
60466 Martin (guest) 07/11/07 07/14/07 ST 3 *3 N 0.00
60632 Kuo 07/29/07 08/01/07 ST 3 *3 N 0.00
61545 Martin 12/19/07 12/27/07 ST 8 *0 N 0.00
61923 Martin (guest) 01/16/08 01/26/08 ST 10 *3 N 0.00
62263 Crockett 03/07/08 03/14/08 ST 7 *0 Y 0.00
62488 Smith 03/17/08 03/22/08 ST 5 *3 N 0.00
63218 Martin 07/24/08 07/27/08 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
63980 Martin 12/20/08 12/27/08 ST 7 *0 N 0.00
63955 Bornefeld 01/15/09 01/20/09 ST 5 *3 Y 0.00
64363 Martin 02/12/09 02/16/09 ST 4 *0 N 0.00
64964 Martin 06/12/09 06/14/09 ST 2 *0 N 0.00
65175 Martin 07/22/09 07/25/09 ST 3 *0 N 0.00
65234 Kuo 08/02/09 08/05/09 ST 3 *3 Y 0.00
65605 Martin 09/04/09 09/06/09 ST 2 *0 N 0.00
65963 Martin B. 11/28/09 11/29/09 ST 1 *0 N 0.00
65964 Bornefeld 12/16/09 01/02/10 SE 17 *3 N 0.00
66574 Kuo 03/12/10 03/20/10 ST 8 *0 N 0.00
67174 Martin 07/22/10 07/26/10 ST 4 *O N 0.00
67183 Crockett 07/26/10 07/30/10 ST 4 *3 Y 0.00
Total 472 0.00
•
0,(40)Sp 0
Aspen Alps
August 9, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I was employed by the Aspen Alps from December 1969 to June 2008.
Apartment 701 at the Aspen Alps was owned by Fred Kayden, Marjorie Shushan, Gary
Rosenberg, a Midwestern bank, and Dov Seidman during that period. All of the owners
either used 701 exclusively for themselves and friends, or rented the apartment to short
term renters through the Aspen Alps. The apartment was never rented to employeeees.
Apartment 711 was owned by H.A. Borneefeld, who was the developer of the 700
building at the Aspen Alps. He used it exclusively for his family and friends. After his
death, the apartment was owned by his children who alos used it exclusively for their
families and friends. Although I asked about renting the space for employees, the
Bornefeld family never rented the apartment to Aspen Alps employees.
If you have further questions, please contact John Corcoran, Aspen Alps General
Manager.
d.aik
Pamela M. Cunningham
Consultant
PMC:pwm
700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(800) 228 -7820 Fax (970) 920 -2528 Info@raspenalps.com www.aspenalps.com
Recipient of the 2005 and 2006 Greentree Award for Environmental Stewardship, Aspen ZGREEN Business
J
0
(:::2 /(4)4 c 5
Aspen Alps
August 4, 2010
Ms. Jennifer Phelan
Deputy Planning Director
City of Aspen
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Jennifer,
This letter is in reference to the proposed PUD amendment for apartment 701 and Space
A (a.k.a. 71 1) at the Aspen Alps.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association has historically been used as vacation
accommodations for paying guests, and for the use of the owners and their guests when
visiting Aspen. I have spoken with other long term employees of the Aspen Alps and they
have confirmed this as well.
Regarding 701 and Space A specifically, I have provided Mr. Alan Richman with
detailed owner statements and occupancy records of both apartments going back to
January of 1996, which show the types of occupancy for each apartment. You are
welcome to review any of those documents. They show all records of occupancy during
that time.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me, I would be happy
to assist you.
9 -
in
/ J, J. Corcoran
eral Manager
V
700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(800) 22$ -7820 Fax (970) 920 -2528 Info@aspenalps.com www.aspenalps.com
Recipient of the 2005 and 2006 Greentree Award for Environmental Stewardship, Aspen ZGREEN Business
4
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination of Completeness
Date: July 7, 2010
Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant,
We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number
and name assigned to this property is 0031.2010.ASLU — PUD Amendment (Aspen Alps) . I am
the planner assigned to this case.
❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete:
We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed
complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission
contents for you application:
Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing
your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed
above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the
land use application.
Your Land Use Application is complete:
f there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process.
(Alan: please provide documentation verifying that both subject units are exempt from the
Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi - family Housing section of growth management)
Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by
the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429 -2759 if you have any
questions.
Th. . You, SO
W .INSl
Je.. ifer Ph 4D, , Deputy Director
City of Asp- , Community Development Department
•
For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications:
Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD COWOP
Yes No_._ Subdivision (creating more than 1 additional lot)
GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing
Yes No }C. Commercial E.P.F.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Dov Seidman. Trustee of the Dov Seidman Living Trust
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
PUD Amendment and Condominium Map Amendment for Aspen Alps South
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land
Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application
completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application.
APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he
will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty
of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
MI fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $1,470 which is for 6 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed
the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the
processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour
over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT
further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case
will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
By: By:
7(
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Date:
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
466 Halvern Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310 - 968 -2833
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION
'ROJECT:
Name: AS �. PSI e 4 S c� . �1, Q J 9 4N 4_ .,,,.
Location: Mot". A& p s 1 Q.
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name: o v e.s„ ..., Las ..1 C A aJoec
Address: R L OR -- 'i"">g 'i CA c iG 'l9
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: sec t_po n, Q. 1 n� (AA r. ea, ..,.1 1
l4tf
Address: aX 3 4 \3 CO S tt
Phone #: tkt \ 1t<
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment ® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
Se n - A ` a LLF._.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $
1J Pre - Application Conference Summary
1 - Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
.n Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
] 3 -D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an W'
electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model.
"OK, CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land
Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application
completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application.
APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and /or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he
will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty
of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and /or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
, w or are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual
recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse
the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00
per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and
in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
By: By:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Date:
Billing Address and Telephone Number: