HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Crown.1421 Crystal Lake Rd.A40-90 w
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 7 6 90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737- 182 -95 -030 A40 -90
STAFF MEMBER: KT
PROJECT NAME: Crown PUD Amendment and Stream Mar•in Revue F il m
Project Address: Aspen Club Condominums Unit C1
Legal Address: Lot #13, Callahan Subdivision, Aspen, CO
APPLICANT: Lester Crown
Applicant Address: 222 N. LaSalle, #2000, Chicago, IL 60601
REPRESENTATIVE: Sutherland, Fallin, Inc.
Representative Address /Phone: 1280 Ute Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611 S- 9QSa
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1780 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED :: / 2
TYPE OF APPLICATIONN :� 1 STEP: 2 STEP: /C a' Pu
P &Z Meeting Date S PUBLIC HEARING: lit NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date ____ PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
AS f . . VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
-
REFERRALS: — _ � __ _ - - - — -
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
X City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Con.S.D. �j Energy Center
/ /i DATE REFERRED: ' /9c INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: / //-R9/9'o INITIAL: /(/e—
_ City Atty __X City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other: /�
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: tp ro v eo � Ord. 4.3 - Ci 1 /
. CietiCs
4 ,
ORDINANCE N0. &
(SERIES OF 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING AMENDMENT TO THE PUD
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE ASPEN CLUB CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE
CROWN RESIDENCE AT 1421 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD, UNIT C -1 (LOT 13
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION)
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Lester Crown submitted to the Planning
Office an application for Amendment to the Aspen Club
Condominiums PUD Final Development Plan to expand a bedroom by
208 square feet of floor area, and deck expansion for 72 square
feet of site coverage; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 1990, a public hearing was held
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and in a 6 -1 vote
approved the Amendment to the PUD Final Development Plan with
conditions, and recommended to Council the approval of the Final
PUD with conditions.
WHEREAS, the Commission, in an additional motion wishes to
impress upon the Aspen Club Condominiums Homeowner's Association,
the Planning Office, and the Aspen City Council their
unwillingness to consider future small amendments to the Aspen
Club Condominium PUD until the entire buildout of the condominium
project has been considered and approved as part of a
comprehensive Final PUD Development Plan amendment.
• WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -903 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, the City Council may grant approval to Final PUD
Development Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, does wish to
grant the Final PUD Development Plan for the Aspen Club
sue. r+
Condominiums for expansion of the Crown Residence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant Final PUD Approval with the
conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to
the Aspen Club Condominiums.
Section 2.
The conditions of approval recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council are:
1. A revised Aspen Club Condominium PUD Development Plan must be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days
of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will require the
applicant to resubmit the proposal to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council.
2. A revised condominium plat reflecting changes to unit C -1
must be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
concurrently with the revised PUD Development Plan. The plat
shall reflect these items of the Engineering Departments concern:
a. A site plan showing the proposed addition.
b. Surveyor's certificate.
c. Owner's certificate.
d. Certificate for City Engineer's approval.
e. Certificate for Planning Director's approval.
f. Clerk and Recorder's certificate.
g. Certificate for representative of Aspen Club Condominium
Association's approval.
3. Materials on the addition must match the existing facade.
4. Disturbed ground must be sodded or hydromulched as soon as
exterior construction is complete.
Prior to issuance of any building permit:
5. This project must receive exemption from Stream Margin Review
by the Planning Director.
Section 3:
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
A CX / p �� u �� blic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the ° XC�
day of ti , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the to " day of
l a , 1990.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
Ay' ST:
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
/?, FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
CXf3{rG1/t/ 1990.
ATTEST: William L. Stirling,
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk jtkvj /Crown.ord
3
,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 7 6 90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737- 182 -95 -030 A40 -90
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Crown PUD Amendment and Stream Margin Revi
Project Address: Aspen Club Condominums Unit C1 t- -f`--^
Legal Address: Lot 413. Callahan Subdivision. Aspen. CO
APPLICANT: Lester Crown
Applicant Address: 222 N. LaSalle. 42000. Chicago. IL 60601
REPRESENTATIVE: Sutherland, Fallin. Inc.
Representative Address /Phone: 1280 Ute Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611 S- 4'QS&
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1780 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 2
TYPE OF APPLICATION :� 1 STEP: 2 STEP: >( , P U D
P &Z Meeting Date 8�,./ PUBLIC HEARING: 'e'',*
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date - _ PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
S r "f
J VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO c�
i E 17 8
Planning Directo oval: \/ Paid:
Insubstantial Am ent or - xemption X Date: ALA
REFERRALS: ` - - --
(
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: r1 b6 / l (/ INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: I //r 9f o INITIAL:
City Atty X City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
THROUGH: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Crown Stream Margin Exemption
DATE: October 9, 1990
SUMMARY: Planning staff recommends approval of Stream Margin
Exemption for the addition of 208 s.f. floor area and 72 s.f. of
deck at the Crown residence.
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs. Lester Crown, represented by Gert
VanMoorsel, Sutherland / Fallin Architects
LOCATION: 1421 Crystal Lake Road (Aspen Club Condos) Unit Cl,
Lot 13 Callahan Subdivision.
ZONING: R -15 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant wishes to add 208 s.f. of
floor area and 72 s.f. of deck. The new floor area is an
expanded bedroom. Attachment "A ".
This proposal also required Final PUD approval. This was
approved by the Planning Commission on Aug. 21 and by City
Council on Oct. 8 as Ordinance 63, an amendment to the Aspen Club
Condominiums Final Development Plan. This Stream Margin
Exemption is required as a condition of approval.
ENGINEERING REFERRAL COMMENT: Having reviewed the application
and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has determined
that the application meets the requirements for an exemption from
full Stream Margin review.
STAFF COMMENTS: This project takes place 59.5 feet from the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River. The floor level of the
proposed expansion is 16 feet above the 100 year flood elevation.
Exemption from full Stream Margin review is possible when the
following standards are met:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which
is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the
base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development.
This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared
by a professional engineer registered to practice in the
State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation
will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing
mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for
any base flood elevation increase caused by the development.
RESPONSE: The development is proposed at the same level as an
existing structure. No change to the base flood elevation will
result.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: Trails are in place on the Aspen Club property. No
changes result from this proposal.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
RESPONSE: The character and use of this site will not be
changed. The structure will not be expanded any further towards
the river than the existing deck.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE: No vegetation will be removed as the floor area
expansion takes place under the existing deck. Any disturbed
ground will be sodded of hydromulched as per the PUD Amendment
conditions of approval.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes
of the river, stream or other tributary.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water
course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his
heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood
carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
RESPONSE: The project is not in the 100 year floodplain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Stream Margin
exemption for the Crown Residence expansion.
I hereby approve the Stream Margin Exemption for the
208 square foot floor area addition and 72 square foot
deck expansion at the Crown residence.
1, . 1 141.. /
:rgerum, r Ynning. Director Date
Attachment "A" - Floor Plan and location sketches
jtkvj /Crown.dirmemo
3
y 4 a r
/ /I ' i ll 9 ! ; / \ :
1 / m \\ 1 1 1 \ 1
i
prisi:3? Mr �J 1 l/ l'
a off$$ \ \
ill j I \ I / / / a e. D 8 � h � g \[
VII' l 77
i
i / / / / / 1 y 0 / / a ' e r /_ / a 2,. 77. / : ���
� // / /,i // / fe v a /i ce ae � i-e?i 4N. - - 3 . • Iq-
g
/ -; �/ / // ' „ " "v im / " " 10 / .k' .2/ a ' � ; -y
/ i/ // / 1 1 e ye . / I.N. ,J , ! V \
to
/0/41p,07, / / 1. r 1 -, t "' ,,cam\ - 1 4 V 1
~ .,( p
I f // / 1 /11 c �o � + J I I : p IO 19. -_. �i� .n ' � „or
' / t \ 1 e " g` I1 25 1 Y I La _ .e N , I/ a l 1 (- 0 9 a. ` / •. � "O I N” a � Y f 1 { N
e e ' 1 N oM 1
/ y'l �� : ( 2 1 . -, "y, / A I N a y � !
/
rD
' I ', a
cr ti. m I A I 71
ms / t � �: / ol \ mi ' , � J • 1 e 1 . 1
! / / \" 1 -, \ mom `O - 4
• , J a a n A \ Tom / e $ w 43
JJ _ +� o
1 z l ' s t o O . 1 • 1
\ I ` - \ ° F \
o \ 5 \
x ■ ---)N
� 1 ' N , ‘.. imea, m
SITE PLAN , w '
CROWN REMODEL 5utherl ;
I. 1 t
a- II
o r T
r
il I i
3 ?. A T
y
2 6 1. A f
a ci
g
a
i A I
A r] 7
F i
a 4 n
i
j
•
.. I
' — — i \
I iF y
C
,y a \
O 3,f s�, I ' \ /
( J _ ✓
LI c;?(\
t f I Ps \
S It
e 1
FLOOR PLAN .....
Dir./ CROWN REMODEL ° a "" ‘sutlkerl `
G.-1
• 1421 ASPEN COLORADO RAKE RO. ..
SEN CL m _ N �
DO O +vs f < } r " )t,71.4".”". Y 9 PS:
i
•
A r t kg, i 1 4 — ff —
#£
1 ' 3 ,i
■
pi a 1
m - 1� 1 1
1 f c' N
< � i A I = �F t -r -
•
ti
n 1
I
,I o a - I —r
1 1 o f
t .
a i r ,i I r=1
Y n 1
#- r
t 11
r �
\ ' r
•
I •
CROWN REMODEL telnimPul
' 1421 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD w..n .
�) ASPEN CLUB TOWNHOMES -. ‘" n " � � M �
7 ASPEN COLORADO m� .,o
I •
re* ose
Attachment 4
July 6, 1990 •
BUILDING AND SITE AREA SUMMARY
OriginalSa.Ft. Site Coverage * Additions
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Building A 8895.8 5796.0 578.6
Building B 8895.8 5796.0 446.7
Building C 7870.3 4347.0 446.7
Building D 14975.2 8694.0 1047.9
Building E 6238.8 4347.0 -0-
Total 46,875.9 28,980 2519.9
None of the Building Additions resulted in increased site coverage.
Mechanical Bldg 481.8 481.8
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning DirectorQJ
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner lIIIVVNNNN��
DATE: September 28, 1990
RE: Final PUD Amendment for the Aspen Club Condominiums for
expansion of the Crown Residence - Second Reading of
Ordinance 63 (Series of 1990)
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and Second
Reading of Ordinance 63 (Series of 1990) amending the Aspen Club
Condominium PUD Final Development Plan. First Reading was held
on September 10, 1990.
COUNCIL GOALS: This Ordinance and the Planning Commission's
motions reflect Goal #14: To develop a consistent and fair
government so that citizens know what to expect from elected
officials, employees, and government processes.
BACKGROUND: Over the years, small additions to residences within
this development were processed by the Planning Office as
Insubstantial Amendments, requiring only staff review and
director's signature. These "insubstantial" projects began to
cumulatively affect the intent of the original PUD and the
Planning Office decided to stop processing them as Insubstantial
Amendments. Applicants now must provide complete documentation
for the entire PUD including floor area, deck area, parking,
etc., and must bear the cost of a two -step process. Please see
Attachment "A ", memo to P &Z dated August 15.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: For the past year and a half, the Planning
Office has recommended to the Aspen Club Condominium Homeowner's
Association that they prepare an amended PUD reflecting a new
build -out for all units. Upon approval of a revised PUD for the
project, individual owners would then be allowed to apply for
building permits within the approvals for their unit. This would
save a lot of time and money on the part of separate owners. The
Crowns have opted not to wait for the Condo Association to
provide the PUD Amendment. They have submitted this two -step
application in hopes to begin their addition this building
season.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE AND KEY ISSUE:
By a 6 -1 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this
application on the grounds that 1) this particular proposal has
? L
little affect on the entire project given that floor area has
exceeded the original approval, 2) it falls within the site
coverage established in the original PUD, 3) the applicant has
provided extensive research in order to verify the figures in the
proposal.
The Commission expressed in a separate motion its frustration
that the Homeowner's Association has failed to organize a
comprehensive PUD Amendment, after repeated requests from the
Planning Office. They decided that they would . not hear any
further requests for amendment to the Aspen Club Condominium from
individual unit owners. With this decision, they hope the
Homeowner's Association will be moved to propose a thought -out,
unified plan for ultimate expansion for the residential project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the a Final PUD Amendment for the Aspen Club
Condominiums to allow a 208 s.f. expansion of floor area and 72
s.f. expansion of site coverage to the Crown residence.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council could choose to deny this request
until such time that the Homeowner's Association submit a PUD
amendment reflecting a comprehensive build -out plan for the
condominium development.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the amended Aspen Club
Condominium Final PUD for the expansion of the Crown Residence,
Unit C, 1421 Crystal Lake Road, with the conditions forwarded by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. I move to have Second
Reading of Ordinance 63.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: J cons" r,
Attachments - "A" Staff memo to P &Z
Ordinance 63 for consideration
jtkvj /crown.ccmemo
2
_
,4rtiaME,ur ,q„
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Crown PUD Amendment (Aspen Club Condos)
DATE: August 15, 1990
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval with conditions
to expand the Crown residence, amending the Aspen Club PUD.
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Lester Crown, represented by Gert Van
Moorsel, Sutherland Fallin, Inc.
LOCATION: 1421 Crystal'Lake Road, Unit C1 (Lot 13 Callahan
Subdivision)
ZONING: R -15 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to amend
the Aspen Club Condominium PUD to allow a 208 s.f. floor area
expansion and 72 s.f. site coverage expansion.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. This application meets all of the requirements for an
exemption from Stream Margin Review.
2. The applicant must submit a plat which includes the following:
a. A site plan showing the proposed addition.
b. Surveyor's certificate.
c. Owner's certificate.
d. Certificate for City Engineer's approval.
e. Certificate for Planning Director's approval.
f. Clerk and Recorder's certificate.
g. Certificate for representative of Aspen Club Condominium
Association's approval.
PROPOSAL: The Crown's seek to amend the Aspen Club PUD to allow
a 208 s.f. expansion of floor area and a 72 s.f. addition to site
coverage. Their floor area expansion results from enlargement of
' 4
the lower level bedroom to allow for a sitting area type of
space. The expansion will take place under an existing deck, and
also expands the deck 72 s.f. (the added site coverage.) Please
see Attachment "A" for site plan and floor plan sketches.
STAFF COMMENTS: As part of the review of this proposal, the
applicant has submitted information requesting exemption from
stream margin review. This process requires the approval of the
Planning Director in an in -house review. Planning staff is in
the process of preparing and submitting a memo to the Director
for this approval. Planning and Engineering Staff feel that this
proposal complies with the exemption criteria and are
recommending approval of the exemption.
In the past, small additions for rooms and decks have been
processed through the Planning Office as insubstantial amendments
to the PUD, requiring Planning Director's signature. It became
apparent within the Planning Office and to members of the
Commission and Council that over time, it was harder and harder .
to track the cumulative effects of these "insubstantial"
amendments on the overall project in light of the original PUD
approval. Planning staff decided not to process any more
insubstantial amendments, now requiring an applicant to provide a
complete documentation of floor area, deck area, parking, etc. as
it might apply to a project.
In the case of the Aspen Club Condos, Planning staff has strongly
suggested that the homeowner's association assemble a
comprehensive package detailing all development on the site.
Then, present a proposal to the Commission and Council for future
build -out potential for the entire residential complex. Given
approval of a comprehensive PUD amendment outlining maximums for
individual units, homeowners would then be allowed to simply
apply for building permits for these "insubstantial" projects.
To this date, the homeowner's association has not organized this
overall PUD amendment project. The Crowns have opted to proceed
on their own to document the necessary information required for
their expansion. Planning Staff still wishes for an overall PUD
amendment from the Homeowner's Association for the benefit of
future applicants, Commission and Council members, and staff.
Attached is the application package provided by the Crown's
representative. The two issues surrounding this proposal are
floor area and site coverage.
Floor Area: The original PUD granted 43,560 s.f. for the
townhomes (Attachment "B ") . Calculations provided by the
applicant indicate that the project now exceeds this figure with
46,875.9 s.f. Original construction overage combined with
"insubstantial" additions probably resulted in this surplus.
This situation requires the Crowns to complete an entire PUD
amendment as there is no square footage left to consume. The
resulting floor area if this proposal is approved will be
47,083.9 s.f.
Site Coverage: Site coverage increases can occur as
"insubstantial" as long as cumulative increases not exceed 3% of
the site coverage (original approval.) Total original site
coverage was 46,912.6 s.f. Three percent of this figure is
1,407.4 s.f. To date, the increases in site coverage resulting
from deck additions total 1,216.6 s.f. This will allow up to
190.8 s.f. left as "insubstantial" increases. The site coverage
resulting from the Crown project is 72 s.f., leaving 118.8 s.f.
of expansion as "insubstantial ".
Note: The underlying zone district is R -15. The site size for
the condos is 6.6 acres. 20 dwellings occupy this land area. If
developed as single family lots, each resulting residence could
have a maximum floor area of roughly 4,500 s.f. When
considering floor area expansion of the condos however, one must
take into account the original design concept and impact of the
project on the surrounding environment and neighborhood.
Character of the structures in regard to bulk and massing, facade
elements, and materials should be considered. This project will
have little impact on these elements in staff's opinion.
This proposal will not carry a parking requirement as no bedrooms
are being developed. No additional impacts to roads, utilities,
or public facilities will result. There is no existing
vegetation at the area of expansion. It is recommended that
disturbed ground be sodded or hydromulched as soon as the
exterior construction is complete.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval for 208 s.f.
floor area expansion (72 s.f. site coverage increase) the Crown
residence, amending the Aspen Club Condo PUD with the following
conditions:
1. A revised Aspen Club Condominium PUD Development Plan must be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days
of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will require the
applicant to resubmit the proposal to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council.
2. A revised condominium plat reflecting changes to unit C -1
must be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
concurrently with the revised PUD Development Plan. The plat
shall reflect all of the items referenced in the Engineering
referral comments mentioned above.
3. Materials on the addition must match the existing facade.
4. Disturbed ground must be sodded or hydromulched as soon as
exterior construction is complete.
Prior to issuance of any building permit:
s ' r r
5. This project must receive exemption from Stream Margin Review
by the Planning Director.
ATTACHMENTS: "A" - Application package from applicant
"B" - Site data summary from original PUD approval
jtkvj /Crown.memo
74-brAftesl-re z"
ATTACHMENT u2
July 6, 1990
CROWN REMODEL
Project #90 -01.7
Project Description:
The Crown remodel consists of a 208 square foot addition on
the lower level of unit C1 of the Aspen Club Condomiiniiiums.
The Proposed addition will increase the size of an existing
bedroom, allowing the space to be used as a sitting area.
There will also be some remodeling of the existing bathroom.
The plans call for the addition to be located under an existing
deck and extends to the building corner covering an existing
concrete slab. This deck is approximately 59.5 feet from the
100 year flood plain.
The exterior building material, and finishes, including siding,
windows and trim, will be specified to match the existing
building.
As can be seen from the graphics, the project will have no
impact on the density, internal traffic circulation and off street
parking of the existing Aspen Club Development. Site
coverage will be increased by only 72 square feet. Attachment
3 will address the specific information and review standards for
stream margin review. Attachments 3b and 4 will demonstrate
specifically how the project will be consistent with the character
and existing land use of the surrounding area. It will also show
how this proposal along with all the cumulative prior approvals
meet current standards of development.
--
-; s ' .
. .
20:11i 31 2 rAct 124 ,.......
... v.
. ..,
0.
. -_-. ,.
.._ .
. .., N
< N
.a 44 44 44 4i
in
.-4 . . . .
V 0 Cr' UI
S.- 0
0 U o u IA to
ei rti co r-s o to o
0 rn ch o
E. 0 IN l0 r- co na
rq r- try o■
..4
o
o c
u .
0
. ...4 -Y. 0
-4I4 0 0
...-. 7 .-I • .
0t4 ge ev
. . .
4 1 41 .0 .
. 44 C 44 •••
.• . . .
• .
>I 0 0 •-•I 0 0'
4. 4./ 7 7 7 LO VI
'-4 .23 0
0 7
.-I ..-1 0., 0 0
v-I .0 o 0
VI U le
1./ 1./ o o m o
0.1 C .-I - 410 .. -
DC 1.. v r o
o -E- •
' .
. . .
0 0 .0
(‚4 44 44
Z
0 • • .
1-4 7. 7 0
(- so on in in
• < ...7, „ en
0 0 0
• ' I < •• .
Q`
t.i
•
:AI ft 4.• .1./ .
41 .
tro 1 .v ii 0
in
0 el 27. o on
• .c . ., so ‘0 " co
no r n
.I:
01
)1 : 0
F., ... ..■
F t• ...
"
• . ,I .1 .-I ..I . • 0 7F • g 4 <
N. N.
0
W (V 0
0 do 0
r .•
r i
0 .15 O. .
I M I U U II .11
u :1 1 1 . 0 • 11 ti
h I; • •tl too 11 u . 0,,
0 - •1 -1 n: 0 0 IP .0 ll I: to• r: .
r. Us • : so 1.1 01 0 0 “ 0 0
cIl ..4 'I n. 1.1 MI • • 1 " . 0 r. kA
0 .11 . ..i . 7 6 ,, x c x •1 x vi
cy t, II J) 0 i l i 0 a 0 41
al 14 0 ..4 S. II ti a
U 0 0 0 > 11.4.4 0. 0 n. 0.
o
a non o n.... flu.,
ft z z v. tc ..t o ri o n. < 0 <°
.:'
1
ATTACHMENT #3b &4
CROWN REMODEL
Project #90 -01.7
Final P.U.D. Development Plan:
The Aspen Club Condominiums are situated on Tots 13 and
13A of the Callahan Subdivision, consisting of five buildings
with a total of 20 units and 4 parking garage structures. We
are requesting an Amendment to the P.U.D. allowing a 208 sq.
ft. addition to the existing development.
There will be a minimum impact on the existing vegetation. No
trees will be removed and there is almost no existing ground
cover to be removed under the existing deck.
Density will not be increased by expanding the existing
bedroom. No required parking or alterations of current traffic
and pedestrian circulation will be necessary.
Architecturally, the building specifications call for all exterior
material and finishes to match the existing construction. This
includes windows, siding and trim. The addition is nearly
obscured by trees and vegetation minimizing any visual
impacts.
Most important to this application is the impact of the proposal
on the developments existing site coverage. As can be seen
from the drawings, the addition is located under the existing
deck and extends west to the corner of the building. The
existing deck above is extended over the roof of the proposed
addition creating and increase of 72 sq. ft. of site coverage.
In our research and survey of the Aspen Club Condominiums
we have compiled a complete and current summary of the
projects original area calculations and all approved additions
to date. This list is attached for your reference.
The total original site coverage is 46,912.6 sq. ft. Amendment
of a PUD dictates that the overall coverage of structures on the
land not be increased more than 3% or by more than 1407.4
sq.ft. The total cumulative site coverage of all prior approvals
is 1216.6 sq.ft. This leaves a remainder of 190.8 sq.ft. of
allowable site coverage. As can be seen, the proposed
Amendment is within this standard.
The building F.A.R calculations are given so an overall view of
the project can be made. This also shows the original projects
nonconformance with the R -15 zoning.
In conclusion, we feel the proposed project meets all the
general and specific review standards for PUD amendment.
We have attempted to demonstrate this in our application. The
proposed project is consistent with the character of the existing
land use and will have virtually no adverse affects on the future
of the Aspen Club Townhomes or any development of the
surrounding area.
Attachment 4
July 6, 1990
BUILDING AND SITE AREA SUMMARY
OriginalSq.Ft. Site Coverage * Additions
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Building A 8895.8 5796.0 578.6
Building B 8895.8 5796.0 446.7
Building C 7870.3 4347.0 446.7
Building D 14975.2 8694.0 1047.9
Building E 6238.8 4347.0 -0-
Total 46,875.9 28,980 2519.9
• None of the Building Additions resulted in increased site coverage.
Mechanical Bldg 481.8 481.8
Attachment 4
July 6, 1990
Covered Parking Garages
Garage 01 - 10 3403.3
Garage 11 - 18 2613.8
Garage 19 - 33 4604.0 •
Garage 34 - 40 3253.9
Total Building Site Coverage 43,336.80
Above Grade Decks
Site Coverage Additions
Sq. Ft. Sq.Ft.
Building A 828.4 -0-
Building B 618.0 137.0
Building C 628.5 137.0
Building D 1037.4 226.0
(Storage Unit) 14.6
Building E 463.5 102.0
Total 3575.8 1216.6
Y
so
` • •
Attachment 4
July 6, 1990
Total Site Coverage 46,912.60
Total Allowable Site Coverage Increase
46,912.60 x 3% = 1,407.38
Total Cumulative Approved Site
Coverage 1216.6
Total Remaining Allowable
Site Coverage 190.78
ATrNiNnIr 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) PLoject Name Crown .aodel
2) Project location 1421 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen Club c ondominiums unit C1
Lot #13 Callahan Subdivision, Aspen, CO
(indicate street address, lot & block nUmber, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning P.U.D. /R -15 4) Lot Size N/A
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Mr. & Mrs. Lester Crown 222 N. raSalle
#2000 Chicago; IL 60601 (312) 251 -0565
- 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Sutherland, Fallin, INC.
1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 925 -4252
7) Type of Application (please Oheck all that apply):
Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
_ Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline _ Conceptual PUD _ Minor Historic Dev.
X Stream Margin X Final Pi7D Historic Demolition
Maintain View Plane _ Subdivision Historic Designation
Q ndominiumi nation _ Text/Map Anenrinent _ GCS Allotment
oft
_ Tot Split/Lot Lire ____ CMS Eua®ption
Adjustment
8) Description of Ek sting Uses (number and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Ply) -
:ee Attachment 3b •
9) Description of Development Application
See Attachment 2,3,4
.NA 6m0
10) five you attached the following?
Response to Attachmment 2, Mini m m+ Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
3
0 0
ATTACHMENT u3
July 6, 1990
CROWN REMODEL
Project 1190 -01.7
Stream Margin Review:
As can be seen from the attached topographic plan, the
proposed project is located approximately 59.5 feet from the
100 Year Flood Plain. The elevation of the flood line at this
point is 7978.2 feet. The floor elevation of the bedroom
expansion is 7994.3 feet making the proposed floor level 16.1
feet above the 100 Year Flood Plain.
Because of the project's location underneath an existing deck
and partially on top of an existing concrete slab, there are no
significant natural features and trees impacted. No slope
grade changes or vegetation will be altered outside of the deck
line.
Construction of the foundation will include spread footings a
minimum of 3' -6" below grade with a 4" perforated drain tile
and gravel allowing water to drain to daylight. Also planned is
the use of #4 rebar dowel at 32" o.c. connecting the footing to
the foundation wall. A bituthane waterproofing membrane will
be applied on the outside of the foundation wall and a
polyethylene vapor barrier will be used under the slab over 8"
of compacted gravel to protect the addition from moisture and
water.
ATTACHMENT u2
July 5, 1990
CROWN REMODEL
Project #90 -01.
P.U.D. Amendment/Stream Margin Review:
Attached are the following items:
1. Authorization Letter signed by the Applicant.
2. Property Legal Description: Unit C1, Lot 13, Callahan
Subdivision, City of Aspen, Co.
3. Release of Deed of Trust and Warranty Deed of the
Property.
4. Scaled Vicinity Maps indicating the 300 foot radius
surrounding the proposed development.
5. A writen description of the proposal concurrently
addressing theStream Margin Review and PUD
Development Applications. Included are the following
graphics.
a. Topographic Site Plan indicating the 100 Year Flood
Plain, High Water Line and all applicable Elevations
and Distances.
b. Preliminary Building Elevations.
c. Preliminary Floor Plan.
-
222 North LaSalle Street, #2000
3004Y. Waahingtan
Chicago, Illinois 60696 60601
May 22, 1990
Ms. Kim Johnson
Planning Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Crown Remodel
Aspen, Col
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Sutherland, Fallin Inc., 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado,
Telephone (303) 925 -4252 is authorized to serve as our representatives
for the addition to our Aspen Club Townhouse.
Sincerely,
A f .ecawo...
Mrs. Renee Crown
RC:gc
Enc.
No. 36. WARRANTY DEED— Short Form. f4 auoord Publishing Cu., le21 lG Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 1673 6010 —12-77 a ,
t
THIS Dp DEED, UU Madethis of - fg day of 1— 0o , 19 79 ,between
E B
HJONQUIL GRAVES f thpshirc,England and ULIET
FORD of Yellow Knife, Northwest` ritory,
s o part, and
LESTER CROWN AS TRUSTEE OF LESTER ASPEN TRUST UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
D Y'u tabs1978Chicago , Illinois 60606
300 West Washington Street
Illinois
of the County of Cook and State oDQAXatatalfof the second part:
WITNESSETH, That the said part .ies of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of
TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration'¢,
to the said part ies of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt
whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha ve granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents •
do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, hi S
heirs and assigns forever, all the following described lxoc real Dt icxatpropertybfta$ situate, lying and being
in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
Condominium Unit C -1, Building C, The Aspen Club
Condominiums, according to the Condominium Map
thereof recorded in Plat Book 6 at page 20 and
according to the Condominium Declaration thereof
recorded April 29, 1977 in Book 328 at page 80
and Amendment thereto recorded August 17, 1977
in Book 333 at page 722;
SUBJECT to the terms, provisions and obligations
of said Condominium Declaration and amendment thereto.
,4T�tdE
DfitiiiiNTART RE
FEB 2PAID
s0
BI99�1 'aS60aY90."177Q02�LBGD4967CN@i
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise
appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof; and all the
estate, right, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said part 1 of the first part, either in law or equity,
of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances.
emu . o'clock — M..
&
0 R ‘ler BOOK 590 PatiE900
. RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST . I 9 2 9 U
8/10/89 Date •
David w. Burnford, as a single person
Grata (Borrower) SILVIA DAVIS •
The Empire Savings, Building and Loan soc ro PITKIN CNTY RECORDER
�ngmal Beneficiary y O
8/17/77 (Lende 17 a ie Phl
Date of Deed of Trust AUG fl
8/30/77
Recording Dam of
Pitkin Deed of Trust
County of Recording
197056
- w Reception and/or Film Nos. of Recorded Deed of Trust
oopoos 334 295 Book and Page of Deed of Trust • i.
Doak Na. r.D. Na.
TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF
' Pitkin
+ �1 • County (The Public Trustee to which the above Deed of Trust conveys the said
V P a )
as Please execute this release, the indebtedness has as been en fully paid and/or the terms and conditions of the trust have been .
fully satisfied. •
Commercial Federal Savings and Loan Association f /k /a The Empire Savings, Building
and Loan Assam ation
S Karen L. Morey, Vice President Como awkn..r
M y
Ne s W This of Apsi
SiDasa Sisson
\ ` I /
V KNOW ALL MEN, that the Lbove referenced Grantor(s), by Deed of Trust. conveyed certain real property described
��
• in said Deed of Trust. to the Public Trustee of the County referenced above, in the State of Colorado to be held in trust to .
secure the payment of the indebtedness referred to therein.
NOW THEREFORE, at the written request of the legal holder of the said indebtedness. and in consideration of the
premises and the payment of the statutory sum. receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I. as the Public Trustee in the
County first referenced above, do hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto the present owner or owners of said real
I property, and unto the heirs, successors and assigns of such owner or owners forever. all the right. tide and interest which l
. have under and by virtue of the aforesaid Deed of Trust in the real estate described therein. to have and to hold the same,
1 ' • with all the privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging forever. and further 1 do hereby fully and absolutely release.
n ?
:;
. n w...x w
rT 6 5 . 3 4 " cm A IN
el
i A r a ; m et, n $ n O
`
$$ = = $ 0
a 3 3 -i " .
0 7 R H o t
A
I ,y C et
o c 2 I > m C
2 o I o R S _ O 17 C
G
To County Recorder:
Return recorded instrument to:
•
1 .
C., t)
•
Attachment 5
July 6, 1990
PROPERTY OWNER LIST
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
Unit A -1
Richard Miller
C/O David Cohn P. O. Box 2153
Santa Monica, Ca. 90406
Unit A -2
The Glick Family Trust
c/o Aurthor Glick 1033 Maybrook Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Unit A -3
BHB -SAB Childrens Trust No. 2
P.O. Box 796152
Dallas, Texas 75379
Unit A -4
Barry and Julie Smooke
155 Fifth Anita Drive
Los angeles, California 90049
Unit B -1
Pride 21 Corporation
21 East 63rd. Street
New York, New York 10001
Attachment 5
July 6, 1990
Page 2
Crown Property Owners
Unit B -2
Reginald M. Jackson
C/O J.C. Milner and Co. 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway #260
Long Beach, Califomia 90803
Unit C -2
John D. Hickkok
Marital Trust c/o Johnson County Bank N.A.
6940 Mission Road
Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
Unit C -3
Mary Joan Farver
2609 Spring Grove Terrace
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906
Unit D -1
Boyd L. Jefferies
3250 Beach Club Road
Carpinteria, California 93013
Attachment 5
July 6, 1990
Page 3
Crown Property Owners
Unit D -2
Anne Burnett Hindfohr
c/o Kirkwood and Darby Inc.
777 Main Street Suite 830
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Unit D -3
Oscar L. and Pat H. Gerber
4656 West Toughy Avenue
Chicago, Illinios 6089
Unit D -4
Charles H. Goodman
300 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinios 60606
Unit D -5
Ellen Roeser
5849 Merrymount Road
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Unit D -6
C. & R. Investments
c/o Irwin J. Blitt
8900 Stat Line Road Suite 333
Leawood, Kansas 66206
• LL • ,
Attachment 5
July 6, 1990
PROPERTY OWNER LIST
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
Lot 4
Michael L. Shinn
4218 Waralae Avenue
Honolulu, Hawwaii 96816
Lot 5
John A. Elmore H
P.O. Box 381
Wrightsville, North Carolina 28480
Lot 14
Richard T. Butera
520 East Durant Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lot 14 A
Andrew V. Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lot 15
Aspen Club International, Inc.
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department w
DATE: August 3, 1990
RE: Crown PUD Amendment and Exemption from Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. This application meets all of the requirements for an
exemption from Stream Margin Review.
2. The applicant must submit a plat which includes the following:
a. A site plan showing the proposed addition.
b. Surveyor's certificate.
c. Owner's certificate.
d. Certificate for City Engineer's approval.
e. Certificate for Planning Director's approval.
f. Clerk and Recorder's certificate.
g. Certificate for representative of Aspen Club Condominium
Association's approval.
jg /crown
cc: Chuck Roth
•
n
•
August 8, 1990
City of Aspen
Planning Department
Aspen, CO 81611
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter is to certify that the notices for the August 21 Planning/Zoning
public hearing for the Crown Remodel requesting final PUD approval,
were mailed on August 8.
S' cerely
/L
Gert VanMoorsel
SII°I°I FALUIN.INC
Bruce Sutherland, President ° Richard Faliin, Vice President ° David Paunico, Associate
Architecture 8e Planning ° 11280 Ile Avenue ° Aspen, Colorado 811611 ° 303/925 -4252 ° FAX 303/925 -2639
0
v rn
rn
il
U l
U
T
ti a) M M (o d
a0 ea
(t X N W y+
C 0 N (NI o 0
!" 22 LL
V d cc cc -o d
a 7 com 7
0 T r 0
J d
W IN. ca ca
O w 7 co coMMco Th O
V ) C o o )A O) it Z C t.h(o(o� O
i C LL O)O)00 a0� C LL •a: •a: 4 •a: cc;
W ca o — a) OOMMao .` d 00up0
CC F O I- NNNNO� 0 NrNrOo co
• "r 7 7
` U
O o 0 0
U a o 0
w
a)
N N
m E E
• V- o 0
V) o 0 N N c' M o w 0
C # 0 ) a # a) 0
o to m m
Et O
C J
a) a
E ;* CC 4*
r. rNMit D a-• rNMV
o aaaa c aaaa
° ' D z D
a) w
o Q >
O
0 m 0
0. 0 NNNN CO d NTr (o co
N N N N
J o gat wt Y •p et it igt Nt
{ d T r T T 13 T T T T
C D a w a
it CO 0
, ow
O N
a)
CA
T •
co
ui 0_
_T
i N.
• tD Ctl
— as co C tt Tr Tt Ts a 0 0 0 0
= = fi r` M M v tc V- d r r
0 Q 7 N 0
a)
O Ca
To p M CO CD M OO tC)
C LO N U) C{)
a0 C O C
W 000o03 •_ LL CfL
` tU MOOMM t rrr
Q NNNNaO Q
N N
0 j
w
E %,
0 0 0NN0 w
O v 0 x CC 0
Q
J
Q
it 0= it
Ti = r N M Tr m - r- NM c/'
C 0000 F— E 0000
O = Z n
L. D • W
O 0 Q
E0 U' 0 0
tr Z 0 ONTr o Q 0 0NV'CD
0 G 0_ E ` 1 0,00101 Cn d MMMM
_ 0 aavv 0 •0 va vv
3 C . T r r r 0 r r r r
9 D Q W Q
Ou_ co 0
• fi •.
O M
a) o
cm T
co
I0
_ >,
7
-) i n a) —CG — Ca o 0 p 0 0 n v m •0 ` r , v 0 v�o Q m Q
r U
a ) a)
ca CO
O V M CO Cr) :cc- O to to Lo to
C 0 -CO W 6 O C
' Q LL .,00co_ fir- LL et et
. a) - CO M CO 00 .` LO 10 r N
NTNCO
` N -NNN r" 0 0
7 7
N m
N N
E E
. 0 < op wo
O ether W C 0
# v 0 a v
a) a)
m CC m
J
Q
# m #
iti r N C') = T N Cn
> E UUU ~ E 000
Z
roQ w
o . 0
E
a) b Z N co N
CC N r(h tr) N TCO tl1
Ca 0 a) vaa Y 45 a
J_ • D
O (jf • Q T r r 0 13 T T r
0 c D Q W Q
O u_ 00 0
„w
ov
0 0
rn
r •
0
ui d
_T
7
0 tr N
i 0 0 � � Op O 000
0 2 _lL to t0t!ftD
cc cc
p tDCON
QQ N Mrt77
7 mfg T Q 7
'^ T r
0 0
td CO 1; 15 CD CO M et MMN t0 0 to to t o CO to t0
C - -c D c ot cocD^ C U. 4 tt
Q DOMMCDMM� C 0 tftt)t()CDtf)tf
Q N N N N N N r D A r r r
N r r r
7 7
N
N 0
E E
151 � ,ma,MM � MM W 0 �
CD
m CC m
J
Q
it
c _• NMetul0 p TNMet tA
a 000000 1— c 000000
Z ni
vQ W
O . o
0 0
m
� Z y l�lArMU)f� Q W nOTMtpt.
r 0. 0 � NNMMMM Cr) `1 NNMMMM
7 1 J - 0avde et44 U m } V e t aet 4
0 c _) Q W Q
6u. m Cl
0
o to
a) o
o)
.- •
ea
tna
"' a) a)
m o
00 00 0 0 •
V ;a, W N N
- ;oO o 0
Q 7 Q j
V) a)
•
a) a)
td to
o p to to t To O N N N tp
QLL ti 6 N. M Q Ntttnf0
• — a) O O N •` a) r r r et
0 NNP40 O O
7 7
N N
w%
.7
N to ao
E E c
o w-o c
4 o MnM W 4 O E
cu O
CO < m 2
a
0 )
J .0
Q iV
zt et # C
a _ rNCO M r rNM 0
C WwW 1— C wWW 2
_ 2 Z = V
tU' w td
oQ w > p
E a m
ir? a) tArM N d Metes o
C d J V ti v Y V et 17 et 1-
3 1 72 r r r Q v rrr a
,_ D Q w Q Q
0 u. m 0
7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1990
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt,
Jasmine Tygre, Mari Peyton, Sara Garton, Richard Compton and
Welton Anderson.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: Last night the City Council in a work session basically
approved going ahead with the trolly plan. The next step is for
them to take official action to sponsor the SPA for it.
STAFF COMMENTS
Leslie: Just a reminder that you have a joint meeting on the
highway on August 28th at 2:30.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
MOTION
Welton: Resolution recommending to Board of County Commissioners
that the building envelopes be kept off the Midland ROW.
Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #90 -11 concerning Midland ROW.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
JUNE 6. 1989
Jasmine made a motion to approve minutes of June 6, 1989.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 1989
Graeme made a motion to approve minutes of September 12, 1989.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
ICE GARDEN REZONE
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
PZM8.21.90
Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record.
We did get 3 calls from neighbors -- inquiries for the most part.
After they heard what the re- zoning was involving they didn't
have any objections to the re- zoning.
Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and
he closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the re- zoning of Lots A through I,
Block 54 from R -15 to Public.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
CROWN PUD AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Gerd: Wfhat you have in; front of you is basically the summary
of all the numbers we have. Also I have submitted to Kim is a
breakdown of all the units, all their square footage in terms of
an FAR calculation, all the deck areas, all the additions that
have been done, all the bedroom additions -- basically all
construction including storage units that have been done in that
project to date that we are aware of. It has all be included and
we feel that all of these numbers are as acurate as you are going
to get.
We feel that there is a pretty accurat record there of the
cummulative impact of the Aspen Club.
Sara: If we approve the Crown proposal, does that then change
the PUD amendment to increase what is allowable and the FAR for
this project for everyone?
Kim: No. This is very unit- specifi9c. If the project had come
in in a kind of a class action application and they all wanted to
know for in the future that they could each have l80sgft then we
would be looking at all those square footages combined adding
them to the current figures and then calling that the new PUD
approval.
What the Planning Office is trying to get out of the Condominium
Assocuation is that it would nto require then each individual
2
PZM8.21.90
applicant to come through this process. Rather if they got a
blanket approval for X square feet then each individual owner
could just pull a building permit. The application would be
done.
Sara: Shouldn't there be a formal survey of existing
improvements to go with this application to show all the existing
improvements that have been doen instead of just calcualtions.
Sutherland: A year or two ago Aspen Club Units kept coming in
for bedroom -type expansions and decks. The bedroom units were
coming in one at a time over 4 or 5 years. I think there has
been at least 4 or 5 bedcroom expansions. Each time we had to go
back through the issue of adding another car, counting the cars,
etc. The last time that happened it was a couple of years ago.
There was 2 projects approved. One which was constructed and the
other has not been.
The point was at that time we should somewhere along the line the
Aspen Club produce a build -out from day one. That is in the
process now and it is going to be another 6 months or a year
before they get any kind of read out of who wants what.
The Crown felt this has been ongoing for a year or so and that
probably will continue for another year. The Crown felt that
they are going under a deck that exists and only adding 72ft and
that they did not want to wait for that long process. They are
not asking for bedrooms which require parking so that is why they
took this action rather than wait for the full blown which might
or might not come in a year. They are adding 72ft and going in
under an existing deck and expanding a bedroom and is not a
substantial thing.
Bruce: Who decides whether the Crown applicatrion is entitled to
receive the 72sqft site coverage of the remaining 19.8
recognizing that it is an insubstantial change. How do we know
that there aren't other homeowners that are part of this that may
want that 72ft. How do we decide who barely gets this remaining
191sgft?
Kim: Because we have tried to work with the Homeowner's
Association and get them moving in this direction and haven't
seen any substantial progress made, we the Planning Office
doesn't feel like we should impede any individual who is willing
to pay $1,700 in planning fees and archiectureal fees and the
time and effort that Gerd has put into this research that it is
basically first come first serve.
Bruce: Wouldn't it be wise to get a part of that approval to
3
PZM8.21.90
refer to this remaining square footage and that we are approving
this one owner to have 72sgft of that.
Gerd: I think the Homeowner's Association is aware of the fact
that they are very close to reaching the buildout in terms of the
site coverage.
Bruce: It might be for your protection to have them filled in
for whatever approval that the Homeowner's Association grants so
that it is very clear on the record that there is only 191sgft
left and you are getting 72 of it.
Sutherland: The Homeowner's Association has been contacted and
they have to respond in a certain percentage. The way it has
been in the past has been on a first come first served basis.
Roger: I am adamently in favor of the ultimate buildout
proposal. My question is is there a way of doing that that is
not unit specific. That we can determine the maximum buildout
that is a set number and the insubstantial changes can keep
coming in and be approved by the director up until the limit and
that is it.
Richard: In the memorandum it says the original PUD granted
42,560sgft for the townhomes. Calculations provided by the
applicant indicate that the project now exceeds this figure with
4,6875.9sqft. Then it say total original site coverage was
46,912sgft. Now where are these different numbers coming from?
Kim: One floor area and one site coverage.
Welton: I can tell you what is probably going to happen. One
other person is going to come in with 118.8sqft of additional
site coverage. It will all be used up. The rest of the
association will say "Well, we want to have our piece of the
pie ". They will com in with an overall PUD amendment for what we
have been asking for for the last 2 years because there will
finally be some pressure when the next person wants to do it.
When the next person does it it will be all used upand they will
have to do an overall comprehensive kind of planning effort in
order to get the numbers re- adjusted so that somebody else can do
something.
Every time 100sgft has been added to one of these units it has
come through as a PUD amendment. The PUD has been amended so the
ultimate square footage of the project has changed because each
time PUD amendment has been processed and approved the number has
risen. Well that number is as far as site coverage is concerned
is getting to the point where it can't be exceeded any further.
4
PZM8.21.90
It is up to the applicants, architects and representatives to let
the association know where they stand. It is not up to us.
They are using up what they have left and we have been approving
it on a piecemeal basis. We just can't keep doing that once it
all runs out.
Bruce: To the applicant: Do you have any problems with the
staff conditions as outlined in the memo?
Gerd: No we don't.
Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and
he closed th epublic hearing.
MOTION
Bruce: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the Crown
PUD Amendment subject to the conditions listed in the Planning
Office memo dated August 15, 1990.
Roger seconded the motion.
Roger: I think it is time that on any PUD that when the first
amendment of that PUD comes in wanting a bedroom I think at that
time we have to look at the overall project and say "Hey, what is
the maximum buildout of these additional bedrooms ?"
I am really upset by the piecemeal increasing of the floor area
additing abedroom at a time through this PUD process because the
building was originally approved as an entire package.
I would really like it established that fdrom here on out that on
PUDs where they are requesting an amendment to add a bedroom that
from here on out we look at the entire project and find out what
we are going to accept as a maximum. From here on out I would
rather not see this type of PUD amendment with knowing what the
ultimate is going to be.
Welton: I wouldn't think that it would be innappropriate after
the motion is on the floor and has been voted on for another
motion to be made that says perhaps a specific deadline timetable
to the Aspen Club that this is something that has been required
of several other applications in the past and that this is going
to be the last one that is going to be approved on a piecemeal
basis and that from now on the next one that comes through is
going to have to be piggyback on an overall look at where you
started off, where you arenow and where you think you might
ultimately be even if it is going to be 10 years before you get
there.
5
PZM8.21.90
Jasmine: Part of my concern is that more often than not a PUD
approval is a very closely negotiated process which involves a
lot of considerations about parking, massing, clustering,
building, etc. And that there should be more involved in a kPUD
amdndment than just because somebody wants it.
Mari: It bothers me to be approving something just because an
owner wants it. If it were a right, then we wouldn't be sitting
here. It is something for us to decide based on those criteria
and I don't think those criteria have been addressed at all.
Welton: I disagree. I think this criteria is so vague that
nothing more than just a general idea or outline - -there is
nothing there that talks about -- nothing you can really hang- -
Mari: I am also thinking about it in the incremental amendment
of a PUD can totally overwhelm what the original negotiated deal
was.
Welton: This individual has gone throught the process in good
faith to exercise the same rights that have been granted in the
past. I think a fair warning was given to the next person that
maybe they could get some momentum going. I don't think it is
fair of us to hold this applicant hostage for something that is
not their fault.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Is there
any further discussion?
Roll call vote: Graeme, yes, Bruce, yes, Jasmine, yes, Mari, no,
Richard, yes, Roger, yes, Welton, yes.
MOTION:
Roger: I move that from here on the Zoning Commission and the
Planning Office not accept amendments to establish PUDs that
include additional bedrooms specifically and what may be more
than an insubstantial increase in floor area as well from any
;individual unit in any PUD project without having at least at
the same time the overall project's plan for maximum buildout.
Welton: I cannot support - -it encompasses the entire town and
every PUD in the entire town and anybody that might want to have
that accidentally has a PUD overlay that wants totear down an
outhsouse it just - -I was being very specific on something that we
have been discussing for 10 years that we came of a conclusion on
a year and a half ago about the Aspen Club.
Jasmine seconded the motion.
6
PZM8.21.90
Bruce: I won't support this motion either. I would be more
comfortable with us setting a policy for staff that states what
they stated in the memo that they are trying to discourage these
insubstantial amendments. I don't know how we can take away a
property right of an individual property owner and if he wants to
go throught his 2 step process, pay the fees and take his chances
with us and Council to try to get an amendment - -we are talking
about somehow amending the code and taking away somebody's
property right. I don't know how we can do that.
Graeme: Could we make the Homeowner's Association apply for the
PUD amendment rather than an individual. This would make more
sense.
Roger: I agree.
Jasmine: What happens under Bruce's scenario is that anybody who
has money comes in for an amendment and there is no grounds
whatsoever to deny it because you are assuming this is a right.
But it isnot a right because you have already agreed to a
specific PUD agreement. But if you just keep on allowing people
to do this then you never have grounds for denying anybody doing
this.
Mari: It also bothers me thast what we are saying is "You have
the right if you have the money to go through this process."
Welton: I don't think we can do what Roger is suggesting that we
do without a code amendment.
Mari: Maybe we need a code amendment.
Welton: Well then let's do a code amendment. But the motion
that is on the floor is not addressing any kind of ultimatum to
the Aspen Club. It is just saying blankly all over town PUD
amendments which are written into the code to allow for
relatively simple 2 step $1,700 process that they are not
available to anybody because of a situation at the Aspen Club
unless they go through a full blown PUD rather than just a PUD
amendment. -
Kim: I think we need to remember that there are a lot of areas
in town that have PUD overlays that the development that is there
now does not fall anywhere near the intensity or scale of this
one and that might compound Planning Dept's work load as well as
your own if we start seeing duplexes and triplexes that want to
add a porch or something like that.
7
PZM8.21.90
Graeme: I think if you get the proper applicant in here who is
the homeowner's association or the owner of the project at that
time -- somebody who is going to represent the project rather than
an individual I think that would solve the problem.
Roger withdrew his motion at this point.
Jasmine withdrew her second to the motion.
Welton: I would entertain a motion along the lines very
specifically that a resolution be drafted by the Planning Office
to the Aspen Club Condominium Association that this is trhe last
individual application that will be accepted by the Planning &
Zoning Commission or reviewed that will be accepted by the
Planning Office or reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission
for any POD ammendments and that the direction of a year or more
ago that an overall comprehensive look at ultimate build -out be
presented all at once rather than being presented in a piecemeal
fashion.
Richard: I will so move that prior to any further individual
applications for expansion of units of the Aspen Club that a
masterplan be submitted.
Welton: What I want it to say is that as of this point it is our
direction that the Planning Office not accept any more
applications on an individual basis and that we won't review any
more applications on an individual basis until the condition of a
year and a half ago is met.
Richard: OK.
Bruce: Point of clarification: Are you talking about any
amendments or insubstantial amendments?
Richard: As I understand it there is no such thing as
insubstantial amendment at this point because that covers
matters not additions to units being new bedrooms, expansion of
bedrooms and decks.
Kim: That is not insubstantial. But conceivably there could be
a bonified insubstantial that needed to be filed.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Roger: My only criticism is that this is fine for this specific
problem but I can forsee other problems coming up and I think we
should as well either in the form of a motion as far as policy
8
PZM8.21.90
direction to go by the Planning Office or something on that order
cover future ones that are going to come in so the Planning
Office can identify those when they come in and warn the people
that the nature of this beast is such that they are going to want
an overall plan.
Welton: May I suggest that after this motion is voted on that
you make another mtoion that the Planning Office fit in a
discussion of PUD amendments into a work session some time in the
next few months that we can look at the variety of PUDs and PUD
amendments and how we can correct this problem that has been a
subject of altogether too much discussion over the last 10 years
when individual owners as opposed to whole associations have been
coming in in bits and pieces fashion.
Graeme: I would second that one.
Welton: We have a motion on the floor.
Roger: Call the question.
Welton: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Bruce and Graeme.
MOTION
Roger: I move for the Planning Office as soon as possible to get
on the agenda the topic under discussion here so we can arrest
this problem.
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of this motion.
WHITCOMB FINAL PUD
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Richard: They ;are asking for the maximum allowable FAR on the
site.
Kim: The floor area that they have used in their upper end is
the floor area that would be allowed for a duplex in R -6 zone
given the whole lot area - -not using the slope reduction
calculations in PUD. Their existing credit is a duplex. So Bill
Drued;ing, I, Leslie and Amy came to the conclusion that we would
9
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CROWN PUD AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 21, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Sutherland Fallin, Inc. on behalf of
their client Lester Crown requesting approval of an amendment to
the Aspen Club Condominiums Planned Unit Development in order to
expand Unit Cl by 208 square feet. The property is located at
1421 Crystal Lake Road, Unit Cl, Lot 13, Callahan Subdivision.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5090.
s /C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on July 26, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
s.
•
-1/a6
fit-